Uncategorized

Is Extra Protein Important For Seniors?

by

The Role Of Muscle Protein In Energy Metabolism 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

We’ve been told, “It’s all downhill after 30.” That may or may not be true depending on the lifestyle choices we make.

But for muscle mass, “It’s all downhill after 50!” Simply put, we start to lose muscle mass at an accelerating pace after 50, a process scientists call sarcopenia.

Sarcopenia should be a major concern for everyone over 50. Loss of muscle mass:

  • Causes unsteadiness which can lead to falls, bone fractures, and death.
  • Increases the risk of obesity because muscle burns more calories than fat. That increases our risk of obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, osteoarthritis, and other inflammatory diseases.
  • Robs us of the fun activities we would like to enjoy in our golden years.

But sarcopenia is not inevitable. As I have discussed in previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor”, there are three things we can do to minimize sarcopenia as we age.

  • Get adequate weight-bearing exercise. In other words, pump iron or use your body weight for exercise on a regular basis.
  • Get adequate protein.
  • Get adequate amounts of the branched-chain amino acid leucine.

In this article I will focus on the last two, especially the fact that we need more protein and leucine to prevent loss of muscle mass as we age. To help you understand why that is, I am going to share my favorite topic – Metabolism 101 (Once a biochemistry professor, always a biochemistry professor).

Metabolism 101: The Role Of Muscle Protein In Energy Metabolism 

ProfessorMost people associate muscle mass with strength and endurance. Many understand the important role muscle mass plays in burning off excess calories and keeping us slim. But few people understand the important role that muscle protein plays in our everyday energy metabolism.

Let’s start with an overview of metabolism [Note: If you are not interested the details, you can just skip over the bullets and read the take-home message at the bottom of this section.]

  • We get energy from the carbohydrate, fat, and protein we consume. Excess carbohydrate, fat, and protein in our meals are stored to provide the energy our body needs between meals and during prolonged fasting.
    • We have a virtually unlimited ability to store fat, as some of you may have noticed.
    • We have a very limited ability to store carbohydrates in the form of glycogen in our liver.
    • Muscles are our largest organ system, and we can store some of the protein we eat as increased muscle mass, especially when protein intake is coupled with exercise. But muscle protein plays other very important functions. It is a precious resource.
  • In the fed state most of our energy is derived from blood glucose. This is primarily controlled by insulin. As blood glucose levels fall, we move to the fasting state and start to call on our stored energy sources to keep our body functioning. This process is primarily controlled by a hormone called glucagon.
    • In the fasting state most tissues easily switch to using fat as their main energy source, but…
      • Red blood cells and a few other tissues in the body are totally dependent on glucose as an energy source.
      • Initially our brain is totally dependent on glucose as an energy source, and our brains use a lot of energy. [Note: Our brain can switch to ketones as an energy source with prolonged starvation or prolonged carbohydrate restriction, but that’s another story for another day.]
  • Because our brain and other tissues need glucose in the fasting state, it is important to maintain a constant blood glucose level between meals.
    • Initially, blood glucose levels are maintained by calling on the glycogen reserves in the liver.
    • But because these reserves are limited, our body starts to break down muscle protein and convert it to glucose as well – even in the normal dinner/sleep/breakfast cycle.

You may have found the explanation above was excessive, but I couldn’t think of a simpler way of helping you understand that in addition to its other important role in the body, muscle protein is also an energy store.

When we eat, we make a deposit to that energy store. Between meals we withdraw from that energy store. When we are young the system works perfectly. Unless we fast for prolonged periods of time, we are always adding enough muscle protein in the fed state to balance out the withdrawals between meals.

But as we age, our ability to build muscle in the fed state becomes less efficient. Withdrawals exceed deposits, and we experience age-related muscle loss (sarcopenia).

What We Know About Preventing Age-Related Muscle Loss

As I said above, there are three things needed to prevent age-related muscle loss:

  • Adequate resistance exercise.
  • Adequate amounts of protein.
  • Adequate amounts of the essential, branched-chain amino acid called leucine.

And, as I said above, I am going to focus on the last two.

In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have shared articles showing that the amount of both protein and leucine needed to maximize the gain in muscle mass following a meal or a workout increase as we age. For example.

  • For someone in their 30s, 15-25 grams of protein with 1.7 grams of leucine per meal is optimal.
  • But someone in their 60’s and 70s needs 25-30 grams of protein and 2.5-2.7 grams of leucine per meal to achieve the same effect.
  • Most of these studies have been done with men, but a recent study showed the results are identical with post-menopausal women.

However, previous studies have not addressed whether we need protein supplementation to achieve adequate protein intake or what kind of protein supplements were best. The studies I will discuss today were designed to answer these questions.

How Were These Studies Done? 

clinical studyStudy #1: As I said above, previous studies have suggested that 25-30 grams of protein per meal is optimal for preventing age-related loss of muscle mass in seniors. However, many seniors get most of their protein in their evening meal. On average, seniors consume

8-15 grams of protein at breakfast, 15-20 grams of protein at lunch, and 30-40 grams of protein at dinner.

This study (C Norton et al, The Journal of Nutrition, 146: 65-67, 2016) was designed to ask whether optimizing protein intake at each meal by adding a protein supplement at breakfast and lunch would increase lean muscle mass in seniors over a 24 week period.

The investigators recruited 60 adults, aged 50-70 (average age = 61) from the city of Limerick, Ireland. The participants were 73% women and had an average BMI of 25.8 (slightly overweight).

The participants were randomly assigned to receive either a milk-based supplement or an isocaloric, non-protein-containing, maltodextrin control. The protein supplement provided 20 grams of protein. The participants were instructed not to change any other aspect of their diet or activity level.

The protein supplement and placebo were provided in identical sachets, and the participants were told to mix them with water and consume them with breakfast and lunch. The protein supplement and placebo looked and tasted identical, so the subjects did not know which group they were in. Compliance was assessed by collecting the used sachets at the end of the study.

The participants completed 4-day diet recalls under the supervision of a dietitian before and during the study. Lean muscle mass was determined prior to and at the end of the 24-week study.

protein shakesStudy #2: This study (J McKendry et al, The American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition, doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.05.009) was designed to determine whether the ability to stimulate muscle protein synthesis depended on the type of supplemental protein.

This study was built on the results of the first study. Specifically, the investigators compared the effect on muscle protein synthesis of adding 25 grams of whey, pea, or collagen protein to breakfast and lunch meals.

The investigators enrolled 31 healthy, older (average age = 72) subjects from the Hamilton, Ontario area. Subjects were excluded from the study if:

  • They had a medical condition or were taking any medication that might influence the results.
  • They used tobacco or tobacco related products.
  • They consumed a vegan or vegetarian diet
  • They used a walking device or were inactive for any reason.

The participants were placed on a standardized diet consisting of prepackaged meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) and a mix of fruits, vegetables, snacks, and drinks. They were instructed to only eat the foods provided to them and to maintain their normal activity levels.

The diet was designed to provide the RDA for protein (0.8 gram of protein/kilogram of body weight) and to mimic the habitual dietary patterns of seniors in the United States and Canada.

  • Around 55% carbohydrate, 30% fat, and 15% protein.
  • Uneven distribution of protein throughout the day (19% at breakfast, 26% at lunch, and 55% at dinner).

After one week on the control diet, participants were randomly assigned to receive 25-gram protein supplements of either whey, pea, or collagen protein and instructed to add them to their standardized diet for breakfast and lunch (total daily protein intake was increased by 50 grams/day). They followed this regimen for 7 days.

On day one and 7 of the control phase and day 7 of the intervention phase (when the participants were consuming additional protein) muscle biopsies were obtained 90 minutes after breakfast for determination of the effect of the meal on muscle protein synthesis.

[Note: The participants were consuming a protein supplement containing an additional 25 grams of protein at both breakfast and lunch. But the effect of this additional protein on muscle protein synthesis was only determined after the breakfast meal.]

Is Extra Protein Important For Seniors? 

OptimizeEach of the studies provided important insights for anyone wanting to minimize age-related muscle loss.

Study #1: The effect of the 20-gram whey protein supplement for breakfast and lunch as follows:

  • Protein supplementation at breakfast and lunch resulted in a 1.3-pound gain in lean body mass over 24 weeks compared to the control group using an isocaloric, non-protein containing maltodextrin supplement.

The authors concluded, “Protein supplementation at breakfast and lunch for 24 weeks in healthy older adults resulted in a positive (1.3 pound) difference in lean muscle mass compared with an isoenergetic, non-nitrogenous maltodextrin control. These observations suggest that an optimized and balanced distribution of [supplemental] protein intakes could be beneficial in the preservation of lean tissue mass in the elderly.”

Note:

  • This study did not show that these protein levels were optimal. It only showed that using a protein supplement to increase protein intake at breakfast and lunch was beneficial for seniors consuming most of their protein at dinner.

Study #2: The effect of the three 25-gram protein supplements at breakfast and lunch on protein intake was as follows:

  • Adding 25 grams of either whey or pea protein to a relatively low-protein (15 grams) breakfast increased muscle protein synthesis by ~9%.
  • Adding 25 grams of collagen to the same low-protein breakfast had no effect on muscle protein synthesis.

Note: This study did not measure the effect of adding supplemental protein to lunch meal, but the results were probably similar.

The authors concluded, “We discovered that the RDA [for protein] was insufficient to support higher rates of MPS [muscle protein synthesis] in older adults. Manipulating dietary protein to increase daily consumption of higher quality – whey and pea but not collagen – proteins by targeting the lowest protein-containing meals offers a viable strategy to enhance…MPS [muscle protein synthesis] in older adults.”

“Consuming protein much closer to expert group consensus recommendations [1.2 gm/kg instead of the current 0.8 gm/kg for adults over 50] may help to increase…MPS [muscle protein synthesis] with advancing age and extend health-span – compressing the years of disease and disability commonly experienced by older individuals closer to the end of life.”

My comments are:

  • You may recall from the previous discussion that age-related muscle loss occurs because muscle protein synthesis (MPS) becomes less efficient as we age.
    • Therefore, an increase in muscle protein synthesis following each meal will lead to an increase in muscle mass over time, as was seen in the first study.
  • In our 60’s and beyond we require higher amounts of both protein and leucine to maximize muscle protein synthesis.
    • The collagen supplement used in this study provided enough supplemental protein. But it probably was ineffective because it only provided 0.86 grams of leucine.
      • The amount of leucine in the control diet was not specified, but with only 15 grams of protein for breakfast there was probably enough leucine to make up for the lack of leucine in the collagen supplement.
    • In contrast the whey and pea supplements provided 2.7 and 2.1 grams of leucine, respectively. When added to the leucine in the control diet, this would be more than enough to drive muscle protein synthesis.
  • Not every pea protein supplement may be as effective as the one used in this study. When I looked it up, it was described as an “enriched pea protein designed as a soy and milk alternative.” The manufacturer did not say how it was “enriched”, but I suspect it was enriched by adding extra leucine.

What Do These Studies Mean For You? 

Don’t Leave Out Resistant Exercise. These studies were focused on the timing and quality of protein. But don’t forget that adequate protein and leucine are only two of the requirements for preventing age-related muscle loss. The third, and arguably the most important, is resistance exercise.

Aim for at least three 30-minute resistance exercise sessions per week. If you have physical limitations consult with your health professional about the type, duration, and intensity of resistance exercise that is right for you.

Forget What You Have Been Told About Protein. You have been told that American consume too much protein. That’s probably true for the average couch potato. But it is not true for seniors. The average American does consume too much of the wrong kind of protein, but that’s another story for another day.

You have been told that the average woman only needs 46 grams of protein per day, and the average man needs only 56 grams of protein per day. That’s based on the RDA of 0.8 gm/kg (0.36 gm/pound) and an average weight of 127 pounds for women and 155 pounds for men.

We haven’t weighed that since the 50’s. Today the average woman weighs 170 pounds, and the average man weighs 201 pounds. That means protein intake should be at least 61 gm/day for women and 72 gm/day for men.

But that’s only if you are in your twenties or thirties. The consensus among those who study protein needs in seniors is that the RDA should be 1.2 gm/kg (0.54 gm/pound) for adults over 50. That’s 91 gram/day and 108 grams/day, respectively, for average weight women and men.

With that perspective, it is easy to understand the recommendation that seniors get 25-30 grams of protein and 2.5-2.7 grams of leucine per meal.

These studies did not address leucine intake, but they suggest that optimal protein intake may be closer to 30-40 grams of protein per meal. That’s 90-120 grams of protein day. But that is probably not what you are hearing from your doctor.

Why Is Supplemental Protein Important? It’s easy to say that seniors should get 30-40 grams of protein per meal, but that’s not the way most seniors eat.

When I was a child growing up in Alabama the standard breakfast was eggs, ham, grits with ham gravy and biscuits. I’m not saying that it was a healthy breakfast, but it was the standard breakfast where I lived at the time. And it provided plenty of protein.

In today’s world most seniors have been told to avoid eggs and red meat. Breakfasts are more likely to be some type of cereal with a fruit garnish and perhaps some toast. That’s a much healthier breakfast, but it’s a low-protein breakfast. That’s why most seniors only get 8-15 grams of protein at breakfast time.

I won’t go into lunches, but similar transformations have taken place at lunch time, which is why most seniors only get 15-20 grams of protein at lunch.

CerealAnd many seniors get even less protein at breakfast and lunch. For example:A cup of coffee and a croissant or a “healthier” bowl of cornflakes and skim milk at breakfast only provides 6 grams of protein.

  • A healthy green salad at lunch only provides 2 grams of protein.

In cases like this, the protein supplements may need to provide 30-40 grams of protein rather than the 20-25 grams of protein used in these studies.

So, if you want to avoid age-related muscle loss you have two choices:

  • Completely change your diet and incorporate more healthy protein foods into your breakfast and lunch menus or…
  • Add a protein supplement to your low-protein meals. The studies I have described above suggest that 20-25 grams of supplemental protein may be sufficient to transform a low-protein meal into one that will support muscle protein synthesis and minimize age-related muscle loss.
  • And if your breakfast and lunches are very low in protein, 30-40 grams of supplemental protein may be necessary to optimize protein intake.

Why Is Protein Quality Important? The second study shows that having enough protein is not sufficient to stimulate muscle protein synthesis. It must be high quality protein.

The authors of the study suggested that collagen did not stimulate muscle protein synthesis due to its low leucine content.

And, as I mentioned earlier, the pea protein used in the study was “enriched” so it could be used as a “whey or soy alternate”, and the “enrichment” probably included adding extra leucine.

So, if you are planning to use a plant protein supplement with your low-protein meal(s), I would recommend choosing one with added leucine.

How Much Protein Is Too Much? That depends on your age. If you are in your 20s or 30s, the ability of a protein meal and/or supplement to stimulate muscle protein synthesis begins to plateau at around 30 grams of protein, so there is little advantage to protein intakes above 30 grams at one time.

But if you are a senior, you use protein less efficiently. These and other studies with seniors suggest that 30-40 grams of protein per meal may be optimal.

However, high protein intake can be risky for some. The risk is smaller than you have been told, but it is not zero. Here are my recommendations:

  • If your physician has told you to limit protein intake, follow their advice.
  • If you are unsure about the health of your kidneys, consult with your physician before increasing your protein intake.
  • Keep adequately hydrated. Byproducts of protein metabolism can stress your kidneys if you are dehydrated.

What About An After-Workout Supplement? Previous studies have shown that the numbers are about the same for after-workout supplements.

  • For someone in their 30s, 15-25 grams of protein with 1.7 grams of leucine per meal is enough to maximize muscle gain after a workout.
  • But someone in their 60s or 70s needs at least 25-30 grams of protein and 2.5-2.7 grams of leucine per meal to maximize muscle gain.

One Final Pearl

At the very beginning of this article, I told you that the breakdown of muscle protein to keep blood sugar levels constant during fasting and starvation was driven by a hormone called glucagon.

And the active ingredient in the latest weight loss drugs like Wegovy, Ozempic, and Trulicity is GLP-1, which stands for glucagon-like peptide 1.

So, it should be no surprise that those drugs cause loss of muscle mass. That’s a side effect you probably haven’t been told about.

But the good news is that properly designed protein supplements can help you maintain and (with resistance training) increase muscle mass and also boost GLP-1 levels naturally. When choosing your protein supplement, ask for clinical studies showing that they increase GLP-1 levels.

The Bottom Line 

It’s all downhill after age 50! That’s when we start to experience age-related muscle loss, something called sarcopenia.

Age-related muscle loss can be prevented with resistance exercise, adequate protein, and adequate leucine. And the amount of both protein and leucine we need to prevent muscle loss increases as we age.

Previous studies have defined the amount of protein and leucine we need to prevent muscle loss in our 60s and 70s. The studies described in today’s “Health Tip” show the benefit of adding a protein supplement to our low-protein meals and the importance of a high-quality protein supplement for minimizing age-related muscle loss.

The authors of one of these studies concluded, “Consuming protein much closer to the expert group consensus recommendations [1.2 gm/kg instead of the current 0.8 gm/kg for adults over 50] may help to increase…MPS [muscle protein synthesis] with advancing age and extend health-span – compressing the years of disease and disability commonly experienced by older individuals closer to the end of life.”

For more information on these studies, how much protein you need, and what they mean for you, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

_____________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

 _____________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

 

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

 

Are Seed Oils Inflammatory?

by

Rethinking Seed Oils

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

You can’t believe everything you read on the internet. Food myths abound. And they sound so convincing. The articles you read quote clinical studies supporting their food myth. And they offer plausible sounding explanations for why their food myth is accurate.

I have written a book, “Slaying the Food Myths”, to help you recognize and avoid food myths.

I started that book by sharing “secrets only scientists” know. The top 2 are particularly relevant.

  • Scientists design their studies to disprove existing paradigms. That guarantees there will be studies on both sides of every issue.
  • Every study has its flaws. But some have more flaws (are lower quality) than others.

Unfortunately, many of the online posts you read “cherry pick” the studies that support their belief.

  • Some of this is innocent. The authors aren’t scientists, so they may not know the studies they quote are of low quality. While their mistake may be innocent, the information they are sharing is still wrong.
  • But I am less tolerant of “experts” who base their posts on studies they know are of low quality. I call them “Dr. Strangeloves”.

New food myths arise every day. And recently, food myths about seed oils have started to proliferate. Seed oils have become the latest food villain. It has gotten to the point where many people scan every label to make sure that no seed oil touches their lips.

To help clarify the situation, I have written a recent “Health Tips From the Professor” article debunking the seed oil myths.

Among the myths I discussed was the “seed oils cause inflammation” myth. In today’s “Health Tips From the Professor”, I will delve into that topic more deeply and share the latest research with you.

But before I do that, I need to return to my professor mode and share some background information.

What Are Omega-6 Fatty Acids And Why Do They Matter?

Professor

  • There are two classes of essential fatty acids – omega-6 and omega-3.
  • In each case there is a shorter fatty acid found in plant foods which is converted to a longer fatty acid which, in turn, is converted to a group of regulatory molecules that control a variety of biological functions including blood clotting and inflammation.
    • For the omega-6 group the shorter fatty acid is linoleic acid (LA), and the longer one is arachidonic acid (AA). Linoleic acid is the major fatty acid found in seed oils.
    • For the omega-3 group, the shorter fatty acid is linolenic acid, and the longer ones are EPA and DHA.
  • Essential fatty acids are the only foods for which it is literally true that, “You are what you eat”.
    • The membrane composition of every cell in your body reflects the relative amount of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids in your diet.
    • This means the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids in your cell membranes are identical to the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats in your diet.

The significance of these statements will become apparent as I describe the study and its significance below.

What Do We Know About Omega-6 Fatty Acids And Inflammation?

FlamesThis is an important question because the omega-6 fatty acid linoleic acid (LA) is the major fatty acid in seed oils. So, when someone makes the claim that seed oil causes inflammation, they are saying that omega-6 fatty acids cause inflammation. So, the question becomes, “Is that true?”

For years the answer to this question has been unclear. Some studies have concluded that omega-6 fats decrease inflammation, while other studies suggest they increase inflammation. And, of course, the influencers who warn of the dangers of seed oils have cherry picked the studies showing they increase inflammation while ignoring studies showing they decrease inflammation.

It turns out that studies claiming that omega-6 fats increase inflammation are mostly low-quality studies. So, perhaps we should ask what recent high-quality studies show.

  • In 2012 a systematic review of the effects of linoleic acid (LA) on inflammatory markers stated, “We conclude that virtually no evidence is available from randomized, controlled intervention studies among healthy, non-infant human beings to show that addition of LA to the diet increases the concentration of inflammatory biomarkers”.
  • Two major meta-analyses that pooled the data from multiple studies found that circulating LA levels were inversely correlated with cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes [That means that higher levels of LA correlated with lower levels of heart disease and diabetes].
  • A recent report from the UK Biobank study found a strong inverse association between plasma LA levels and both total and cause-specific mortality [Higher levels of LA correlated with a longer life].
  • Based on these and other studies, the American Heart Association concluded, “To reduce omega-6 fat intakes from their current levels [in the American diet] would be more likely to increase rather than decrease coronary heart disease.”

Clearly, recent research is trending towards the conclusion that the omega-6 fat found in seed oils reduces inflammation and the risk of major disease.

But the authors of the current study (HTM Lai et al, Nutrients, 17, 2076, 2025) wanted to test that hypothesis in a more rigorous manner.

They examined the association between red blood cell membrane levels of linoleic acid (LA) and arachidonic acid (AA) and 10 biomarkers representing different phases and pathways of inflammation in a large, community-based sample (The Framingham Offspring Study).

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators used data from the Framingham Offspring Study (children of the original Framingham participants) and the Framingham Omni Cohort (a more ethnically and racially diverse population representing the current Framingham community).

There were a total of 2777 participants (mean age 66 years, 54% women, 9.8% minorities). Blood and urine samples were obtained from these participants during their scheduled examinations between 2005 and 2008.

  • The levels of linoleic acid (LA) and arachidonic acid (AA) were determined from red blood cell membranes.
  • One urinary and nine serum biomarkers of inflammation representing multiple inflammation pathways were measured. (For a list of the biomarkers tested and the rationale for their inclusion in this study, read the article.

Finally, the correlation between the omega-6 fats and biomarkers of inflammation was calculated.

Are Seed Oils Inflammatory?

Question MarkThe results were as follows:

  • Linoleic acid and arachidonic acid combined were inversely correlated with 6 biomarkers of inflammation and had no effect on the other 4.
  • The inverse association of linoleic acid with inflammatory biomarkers was not affected by age, gender, or ethnicity.

The authors concluded, “Our community-based study identified small, but significant, inverse associations between red blood cell linoleic and arachidonic levels and six major biomarkers of inflammation…representing a wide variety of inflammatory pathways. Our results suggest that linoleic acid is more likely to be anti- than pro-inflammatory, and the present efforts to reduce its intake are ill advised.”

Revisiting Seed Oils

Assortment Of Salad Dressing Bottles

You might be wondering what this study has to do with seed oils.

  • The omega-6 fat linoleic acid is a major component of seed oils (60-75%).
    • So, claims that seed oils are inflammatory are based on the claim that omega-6 fats are inflammatory.
  • This study shows omega-6 fats are more likely to be anti-inflammatory than pro-inflammatory.
  • Based on their heart health benefits, the American Heart Association recommends that we not decrease the amount of omega-6 fats in our diet.
    • Seed oils are the major source of omega-6 fats in our diet.
    • So, the American Heart Association recommendation about not decreasing omega-6 fats in our diet means that decreasing our use of seed oils is not a good idea.

I have debunked the other myths about seed oils in my previous “Health Tips From the Professor” article.

The only true concerns about seed oils have to do with processing, storage, and purity.

  • Omega-6 fats are easily oxidized, and the oxidation process can create free radicals. Free radicals can be created through high heat processing and improper storage.
  • Some seed oils contain undesirable impurities in their natural form. So, both the purification process and quality control testing are important.
  • And, as with most foods and supplements, it is “buyer beware”. Some manufacturers use the cheapest source of seed oil rather than the highest quality source.

My recommendations are:

  • Choose your source carefully.
    • For seeds and nuts look for freshness. If they look or taste funny, throw them out.
    • For oils and salad dressings choose reputable brands and choose ones that use low-heat processing.
  • Don’t overheat them.
    • Most vegetable oils are only suitable for use as salad dressings and other room temperature uses.
    • The exceptions are vegetable oils with high smoke points – for example, olive oil for stir fries and avocado oil for higher temperature cooking.
  • Store them safely. Don’t give them a chance to become oxidized.
    • We store sunflower seeds and almonds in our refrigerator and walnuts in our freezer.
    • We buy unsaturated vegetable oils in small quantities (so they are used up quickly) and store them in the refrigerator.
  • For supplements containing seed oil ingredients choose brands with high quality control standards.

The Bottom Line 

Seed oils have become the latest food villain. In a recent “Health Tips From the Professor” I have debunked the seed oil myths.

In today’s article I share the latest studies showing that seed oils are more likely to be anti-inflammatory than pro-inflammatory.

For more information on this study and how to select and use seed oils safely, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

_____________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading Biochemistry textbooks for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

The Seed Oil Myths

by

The Truth About Seed Oils 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

The Seed Oil Myths

Myth Versus FactsYou’ve seen the claims. “You should avoid all seed oils. They are toxic.”

Any time you see claims like, “Avoid all…[add the food villain of the day]” or “[a certain food] is toxic” your “truth-meter” should go on high alert. Claims like that are more likely to be hype than truth.

More specifically, the claims about seed oils are:

  • They are heavily processed.
  • They contain toxic ingredients.
  • They are genetically modified.
  • They cause inflammation and oxidative damage.
  • They increase your risk of inflammatory diseases, heart disease, and cancer.
  • A healthier option is to replace seeds oils with animal foods high in saturated fats.

Like any good food myth, there is a kernel of truth to each of these claims. In this article I will describe the kernel of truth associated with each of these claims, put them into perspective, and give practical guidelines for incorporating seed oils into your diet.

The topics I will cover are:

  • The truth about fats.
  • The truth about omega-6 fats.
  • The truth about saturated fats.
  • The truth about canola oil.
  • The truth about seed oils.

The Truth About Fats

The health authorities and media must think the American public is stupid. They oversimplify everything. They tell us:

  • Animal fats are saturated fat.
  • Olive oil is monounsaturated fat.
  • Vegetable oils are omega-6 polyunsaturated fat.
  • Fish oil is omega-3 polyunsaturated fat.

The truth is that every naturally occurring fat and oil is a mixture of all four kinds of fat. And each food contains a unique mixture of fats. The kernel of truth is:

  • Animal fats have a higher percentage of saturated fat than other fats and oils.
  • Olive oil has a higher percentage of monounsaturated fat than other oils.
  • Vegetable oils have a higher percentage of omega-6 polyunsaturated fat than other oils.
  • Fish oil has a higher percentage of omega-3 polyunsaturated fat than other oils.

 

But the full truth is that each food contains a unique mixture of fats. For example,

  • Meat and butter from grass-fed animals contain a greater percentage of omega-3 fats than meat and butter from animals which were fattened on corn.
  • Flaxseed oil has a higher percentage of omega-3 fats than other seed oils.
  • High-oleic sunflower oil has the highest percentage of monounsaturated fat than other seed oils.
    • Other vegetable oils with high monounsaturated fat content include olive oil, avocado oil, and canola oil. [Note: Although olive oil is the source of monounsaturated fat that we hear about most, avocado oil is equally high in monounsaturated fat and has a higher smoke point, which makes it a better choice for high-heat cooking.]
  • Walnuts have a higher percentage of omega-3 fats than other nuts.
  • Macadamia nuts and almonds have the highest percentage of monounsaturated fats than other nuts, with cashews and peanuts not far behind. Nut butters, of course, reflect the fat composition of the nuts.

The point I am making is that while myths are simple, the truth is much more complex.

Take Home Lesson: Every vegetable oil and every seed oil has a unique composition of fats. Each has its unique benefits and unique drawbacks.

That is something you will want to think about the next time you read an article about the dangers or the benefits of all seed oils. Every seed oil is unique. No generalization applies to all of them.

Biochemistry 101 – Essential Fats

ProfessorLet’s start with the most important point.

  • Omega-6 fats and omega-3 fats are essential. Simply put, that means:
  • We can’t make them.
  • They are essential for life.
  • We must get them from our diet.

If they are essential, the next question is, “Why do we need them?” Let me start with a little “Biochemistry 101” and talk about their role in cell membranes and cellular regulation.

Cell Membranes:

  • You might think of cell membranes as a solid protective armor around the cells, but nothing could be farther from the truth. A better analogy would be the ocean that covers vast areas of our planet. Our membranes are quite fluid.
  • And that membrane fluidity is important. Our cell membranes contain receptors like the cholesterol receptor and insulin receptor that must cluster together for cholesterol and insulin to be transported into the cell. Those receptors cluster best when cell membranes are very fluid.
  • Our membranes are most fluid when they contain high levels of polyunsaturated fats (For membrane fluidity it doesn’t matter if they are omega-6 or omega-3). Conversely, our membranes are less fluid when they contain high levels of saturated fats.
  • And here is the most important point. Because our bodies cannot make omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fats, this is the one time it is literally true that, “We are what we eat”. If our diets are high in saturated fats, our membranes are high in saturated fats. If our diets are high in polyunsaturated fats, our membranes are high in polyunsaturated fats.
    • And the ratio of omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fats in our membranes reflects the ratio of omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fats in our diet.

Take Home Lesson: Diets high in omega-6 and/or omega-3 fats help lower cholesterol levels and improve blood sugar regulation.

Cellular Regulation:

  • Our cells also use the polyunsaturated fats in our cell membrane to make hormone-like substances called prostaglandins and leukotrienes that exert profound effects on nearby tissues. [Note: For the sake of simplicity, I will just talk about prostaglandins for the rest of this article, but what I say applies equally to leukotrienes.]
  • The enzymes that make prostaglandins do not distinguish between omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fats. They just use whatever polyunsaturated fat they come across.
  • That’s important because the effects of omega-6 and omega-3 prostaglandins are often different and are sometimes opposite.
  • Here’s where the “We are what we eat” principle comes into play. The ratio of omega-6 and omega-3s in our diet determines the omega-6 and omega-3 content of our membranes. And that determines the type of prostaglandins our cells produce.

Take Home Lessons:

  • Some of the benefits of omega-6s are unique because they are dependent on omega-6 prostaglandins. These benefits cannot be duplicated by diets high in omega-3s.
  • Because some effects of omega-6 and omega-3 prostaglandins are opposite, we need to look closely at the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in the diet to optimize the health benefits of these two essential polyunsaturated fats.

Now, with Biochemistry 101 behind us, we are ready to look at the truth about omega-6 fats.

The Truth About Omega-6 Fats

Assortment Of Salad Dressing Bottles

Let’s start by looking at the pros and cons of omega-6 fats. 

Pros Of Omega-6 Fats:

Cellular Health: Omega-6 and fats are important for maintaining proper membrane fluidity. And omega-6 prostaglandins also regulate cell metabolism and cellular repair mechanisms.

Heart Health: Omega-6s are associated with lower risk of heart disease. This is caused by:

  • Lower cholesterol levels due to proper membrane fluidity which allows clustering of cholesterol receptors.
  • More flexible endothelial cells lining our arteries, which helps lower blood pressure and prevent blockage of the arteries by blood clots. This is most likely due to more fluid cell membranes and the production of beneficial prostaglandins.
  • Some of these benefits are duplicated by omega-3 fats, but the American Heart Association stated in a recent Health Advisory (WS Harris et al, Circulation, 119, 902-907, 2009) that omega-6 fats are essential for some heart health benefits. They cannot be replaced by omega-3s.

Brain Health: Omega-3s get most of the press here, but experts feel that omega-6s play an important and independent role as well.

Fetal Growth and Development: Omega-6 fats are essential for normal neural development and growth. The mechanism(s) for this benefit are ill-defined.

Other Benefits:

  • Omega-6 fats support healthy skin, hair, and bones. The mechanisms for these effects are unknown, but most experts feel they are independent of omega-3 fats.
  • Omega-6 fats are also important for reproductive health. Most experts think this is due to the production of omega-6 prostaglandins.

Take Home Lesson: Omega-6 fats are essential for a healthy heart, a healthy brain, and normal fetal growth and development.

Cons Of Omega-6 Fats:

Oxidation: Omega-6 (and omega-3) fats are very susceptible to oxidation, especially at high temperatures. This can lead to free radical formation, which can promote the formation of cancer cells.

You may have seen the statement that omega-6 fats cause cancer. This is an oversimplification. A more accurate statement would be, “Improperly used, any polyunsaturated fat may increase cancer risk. But this is largely avoidable. Here are the precautions I recommend:

  • Choose your source carefully.
  • For seeds and nuts look for freshness. If they look or taste funny, throw them out.
  • For oils choose reputable brands and choose ones that use low-heat processing. Also, look for ones with minimal processing. They may be cloudy rather than clear, but they will also contain naturally occurring antioxidants and polyphenols.
  • Don’t overheat them.
    • Most vegetable oils are only suitable for use as salad dressings and other room temperature cooking.
    • The exceptions are vegetable oils with high smoke points – for example, olive oil for stir fries and avocado oil for higher temperature cooking.
  • Store them safely. Don’t give them a chance to become oxidized.
    • We store sunflower seeds and almonds in our refrigerator and walnuts in our freezer.
    • We buy unsaturated vegetable oils in small quantities (so they are used up quickly) and store them in the refrigerator.

Take Home Lesson: Improperly used, omega-6 fats, like any unsaturated fat, can become oxidized and form free radicals (the kernel of truth). Choose your source carefully. Don’t overheat them. Store them safely.

FlamesInflammation: This is the one you hear the most about. You have been told that omega-6 vegetable oils (seed oils) cause inflammation. As a blanket statement, it is mostly untrue. But it does have a kernel of truth.

Let’s start with the kernel of truth:

  • Omega-6 fats are inflammatory only when compared to omega-3 fats. You have also been told that omega-6 fats are inflammatory when compared to saturated fats. This is false, as I will discuss below.

Let me elaborate on the first statement with a little more Biochemistry 101 (If you haven’t guessed, that’s my favorite topic. Once a professor, always a professor).

  • Omega-6 fats are converted into one inflammatory prostaglandin. Omega-3 fats are converted into several anti-inflammatory prostaglandins (This is an example of some omega-6 and omega-3 prostaglandins having opposite effects).
  • Because of their opposite effects on inflammation, some experts say that the optimal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats is in the range of 1:1 to 4:1. But the typical American diet is around 15:1.

If the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio is important (and not every expert agrees that it is), the statement that we should avoid omega-6-containing vegetable oils (seed oils) because they are inflammatory is mostly untrue.

  • Every omega-6 oil has a different omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. For example,
    • Corn oil has a 50:1 ratio and sesame oil has a 42:1 ratio. If you are just going by omega-6 to omega-3 ratios, you might want to avoid these.
    • Soybean oil has a 7:1 ratio and extra virgin olive oil has a 5:1 ratio. They are almost in the optimal range.
    • Canola oil has a 2:1 ratio. It’s in the optimal range.
    • And flaxseed oil is the clear winner with a 1:4 ratio.

But the truth is also much more complex than you have been led to believe.

  • The kernel of truth is that omega-6 fats can be converted to an inflammatory prostaglandin.
  • But omega-6 fats can also be converted to anti-inflammatory prostaglandins. And some omega-6 fats such as GLA are anti-inflammatory.
  • Human clinical studies find that omega-6 fats either have no effect on inflammation or decrease it slightly (A Poli et al, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24, 4567, 2023).

Take Home Lesson: Omega-6 fats are converted into one inflammatory prostaglandin (the kernel of truth). But they are also converted to anti-inflammatory prostaglandins. The net effect in the human body is a slight anti-inflammatory effect.

The Truth About Saturated Fats

You have been told that saturated fats are anti-inflammatory and decrease the risk of heart disease. For many Americans those claims are enticing because it means they don’t have to change their diet. But are the claims true?

You have been told that these claims are based on science. There are clinical studies behind them. Is that true?

The problem is that there are a lot of bad studies on saturated fats in the literature, and the Dr. Strangeloves of the world cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.

If you want to compare the effect of different kinds of fat on either inflammation or heart health, you must make sure that all other components of the diet are the same. Too many of these studies have compared a whole food diet high in saturated fat with the typical American diet high in omega-6 fats. The results are predictable. Anything is better than the typical American diet.

In a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor” I discussed the criteria for a good study of fats. High quality studies must:

  • Show the subjects stick with the new diet for the duration of the study. Subjects find it difficult to adhere to a diet to which they are not accustomed long term and often revert to their more familiar diet. This requires either very close monitoring of what the subjects are eating or measurement of fat membrane composition to verify diet adherence, or both.
  • Carefully control or measure what the saturated fats are replaced with. In good studies only the fat composition of the diet changes. All other components of the diet remain the same.
  • Last two years or more. The fats we eat determine the fat composition of our cell membranes, and that is what ultimately determines both inflammation in our bodies and our risk of dying from heart disease. While it is true to say, “We are what we eat”, changing the fat composition of our cell membranes does not occur overnight. It takes 2 years or more to achieve a 60-70% change in the fat composition of cell membranes.
  • Measures multiple markers of inflammation or actual cardiovascular end points such as heart attack, stroke, and deaths due to heart disease.

When studies are done that meet these criteria the results are as follows:

Inflammation (A Poli et al, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24: 4567, 2023):

  • Replacing saturated fats with omega-6 fats reduces inflammation by 8%.
  • Replacing saturated fats with omega-3 fats reduces inflammation by 48%

Heart Disease (FM Sacks et al, Circulation, 136, Number 3, 2017):

  • Replacing saturated fats with omega-6 from decreased the risk of heart disease by 24%.
  • Replacing saturated fats with a mixture of both omega-6 and omega-3 fats decreased the risk of heart disease by 29%. This is equivalent to statin therapy, without the side effects.
  • When the replacement of saturated fats with omega-6 and omega-3 fats occurred in the context of a heart healthy diet such as the Mediterranean diet, heart disease risk was reduced by 47%.

The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine recommends that Americans not exceed 10% of calories from saturated fat.

  • Two thirds of Americans exceed this limit.

The Food and Nutrition Board recommends that omega-6 fats be around 5-6% of calories. Because omega-6 fats play an important role in heart health, the American Heart Association recommends they be at 5-10% of calories.

  • Americans get around 6.5% of their calories from omega-6 fats.

Take Home Lesson: Replacing saturated fat with omega-6 fats reduces both inflammation and heart disease risk. Adding omega-3 fats reduces both even more. So, bringing omega-6 and omega-3 into a better balance is a good idea. But omega-6 fats are essential and are at the recommended intake for most Americans, so don’t do this by cutting back on healthy omega-6 fats. Instead, add some more omega-3s.

The Truth About Canola Oil

There are a lot of things to like about canola oil:

  • It is an excellent source of healthy omega-6 fats.
  • It has a good omega-6 to omega-3 ratio (2:1), which makes it anti-inflammatory.
  • It is also a good source of monounsaturated fats and has a moderate smoke point, which makes it suitable for low heat cooking.

So, why is it so unpopular? Unfortunately, it suffers from a lot of undeserved myths. Each has a kernel of truth. But like a secret passed around the room, the myths have grown with each repetition, and the truth has become unrecognizable.

So, let’s try to separate the myths from the truth.

Myth: It is genetically engineered.

Truth: It was created by old-fashioned plant breeding.

 

Myth: Canola oil contains toxic ingredients.

Truth:

  • Rapeseed oil comes from the oilseed rape plant (a relative of mustard).
  • Rapeseed oil contains erucic acid and glucosinolates, both of which can be toxic in large amounts (the kernel of truth).
  • Baldur Stefansson from the University of Manitoba bred a “double low” variety the oilseed rape plant which produces an oil that contains <2% of both erucic acid and glucosinolates and is safe for human consumption. This new oil was named canola oil (from Canada and ola for oil). This was achieved by conventional plant breeding. Not genetic engineering.
  • Both cultivars of the oilseed rape plant are still grown. Rapeseed oil is used for industrial purposes, and canola oil is used for human consumption.
  • Canola oil is tightly regulated in Canada, the US, and the EU to <2% erucic acid.
  • 98% of the canola oil sold in the US is grown in Canada and the northern US.

Myth: Canola oil is unhealthy.

Truth: Because it is one of the least expensive omega-6 oils, canola oil is often found as an ingredient in unhealthy, highly processed, food (the kernel of truth). The solution is simple. Avoid unhealthy foods. Adding a different kind of fat to unhealthy foods is not going to make them healthier.

The Truth About Seed Oils

By now I have covered most of the myths about seed oils in my sections on omega-6 fats, saturated fats, and canola oil, but here is a quick review.

Myth: All seed oils are…[add your favorite derogatory term here].

Truth: Every seed oil has a unique composition of fats. Each has its unique benefits and unique drawbacks.

 

Myth: Seed oils are genetically modified.

Truth: The plants producing canola oil and high oleic sunflower oil have been modified (the kernel of truth), but they were modified by conventional plant breeding rather than genetic engineering.

 

Myth: Seed oils contain toxic ingredients. This myth is most often directed at canola oil.

Truth: Rapeseed oil contains components that can be toxic at high levels (the kernel of truth). However, the rapeseed plant has been bred to produce canola oil with safe levels of those components.

 

Myth: Seed oils are inflammatory, which increases your risk of inflammatory diseases and heart disease.

Truth: Seed oils contain omega-6 fats which can be converted into one inflammatory prostaglandin (the kernel of truth). But they are also converted to anti-inflammatory prostaglandins. The net effect in well done human clinical trials is a slight anti-inflammatory effect.

 

Myth: Seed oils cause oxidative damage, which increases your risk of cancer.

Truth: Seed oils (like any polyunsaturated fat) are susceptible to oxidation, especially at high temperatures. This can lead to free radical formation and oxidative damage (the kernel of truth). But this is only true when you use them improperly. The solution is to chose your source wisely, store them safely, and to not overheat them when cooking.

 

Myth: Saturated fats are healthier than seed oils. Replacing saturated fat with the omega-6 fats found in seed oils increases inflammation and heart disease risk.

Truth: Many studies in this area of research are poorly designed. Well-designed studies show that replacing saturated fat with the omega-6 fats found in seed oils reduces both inflammation and heart disease risk.

 

Myth: Omega-3 fats are healthier than the omega-6 fats found in seed oils, so we should replace seed oils with omega-3 fats.

Fact: Omega-3 fats are more effective than omega-6 fats at reducing inflammation and heart disease risk (the kernel of truth). However, omega-6 fats are essential for a healthy heart, a healthy brain, and normal fetal growth and development. We can’t make them, so we must get them from our diet. Americans are currently consuming the recommended amount of omega-6 fats. So, we should not decrease the amount of omega-6 fats in our diet. Instead, we would benefit from adding more omega-3s to our diet.

 

Myth: Seed oils are highly processed. High heat processing alters the oils. Processing also removes beneficial antioxidants and polyphenols from the oils.

Truth: This is mostly true. The solution is to choose your brands carefully.

  • For oils choose reputable brands and choose ones that use low-heat processing. Also, look for ones with minimal processing. They may be cloudy rather than clear, but they will also contain naturally occurring antioxidants and polyphenols.
  • It’s not easy to choose your source carefully. But this difficulty is not unique to seed oils. For example:
    • The term EVO is supposed to mean extra virgin olive oil was used, but cheaper oils are sometimes blended into the olive oil to save money.
    • If a company wishes to use the term “grass fed” on their product, they must file a certification with the USDA, but the USDA does not inspect to determine whether the certification is accurate.
    • Seed oils are also found as an ingredient in unhealthy, highly processed foods. The solution here is simple. Avoid unhealthy foods. Adding a different kind of fat to unhealthy foods is not going to make them healthier.

For more details about each of these Truth statements, read the article above.

The Bottom Line

There are many myths about seed oils. Each myth has a kernel of truth but is mostly false. In this week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” I discuss the myths and truths about seed oils. Because this is a complex subject, I have broken it down into individual topics that address one or more seed oil myths before talking about seed oil myths directly.

The topics I covered are:

  • The truth about fats.
  • The truth about omega-6 fats.
  • The truth about saturated fats.
  • The truth about canola oil.
  • The truth about seed oils.

For more details read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

_____________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

 _______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

 

 

Why Is Keeping Weight Off So Hard?

by

Can You Achieve Permanent Weight Loss? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Why is the dreaded yo-yo rearing its ugly head again? You tried a new diet this year, and it worked really well. The weight came off easily. But the diet is over, and the pounds are starting to creep up once again.

You are beginning to wonder if this diet was just like all the other yo-yo diets you’ve tried in the past. You are wondering whether those pounds you lost will come back and bring their friends with them. If so, you’ll be like 156 million Americans who lose weight and gain it all back each year.

And it’s so frustrating. You are trying to be good. You are still exercising and trying to eat healthily. Why isn’t it working?

Could it be that your fat cells have a memory? Could it be they like to be big and bulky with lots of stored fat? While that description is a bit fanciful, a new study (LC Hinte et al, Nature Online, 2024) suggests your fat cells may have a memory, which could explain why it is so hard to keep the weight off.

This is a highly technical study. So, before I discuss how the study was done, I should perhaps review a little bit of Biochemistry 101.

Biochemistry101: Epigenetics and Gene Activity

EpigeneticsWhat Is Epigenetics? When I was a young graduate student (which is more than just a few years ago), I was taught that all genetic information resided in our DNA. During conception, we picked up some DNA from our dad and some from our mom, and that DNA was what made us a unique individual.

In recent years, the hype has centered on DNA sequencing. It seems like everyone is offering to sequence your genome and tell you what kind of diet is best for you, what foods to eat, and what supplements to take. But can DNA sequencing fulfill those promises?

The problem is that DNA sequencing only tells you what genes you have. It doesn’t tell you whether those genes are active. Simply put, it doesn’t tell you whether those genes are turned on or turned off.

This is where epigenetics comes in. Epigenetics is the science of modifications that alter gene expression. In simple terms, both DNA and the proteins that bind to DNA can be modified. This does not change the DNA sequence. But these modifications can determine whether a gene is active (turned on) or inactive (turned off).

This sounds simple enough, but here is where it really gets interesting. These modifications are affected by our diet, our lifestyle (body weight and exercise, for example), our microbiome (gut bacteria), and our environment.

And if that weren’t complicated enough, some of these epigenetic changes (DNA modifications) can be transitory and others are long-lasting.

The authors of this study hypothesized that obesity causes long-lasting epigenetic changes to certain critical genes in our fat cells that slow metabolism and promote fat accumulation, even after we have lost weight. In other words, these epigenetic changes “prime” our fat cells to regain all the weight we’ve lost.

How Do You Measure the Effect of Epigenetic Changes? As you might expect this study measured epigenetic modifications to critical genes in fat cells. But that’s only part of the story. Epigenetic modification can turn genes on, turn them off, or have no effect on gene activity.

So, the investigators also needed to monitor the activity of the genes to determine the effect of the epigenetic modifications. Fortunately, one fact you may have learned in high school or college biology is mostly unchanged by the passage of time.

It is that the genetic sequence of DNA is translated into messenger RNA and that messenger RNA is used to code for proteins. If epigenetic modifications turned on a gene, we would expect higher levels of the corresponding messenger RNA and corresponding protein in those cells. Conversely, if epigenetic modifications turned off a gene, we would expect the opposite.

It turns out that it is much easier to measure changes in messenger RNA levels than individual protein levels that correspond to specific genes. So, the investigators used cellular messenger levels to measure the effect of epigenetic modifications on gene activity.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators measured the effect of obesity and subsequent weight loss on fat cell gene expression in a limited set of human subjects and supplemented those results with a more expansive set of experiments with mice.

I don’t normally report on animal studies or very small human studies because these studies often lead to misleading results that are not supported by subsequent long-term, large clinical studies.

However, I am making an exception for this study because it leads to an interesting paradigm shift which, if true, changes the way we think about how to keep weight off long term.

Human Study: The investigators determined messenger RNA levels for key genes in fat cells from human volunteers who were:

  • At a healthy weight.
  • Obese both before and 2 years after bariatric surgery that resulted in at least 25% weight loss.

The groups were small (10-16 total), in part because obtaining fat cell samples is an invasive and painful procedure.

Mouse study: The investigators determined both messenger RNA levels and epigenic modifications for key genes in fat cells from 6-week-old male mice who were:

  • Fed either a low-fat or high-fat chow diet for 25 weeks. As expected, the mice fed the low-fat diet remained lean and the mice fed the high-fat diet became obese.
  • Subsequently, the obese mice were put on low-fat chow for 8 weeks during which time their weight returned to normal.
  • Finally, both the ‘always lean’ and ‘formerly obese’ mice were put on high-fat chow to compare how rapidly they gained weight.

What Happens To Fat Cells During Obesity And Weight Loss?

This study is best viewed as a story of what happens to fat cells during obesity and subsequent weight loss. There are two parts – what happens to human fat cells and what happens to mouse fat cells:

 Human Fat Cells: When obese individuals were compared to lean individuals:

  • Genes coding for fat storage and inflammation (which is known to be associated with obesity) were more active.
  • Fat-burning genes were less active.
  • These changes in gene expression were retained even after the obese individuals lost substantial weight through bariatric surgery.

[Note: The measurements of gene expression were based on the amount of messenger RNA produced by those genes.]

The human study had a couple of important limitations, which is why the investigators also did a similar study with mice.

#1: Because the study did not include a habitually lean group who became obese after going on a high-fat diet (no clinical review board would approve such a study), it could not determine whether the differences in gene expression were caused by the onset of obesity or whether they caused obesity.

Simply put, we know some individuals are genetically predisposed to obesity. The differences in gene expression between lean and obese individuals could have simply represented a genetic predisposition to obesity.

The mouse experiments did not suffer from that limitation because it was possible to put lean mice on a high fat diet until they became obese.

#2: The study did not measure epigenetic changes that may have caused the changes in gene expression. That is because humans are genetically heterogeneous. Consequently, you need population studies with hundreds of individuals to reliably determine epigenetic differences between groups.

The mouse experiments did not suffer from that limitation because laboratory mice are genetically homogeneous.

Mouse Fat Cells:

When the investigators looked at the physical effects of obesity:

  • When mice became obese on a high-fat diet:
    • Blood glucose levels rose.
    • Insulin levels rose, indicating the mice had become insulin resistant.
    • Fat accumulated in their livers.
  • When the obese mice lost the excess weight on a low-fat diet all these parameters returned to normal.
  • When the ‘always lean’ and ‘previously obese’ mice were put back on a high fat diet at the end of the study, the previously obese mice gained weight more quickly than the always lean mice.

In other words, mice responded to obesity in the same way that humans do except none of these effects could be explained by genetics. This strain of mice was genetically homogeneous.

When the investigators compared gene expression (as measured by messenger RNA levels) in mice who had become obese to ‘always lean’ mice:

  • Genes coding for fat storage and inflammation were more active.
  • Fat-burning genes were less active.
  • These changes in gene expression were retained even after the obese mice lost weight.

In other words, mice responded to obesity in the same ways as humans with respect to gene expression. However, in this case it was clear that obesity caused the changes in gene expression.

When the investigators looked at epigenetic modifications:

  • They identified epigenetic modifications to the regulatory regions of genes whose activity was increased or decreased when the mice became obese.
  • These epigenetic modifications were retained even after the mice lost weight.

These data suggest, but do not prove, that the epigenetic modifications were responsible for the changes in gene activity.

The authors concluded, “We show that both human and mouse adipose tissues retain transcriptional changes after appreciable weight loss.

Furthermore, we find persistent obesity induced alterations in the epigenome of mouse adipocytes that negatively affect their function and response to metabolic stimuli. Mice carrying this obesogenic memory show accelerated rebound weight gain…in response to high-fat diet feeding.

In summary, our findings indicate the existence of an obesogenic memory, largely on the basis of stable epigenetic changes, in mouse adipocytes and probably other cell types. These changes seem to prime cells for pathological response [weight gain] in an obesogenic environment, contributing to the problematic ‘yo-yo’ effect often seen with dieting.”

More simply put, the investigators concluded that obesity causes epigenetic modifications to the DNA of fat cells that prime them to regain their fat stores. They said that this may contribute to the ‘yo-yo’ effect often seen with dieting and explain why keeping weight off is so hard.

Why Is Keeping Weight Off So Hard?

Question MarkYou are not alone. You are like millions of other Americans. You lose weight effectively, but you struggle to keep it off. You just look at a donut and the fat jumps from the donut to your hips. You try to eat right, but the pounds keep creeping back on.

Experts have told us for years that our fat cells (and perhaps other cells in our body) are the culprit. Those cells have switched from a fat burning mode to a fat storage mode. There have been lots of attempts to explain that phenomenon, but my favorite is one that hypothesizes that our metabolism was designed for paleolithic times when it was either feast or famine.

Simply put, the theory is that our bodies were designed to store energy reserves in times of plenty and hold on to those energy reserves as long as possible in times of famine. Holding on to energy reserves was essential for prehistoric man to survive cold winters when food was hard to come by. And our number one energy reserve is, you guessed it, fat.

That is an appealing hypothesis, but it doesn’t tell us how our bodies manage to do that.

That’s what makes this study so intriguing. It may be wrong. It needs to be substantiated by large scale clinical trials. But the idea that epigenic changes occur during obesity and persist after substantial weight loss is novel. More importantly, it may explain the “feast or famine” response and why it is so hard to keep weight off after substantial weight loss.

Can You Achieve Permanent Weight Loss?

By now you may be thinking, “I thought my weight loss woes were due to my genetics. Now you’re telling me that they could be due to my epigenetics. Am I doubly cursed? Is there nothing I can do to keep my weight off?”

I can tell you science doesn’t have a simple answer, but there are two big clues that offer hope.

#1: Slow and steady wins the race. Obesity experts have known for years that slow weight loss often results in permanent weight loss.

  • If you are counting calories, that means a reduction of around 500 calories per week (That’s 71 calories per day, which is equivalent to one small apple, one hard-boiled egg, or 1.5 ounces of chicken breast). And a 500-calorie deficit maintained each week for a year can lead to a 20-25 pound weight loss.
  • If you are thinking of diets, it could amount to switching to a diet of unprocessed or minimally processed foods consisting of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and primarily plant-based proteins without worrying about calories or serving sizes. Again, clinical studies show that switching from the typical American diet to this kind of diet can lead to substantial weight loss over a period of years.

Neither approach is popular in the weight loss world, but they work. Why do they work? It could be because the daily reduction in calories is so small that it never triggers the famine response.

If we look at the two parts of the study I reported on above:

  • In the human study weight loss was achieved through bariatric surgery which causes a huge reduction in caloric intake and rapid weight loss.
  • In the mouse study going from high-fat chow to low-fat chow represented a large decrease in calories. And again, weight loss was very rapid. It took the mice 25 weeks to become obese and only 4-8 weeks to lose the weight they had gained.

When viewed from this perspective, the epigenetic modifications observed after weight loss in this study may have been due to the famine response rather than a retention of the modifications observed during obesity.

And when you think about it, most popular diets feature major restrictions (calories, fats, carbs, forbidden foods, time of eating) and cause rapid weight loss. They are likely to trigger a famine response as well.

#2: The secrets of the National Weight Control Registry. There are some people who manage to keep their weight off and avoid the yo-yo effect. They don’t have any genetic or epigenetic advantage over the rest of us. They have lost weight on every diet imaginable – including rapid weight loss fad diets.

Yet they have managed to keep the weight off. What are their secrets? How did they avoid regaining their weight? How did they avoid the yo-yo diet effect?

An organization called the National Weight Control Registry was established to answer that question. It has enrolled more than 10,000 people who have lost weight and kept it off. On average people in this group have lost 66 pounds and kept it off for at least 5 years.

The National Weight Control Registry kept track of what they did to keep the weight off. Everyone’s approach was a little different, but the National Weight Control Registry summarized the ones that were most frequently mentioned. Here is what they do that you may not be doing:

#1: They consume a reduced calorie, whole food diet.

#2: They get lots of exercise (around 1 hour/day).

#3: They have internalized their eating patterns. In short, this is no longer a diet. It has become a permanent part of their lifestyle. This is the way they eat without even thinking about it.

#4: They monitor their weight regularly. When they gain a few pounds, they modify their diet until they are back at their target weight.

#5: They eat breakfast on a regular basis.

#6: They watch less than 10 hours of TV/week.

#7: They are consistent (no planned cheat days).

The good news is that participants in the National Weight Control Registry reported that while maintaining weight loss was difficult at first, it became easy after 2 years.

Of course, we don’t know whether is due to epigenic modifications being reset to “lean” by these behaviors or whether the new behaviors became automatic and overrode epigenetics.

It doesn’t matter. It means you can end the ‘yo-yo’ cycle forever. You can keep weight off, and you know how to do it.

The Bottom Line

A recent study in both humans and mice suggests that epigenetic modifications to key genes in your fat cells make it hard to keep weight off. These epigenetic changes may explain why so many people struggle with yo-yo dieting.

 

For more details on this study and how you may be able to override these epigenetic modifications and prevent weight regain read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 _____________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

_______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Maternal Mortality In The United States

by

Leading Causes Of Maternal Deaths

Author: Carolyn Curtis, MSN, CNM, RN, FACNM, FAAN

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Maternal Mortality In The United States

Between 2018 and 2021, the maternal mortality (death) rate in the United States nearly doubled, placing the country last among developed nations in maternal health outcomes.  The maternal mortality ratio (MMR) is a key indicator of a nation’s overall health, making this rapid increase a cause for serious concern.

Understanding Maternal Mortality

Maternal mortality refers to the number of women who die during pregnancy or within 42 days (six weeks) after childbirth for every 100,000 live births. As per the Government Accounting Office, 25% of the increase in maternal mortality from 2020 to 2021 was due to Covid-19, which contributed to the doubling of the maternal mortality ratioi.

The maternal mortality ratio is used globally to assess the state of a country’s health. A rising MMR signals the need for urgent action.

In 2022, the U.S. recorded an overall maternal mortality ratio 22.3 deaths per 100,000 live birthsii. This decreased by about 10 deaths per 100,000 from 2021 (32 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2021). However, stark racial disparities continued to exist as demonstrated through 2018 to 2021.

  • Black women: 49.5 deaths per 100,000 live births (more than 2.5 times the rate for white women)
  • White women: 19.0 deaths per 100,000 live births
  • Hispanic women: 16.9 deaths per 100,000 live births
  • Asian women: 13.2 deaths per 100,000 live births

Maternal Mortality versus Pregnancy Related Deaths

What Is The Difference?

While maternal mortality measures deaths that occur from the onset of pregnancy to six weeks post-delivery, pregnancy-related deaths extend further.  Pregnancy-related deaths are the number of deaths per 100,000 live births up to 12 months (one year) after birth or the first birthday.

Does The Age Of The Mother Make A Difference?

The age of the mother significantly affects the risk of dying during pregnancy. The ratio of deaths among women younger than 25 years of age is 14.4 deaths per 100,000 live births. Women aged 25 to 39 have a rate of 21.1/100,000 live births, while those aged 40 and older face a staggering 87.1 deaths per 100,000 live birthsiii. This means that women over 40 are dying at six times the rate of those under 25 and four times the rate of women aged 25 to 29iv.

When Are The Deaths Occurring?

Surprisingly, a little under half (47%) of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy or within the first week postpartum (Maternal Mortality).  And a little over half (53%) happen between one week and one year after childbirth or the baby’s first birthday (Pregnancy-Related Deaths).

Leading Causes Of Maternal Deaths

The primary causes of maternal mortality in the U.S. are largely preventablev. The six main causes of maternal death include:

  • Mental Health Conditions (23%) – Suicide, overdose, and substance-related poisoning are the leading causes, this affects White and Hispanic women more than Black or Asian women.
  • Hemorrhage (14%) – Severe postpartum bleeding remains one of the top causes of maternal deaths not only in the Unites States but throughout the world with Asian women being more susceptible. Hemorrhage is defined as bleeding about one half quart of blood.
  • Cardiac Conditions (13%) – Heart disease disproportionately affects Black women.
  • Blood Clots (9%) – A major contributor to maternal deaths.
  • Cardiomyopathy (9%) – A condition affecting the heart muscle, making it harder to pump blood efficiently.
  • Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy (7%) – relating to high blood pressure

Contributors to maternal death include familial, societal, health care system issues and one’s personal health. it is possible to reduce the risks of maternal death by understanding one’s personal health history and your family’s health history.

This information informs nutritional, behavioral and lifestyle changes that can be made prior to and during pregnancy to reduce health risks, enabling a healthier pregnancy outcome.

The Bottom Line

  • The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate amongst all developed countries in the world.
  • The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. has nearly doubled between 2018 and 2021; Covid-19 caused a 25% increase of maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021 which contributed to the doubling of maternal deaths. Black women have been disproportionately affected, with mortality rates 2.5x that of White women.
  • Women aged 40 and over die at four times the rate of women ages 25 to 39 and six times more than women under 25 years of age.
  • The leading causes of maternal deaths include mental health conditions, hemorrhage, cardiac conditions, blood clots, and cardiomyopathy— most of which are preventable.
  • Almost half of maternal deaths occur throughout pregnancy and the first week after childbirth. A little more than half of maternal deaths occur from the first week following birth up to the first year after birth.  It’s important to continue monitoring mothers with home visits once they return home from the hospital and up until one year after birth.

References

i General Accounting Office, Maternal Health: Outcomes Worsened and Disparities Persisted During the Pandemic.  Oct, 2022.

ii Hoyert DL.  Maternal mortality rates in the United States, 2022.  NCHS Health E-Stats.  2024.  DOI:https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc/152992.

iii Ibid

iv Ibid.

vFour in five pregnancy related deaths in the US are preventable – https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0919-pregnancy-related-deaths.html.

For More Information

Feel free to visit my website, subscribe to my YouTube channel and learn more about my online coaching program, “Mastering Pregnancy and Birth”.

You-Tube Channel – Over 80 videos exploring pregnancy, labor, birth, postpartum and contraception

www.thecarabcompany.com – Website with free downloadable pregnancy and birth information

Mastering Pregnancy and Birth Coaching Program –  A program that prepares Dads and Mom’s-to-be for a healthier pregnancy and safer birth.  This course also provides information for Doulas to provide enhanced support to families.

Carolyn Curtis

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

About The Author

Carolyn Curtis, MSN, CNM, RN, FACNM, FAAN, has:

 

  • More than 40 years’ experience in the oversight of domestic and international programs and the provision of nursing and midwifery integrated service delivery in maternal child health, family planning, reproductive and women’s health care.

 

  • Twenty years’ experience in teaching, mentoring, and providing clinical oversight to undergraduate and graduate public health, medical, nursing and midwifery students.

 

About The Editor

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

How Much Should You Walk?

by

Walking Your Way To Health 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Overweight People ExercisingYou’ve made your New Year’s resolutions. And if you are like millions of Americans, you may already be making plans to join a gym, get a personal trainer, or join a spin class.

The problem is these are all expensive options. And a good portion of that money is wasted. To put it into perspective, let’s look at some statistics

  • Around 6 million Americans buy gym memberships every January.
    • 67% of those memberships are never used.
    • For those memberships used in January, another 50% are not in use 6 months later.
  • Americans spend about 1.6 billion dollars on unused gym memberships every year.
    • And that doesn’t include those gym memberships that are only occasionally used.

If you want to get fit and healthy in the new year, perhaps you should consider a less expensive option – like walking. Your only investments are a good pair of walking shoes and a device that keeps track of the number of steps you take (eg, Fitbit, smart watch, or smart phone).

You still may give up on your New Year’s goal of getting fitter at some point. But you won’t have wasted so much money.

Of course, you probably have some questions about the benefits of walking, such as:

1) Is walking enough to significantly improve my fitness and health?

2) How far (how many steps) should I walk?

3) How fast should I walk?

Fortunately, two recent studies (B del Pozo-Cruz et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, 182: 1139-1148, 2022) and (J del Pozo-Cruz et al, Diabetes Care, 45: 2156-2158, 2022) have answered all three questions.

How Were These Studies Done?

clinical studyThe first study (B del Pozo-Cruz et al, JAMA Internal Medicine, 182: 1139-1148, 2022) followed 78,500 participants (average age 61, 55% female, 97% white) enrolled in the UK Biobank study for an average of 7 years.

At the time of enrollment, each participant was given an accelerometer (a device that measures the number and frequency of steps) to wear on their dominant wrist for 24 hours/day for 7 days. The investigators used the accelerometer data to categorize several types of physical activity.

  • Daily step counts (the average number of steps per day for 7 days). These step counts were further subdivided into two categories:
    • Incidental steps (It was assumed that ˂40 steps/min represented steps taken that were incidental to normal daily activities).
    • Purposeful steps (It was assumed that ≥40 steps/min represented steps taken as part of planned exercise).
  • Stepping intensity (the highest frequency of steps/min averaged over 30 min intervals for all 7 days).

At the end of the study, each of these variables was correlated with the risk of premature deaths due to all causes, cancer, and heart disease.

The second study (J del Pozo-Cruz et al, Diabetes Care, 45: 2156-2158, 2022) was similar except that it:

  • Used data from 1687 adults (average age = 55, 56% male, with diabetes or prediabetes when the study began) in the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the US.
  • Followed participants for 9 years instead of 7.
  • Only measured total steps/day.
  • Correlated total steps per day with premature death for participants who already had prediabetes or diabetes when they entered the study.

Walking Your Way To Health

woman walking dogStudy 1 looked at the effect of walking on health outcomes in multiple ways.

#1: Increase in number of steps/day:

  • On average study participants took an average of 7200 steps per day, but this ranged from a low of 3,200 steps/day to a high of 12,200 steps/day.
  • Each increase of 2,000 steps/day was associated with a:
    • 8% decrease in all-cause mortality.
    • 11% decrease in cancer mortality.
    • 10% decrease in heart disease mortality.
  • Overall, increasing from 3,200 steps/day to 10,000 steps/day decreased all-cause, cancer, and heart disease mortality by around 36%.
  • There was no minimum threshold to this beneficial effect of walking on the risk of premature death.
  • The benefits of walking appeared to plateau at 10,000 steps/day.

#2: Increase in number of incidental steps/day (steps taken that are incidental to normal daily activities):

  • On average study participants took 3240 incidental steps/day, but this ranged from a low of 2,100 steps/day to a high of 4,400 steps/day.
  • Each 10% increase in incremental steps/day was associated with a:
    • 6% decrease in all-cause mortality.
    • 6% decrease in cancer mortality.
    • 10% decrease in heart disease mortality.

#3: Increase in number of purposeful steps/day (steps taken as part of planned exercise):

  • On average study participants took 4,600 purposeful steps/day, but this ranged from a low of 1,600 steps/day to a high of 8,600 steps/day.
  • Each 10% increase in purposeful steps/day was associated with a:
    • 7% decrease in all-cause mortality.
    • 8% decrease in cancer mortality.
    • 10% decrease in heart disease mortality.

#4: Increase in speed of walking or cadence. The measurement they used was “peak-30 cadence” – the Walking Fasthighest average steps/min during a 30-minute interval within a day:

  • On average study participants had a “peak-30 cadence” of 76 steps/min, but this ranged from a low of 47 steps/min to a high of 109 steps/min.
  • Each 10% increase in “peak-30 cadence” was associated with a:
    • 8% decrease in all-cause mortality.
    • 9% decrease in cancer mortality.
    • 14% decrease in heart disease mortality.
  • The benefits of walking rapidly (increase in “peak-30 cadence”) were in addition to the benefits seen by increasing the number of steps per day.
  • Overall, increasing from a “peak-30 cadence” of 47 steps/min to 109 steps/min decreased all-cause, cancer, and heart disease mortality by an additional 34%.
  • There was no minimum threshold to this beneficial effect of increasing “peak-30 cadence” (the speed of walking) on the risk of premature death.
  • The benefits of increasing “peak-30 cadence” appeared to plateau at 100 steps/min.

strong heart#5 Effect of walking on the prevention of heart disease and cancer: The investigators measured this by looking at the effect of walking on the “incidence” of heart disease and cancer (defined as new diagnoses of heart disease and cancer) during the study. They found.

  • Each 2,000-step increase in the total number of steps/day decreased the risk of developing heart disease and cancer by 4% during this 7-year study.
  • Each 10% increase in the number of purposeful steps/day decreased the risk of developing heart disease and cancer by 4% during this study.
  • Each 10% increase in “peak-30 cadence” decreased the risk of developing heart disease and cancer by 7% during this study.

The authors concluded, “The findings of this population-based…study of 78,500 individuals suggest that up to 10,000 steps/day may be associated with a lower risk of mortality and cancer and CVD incidence. Steps performed at a higher cadence may be associated with additional risk reduction, particularly for incident disease.”

Study 2 extended these findings to diabetes. They started with participants that had either prediabetes or diabetes diabetesand followed them for 9 years. They found that:

  • Study participants with prediabetes ranged from a low of 3,800 steps/day to a high of 10,700 steps/day.
    • Prediabetic participants walking 10,700 steps/day were 25% less likely to die during the study than participants walking only 3,800 steps/day.
  • Study participants with diabetes ranged from a low of 2,500 steps/day to a high of 10,200 steps/day.
    • Diabetic participants walking 10,200 steps/day were also 25% less likely to die during the study than participants walking only 2,500 steps/day.
  • Even small increases in the number of steps per day decreased the risk of premature death for both prediabetic and diabetic participants.
  • Once again, 10,000 steps/day appeared to be the optimal dose to lower the risk of premature death for both diabetic and prediabetic patients.

The authors of this study concluded, “Accumulating more steps/day up to ~10,000 steps/day may lower the risk of all-cause mortality of adults with prediabetes and diabetes.”

How Much Should You Walk?

Walking CoupleThat was a lot of information. You are probably wondering what it means for you. Let’s start with the big picture:

  • Going from couch potato to 10,000 steps per day may reduce your risk of premature death due to all causes, cancer, and heart disease by 36% (24% if you are already prediabetic or diabetic).
  • Increasing the speed with which you walk from 47 steps/min to 109 steps/min sustained for 30 minutes may reduce your risk of premature death by an additional 34%.

In other words, simply walking more and walking faster can have a significant effect on your health. I am not recommending walking as your only form of exercise. I’m just saying not to consider it inferior to other forms of exercise.

  • There is no lower limit to the benefits of walking. Even small increases in the number of steps/day you take and the speed with which you walk may have a beneficial effect on your health.

In other words, you don’t need to speed walk 10,000 steps/day to reap a benefit from walking. Even small increases are beneficial. That’s good news for those of you who may not be able to speed-walk long distances. It also means that if you are a couch potato, you don’t need to attempt 10,000 steps at high speed from day 1. You can work up to it gradually.

  • Incidental walking (walking that is incidental to your daily activities) is almost as beneficial as purposeful walking (walking as part of a planned exercise).

That’s good news for those of you who may not have time for long walks. It also means that advice like “park your car at the far end of the parking lot and walk” or “take the stairs rather than the elevator” can have a meaningful impact on your health.

  • The benefits of walking appear to max out at around 10,000 steps per day and a cadence of 100 steps/min sustained for 30 minutes.

That means once you get to those levels, it’s time to consider adding other kinds of exercise to your regimen. More and faster walking may offer little additional benefit.

Finally, in the words of the authors, “This information could be used to motivate the least active individuals to increase their steps and the more-active individuals to reach the 10,000-step target.”

The Bottom Line 

You’ve made your New Year’s resolutions. And if you are like millions of Americans, you may already be making plans to join a gym, get a personal trainer, or join a spin class.

If you want to get fit and healthy in the new year, perhaps you should also consider a less expensive option – like walking.

Of course, you probably have some questions about the benefits of walking, such as:

  1. Is walking enough to significantly improve my fitness and health?

2) How far (how many steps) should I walk?

3) How fast should I walk?

Fortunately, two recent studies have answered all three questions. They found:

  • Going from couch potato to 10,000 steps per day may reduce your risk of premature death due to all causes, cancer, and heart disease by 36% (24% if you are already prediabetic or diabetic).
  • Increasing the speed with which you walk from 47 steps/min to 109 steps/min sustained for 30 minutes may reduce your risk of premature death by an additional 34%.
  • There is no lower limit to the benefits of walking. Even small increases in the number of steps/day you take and the speed with which you walk may have a beneficial effect on your health.
  • Incidental walking (walking that is incidental to your daily activities) is almost as beneficial as purposeful walking (walking as part of a planned exercise).
  • The benefits of walking appear to max out at around 10,000 steps per day and a cadence of 100 steps/min sustained for 30 minutes.

In the words of the authors of these studies, “This information could be used to motivate the least active individuals to increase their steps and the more-active individuals to reach the 10,000-step target.”

For more details on these studies and what they mean for you, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

 _____________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Relief From Tension Headache Pain

by

Which Muscles Cause Tension Headaches?

Author: Julie Donnelly, LMT – The Pain Relief Expert

Editor: Dr. Steve Chaney

Topic Of The Month – Tension Headaches

headacheLately a lot of people have been coming to my office complaining of headaches that have plagued them for a long time…in one case for years!

This woman had been everywhere and had every test that the medical world could offer.  Nothing showed why she had these terrible headaches.  At one point she told me the pain was a 10 on a scale of 1-10.  Imagine how terrible it was for her to suffer every day from such a crippling condition.  My heart went out to her!

Fortunately, her problem was caused by muscles, the one thing that most of the medical world doesn’t consider when looking for a solution to pain.

In fact, if you watched my TED talk: The Pain Question No One is Asking, you may have already heard me talk about this missing link. (If you haven’t heard my TED talk, go to YouTube and enter: Julie Donnelly, Pain and I’ll pop up.)

Let’s talk about muscles and why they will cause headaches (and a whole lot more!).

Which Muscles Cause Tension Headaches?

While there are many causes for headaches, such as stress, anxiety, depression, head injury, or anxiety, and life-threatening causes we won’t go into here, one type of headache that is caused by muscular tension is known as a muscle contraction tension headache.

As shown in the graphics above, muscle spasms (colored circles) will refer pain to your head, even when you don’t feel any discomfort where the spasm is actually occurring.

(In this article I will focus on treatments for pain caused by the levator scapulae and trapezius muscles).

Muscles in the neck and scalp can become tense or contract in response to stress, depression, or anxiety, leading to tension headaches.  Fortunately, in many cases, simply pressing on the trigger points (the colored circles) will release the tension being felt in your head.

To prevent tension headaches, it is important to maintain good posture, practice relaxation techniques, and use a pillow that keeps your head, neck, and spine in a horizontal plane while you sleep.

Relief From Tension Headache Pain

There are too many treatments for headaches to include all of them in this newsletter.  If you want to know them, I suggest you get one of my books, especially Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living or The Pain-Free Athlete.

Meanwhile, I want to share an important Julstro self-treatment that you may find works well for tension headaches:

 

Place a ball such as the Perfect Ball (shown in picture) or a tennis ball, on the top of your shoulder.

 

 

 

Lean into the corner of a wall, as shown.

 

headache relief shoulder muscle pressure using wall

Keep your head close to the wall to prevent the ball from slipping and landing on the floor.

 

Bend at your hips so your upper body goes up and down, causing the ball to roll along the top of your shoulder. This will treat both the levator scapulae and trapezius muscles – both are key muscles for tension headaches.

 

 

Be gentle with this treatment as it will cause pain to be felt in your head as you are doing the treatment.  Only use enough pressure that it “hurts so good.”

Do 5-6 passes on each side.  It can be repeated often during the day but give a little time between each session to allow the muscle to relax.

Drink a LOT of water so the acid that you’re pressing out of the muscle will get flushed out of your body.

This may look a bit confusing, but it’s simple when you follow the directions.  And the best part is, IT WORKS!

How to Learn the Other Treatments for Headaches

If you go to www.FlexibleAthlete.com you can read a lot more about muscles and pain.  You will also find my books and other self-treatment tools by pressing on Shop.

Wishing you well,

Julie Donnelly

www.FlexibleAthlete.com

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

 ______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Julie DonnellyJulie Donnelly has been a licensed massage therapist since 1989, specializing in the treatment of chronic pain and sports injuries. The author of several books including Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living, The Pain-Free Athlete, and The 15 Minute Back Pain Solution.

Julie has also developed a proven self-treatment program for the symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome.

She has a therapy practice in Sarasota, Florida, and she travels around the USA to teach massage and physical therapists how to do the Julstro Method, and she also teaches self-treatment clinics to anyone interested in taking charge of their own health and flexibility.

She may be reached at her office: 919-886-1861, or through her website: www.FlexibleAthlete.com

About The Editor

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Are Our Teens Getting Sicker?

by

What Does This Mean For Us?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

High Blood SugarThe increase of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in the US adult population has been well documented. And these conditions have severe health consequences.

  • Nearly 70% of people with prediabetes will go on to develop type 2 diabetes.
    • Without a change in lifestyle and/or medical intervention, many people with prediabetes develop type 2 diabetes within 5 years.
  • Type 2 diabetes is highly correlated with increased risk for heart disease and stroke, vision loss, kidney disease, nerve damage, and cognitive decline.
  • And as we learned during COVID, diabetes suppresses the immune system, making us much more likely to die from viral infections ranging from flu to RSV and coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2.

Because both prediabetes and type-2 diabetes are highly correlated with obesity, the US Preventative Services Task Force has recently recommended regular screening of adults aged 35-70 who are overweight or obese for prediabetes and type-2 diabetes.

But what about our teenagers? Are they at risk? Should they be screened also? Recent reports have documented an alarming increase in overweight and obesity in this population group.

The prevalence of type-2 diabetes is low in this group, but previous studies have reported that approximately 1 in 5 US teenagers have prediabetes. Is this a ticking time bomb that will affect their health as adults? More importantly, is the prevalence of prediabetes getting worse, just as it is for the adult population?

The expectation is that the prevalence of prediabetes in US teens is increasing, just as it is for US adults. But scientists and health organizations like the Preventive Services task force require hard data, not just expectations.

So, the study (J Liu et al, JAMA Prediabetes, 176: 608-610, 2022) I will describe today was designed to determine the prevalence trend over the past 20 years for prediabetes in US teenagers.

How Was The Study Done?

clinical studyThe study used data from the NHANES database from 1999 to 2018. NHANES (National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey) is a program administered by the CDC that collects health and nutrition information from adults and children in the United States on a biennial basis.

Among the data collected are demographic information (sex, age, race, economic status, etc.), physical exam information (BMI, blood chemistry, etc.), and health information (prediabetes, diabetes, etc.).

To have enough participants in each time period for statistically significant results, the data were combined for each two consecutive 2-year surveys. (For example, the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 NHANES surveys were combined into a single dataset from 1999 to 2002.)

The time periods included in this study were 1999-2002, 2003-2006, 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018. A total of 6598 teenagers were included in this study, for an average of around 1,300 per time-period.

The main comparison was prediabetes prevalence among US teens in each time period. The study also looked at the effect of obesity and various sociodemographic classifications on prediabetes prevalence in teens.

Are Our Teens Getting Sicker?

diabetesWhen the 2015-2018 time period was compared to the 1999-2002 time period, the prevalence of prediabetes:

  • Increased from 11.6% to 28.2% – a 2.43-fold increase.

When broken down by age groups, the increase was:

  • 2.35-fold for ages 12-15.
  • 2.56-fold for ages 16-19.

When broken down by gender, the increase was:

  • 2.76-fold for females.
  • 2.30-fold for males.

When broken down by race and ethnicity, the increase was:

  • 2.10-fold for Hispanics.
  • 2.76-fold for Blacks.
  • 2.33-fold for Whites.

None of these differences were statistically significant, but they might have been had the sample size been larger.

In short, there has been more than a 2-fold increase in the prevalence of prediabetes in US teenagers over the last 20 years. And this increase was seen in young teenagers, older teenagers, male and female teenagers, and in every racial and ethnic category surveyed.

Why Is Prediabetes Increasing In Our Teens?

QuestionsKnowing the trend is important. But if you want to reverse the trend, it’s much more important to know what is causing it.

Of course, obesity is an obvious villain. Obesity is highly associated with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, and we know that obesity is increasing in our teens. The data from this study suggests that obesity may contribute to the increase in prediabetes prevalence. But it’s not likely to be the sole cause.

For example:

  • Obesity in our teens has only increased 1.3-fold over the last 20 years.
  • More importantly, the difference in prediabetes prevalence between normal weight and overweight teens was not significant in this study.

The authors of this study also found no significant effect of educational level of the parents, family income level, or food security on the increased prevalence of prediabetes prevalence in teens.

So, what else might be contributing to the increased prevalence of prediabetes in our teens? I have two suggestions:

  • Decreased physical activity. Teens today are spending more hours staring at screens and less time exercising. Lack of exercise contributes to obesity, but there is also emerging evidence that it may independently contribute to diseases like prediabetes and diabetes.
  • Increased junk food consumption. Teenager’s diets have never been great, but multiple studies have shown that consumption of highly processed food has skyrocketed over the past 20 years.

Obviously, more work needs to be done on proving the causes of increased prediabetes prevalence in our teens, but we know enough already to start making some needed changes.

What Does This Study Mean For Us?

If you are a parent or grandparent, this study is a wake-up call. It’s not that we didn’t already suspect it was happening. After all, the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in young US adults had to come from somewhere.

But this study makes it clear that prediabetes is increasing at an alarming rate in our teenage children (and grandchildren). This is a ticking time bomb.

As I said above, prediabetes leads to diabetes. And diabetes leads to heart disease and other debilitating diseases. Unless we reverse this trend, we may be dooming our teens to poor health and a shortened lifespan as adults.

So, the important questions become, “What can we do about it?” and “What can we do to reverse this trend?”

The top three things we can do are clear. We need to encourage our teens to:

  • Exercise more. Only 1 in 4 high school students get the recommended amount of daily activity.
  • Eat a healthier diet. Today more than 2/3 of the calories our teens consume come from ultraprocessed foods.

And we know the changes they need to make. Previous studies have shown that whole food, primarily plant-based diets reduce the risk of developing prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and can even reverse both conditions as effectively as medications.

  • Maintain a healthier weight. The prevalence of obesity in our teens has increased dramatically in the last 40 years. Of course, the secret is that if they get the diet and exercise part right, weight control is much easier.

But none of these changes are easy. This can’t be a, “Do as I say, not as I do” change. This needs to be a whole family change. We need to set the example.

Of course, I know some teens like to rebel against anything their parents do or recommend. We had a teenager once.

Setting the example doesn’t necessarily mean they will accept it right away. But with time they may come around. They are listening to what you say and watching what you do even when they are doing the opposite.

And I can guarantee if you aren’t willing to make these changes, they won’t be either.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the prevalence of prediabetes in US teenagers over the past 20 years. The results were alarming.

  • The prevalence of prediabetes in US teens has more than doubled over the past 20 years.
  • In 2018, the last year in this study, the prevalence of prediabetes was in the 25-30% range.
  • The increased prevalence of diabetes was independent of gender, income, food security, ethnicity, and education level of the parents.

If you are a parent or grandparent, this is a ticking time bomb because 70% of people with prediabetes go on to develop type 2 diabetes within the next 5 years. And type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, vision loss, and cognitive decline. We may be dooming our teens to poor health and a shortened life span as adults.

For more details about this study, the causes of the increased prevalence of prediabetes in teens, and what you can do to reverse this trend for your teens, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

 _____________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

 _____________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Are Weekend Warriors As Healthy As Regular Exercisers?

by

What Does This Study Mean For You? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

It’s a new year and once again you have set New Year’s goals. If you are like millions of Americans your top 3 goals are probably to eat healthier, exercise more, and lose weight – not necessarily in that order. Now comes the hard part:

  • Setting realistic weight loss goals and developing strategies for achieving those goals.
  • Deciding on food choices and eating behaviors you will change.
  • Deciding on what kind of exercises you will do and how often you will do them.

With respect to exercise, the consensus is clear. We should be aiming for ≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week. But how often should we be exercising? Here the answer is a bit murkier.

Most experts recommend we exercise 3-5 times a week. But that advice doesn’t work for everyone. For some people, their work schedule and family responsibilities make it difficult to find time during the week to exercise.

However, many of these individuals are very active during the weekend with things like yard work, organized sports, long hikes, and/or cycling excursions. We refer to these people as Weekend Warriors.

If you are one of these individuals, you are probably wondering if that’s enough. Are weekend warriors as healthy as people who exercise every day, or must you squeeze some exercise into your busy week?

Some recent studies have suggested that frequency of exercise is not important as long as you exceed the magical 150 minutes per week. However, each of these studies had limitations. For example:

  • They only looked at a few kinds of exercise and a few diseases.
  • Some studies depended on self-assessments of exercise frequency and intensity, which are notoriously unreliable.

The study (Circulation, 150: 1236-1247, 2024) I am reviewing today compares the health outcomes of weekend warriors and people who exercise throughout the week and was designed to eliminate the limitations of previous studies.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe authors used data obtained from the UK Biobank Study, which is an ongoing study following the health outcomes of individuals from all corners of the United Kingdom who enrolled in the study between 2006 and 2010. Each participant underwent a health assessment when they enrolled.

This study used data from a subset of 89,573 participants (average age 62, percent women 56%) who wore a wrist accelerometer to measure activity levels for one week between June 8, 2013, and December 30, 2015. The accelerometer measured activity levels every 5 seconds, so it was able to record the intensity, frequency, and duration of exercise during the week.

Participants were divided into three groups based on their accelerometer measurements:

  • Inactive: <150 minutes per week of moderate-to vigorous physical activity (34% 0f participants).
  • Weekend Warriors: ≥150 minutes per week of moderate-to vigorous physical activity with the bulk of the activity spread over 1-2 days (42% of participants).
  • Regular Exercisers: ≥150 minutes per week of moderate-to vigorous physical activity with the activity spread over multiple days (24% of participants).

The participants were followed for an average of 6.3 years with 94% of participants having >5 years of follow up. The outcome was frequency of incident diseases (diseases that were not present during the accelerometer measurements but were diagnosed during the follow-up period).

Because the United Kingdom is one of the countries with a “Big Brother knows all” health care system, the investigators were able to correlate the exercise levels of each participant with 678 diseases and health conditions. The study compared the disease incidence of weekend warriors with the inactive group, regular exercisers with the inactive group and weekend warriors with the regular exercisers.

Are Weekend Warriors As Healthy As Regular Exercisers?

Let me start with the big picture and then I will give some specific statistics.

  • Both the weekend warrior and regular exercise patterns were associated with lower risk for >200 diseases compared to the inactive group.
    • For both exercise patterns there were a small number of associations with higher disease risks – primarily musculoskeletal disorders and dermatological conditions (think sports injuries and excessive sun exposure).
    • However, both exercise patterns were associated with a lower risk of over a dozen musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis and spinal degenerative spinal conditions.
  • While both exercise patterns were associated with the risk of >200 diseases, the risk reduction was greatest for cardiometabolic diseases associated with obesity. For example, the risk reduction for:
    • Hypertension was reduced by 23% and 28%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
    • Diabetes was reduced by 43% and 46%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
    • Obesity was reduced by 45% and 56%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
    • Sleep apnea (which is associated with obesity) was reduced by 43% and 51%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
    • Chronic renal failure (Chronic renal failure can be caused by a fatty liver, which is associated with obesity) was reduced by 36% and 35%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
    • Gallstones (which are associated with obesity) were reduced by 36% and 43%, respectively, for weekend warriors and regular exercisers.
  • You will notice that risk reduction was generally greater for regular exercisers than for weekend warriors. That is because the regular exercisers averaged higher weekly totals for moderate-to-vigorous activity levels than weekend warriors. When the two groups were compared at the same weekly activity level, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

What Did The Authors Say About This Study?

The authors discussed the limitations of the study in detail in the discussion section of their paper. The three biggest limitations are:

  • This study measured associations. It does not prove cause and effect.
  • The study only measured exercise patterns and intensities for one week. Some participants may have changed their exercise patterns during the follow-up period.
  • The wrist accelerometer used in this study has been validated for a variety of aerobic activities. It may be less accurate at measuring some strength training exercises. And it will be unable to measure isometric exercises, which have been shown to have some cardiometabolic health benefits.

However, this is a very large, well-designed study which is consistent with several earlier studies.

The authors also expanded on the significance of their findings with these comments:

1) “Efforts to optimize physical activity may be expected to have wide-ranging health benefits that extend beyond previously published associations with cardiovascular disease…We observed strong associations between physical activity and lower risk of up to 264 diseases.”

2) “Our results suggest that the achievement of guideline-adherent physical activity volumes [≥150 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous activity] is the key factor relevant to incident disease risk, as opposed to the pattern by which physical activity may be accrued…We did not identify a single condition for which risk appeared substantially different for one pattern versus the other.”

3) “Although we noted beneficial associations across a wide variety of diseases, our findings suggest that physical activity may be particularly effective for modifying risk of cardiometabolic conditions, including hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and sleep apnea.”

The authors concluded, “Achievement of measured physical activity volumes consistent with guideline recommendations [≥150 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous activity] is associated with lower risk of >200 diseases, with prominent effects on cardiometabolic conditions. Associations appear to be similar whether the physical activity follows a weekend warrior pattern or is spread more evenly throughout the week.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

QuestionsThis study has three major take-home messages:

1) If you weren’t already motivated to increase your exercise levels in 2025, this study is a wake-up call. You already know that exercise improves your mood, makes weight control easier, and reduces the risk of major diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease.

This study just added another 200 reasons to increase your exercise levels. (If you want to know the 200+ diseases that are positively impacted by exercise, read the study.

2) If you are someone whose schedule makes it difficult to find time during the week, this study is good news. This study suggests that weekend warriors can be as fit and healthy as people who exercise daily. However, there are a couple of important caveats:

    • This study used a wrist accelerometer, so it was able to select only those weekend warriors whose total activity exceeded 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity. Unfortunately, many weekend warriors overestimate how much exercise they get during the weekend. For example:
      • Mowing the lawn is exercise, but the amount of exercise you get is vastly different if you use a riding mower instead of a push mower.
      • Weekend sports are a fun way to exercise, but the amount of exercise you get from an hour of soccer is probably different from an hour of softball.
    • I could go on, but you get the idea. If you choose the weekend warrior route, be realistic about the amount of exercise you are getting.

3) This study found that people who exercised often during the week were likely to accumulate higher weekly totals of activity than weekend warriors. Simply put, it is easier to accumulate higher exercise totals when you exercise more frequently.

So, even if your schedule is busy, it’s worthwhile to try and find some time to exercise during the week rather than limiting all your exercise to the weekend.

The Bottom Line

A recent study asked whether weekend warriors got the same benefits from exercise as people who exercised on multiple days during the week (regular exercisers). The key findings from the study were:

  • Weekly exercise levels of ≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity were associated with reduced risk of over 200 diseases.
  • The reduction in risk was greatest for obesity and cardiometabolic diseases like diabetes and hypertension.
  • Once the ≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity was reached, there was no significant difference in risk reduction between the weekend warrior and regular exercise patterns of activity.

For more details on this study and what this means for you read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance 

___________________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

 

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Does Diet Matter For Weight Loss?

by

Who Benefits Most From A Healthy Diet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

fad dietsFad diets abound. High protein, low carb, low fat, vegan, keto, paleo – the list is endless. They all claim to be backed by scientific studies showing that you lose weight, lower your cholesterol and triglycerides, lower your blood pressure, and smooth out your blood sugar swings.

They all claim to be the best. But any reasonable person knows they can’t all be the best. Someone must be lying.

My take on this is that fad diet proponents are relying on “smoke and mirrors” to make their diet look like the best. I have written about this before, but here is a brief synopsis:

  • They compare their diet with the typical American diet.
    • Anything looks good compared to the typical American diet.
    • Instead, they should be comparing their diet with other weight loss diets. That is the only way we can learn which diet is best.
  • They are all restrictive diets.
    • Any restrictive diet will cause you to eat fewer calories and to lose weight.
    • And as little as 5% weight loss results in lower cholesterol & triglycerides, lower blood pressure, and better control of blood sugar levels.

Simply put, any restrictive diet will give you short-term weight loss and improvement in blood parameters linked to heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. But are these diets healthy long term? For some of them, the answer is a clear no. Others are unlikely to be healthy but have not been studied long term. So, we don’t know whether they are healthy or not.

What if you started from the opposite perspective? Instead of asking, “Is a diet that helps you lose weight healthy long term?”, what if you asked, “Does the diet you choose matter for weight loss? Can healthy eating help you lose weight?” The study (S Schutte et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 115: 1-18, 2022)) I will review this week asked these question.

This was an excellent study. It compared a healthy diet to an unhealthy diet with the same degree of caloric restriction. And it compared both diets to the habitual diet of people in that area. This study was performed in the Netherlands, so both weight loss diets were compared to the habitual Dutch diet.

How Was The Study Done?

clinical studyThis was a randomized controlled trial, the gold standard of clinical studies. The investigators recruited 100 healthy, abdominally obese men and women aged 40-70. At the time of entry into the study none of the participants:

  • Had diabetes.
  • Smoked.
  • Had a diagnosed medical condition.
  • Were on a medication that interfered with blood sugar control.
  • Were on a vegetarian diet.

The participants were randomly assigned to:

  • A high-nutrient quality diet that restricted calories by 25%.
  • A low-nutrient-quality diet that restricted calories by 25%.
  • A continuation of their habitual diet.

The study lasted 12 weeks. The participants met with a dietitian on a weekly basis. The dietitian gave them all the foods they needed for the next week and monitored their adherence to their assigned diet. They were advised not to change their exercise regimen during the study.

At the beginning and end of the study the participants were weighed, and cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure were measured.

Does Diet Matter For Weight Loss?

Vegetarian DietThis study compared a healthy diet to an unhealthy diet with the same degree of caloric restriction. And it compared both diets to the habitual diet of people in that area. This study was performed in the Netherlands, so both weight loss diets were compared to the habitual Dutch diet.

To put this study into context, these were not healthy and unhealthy diets in the traditional sense.

  • Both were whole food diets.
  • Both included fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy, and lean meats.
  • Both restricted calories by 25%.

The diets were designed so that the “high-nutrient quality” diet had significantly more plant protein (in the form of soy protein), fiber, healthy fats (monounsaturated and omega-3 fats), and significantly less fructose and other added sugars than the “low-nutrient-quality” diet.

When the investigators measured weight loss at the end of 12 weeks:

  • Participants lost significant weight on both calorie-restricted diets compared to the group that continued to eat their habitual diet.
    • That is not surprising. Any diet that successfully restricts calories will result in weight loss.
  • Participants on the high-nutrient quality diet lost 33% more weight than participants on the low-nutrient-quality diet (18.5 pounds compared to 13.9 pounds).
  • Participants on the high-nutrient quality diet lost 50% more inches in waist circumference than participants on the low-nutrient-quality diet (1.8 inches compared to 1.2 inches).
    • Waist circumference is a direct measure of abdominal obesity.

When the investigators measured blood pressure, fasting total cholesterol levels, and triglyceride Heart Healthy Dietlevels at 12 weeks:

  • These cardiovascular risk factors were significantly improved on both diets.
    • Again, this would be expected. Any diet that causes weight loss results in an improvement in these parameters.
  • However, the reduction in total serum cholesterol was 2.5-fold greater and the reduction in triglycerides was 2-fold greater in the high-nutrient quality diet group than in the low-nutrient-quality diet group.
  • And the reduction in systolic blood pressure was 2-fold greater and the reduction in diastolic blood pressure was 1.67-fold greater in the high-nutrient quality diet group than in the low-nutrient-quality diet group.

The authors concluded, “Our results demonstrate that the nutrient composition of an energy-restricted diet is of great importance for improvements of metabolic health in an overweight, middle-aged population. A high-nutrient quality energy-restricted diet enriched with soy protein, fiber, monounsaturated fats, omega-3 fats, and reduced in fructose and other added sugars provided additional health benefits over a low-nutrient quality energy-restricted diet, resulting in greater weight loss…and promoting an antiatherogenic blood lipid profile.”

In short, participants in this study lost more weight and had a better improvement in risk factors for heart disease on a high-nutrient-quality diet than on a low-nutrient-quality diet. Put another way, diet does matter for weight loss. Healthy eating helped them lose more weight and gave them greater improvement in their health.

Who Benefits Most From A Healthy Diet?

obesity vs. overweightNone of the participants in this study had been diagnosed with diabetes when the study began. However, all of them were middle-aged, overweight, and had abdominal obesity. That means many of them likely had some degree of insulin resistance.

Because of some complex metabolic studies that I did not describe, the investigators suspected that insulin resistance might influence the relative effectiveness of the two energy-restricted diets.

To test this hypothesis, they used an assay called HOMA-IR (homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance). Simply put, this assay measures how much insulin is required to keep your blood sugar under control.

They used a HOMA-IR score of 2.5 to categorize insulin resistance among the participants.

  • Participants with a HOMA-IR score >2.5 were categorized as insulin-resistant. This was 55% of the participants.
  • Participants with a HOMA-IR score ≤2.5 were categorized as insulin-sensitive. This was 45% of the participants.

When they used this method to categorize participants they found:

  • Insulin-resistant individuals lost about the same amount of weight on both diets.
  • Insulin-sensitive individuals lost 66% more weight on the high-nutrient-quality diet than the low-nutrient-quality diet (21.6 pounds compared to 13.0 pounds).

The investigators concluded, “Overweight, insulin-sensitive subjects may benefit more from a high- than a low-nutrient-quality energy-restricted diet with respect to weight loss…”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanSimply put this study confirms that:

  • Caloric restriction leads to weight loss, and…
  • Weight loss leads to improvement in cardiovascular risk factors like total cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure.
    • This is not new.
    • This is true for any diet that results in caloric restriction.

However, this study breaks new ground in that it shows a high-nutrient quality diet results in significantly better…

  • Weight loss and…
  • Reduction in cardiovascular risk factors….

…compared to a low-nutrient quality diet with the same degree of caloric restriction.

As I said above, the distinction between a “high-nutrient-quality” diet and a “low-nutrient-quality” diet may not be what you might have expected.

  • Both diets were whole food diets. Neither diet allowed sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods.
  • Both included fruits, vegetables, grains, and lean meats.
  • Both reduced caloric intake by 25%.
    • If you want to get the most out of your weight loss diet, this is a good place to start.

However, in this study the investigators designed their “high-nutrient-quality” diet so that it contained:

  • More plant protein in the form of soy protein.
    • In this study they did not reduce the amount of animal protein in the “high-nutrient-quality” diet. They simply added soy protein foods to the diet. I would recommend substituting soy protein for some of the animal protein in the diet.
  • More fiber.
    • The additional fiber came from substituting whole grain breads and brown rice for refined grain breads and white rice, adding soy protein foods, and adding an additional serving of fruit.
  • More healthy fats (monounsaturated and omega-3 fats).
    • The additional omega-3s came from adding a fish oil capsule providing 700mg of EPA and DHA.
  • Less added sugar.
    • While this study focused on fructose, their high-nutrient-quality diet was lower in all added sugars.

All these changes make great sense if you are trying to lose weight.

ProfessorI would group these changes into 7 recommendation

1) Follow a whole food diet. Avoid sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods.

2) Include all 5 food groups in your weight loss diet. Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy, and lean proteins all play an important role in your long-term health.

3) Eat a primarily plant-based diet. My recommendation is to substitute plant proteins for at least half of your high-fat animal proteins. And this study reminds us that soy protein foods are a convenient and effective way to achieve this goal.

4) Eat a diet high in natural fiber. Including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, and soy foods in your diet is the best way to achieve this goal.

5) Substitute healthy fats (monounsaturated and omega-3 fats) for unhealthy fats (saturated and trans fats) in your diet. And this study reminds us that it is hard to get enough omega-3s in your diet without an omega-3 supplement.

6) Reduce the amount of added sugar, especially fructose, from your diet. That is best achieved by eliminating sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods from the diet. I should add that fructose in fruits and some healthy foods is not a problem. For more information on that topic, I refer you to a previous “Health Tips” article.

7) Finally, I would like to remind you of the obvious. No diet, no matter how healthy, will help you lose weight unless you cut back on calories. Fad diets achieve that by restricting the foods you can eat. In the case of a healthy diet, the best way to do it is to cut back on portion sizes and choose foods with low caloric density.

Finally, I should touch briefly on the third major conclusion of this study, namely that the “high-nutrient quality diet” was not more effective than the “low-nutrient-quality” diet for people who were insulin resistant. In one sense, this was not news. Previous studies have suggested that insulin-resistant individuals have more difficulty losing weight. That’s the bad news.

However, there was a silver lining to this finding as well:

  • Only around half of the overweight, abdominally obese adults in this study were highly insulin resistant.
    • That means there is a ~50% chance that you will lose more weight on a healthy diet.
  • More importantly, because both diets restricted calories by 25%, insulin-resistant individuals lost weight on both diets.
    • That means you can lose weight on any diet that successfully reduces your caloric intake even if you are insulin resistant. That’s the good news.
  • However, my recommendation would still be to choose a high-nutrient quality diet that is designed to reduce caloric intake, because that diet is more likely to be healthy long term.

The Bottom Line 

A recent study asked, “Can healthy eating help you lose weight?” This study was a randomized controlled study, the gold standard of clinical studies. The participants were randomly assigned to:

  • A high-nutrient quality diet that restricted calories by 25%.
  • A low-nutrient-quality diet that restricted calories by 25%.
  • Continue with their habitual diet.

These were not healthy and unhealthy diets in the traditional sense.

  • Both were whole food diets.
  • Both included fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy, and lean meats.
  • Both restricted calories by 25%.

The diets were designed so that the “high-nutrient quality” diet had significantly more plant protein (in the form of soy protein), fiber, healthy fats (monounsaturated and omega-3 fats), and significantly less fructose and other added sugars than the “low-nutrient-quality” diet.

At the end of 12 weeks:

  • Participants on the high-nutrient quality diet lost 33% more weight and had better cardiovascular markers than participants on the low-nutrient-quality diet.

The authors concluded, “Our results demonstrate that the nutrient composition of an energy-restricted diet is of great importance for improvements of metabolic health in an overweight, middle-aged population. A high-nutrient quality energy-restricted diet enriched with soy protein, fiber, monounsaturated fats, omega-3 fats, and reduced in fructose and other added sugars provided additional health benefits over a low-nutrient quality energy-restricted diet, resulting in greater weight loss…and promoting an antiatherogenic blood lipid profile.”

In short, participants in this study lost more weight and had a better improvement in risk factors for heart disease on a high-nutrient-quality diet than on a low-nutrient-quality diet. Put another way, diet does matter for weight loss. Healthy eating helped them lose more weight and gave them greater improvement in their heart health.

For more details on this study, what this study means for you, and my 7 recommendations for a healthy weight loss diet, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

 _______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

 

 

Health Tips From The Professor