exercise

Can You Build Muscle in Your Golden Years?

by

What Does It Take to Build Muscle in Your 80s?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

As we age it becomes harder to build muscle, so we start to lose muscle mass and strength, a physiological process called sarcopenia. In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have shared studies showing it is possible to slow, and even reverse, age-related loss of muscle mass in our 60’s and 70’s with the correct combination of resistance exercise, protein, and leucine.

But what about those of us in our 80s? Here recent studies have not been as reassuring. The results have been mixed, with some studies suggesting it is impossible to maintain muscle mass in our 80s.

But we know that it is possible for some people to maintain their muscle mass and accomplish incredible physical feats in their 80s. For example, those of you who are my age or older may remember Jack LaLanne, the so-called “Father of the Fitness Movement” who had a popular fitness show on TV from 1953 to 1985. He celebrated his 80th birthday by swimming one and a half miles in the Long Beach harbor towing 80 rowboats with 80 people in them.

Was Jack LaLanne a “freak of nature” or was it his incredible dedication and focus that allowed him to perform incredible physical feats in his 80’s? After all:

  • He ate only whole, unprocessed foods. He did not allow processed foods, fast foods, or convenience foods to cross his lips.
  • He did two hours of high-intensity workouts every day until the day before he died at age 96 in 2011.

More important is the question of what his physical feats mean for us. Does his example hold out hopes for all of us who wish to maintain our strength and vigor until the Lord calls us home? Or did he set a standard too high for mere mortals like us to achieve?

That is essentially the question that today’s study (GN Marzuca-Nassr et al, International Journal of Sports Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 34: 11-19, 2024) set out to answer.

The authors postulated that previous studies with subjects in their 80s came up short because they included infirm subjects in their studies and/or the intensity of exercise was too low. This study was designed to overcome those shortcomings.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators recruited 29 healthy, elderly adults (9 men and 20 women) who were either 65-75 (average age = 68) or over 85 (average age = 87) who were still living in the community rather than being institutionalized for health reasons. The average BMI was 26.4 (moderately overweight) for both groups.

The participants selected for the study had not engaged in any kind of regular resistance training in the previous 6 months. The study excluded individuals with any kind of heart disease, health conditions, or physical limitations that would prevent them from participating in the resistance exercise training program associated with this study.

Participants were asked to fill in a three-day dietary recall at the beginning and end of the study. They were asked not to change their habitual dietary intake or physical activity during the study The diet recall at the end of the study showed compliance with this request. Their dietary intake was calculated based on the average of the two diet recalls.

No significant difference in macronutrient content of the diet was found between groups. For example, the 65-75 group consumed 1.1 g of protein/kg of body weight/day, and the over 85 group consumed 1.2 g of protein/kg of body weight/day.

Both groups were enrolled in a 3-times/week resistance exercise program for 12 weeks. The exercise training program was designed as follows:

  • Warm up consisted of 5-minutes on a cycle ergometer followed by full range of motion upper limb movements and one warm up set on both leg press and leg extension machines.
  • This was followed by 4 sets on the leg press and leg extension machines and 2 sets of upper body exercises (chest press, lat pulldown, and horizontal row).
  • Cool-down consisted of 5 minutes of stretching exercises.

Just prior to the study, the maximum strength on each exercise machine was determined for each participant. The intensity of their workouts was increased from 60% to 80% of that maximum over the 12 weeks of exercise training.

The outcomes of the study were as follows:

  • Quadriceps (the muscles on the front of the thigh) cross-sectional area was measured at the beginning and end of the study.
  • Whole body lean mass and appendicular lean mass (The lean mass in legs and arms) were measured at the beginning and end of the study.
  • The maximum strength for one repetition on each exercise machine was measured at the beginning and end of the study.

The increase in quadriceps cross-sectional area, lean mass, and strength was compared for the 65-75 group and the over 85 group.

Can You Build Muscle In Your Golden Years? 

Frail ElderlyAt the beginning of the study, the over 85 age group scored lower in every category measured in this study. For example:

  • Quadriceps cross-sectional area was 7% less in the over 85 age group than in the 65-75 age group.
  • Leg extension strength was 10% less in the over 85 age group than in the 65-75 age group.

This loss of muscle mass and strength is to be expected. Although the over 85 age group was consuming enough protein, they were not exercising on a regular basis. Consequently, they were experiencing sarcopenia, age-related loss of muscle mass.

The results of this 12-week resistance exercise intervention were impressive.

  • Quadriceps cross-sectional area increased by 10% in the 65-75 age group and by 11% in the over 85 age group.
    • Quadriceps cross sectional area increased for everyone in the study, but the increase varied widely from individual to individual.
    • The increase varied from 1% to 18% in the 65-75 age group and from 6% to 21% in the over 85 age group.
  • Whole body lean muscle mass increased by 2% in both the 65-75 and over 85 age groups.
  • Appendicular lean muscle mass (lean muscle mass in the arms and legs) also increased by 2% in both groups.
  • Leg extension strength increased by 38% in the 65-75 age group and by 46% in the over 85 age group.
    • Once again, the increase in leg extension strength varied considerably from individual to individual. The increase varied from 5% to 76% in the 65-75 age group and from 26% to 70% in the over 85 age group.
  • Similar results were seen for leg press, lat pull down, chest press, horizontal row, and grip strength.

The authors concluded, “Prolonged [12 week] high intensity resistance exercise training increases muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in the aging population, with no differences between 65-75 and 85+ adults. The skeletal muscle adaptive response to resistance exercise training is preserved even in male and female adults older than 85 years.”

What Does It Take To Build Muscle In Your 80s?

Why did this study show the benefit of resistance exercise for building muscle mass in octogenarians when previous studies have come up short? The authors postulated this was due to differences in the subjects included in the study and the intensity, frequency, and duration of resistance exercise.

  • This study included only healthy, community dwelling seniors who could engage in a rigorous training program. Some previous studies included institutionalized seniors who may have been less healthy and frailer.
  • The resistance exercise training used in this study involved multiple sets on exercise machines three times a week at 60-80% of maximum intensity for a total of 12 weeks. Previous studies included 1-2 sets, once or twice a week, at lower intensity, and for a shorter duration.

Much more research needs to be done, but the take-home lessons appear to be:

  • It is possible to increase muscle mass in your 80s with sufficient protein and a sufficiently intense resistance exercise program.
  • Not every 80-year-old adult will be able to increase their muscle mass. At the very least, this and previous studies suggest that frail, institutionalized men and women in their 80s may not be able to increase their muscle mass.
    • Whether this is because their health conditions interfere with their muscle’s ability to build muscle, or they are simply unable to perform the high intensity exercises required to build muscle mass in their 80’s is unclear. More research is needed.
    • While everyone in this study increased muscle mass and strength, the increase varied widely from individual to individual (see above).

My guess is that some of the people in the study did not get enough protein in their diet to support an increase in muscle mass at 85 and older. The over 85 group averaged 1.2 gm of protein/kg body weight/day, but their intake ranged from 0.8gm/kg/day to 1.6 gm/kg/day.

However, the difference in gain of muscle mass and strength could have been due to almost anything. Unfortunately, this study was too small to reliably determine what caused the differences in response to the resistance training.

  • It may require a high intensity resistance exercise program to increase muscle mass in your 80s. Unfortunately, there are very few studies like this for people in their 80s. All we know is that this was a high intensity, high frequency, and long duration resistance exercise program, and it worked. Studies with lower intensity exercise programs have not worked. But nobody has done a study comparing the effectiveness of different intensity exercise programs for people in their 80s.
  • There are too few studies on what it takes for people in their 80s and beyond to stay fit and healthy. The authors of this report argued that this information is vital for guiding government programs designed to support an aging population. It is equally important for all of us who want to remain fit and healthy in our 80s and beyond.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

good news bad newsIn my previous “Health Tips From the Professor” I have discussed multiple studies looking at sarcopenia or age-related muscle loss.

The bad news is that we start losing muscle mass and strength around age 50, and the rate of decline starts to accelerate in our 60s and beyond. This is a normal part of aging. It affects all of us. And if left unchecked, it can have devastating effects on our quality of life in our golden years.

The good news is that we can slow and even reverse the age-related loss of muscle mass by a combination of adequate intake of protein, adequate intake of the essential amino acid leucine, and resistance exercise. Leucine intake is usually adequate when we rely on animal proteins as our main protein source but may be a concern if we rely primarily on plant proteins. So, let’s take a deeper look at protein and exercise requirements.

1) We need more protein to build muscle in our golden years than we did in our 30s. If you want more information on the studies supporting that statement, go to https://chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/ and type sarcopenia in the search box. Most experts in this field of study recommend around 1.2 gm of protein/kg of body weight/day rather than the RDA of 0.8 gm of protein/kg of body weight/day for people 65 or older who wish to maintain or increase muscle mass. This study suggests that 1.2 gm/kg/day is also sufficient for people who are 85 and older. 

Previous studies have shown that the protein is best utilized to preserve muscle mass when it is spread evenly throughout the day. That is a concern because many seniors get most of their protein in the evening meal. An article I shared recently showed that adding 20 grams of supplemental protein to the low-protein meals (typically breakfast and/or lunch) was sufficient to balance protein intake and minimize age-related muscle loss.

[Note: To help you with the calculations, 1.2 gm of protein/kg of body weight/day is equal to 0.54 gm of protein/pound of body weight/day. Some quick calculations show that amounts to 78 grams if you weigh 140, 95 grams if you weigh 170, and 112 grams if you weigh 200. Or to simplify, that amounts to 25-30 grams of protein/meal for most people – more if you weigh above 170 pounds.]

2) We need a higher intensity of resistance exercise to build muscle in our golden years than we did in our 30s. Several previous studies have hinted at that possibility. This study shows that a high intensity resistance exercise program is effective at building muscle mass for people 85 and above. Previous studies suggest that lower intensity exercise programs are not effective in this age group. 

This is an important finding because it is opposite to the usual recommendations for this age group. In the words of the authors, “At an advanced age, people are generally recommended to partake in low-intensive physical activities. We strongly advocate that resistance exercise should be promoted without restriction to support more active, healthy aging.”

Of course, the caveat is that this study excluded frail, institutionalized adults and people with health or physical limitations that would prevent them from participating in a high-intensity resistance exercise program.

So, here are my recommendations:

  • Discuss your desire to implement a high intensity resistance exercise program with your health professional. Ask them about any health issues or physical limitations that would affect the exercises you choose.
  • Ask your health professional to refer you to a physical therapist or personal trainer to design a high-intensity exercise program you can do at home that is appropriate to your health and physical condition. If the referral comes from your health professional, these sessions may be covered by insurance.
  • If you want to utilize the exercise equipment in a gym, start by having a personal trainer knowledgeable about working with people like you design a workout program for you. My personal preference is to continue working with a personal trainer who challenges me to maximize the intensity of my training while taking into account any temporary physical limitations I may be experiencing.

Finally, I recognize that the exercise program described in this study may be too intense for many of my readers. But I also suspect that none of you want to become so frail you can’t enjoy your golden years. So, do what you can. But do something.

The Bottom Line

Most Americans lose lean muscle mass as they age, a physiological process called sarcopenia. This loss of muscle mass leads to reduced mobility, a tendency to fall (which often leads to debilitating bone fractures) and a lower metabolic rate – which leads to obesity and all the illnesses that go along with obesity.

Fortunately, sarcopenia is not an inevitable consequence of aging. There are 3 things we can do to prevent it.

  • Optimize resistance exercise training.
  • Optimize protein intake.
  • Optimize leucine intake.

This week I reviewed an article that compared the effectiveness of a 12-week high intensity resistance exercise program for increasing muscle mass and strength with people in the 65-75 age group with those who were age 85 and above.

The results of this 12-week resistance exercise intervention were impressive.

  • Quadriceps cross-sectional area increased by 10% in the 65-75 age group and by 11% in the over 85 age group.
  • Whole body lean muscle mass increased by 2% in both the 65-75 and over 85 age groups.
  • Leg extension strength increased by 38% in the 65-75 age group and by 46% in the over 85 age group.
  • Similar results were seen for leg press, lat pull down, chest press, horizontal row, and grip strength.

The authors concluded, “Prolonged [12 week] high intensity resistance exercise training increases muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in the aging population, with no differences between 65-75 and 85+ adults. The skeletal muscle adaptive response to resistance exercise training is preserved even in male and female adults older than 65 years.”

“At an advanced age, people are generally recommended to partake in low-intensive physical activities. We strongly advocate that resistance exercise should be promoted without restriction to support more active, healthy aging.”

For more details about the study and what it 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.

Is Creatine Good For The Brain?

by

Creatine And Energy Metabolism

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Creatine has developed a reputation as the “go to” supplement for athletes.

  • In a recent survey of NCAA Division I athletes, 48% of male athletes use creatine on a regular basis.
  • Over 80% of professional athletes in power sports like football use it.

But you may have seen recent reports that creatine is also good for the brain. You may be wondering:

  • Are those reports true?
  • If you are not an athlete, should you be taking creatine for a healthy brain?
  • If so, how much should you be taking?
  • Is regular creatine use safe?

I will review a couple of recent studies and answer these questions below. But first, it is time for my favorite topic: Metabolism 101. This week’s Metabolism 101 topic is, “Creatine And Energy Metabolism”.

Metabolism 101: Creatine And Energy Metabolism

Energy Metabolism: Before discussing the role of creatine in the body, I should start at the beginning by describing the basics of energy metabolism in our body. As you have probably heard, ATP is the energy currency of the cell.

Our cells generate energy in two ways:

  • Anaerobic (without oxygen) metabolism can generate ATP quickly but can only sustain high-intensity work for a few minutes.
  • Aerobic (with oxygen) metabolism requires oxygen and organelles called mitochondria to generate ATP. Aerobic metabolism can provide enough ATP to sustain moderate to low intensity work for hours.

Our cells don’t store ATP. They use it as fast as it is produced to:

  • Synthesize protein and many other components of the cell.
  • Synthesize DNA and fuel cell division.
  • Repair and regenerate cell membranes and cellular organelles.
  • Pump nutrients in and out of the cells and transport them to where they are needed within the cell.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of cellular reactions require ATP.

The Role Of Creatine In Cellular Energy Metabolism: Let’s start with the basics:

We can think of creatine as an energy bank.

  • When the cell has plenty of ATP, it makes a deposit into its energy bank by converting creatine into creatine-phosphate.
  • When the cell needs energy quickly it makes a withdrawal from its energy by converting creatine phosphate to creatine and generating ATP.

Creatine is found primarily in high energy tissues (muscle, brain, and testes) – No, I’m not going to talk about creatine and fertility today.

Every time the creatine-creatine-phosphate cycle occurs in high energy tissues, a small amount of creatine is converted to creatinine and filtered through the kidneys. There are two important consequences of this fact:

#1: The faster the phosphocreatine/creatine cycle turns, the more rapidly creatine will be converted to creatinine and drained from the body.

#2: Our body needs to constantly replenish its creatine stores. It does this in two ways:

  • Creatine is synthesized by the liver, kidneys, and pancreas. But it is not stored there. It is released into the bloodstream for use by high energy tissues. It is also synthesized by the brain. But creatine synthesized in the brain can only be used by the brain. It is not released into the bloodstream.
  • Creatine can come from muscle-containing foods – primarily red meat, chicken, and fish. Plant foods provide no creatine.
  • Creatine can also come from supplements – the topic of this article.
  • High-energy tissues have transporters that allow them to take up creatine from the bloodstream.

Creatine plays slightly different roles in muscle and brain.

Creatine Supplementation For Optimizing Muscle Function

Creatine in the muscle is primarily used for high-intensity short duration exercise. In muscle you can think of creatine as being used to “jump-start” high intensity exercise.

  • It takes a few seconds for anaerobic metabolism to go into overdrive. Creatine-phosphate stores fill that gap.
  • Muscle creatine-phosphate stores can fuel high-intensity exercise for 8-15 seconds (average = 10 seconds).

Creatine supplementation is well accepted for sports requiring short, intense bursts of power, speed, and strength, such as football, basketball, hockey, soccer, wrestling, bodybuilding, and sprinting. It is supported by dozens of published clinical studies.

The rationale is not hard to understand.

  • Muscle normally contains enough creatine-phosphate to support around 10 seconds of high-intensity exercise.
  • Creatine-phosphate supplementation increases muscle creatine stores by 20-40%. That supports another 2-4 seconds of exercise.
  • That may not sound like much. But anaerobic metabolism does not kick in until creatine-phosphate stores are exhausted, so the total amount of high-intensity power attained during each rep of a workout is increased by 2-4 seconds.
  • Over a period of weeks or months that extra 2-4 seconds of high intensity exercise during each rep of training translates into real gains in lean muscle mass, muscle strength, and exercise performance.
  • Of course, creatine supplementation provides little benefit for athletes involved in endurance sports.

Here are some other notable points about creatine supplementation for athletes:

  • Creatine supplementation benefits most athletes involved in high-intensity sports, but it appears to be particularly useful for vegans and vegetarians who may not be getting creatine from their diet.
  • Clinical studies and real-life experience have shown that creatine is safe when used properly. (I will discuss mild side effects and cautions below).
  • The doses used most frequently are:
    • Around 20 grams/day for quick results. For optimal absorption, it is best to divide it into 4 daily servings of 5 grams.
    • Around 5 grams/day for maintenance and for general use.
    • The eventual amount of muscle creatine is the same with 20- and 5-gram doses. The only difference is the speed at which optimal creatine levels are attained.
  • Creatine is best utilized when taken with food or smoothies containing both carbohydrate and protein.
  • Adequate hydration is important (more about that below).

Creatine Supplementation And Brain Health

Brain HealthBrain is different from muscle in that it depends on aerobic metabolism and is always using ATP at a high rate. Brain accounts for 20% of our body’s energy demand. In brain we can think of creatine as a buffer or reserve.

  • Brain creatine-phosphate stores are used in situations where the brain needs to increase its energy use over baseline (more about that below).

The initial excitement about creatine supplementation optimizing brain health came from mouse studies. However, we need to remember that mice aren’t humans. In this case the difference is clear.

  • Creatine supplementation increases brain creatine levels by 50% in mice, but only around 5-10% on average in humans.

So, it is not clear whether the results obtained with mice also apply to humans. The results of clinical trials with humans are mixed. They are promising, but not definitive.

Is Creatine Good For The Brain?

To answer that question I will share two recent reports with you as examples of where the creatine and brain health hypothesis stands at present.

Study #1: Creatine Supplementation And Alzheimer’s Disease.

Memory loss due to Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease with the medical icon of a tree in the shape of a human head and brain losing leaves.

This study (AN Smith et al, Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 11270101, 2025) was designed to test the hypothesis that creatine supplementation might be beneficial for Alzheimer’s patients. It was a pilot study – designed to determine whether there was enough evidence to justify a larger clinical trial.

How Was This Study Done? Twenty participants, 60-90 years old (average = 73), were enrolled in this study. They had been previously diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and had been taking Alzheimer’s medication for at least 30 days. Each participant had a partner (spouse, family member, or friend) to support them and aid in accurate participation and reporting.

  • Participants consumed 20 grams of creatine, split into two 10-gram doses for 8 weeks.
    • Participants and their partners were given compliance trackers with two boxes to be checked each day to measure adherence to the supplementation protocol. Adherence was 90%.
  • Blood creatine levels were measured at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks as another measure of adherence.
  • Two measures of cognitive health were administered at baseline and at 8 weeks.
    • MMSE (a 30-item cognitive test).
    • The NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery, which measures attention, category switching, episodic memory, working memory, speed of processing, written language, and auditory language.
  • Brain creatine levels were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopic imaging.

What Did The Study Show?Question Mark

  • Participants and their partners reported 13 incidences of mild side effects, which included cramping/muscle pain, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, facial flushing, and sleep disturbances.
  • Blood creatine levels increased 23-fold in 4 weeks and remained elevated at 8 weeks.
  • Brain creatine levels increased by 11% at 8 weeks.
  • When assessed with the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery, creatine supplementation (20 grams/day) improved:
    • Total cognition by 4%.
    • Fluid cognition by 7%.
    • List sorting working memory by 11%.
    • Oral reading recognition by 5%.
    • Attention by 7%.
  • There were no significant changes in the 5 other cognition categories in the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery.

The authors concluded, “Our study provides the first evidence in humans that creatine supplementation is feasible and may increase brain creatine and offer cognitive benefits to patients with Alzheimer’s Disease.”

These results are preliminary and suggest that future efficacy trials comparing creatine to placebo are needed to generate evidence that can be compared to other Alzheimer’s Disease clinical trials.”

“Should creatine provide benefit, the public health implications may be substantial given Alzheimer’s Disease cases are anticipated to rise and creatine is cost-effective with a good safety profile.”

Why Did I Include This Study? You may be wondering why I included such a preliminary study in my review. The answer is simple: It provides a graphical view of individual variability.

Every study mentions individual variability, but because this study has only 20 participants, the authors were able to graphically show the response of every individual in the study. And the results were informative.

  • In terms of brain creatine levels:
    • Some individuals had increases in the 25-30% range.
    • Others had increases of around 2-5%.
  • Similar variability was seen with each individual measure of cognition.

However, the most interesting result was that several measures of cognition were highly correlated with the changes in brain creatine levels. This suggests that the limiting factor in the brain health benefits of creatine may be the ability of creatine supplementation to influence brain creatine levels.

Study #2: Creatine Supplementation And Brain Health.

This study (H Roschel et al, Nutrients, 13, 586, 2021) is a review of 16 studies looking at the effect of creatine supplementation on various aspects of brain health.

  • All the studies were small.
  • They used different measures of cognitive health.
  • Most of the studies were short (2-15 days).
  • They used different measures of brain creatine levels (Creatine levels vary according to the region of the brain that is scanned).

While emphasizing the weaknesses and inconsistencies of published studies, the authors said:

  • “Creatine supplementation may positively influence some aspects of cognition under stressful conditions such as:
    • Hypoxia (reduced oxygen flow to the brain caused by chronic conditions like atherosclerotic narrowing of the carotid arteries, asthma, and COPD.
    • Sleep deprivation, especially when combined with exercise.”
  • They also discussed the theory that creatine supplementation may be beneficial for conditions associated with reduced brain creatinine levels such as:
    • Alzheimer’s disease, cognitive decline in general, mild traumatic brain injury, and depression.

They put particular emphasis on the potential benefits of creatine supplementation for mild traumatic brain injury, saying:

“Collectively, despite limited data, creatine supplementation seems potentially beneficial in reducing severity of or enhancing recovery from mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), warranting further studies on its role not only as a post-injury therapy but also as a neuroprotective agent in populations at high risk of mTBI”

“Encouraging supplementation to reduce damage from or enhance recovery from mTBI…would ordinarily be considered premature. However, in this instance, given the devastating effects of mTBI, combined with the large body of safety and efficacy creatine supplementation data, encouraging supplementation for populations who are at high risk for mTBI might be considered more prudent.”

Finally, the authors concluded,

“There is a potential for creatine supplementation to improve cognitive processing, especially in conditions characterized by brain creatine deficits, which could be induced by acute stressors (e.g., exercise, sleep deprivation) or chronic, pathologic conditions (e.g., mTBI, cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease, depression).”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanIf you are interested in creatine to support any kind of high intensity, short duration activity, the data are clear. Creatine supplementation in the 5-20 gm/day range with adequate hydration is both safe and effective.

Creatine offers little benefit for endurance events. But if you engage in any kind of high intensity training to build muscle mass in preparation for endurance events, creatine is likely to be of benefit.

However, we are at the early stages of understanding the effects of creatine supplementation on brain health and cognitive function. Most of the results are promising, but preliminary.

Here is a brief summary:

  • The effectiveness of creatine supplementation at increasing brain creatine levels and improving brain function is highly variable.
    • For some individuals, creatine supplementation results in a 25-30% increase in brain creatine levels. Those individuals are likely to experience brain health benefits.
    • For other individuals, creatine supplementation results in 2-5% increase in brain creatine levels. These individuals may not experience noticeable brain health benefits.
  • These reason for this variability in the effect of creatine supplementation is unknown at present.

This reminds me of my last decade (2002-2012) of cancer research at the University of North Carolina. At the beginning of the decade, here were certain cancer drugs that were considered unproven because their effectiveness was variable. They appeared to help some cancer patients, but were ineffective for others.

The we started to look at the genetic mutations that caused individual cancers. By the end of the decade we had discovered those drugs were amazingly effective for cancers with certain genetic backgrounds. Those drugs went from being “duds” to being “stars”.

Creatine supplementation for brain health is where those cancer drugs were in 2002. Until we can predict which individuals will experience a significant increase in brain creatine levels with supplementation, clinical studies will continue to be inconsistent, and the scientific community will continue to consider creatine supplementation for brain health to be “unproven”.

  • But the good news is that, with adequate hydration, creatine supplementation is safe. So, you can take it for its muscle benefits. And, if you also experience brain health benefits, consider it an added benefit.

And there are certain situations where even the medical profession often recommends creatine supplementation for brain health. For example:

  • Studies suggest that creatine supplementation may improve brain function for people with sleep deprivation, mild traumatic brain injury, cognitive decline, conditions that restrict blood flow to the brain, Alzheimer’s disease, and depression.
    • For example, it is often recommended for mild traumatic brain injury because the health consequences of untreated traumatic brain injury are severe and the risks of creatine supplementation are low.

Finally, the optimal dosage and duration of creatine supplementation for brain health benefits is unknown.

  • Most studies use 20 grams/day divided into two or three smaller doses.
  • But the effect of body weight on dosage recommendations has not been studied. People in the sports medicine field tell me that female gymnasts use significantly less creatine than male football players. If your body weight is low, you might want to aim for 10-15 grams/day.

Creatine Supplementation Cautions 

While the safety of creatine supplementation is well established, there are some cautions you should be aware of:

  • Creatinine, the breakdown product of creatine metabolism, puts some stress on the kidneys.
    • While this is not a problem if your kidneys are healthy, you should consult with your health professional about taking creatine if you have any indications of impaired kidney function.
    • Even if your kidneys are perfectly healthy, creatine supplementation may increase blood creatinine levels. If your health professional is using creatinine levels to measure kidney health, you should let them know that you are supplementing with creatine.
  • Adequate hydration (preferably with water) is important because creatine pulls water with it as it enters your muscle cells.
    • This plumps up your muscles, which is great if you are a body builder.
    • This dehydrates you, which can cause side effects like muscle cramps, headaches, nausea, stomach cramps, and diarrhea.
    • These side effects are usually transitory and can be avoided or reduced by adequate hydration. If symptoms continue despite adequate hydration, you should lower the dose or discontinue creatine supplementation.

The Bottom Line 

If you are interested in creatine to support any kind of high intensity, short duration activity, the data are clear. Creatine supplementation in the 5-20 gm/day range with adequate hydration is both safe and effective.

However, we are at the early stages of understanding the effects of creatine supplementation on brain health and cognitive function. Most of the results are promising, but preliminary.

I discussed two studies on creatine supplementation and brain health in this article. Here is a brief summary of their findings:

  • Creatine supplementation may improve brain function for people with sleep deprivation, mild traumatic brain injury, cognitive decline, conditions that restrict blood flow to the brain, Alzheimer’s disease, and depression).
    • Although the effectiveness of creatine supplementation on brain function is uncertain at present, many experts recommend it if you fall into one of the categories listed above because creatine supplementation has been shown to be safe by decades of sports medicine studies.
  • The effectiveness of creatine supplementation at increasing brain creatine levels and improving brain function is highly variable.
    • For some individuals, creatine supplementation results in a 25-30% increase in brain creatine levels. Those individuals are likely to experience brain health benefits.
    • For other individuals, creatine supplementation results in 2-5% increase in brain creatine levels. These individuals may not experience noticeable brain health benefits.
  • But the good news is that, with adequate hydration, creatine supplementation is safe. So, you can take it for its muscle benefits. And, if you also experience brain health benefits, consider it an added benefit.

For more information on this study, what it means for you, and cautions about using creatine supplements, 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.

 

 

How To Live To 117

by

The Secrets To A Long And Healthy Life

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

SecretsToday’s “Health Tip” is a bit unusual. It’s not based on a clinical study with thousands of participants. It’s not even a clinical study based on dozens of people. It’s a case study of one individual.

The study was published in Cell Reports Medicine, but I learned about it in our local newspaper (Yes, the professor still reads the newspaper in addition to published clinical studies. I don’t rely on the internet for all my information.)

I chose this case study because it was so interesting. It is based on the life of a woman, Maria Branyas Morera, who lived in good health to the age of 117. In her later years she asked her physician, Dr. Manel Estellar – chair of genetics at University of Barcelona’s School of Medicine, to study her and see if he could find out why she lived so long.

The results were fascinating. And while it could be argued that the data from a single individual may be misleading, the conclusions from her doctor’s investigation were consistent with the results of the much larger “Blue Zone” study of centenarians living in regions where a high percentage of people lived to 100 and beyond. I will talk about that study below.

How To Live To 117 

Maria Branyas was born in San Francisco in 1907 of Spanish immigrant parents. Her father died when she was 8 and her mother moved back to Spain to be with her family. She married and had a son who died at age 52 and two daughters who are now 92 and 94.

Part of the reason for her longevity was that she took good care of herself:

  • She followed a Mediterranean diet.
  • She did not smoke or drink.
  • She walked an hour every day until her 90s. Eventually she had to cut back because of physical limitations but remained as active as possible. When walking became difficult she entered a nursing home.
  • She kept mentally active. For example, she played the piano every day until she was 112.

Part of the reason was socioeconomic.

  • She and her family lived in the same town.
  • She had a close circle of friends and family for emotional support.
  • And as her friends died, she made new ones.
    • This is something that is often not discussed in the aging literature. As you age and your friends die off, it is easy to become isolated, which increases the likelihood of depression and death. The decision to make new friends in your latter years is a choice.

And part of the reason was genetic.

  • In the words of her doctor, “She won the genetic lottery with respect to genetic variants that protect against risk factors like high cholesterol, dementia, heart disease, and cancer.”
    • However, we need to remember that genetics is not everything. Other members of her immediate family shared the same genetic traits, yet died prematurely from Alzheimer’s, cancer, tuberculosis, and heart disease.
    • I like to say, “Genetics loads the gun. Lifestyle pulls the trigger”. In short, both contribute to longevity.

The final part of the puzzle goes beyond genetics.

  • She had an immune system that was unusually strong for someone her age and inflammation that was unusually low for someone her age. Those were probably due to:
    • Epigenetic modifications to her DNA that are associated with younger individuals.
      • Quick review: Epigenetic modifications affect gene activity and are controlled by diet, lifestyle, and the environment.
      • We can never know exactly what caused her youthful epigenetics, but she did have a very healthy diet and lifestyle.
    • She had a microbiome associated with low inflammation.
      • Quick Review: The term microbiome refers to all the microorganisms in our gut and elsewhere on our body. Our microbiome is strongly affected by what we eat and other lifestyle factors such as body weight.
      • In her case, one example of her anti-inflammatory microbiome was a high abundance of Bifidobacteria, probably a direct result of the three yogurts she ate each day.

The Secrets To A Long And Healthy Life 

blue zonesThis brings me to the “Blue Zone” study. I have talked about it in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”. Let me give you the short version here.

Dan Buettner is a journalist who was fascinated by the topic of longevity. He identified five regions from around the world where an unusually high percentage of people lived into their 100s. He then put together a team of top scientists in the fields of demographics, social anthropology and statistics to study the characteristics of centenarians in each of these regions and got National Geographic to fund the study.

You can see his book on the left, and I will summarize the main conclusions of his study below. Of course, the most important question is how the information garnered from Maria Branyas compares with the conclusions of the “Blue Zone” study. I will indicate that below.

#1: They engage in moderate intensity exercise every day. The answer for Maria is a clear, “Yes”.

#2: They stop eating before they are full. We don’t know this for sure, but she did appear to be at ideal weight towards the end of her life.

#3: They eat a mostly plant-based diet. She ate a Mediterranean diet which qualifies.

#4: They have a libation with their meals. For Maria, this is a “No”.

#5: They have a purpose in their life. We have no information on this aspect of Maria’s life.

#6: They set aside time for relaxation with friends and family. Clearly, this was important for Maria. As old friends died off, she searched for new ones.

#7: They participate in a spiritual community. We have no information on this aspect of Maria’s life.

#8: They put family first. Clearly, family was very important to Maria.

#9: They surround themselves with communities that share their values. It also appears that this was important to Maria.

In short, in his study of Maria’s secrets to longevity Dr. Esteller approached the question of longevity from a different perspective than Dan Buettner. It is regrettable that he didn’t use the data accrued by the “Blue Zone” study as a starting point for his study. But it is clear that Maria epitomized many of the longevity characteristics identified in the “Blue Zone” study.

And, of course, Dr. Esteller’s expertise is human genetics, and he added important information about the importance of genetics, epigenetics, and our microbiome in influencing longevity.

The Bottom Line

The world’s oldest human recently died at age 117. Before she died, gave her doctor permission to study her and determine how she was able to live so long. In short, she asked her doctor to use her life to understand how to help other people live a long and healthy life.

That study has recently been published. The results showed:

  • Her lifestyle mirrored many of the lifestyle characteristics that were associated with longevity in the previous “Blue Zone” study of centenarians (people living to 100 and beyond).
  • This study also identified genetic, epigenetic, and microbiome factors associated with longevity

For more details about the study, 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 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.

 

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.

600th Issue Celebration

by

Nutrition Advances Over The Last Two Years

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

celebrationIn the nearly twelve years that I have been publishing “Health Tips From The Professor”, I have tried to go behind the headlines to provide you with accurate, unbiased health information that you can trust and apply to your everyday life.

The 600th issue of any publication is a major cause for celebration and reflection – and “Health Tips From The Professor” is no different.

I am dedicating this issue to reviewing some of the major stories I have covered in the past 100 issues. There are lots of topics I could have covered, but I have chosen to focus on three types of articles:

  • Articles that have debunked long-standing myths about nutrition and health.
  • Articles that have corrected some of the misinformation that seems to show up on the internet on an almost daily basis.
  • Articles about the issues that most directly affect your health.

Here are my picks from the last two years:

Weight Loss Diets

weight lossSince it is almost January, let’s start with a couple of articles about diet and weight loss (or weight gain). I have covered the effectiveness of the Paleo, Keto, Mediterranean, DASH, vegetarian, and Vegan diets for both short and long-term weight loss in my book “Slaying The Food Myths”, so I won’t repeat that information here. Instead, I will share a few updates from the past 100 issues.

Is Time-Restricted Eating Better Than Other Diets? Time-restricted eating is one of the latest fads. But is it really better than other diets for weight loss and improved health? In this article I reviewed two studies that compare time-restricted eating with diets that do not restrict time of eating but cut calories to the same extent. You may be surprised at the results.

Can You Lose Weight Without Dieting? In this article I share 8 tips for losing weight without going on a diet. The article is based on research by Dr. Brian Wansink, a behavioral psychologist who specializes in studying how external clues influence our eating patterns. As you might suspect his 8 tips for losing weight have nothing to do with counting calories or going on restrictive diets.

Healthy Diets

dairy foodsIs Whole Fat Dairy Healthy? For years dietary guidelines have been telling us to select low fat dairy foods. But some health gurus are telling you that isn’t true. They claim whole fat dairy is healthy. So, you are probably wondering, “What is the scoop (as in ice cream) on whole fat dairy?” In this article I look at the study behind the headlines and answer that question. But the answer is not a simple “Yes” or “No”. The answer is more nuanced. It turns out that whole fat dairy is healthier in some diets than in others. 

Are Low Carb Diets Healthy? Are low carb diets good for you or bad for you? It depends on which study you quote. Two major studies in recent years have come to opposite conclusions. In this article I help you sort through the conflicting studies and rephrase the question. Instead of, “Are low carb diets healthy”, the question should be, “Which low carb diets are healthy?”

Are All Plant-Based Diets Healthy? Plant-based diets have acquired a “health halo” in recent years. Your mama told you to eat your fruits and vegetables. And many health gurus have been telling you not to neglect your grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds as well. But some of these foods require a lot of food preparation.

Never fear! The food industry has come to your rescue with a wide variety of processed plant-based foods. No need for food prep. But are they as good for you as the unprocessed plant foods they replace? In this article I review a study that answers that question.

You probably know what that answer is, but the article is worth a read anyway. That is because the study also asks whether vegan and vegetarian diets are healthier than other primarily plant-based diets. And you may not know the answer to that question.

Diet And Heart Disease

egg confusionAre Eggs Bad For You? For years we were told that eggs are bad for us because they contain cholesterol. Then we were told that eggs in moderation may not increase our risk of heart disease. And recently studies have appeared claiming eggs may be good for our hearts. What is the truth about eggs and heart disease? In this article I review a recent study claiming eggs are bad for our heart and put that study into the context of other recent studies to clear up the “eggfusion”.

Which Diets Are Heart Healthy? Every popular diet claims to help you lose weight, reduce your risk of diabetes, and reduce your risk of heart disease. All these claims can’t be true. Which diets deliver on their promises, and which are just pretenders? In this article I review a recent study that answered that question for heart disease.

This study was a very large metanalysis of over 40 studies with 35,548 participants that looked at the effect of different diets on heart disease outcomes. The study identified two diets that significantly reduced the risk of heart disease. There are other diets that might reduce the risk of heart disease, but their benefits have not been proven by high quality clinical studies. They are merely pretenders.

The Dangers Of Processed Foods 

In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have shared articles showing that diets high in processed foods are associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. But the story keeps getting worse. Here are two articles on recent studies about processed foods that appeared in “Health Tips From The Professor” in the last two years.

Why Does Processed Food Make You Fat? We already know that eating a lot of highly processed food is likely to make us fat. But what is it about processed food that makes us fat? In this article I review a recent study that answers that question.

This study is interesting for two reasons.

  • It identifies the characteristics of processed foods that make us want to eat more.
  • It identifies some minimally processed foods that have the same characteristics and suggests we should choose minimally processed foods wisely. Simply put, knowledge is power. We may want to avoid minimally processed foods that have the same obesity-inducing characteristics as processed foods.

Do Processed Foods Cause Cancer? Previous studies have shown that processed food consumption is associated with a higher risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Can it get any worse? In this article I review a recent study that shows processed food consumption is associated with an increased risk of several kinds of cancer.

Maintaining Muscle Mass As We Age

As we age, we begin to lose muscle mass, a process called sarcopenia. Unless we actively resist loss of muscle mass it will eventually impact our quality of life and our health.

We can prevent this loss of muscle mass with resistance exercise, adequate protein intake, and adequate intake of the amino acid leucine. Previous studies have shown people over 50 need more of each of these to maintain muscle mass, but the amount they need has been uncertain until now. Three recent studies have given seniors better guidelines for maintaining muscle mass.

Can You Build Muscle In Your 80s? In this article I review a recent study that enrolled a group of octogenarians in a high-intensity exercise program to see if they could gain muscle mass. They were able to increase their muscle mass, but the intensity of the exercise required may surprise you.

Optimizing Protein Intake For Seniors. In this article I review two recent studies that looked at the amount, timing, and kind of protein needed for seniors in their 60s and 70s to maximize gain in muscle mass.

How Much Leucine Do Seniors Need? In this article I review a recent study that determined the amount of leucine seniors in their 70s need to optimize gains in muscle mass and strength.

The Benefits And Risks Of Supplementation

Omega-3s And Heart DiseaseIf you listen to Big Pharma or the medical profession, you hear a lot about the “risks” of supplementation and very little about the benefits. In “Health Tips From the Professor” I try to present a more balanced view of supplementation by sharing high-quality studies showing benefit from supplementation and studies that put the supposed risks into perspective.

The Good News About Omega-3s and Stroke. Multiple studies have shown that omega-3 supplementation reduces the risk of ischemic strokes (strokes caused by a blood clot). But it has been widely assumed they might increase the risk of hemorrhagic strokes (strokes caused by bleeding). In this article I review a meta-analysis of 29 clinical studies with 183,000 participants that tested that assumption.

How Much Omega-3s Are Best For Blood Pressure? Multiple studies have shown that omega-3 supplementation can reduce high blood pressure. But the doses used vary widely from one study to the next. In this article I review a meta-analysis of 71 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies that determined the optimal dose of omega-3s for controlling blood pressure.

Omega-3 Supplements Are Safe. As I said above, it has been widely assumed that omega-3 supplementation increases the risk of bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke. In this article I review the definitive study on this topic. More importantly, it reveals which omega-3 supplements might increase bleeding risk and which do not.

Are Calcium Supplements Safe? Big Pharma and the medical profession have been warning us that calcium supplements may increase heart disease risk. In this article I review the definitive study on this topic.

Prenatal Supplements

prenatal dha supplementIf you are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, your health professional has likely recommended a prenatal supplement. You probably assume that prenatal supplements provide everything you need for a healthy pregnancy. Unfortunately, recent research has shown that assumption is not correct.

Is Your Prenatal Supplement Adequate? In this article I review a study that should serve as a wakeup call for every expectant mother. It showed that most prenatal supplements were woefully inadequate for a healthy pregnancy.

What Nutrients Are Missing In Prenatal Supplements? In this article I review a study that identified additional nutrients that are missing in most prenatal supplements.

Prenatal Supplements Strike Out Again. In this article I review a study that looked at the diet of pregnant women to determine their needs and compared that to the nutrients found in prenatal supplements. Once again, most prenatal supplements were woefully inadequate. Is it, “Three strikes and you are out”?

Exercise

Walking FastWalking Your Way To Health. We have been told that walking is good for our health. But how many steps should you take, how fast should you walk, and does it matter whether these steps are part of your daily routine or on long hikes? In this article I review a study that answers all these questions.

Which Exercise Is Best For Reducing Blood Pressure? If you have high blood pressure, you have probably been told to exercise more. But which exercise is best? In this article I review a study that answers that question. And the answer may surprise you.

Did You Know? 

Question MarkIf you have been reading “Health Tips From the Professor” for a while, you probably know that I enjoy poking holes in popular myths. Here are two new ones I deflated in past two years.

Is Low Alcohol Consumption Healthy? You have probably heard that low alcohol intake (that proverbial glass of red wine) is good for you. But is that true? In this article I review a recent study that shows that myth was based on faulty interpretation of the data and provides a more nuanced interpretation of the data.

Is HDL Good For Your Heart? You have been told that increasing your HDL levels reduces your risk of heart disease so many times it must be true. But is it? In this article I review HDL metabolism and a recent study to provide a more nuanced interpretation of the relationship between HDL and heart disease risk.

How To Talk With Your Doctor About Cancer 

Because of my years in cancer research, I am often asked whether someone should follow their oncologist’s advice and go on a recommended chemotherapy or radiation regimen. Of course, it would be unethical for me to provide that kind of advice.

In this article I tell you the questions to ask your oncologist about the prescribed treatment regimen, so you can make an informed decision. However, I also recommend you only ask these questions if you can handle the answers.

The Bottom Line

I have just touched on a few of my most popular articles above. You may want to scroll through these articles to find ones of interest to you that you might have missed over the last two years. If you don’t see topics that you are looking for, just go to https://chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/ and type the appropriate term in the search box.

In the coming years, you can look for more articles debunking myths, exposing lies and providing balance to the debate about the health topics that affect you directly. As always, I pledge to provide you with scientifically accurate, balanced information that you can trust. I will continue to do my best to present this information in a clear and concise manner so that you can understand it and apply it to your life.

Final Comment: You may wish to share the valuable resources in this article with others. If you do, then copy the link at the top and bottom of this page into your email. If you just forward this email and the recipient unsubscribes, it will unsubscribe you as well.

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/lifestylechange/.

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.

Which Exercise Is Best For Reducing Blood Pressure?

by

How Can You Keep Your Blood Pressure Under Control? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

high blood pressureHypertension (high blood pressure) is called a silent killer. That’s because you often don’t notice any symptoms until you die from a stroke or heart attack.

Nearly half of all American adults (120 million or 48%) have high blood pressure. Of Americans with high blood pressure:

  • About half (46%) of them don’t know it.

And of those who know they have high blood pressure:

  • Only half of them have it under control.
    • In case you weren’t doing the math, that means that only 1 in 4 Americans with high blood pressure has it under control.

That is scary because every 20 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure:

  • Doubles your risk of death from a stroke or heart attack.

And if the personal costs of high blood pressure were not enough, the cost of high blood pressure to our health care system is enormous.

  • The CDC estimates that the cost of high blood pressure in the United States is around $131 to $198 billion per year. And this may be an underestimate because it does not include productivity losses from non-fatal illnesses caused by high blood pressure.

Medications are effective at reducing blood pressure, but they have significant side effects. And those side effects have two unintended consequences.

  • Around half of patients stop taking their blood pressure medication within the first year because of side effects or cost.
  • For patients who continue taking blood pressure medication, they are usually prescribed other medications to reduce the side effects from their blood pressure medication.

This is often the start of a downward spiral in which they need more medications to reduce the side effects of the medicines they were just prescribed. And they end up on multiple medications, and a poor quality of life because of it.

Because of this, many patients and health care practitioners are looking for natural ways to keep blood pressure under control. One of the most recommended approaches is to increase exercise, and the type of exercise most frequently recommended is aerobic exercise.

But is that the best advice? That advice is based on clinical studies performed 20 to 30 years ago. And those studies were an excellent example of “the tail wagging the dog”.

Let me explain. In the early days most experts believed that aerobic exercise would be the most effective exercise for reducing blood pressure. So, most of the original studies on the effect of exercise at reducing blood pressure were done using aerobic exercise.

From those studies we knew that aerobic exercise was effective at reducing blood pressure, but we didn’t really know whether it was the most effective exercise for reducing blood pressure. And more recent studies have suggested a more nuanced view of exercise and blood pressure control.

For that reason, the authors of the current article (JJ Edwards et al, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57: 1317-1326, 2023) decided to conduct a comprehensive review of all randomized controlled studies between 1990 and February 2023 on the effect of exercise on reducing blood pressure.

How Was The Study Done? 

clinical studyThe investigators performed a comprehensive, systematic review of all randomized controlled studies (meaning patients were randomly assigned to an exercise or non-exercise group) looking at reductions in blood pressure following an exercise intervention of ≥ 2 weeks.

They excluded studies that:

  • Included dietary counseling or exercise recommendations in the control group.
  • Included dietary counseling, supplementation, or medication in the exercise group.

However, there were no exclusions based on the health or disease state in the patient population.

Their analysis included 270 randomized controlled trials with a total of 15,827 participants. All the studies reported systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure before and after the exercise intervention.

Exercise interventions were divided into five classifications:

  • Aerobic exercises.
  • Resistance exercises.
  • Combined exercises (a combination of aerobic and resistance exercises).
  • High-intensity interval exercises (high-intensity, short-duration exercises).
  • Isometric exercises.

Several of these exercise classifications were further subdivided into individual exercises (see below)

Which Exercise Is Best For Reducing Blood Pressure? 

When the reduction in systolic blood pressure was considered, the rank order of exercise effectiveness was:

  • High-intensity interval exercise (4.08 mm Hg reduction).
  • Aerobic exercise (4.48 mm Hg reduction).
  • Resistance exercise (4.53 mm Hg reduction).
  • Combined aerobic and resistance exercise (6.04 mm Hg reduction).
  • Isometric exercise (8.24 mm Hg reduction).

When the reduction in diastolic blood pressure was considered, the amount of reduction was less but the rank order of exercise effectiveness was the same:

  • High-intensity interval exercise (2.50 mm Hg reduction).
  • Aerobic exercise (2.53 mm Hg reduction).
  • Resistance exercise (3.04 mm Hg reduction).
  • Combined aerobic and resistance exercise (3.54 mm Hg reduction).
  • Isometric exercise (4.00 mm Hg reduction).

When the exercise classifications were subdivided into individual exercises.

  • Running and cycling were significantly more effective than walking for aerobic exercise, with running being the most effective form of aerobic exercise.
  • Cycling was the most effective form of high-intensity interval exercise.
  • No effect of exercise type was seen for the effectiveness of resistance training.
  • Isometric wall squats and leg extensions were much more effective than isometric handgrip exercises.

There was not enough data from diastolic blood pressure studies to subdivide into individual exercises.

There were two other results of interest.

  • Aerobic exercise interventions were slightly more effective with lower exercise frequency, suggesting that 3 times a week may be more effective than 5 or more times a week.
  • All exercise interventions were much more effective for people with significantly elevated blood pressure than for people with slightly elevated blood pressure or normal blood pressure.

Of course, the important question for people with normal blood pressure is the effectiveness of exercise in preventing future increases in blood pressure, and this study is not designed to answer that question.

The authors concluded, “Various exercise training modes improve resting blood pressure, particularly isometric exercise. The results of this analysis should inform future exercise guideline recommendations for the prevention and treatment of arterial hypertension.”

What Does This Study Mean For You? 

Question MarkThe takeaways from this study are clear.

If you wish to reduce your blood pressure:

  • Any kind of exercise is helpful, but current recommendations that prioritize aerobic exercise may be misleading.
  • If you want to get the most “bang for your buck”:
    • Isometric exercise is the most effective and high intensity interval exercise is the least effective.
    • Aerobic and resistance exercise are equally effective.
    • A combination of aerobic and resistance exercise is more effective than either alone.
  • And if you want to know the most effective individual exercises:
    • Wall squats and leg extensions are the most effective isometric exercises.
    • Running and cycling are the most effective aerobic exercises.
    • Any kind of resistance exercise is equally effective.

Here are my thoughts about this study:

  • If you haven’t been keeping up with clinical studies on exercise and blood pressure (like me), the conclusions of this comprehensive review are probably a surprise. I would not have expected isometric exercises to be more effective than aerobic exercises for lowering blood pressure.
  • The authors of this review postulated that isometric exercise decreases blood flow to the muscles involved. When those muscles relax, blood flow increases which sends metabolic signals that cause blood vessels to relax.
  • This study is good news for people with health conditions that limit their ability to do aerobic exercises or traditional resistance exercises.
  • We also need to remember that lowering blood pressure is not the only value of exercise.
    • Aerobic exercise improves cardiovascular function.
    • Resistance exercise increases muscle mass, which is particularly important for seniors who are trying to maintain muscle mass and function. Regular resistance exercise also helps minimize bone loss as we age.

Isometric exercise can be considered a form of resistance exercise, but it may need to be supplemented with resistance exercises that target other muscle groups.

  • As I said above, this study shows that all forms of exercise reduce blood pressure. The most effective exercise for you is the one you enjoy and will do on a regular basis.
  • Finally, while this study looked at the effectiveness of different exercises at reducing high blood pressure, these findings are probably also applicable to the types of exercise that can reduce risk of developing high blood pressure as we age.

How Can You Keep Your Blood Pressure Under Control?

dash dietExercise alone is not a “magic bullet” for controlling blood pressure. And therein lies a story.

One reason so many people choose medications to control their blood pressure is that there is no “magic bullet” natural approach for controlling blood pressure. Exercise is just one part of a holistic approach for controlling blood pressure that also includes:

  • The DASH (Dietary Approaches To Stop Hypertension) was designed to prevent high blood pressure. I refer to it as an Americanized version of the Mediterranean diet.

Both diets are rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and limit high fat meats and dairy products. And both diets have been shown to reduce the risk of high blood pressure.

  • Weight control. Overweight and obesity are both associated with increased risk of high blood pressure. One estimate is that every two pounds of weight gain increases blood pressure by 1 mm Hg.
  • Supplementation. The most effective supplements appear to be:
    • Omega-3 fatty acids.
    • Supplements containing grape seed extract and/or nitrates from beetroots and leafy greens.
    • Calcium and magnesium if dietary intakes are not optimal.

Diet, weight control, supplementation, and exercise are the top 4 lifestyle factors for keeping blood pressure under control, but a comprehensive holistic approach to controlling blood pressure includes:

  • Low sodium/potassium ratio. I mention it here for completeness, but it is an integral part of the DASH diet.
  • Stress management. Chronic stress can increase blood pressure.
  • Adequate sleep.

We may be outliers, but my wife and I have followed this approach for years and in our 80s have the blood pressure of teenagers.

The Bottom Line 

Most experts recommend aerobic exercise for reducing blood pressure, but these recommendations are based on outdated studies. A recent study examined the effectiveness of various exercises at reducing blood pressure based on all randomized controlled clinical trials between 1990 and 2023.

This study shows:

If you wish to reduce your blood pressure:

  • Any kind of exercise is helpful, but current recommendations that prioritize aerobic exercise may be misleading.
  • If you want to get the most “bang for your buck”:
    • Isometric exercise is the most effective and high intensity interval exercise is the least effective.
    • Aerobic and resistance exercise are equally effective.
    • A combination of aerobic and resistance exercise is more effective than either alone.

For more information on this study, what it means for you, and recommendations for a holistic approach for controlling blood pressure naturally, 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.

Do Optimists Live Longer?

by

What Does This Study Mean For You? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

You have probably heard the statement that optimists live longer before. In fact, you have probably heard so many times you assume it must be true. But is it a myth or is it the truth?

This question is important because it can affect how people feel about themselves. If you are a natural optimist, statements like this support your feeling of self-worth. But if you are naturally pessimistic, statements like this provide one more reason to feel bad about yourself.

For example, a recent article on the topic in WebMD starts with the statement, “Want to live longer? You might want to try improving your outlook on life.” I am mostly optimistic, so I find this statement to be positive and encouraging.

But I am not sure I would feel about this statement if I were pessimistic or depressed and had tried for years to be more optimistic.

Because of this it is important to ask, “How good is the evidence supporting this claim?”

There are several published studies supporting this claim (For example). However,

  • Most of these studies have been performed with white, high-income participants. It is not clear whether these same results would apply to other racial and ethnic groups.
  • There is also the “chicken versus egg” conundrum. The studies claiming that optimists live longer are all association studies. Simply put, that means optimism is associated with longevity, but does not prove cause and effect. That is important because:
    • Some studies show that both a healthy diet and exercise improve mood.
    • Other studies show that optimists tend to take better care of themselves, and that includes both diet and exercise.
    • So, it’s hard to know which comes first – a healthy lifestyle, which creates optimism, or optimism, which creates a healthy lifestyle.
  • Because of this “chicken versus egg” conundrum, it is not clear whether it is a healthy lifestyle or optimism that is the primary cause of greater longevity.

The study (HK Koga et al, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 70: 2793-2804, 2022)) I will review today was designed to answer both questions. Specifically, this study was designed to ask:

  • Is higher optimism associated with a longer lifespan and exceptional longevity across diverse racial and ethnic groups?
  • To what extent do lifestyle factors influence this association?

How Was The Study Done?

clinical studyThe data for this study was obtained from the Women’s Health Initiative which enrolled 161,808 postmenopausal women of diverse racial and ethnic groups from 40 medical centers within the United States between 1993 and 1998. The women were aged 50-79 (average = 63.5) at enrollment and were followed for an average of 26 years.

Optimism was assessed at enrollment into the program using the 6-item Life Orientation Test Revised. For each item on the questionnaire, participants were asked to report the degree they agreed with each statement on a scale of 1 = “strongly agree” to 5 = “strongly disagree”. Their responses were summed to create scores ranging from 6 to 30, with 30 being the highest optimism rating.

Lifestyle was assessed on a questionnaire measuring diet quality, physical activity, BMI (a measure of obesity), smoking status, and alcohol consumption. If participants met predefined “healthy standards in each of these categories, they were given a score of 1. Otherwise, their score was 0. Scores from each category were summed to create a composite lifestyle score ranging from 0 (least healthy) to 5 (most healthy).

Longevity was based on survival compared to national averages using the National Death Index (Yes, “Big Brother” is watching you even when you die) to identify and confirm deaths. Deaths of participants were monitored through March 1, 2019. Exceptional longevity was defined as survival to age 90 or older. Overall, 64,301 women (40.3%) died over the 26 years of follow-up.

Finally, women who died within the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded from the data analysis “to mitigate concerns that health status might affect the reporting or experience of optimism levels.” In plain English, people who are within 2 years of dying are often very sick and feel lousy. Even the most optimistic individuals find it hard to maintain an optimistic outlook in those circumstances. This left 159,255 women in the database.

Do Optimists Live Longer?

When comparing women in the highest to women in the lowest quartile of optimism:

  • Longevity was increased by 5.4%, which corresponds to an additional 4.4 years. When this was broken down by race and ethnicity, longevity was increased by:
    • 1% for Non-Hispanic White women.
    • 6% for Black women.
    • 4% for Hispanic women.
    • 5% for Asian women. However, this may have been an underestimate because of the small sample size of this population in the Women’s Health Initiative database.
  • Exceptional longevity (survival ≥ 90 years) was increased 10%.

When the authors used a complex statistical method to assess the contribution of lifestyle to the increase in longevity, they found:

  • Lifestyle contributed to 24% of the increased longevity. When this was broken down by race and ethnicity, lifestyle contributed:
    • 25% for Non-Hispanic White women.
    • 10% for Black women.
    • 24% for Hispanic women.
    • 43% for Asian women.

The authors concluded, “We found that higher levels of optimism were associated with longer lifespan and greater likelihood of achieving exceptional longevity across racial and ethnic groups, suggesting the health benefits of optimism may hold across these groups.”

“The contribution of lifestyle to these associations was evident but modest.”

“As prior work has demonstrated that optimism is modifiable, it may be a novel target for interventions that aim to extend lifespan across diverse racial and ethnic groups.”

What Are The Strengths And Weaknesses Of This Study?

strengths and weaknessesThis is not the first study to suggest that optimists live longer. But it is the best study to date because:

  • It was larger (159,255 participants) than most previous studies.
  • It followed the participants far longer (26 years) than previous studies.
  • It included a more racially and ethnically diverse group of participants than previous studies.
  • It addressed the “elephant in the room” for studies of this type, namely that optimists tend to actively seek a healthier lifestyle, so the “benefits” of optimism could be due to a healthy lifestyle rather than a state of mind. The study employed statistics to estimate that a healthy lifestyle contributed around 25% to the longevity experienced by optimists.

However, the study did have some weaknesses. In my opinion, the most important weaknesses were:

  • Optimism and lifestyle were only assessed at the beginning of the study. No effort was made to determine whether either of these important variables changed during the 26-year study.
  • The relative influence of lifestyle and optimism on longevity was based on a complex statistical analysis. As Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Simply put, statistics can sometimes give misleading answers. I would like to see this very important part of the study confirmed using a different method of analysis.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanAs I shared above, I have some misgivings about this and other studies claiming that optimists live longer. But let’s assume this claim is true. What does that mean for you?

A 5.4% increase in lifespan might not sound like much, but it added 4.4 years to the lives of the women in the study. What would you do with an extra 4.4 years?

And, as the authors of the study pointed out, that’s equivalent to the gain in lifespan for adults engaged in a regular exercise program. Are those benefits addible? We don’t know, but it is possible that an optimist who exercised regularly and had a healthy diet might experience more than a 4-year gain in lifespan.

The authors said, “Although optimism is partly heritable (23-32%), experimental research has demonstrated that optimism is modifiable…”

Let me share a few things that have helped me maintain a more optimistic outlook:

  • Affirmations and visualizations of a positive future.
  • I start my daily prayers by listing the things I am grateful for. For others, a gratitude journal works equally well.
  • Accept positive input. You can accept compliments with humility by simply thanking the person for the compliment. But in your mind, use the compliment to overcome your inner doubts of self-worth.
  • Question negative input. Ask if each critic is the kind of person you want to become. If so, ask if what they said is really true.
  • Create a support network. These are family and friends who will support you when you need it and will give you a gentle kick in the …. when you need that.
  • Trust in a higher power. I know from experience that it is only God who can give me the “peace that passes all understanding” in my most difficult circumstances. And while I am Christian, I think this is a cornerstone of most religions.

Finally, I know that many people are predisposed to depression and pessimism, so I don’t want to be like the author of the WebMD article and tell you, “Want to live longer? You might want to try improving your outlook on life.”

We know that a healthy lifestyle is associated with longevity. And you don’t have to be an optimist to choose a healthy diet, exercise regularly, avoid smoking and excess alcohol intake, and get regular health check-ups.

We also know these things are associated with a longer healthspan which, simply put, is the number of years you live in good health.

So, whether you are a pessimist or an optimist you can live healthier longer.

The Bottom Line

You have probably heard that optimists live longer, but is it true? In the article above I describe the latest study on this topic. It is better than most previous studies on this topic because:

  • It was larger (159,255 participants) than most previous studies.
  • It followed the participants far longer (26 years) than previous studies.
  • It included a more racially and ethnically diverse group of participants than previous studies.
  • It addressed the “elephant in the room” for studies of this type, namely that optimists tend to actively seek a healthier lifestyle, so the “benefits” of optimism could be due to a healthy lifestyle rather than a state of mind. The study employed statistics to estimate that a healthy lifestyle contributed around 25% to the longevity experienced by optimists.

When the study compared women in the highest to women in the lowest quartile of optimism:

  • Longevity was increased by 5.4%, which corresponds to an additional 4.4 years.
  • Exceptional longevity (survival ≥ 90 years) was increased by 10%.
  • Lifestyle contributed to 24% of the increased longevity.

The authors concluded, “We found that higher levels of optimism were associated with longer lifespan and greater likelihood of achieving exceptional longevity across racial and ethnic groups, suggesting the health benefits of optimism may hold across these groups.”

“As prior work has demonstrated that optimism is modifiable, it may be a novel target for interventions that aim to extend lifespan across diverse racial and ethnic groups.”

For more details on this study and what it 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.

How Much Leucine Do Seniors Need?

by

Where Can Seniors Find The Protein And Leucine They Need?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

Frail ElderlyMost Americans lose lean muscle mass as they age, a physiological process called sarcopenia. There are three factors that influence the rate at which we lose muscle mass as we age:

  • Our physiology changes. Our bodies break down our protein stores more rapidly and we have a harder time utilizing the protein in our diet to replenish those protein stores.
  • We become less active. In some cases, this reflects physical disabilities, but all too often it is because we are not giving weight-bearing exercises the proper priority in our busy lives.
  • Our diets have become inadequate. A major driver of this phenomenon is loss of appetite which results in decreased caloric intake. However, physical disability, isolation, and insufficient income also contribute.

Some of you may be saying “So what? I wasn’t planning on being a champion weightlifter in my golden years.” The “So what” is that loss of muscle mass leads to reduced mobility, a tendency to fall (which often leads to debilitating bone fractures) and a lower metabolic rate – which leads to obesity and all the illnesses that go along with obesity.

Fortunately, sarcopenia is not an inevitable consequence of aging. There are things that we can do to prevent it. The most important thing that we can do to prevent muscle loss as we age is to exercise – and I’m talking about resistance (weight) training, not just aerobic exercise.

But we also need to optimize our protein intake and our leucine intake. Protein is important because our muscle fibers are made of protein.

Leucine is an essential amino acid. It is important because it stimulates the muscle’s ability to make new protein. Leucine and insulin act synergistically to stimulate muscle protein synthesis after exercise.

In a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I shared studies showing that the amount of protein and leucine we need to prevent muscle loss increases as we get older. The study (ME Lixandrao et al, Nutrients, Volume 13, Issue 10, 10.3390/nu13103536) I am reviewing today is an update on the leucine needs for seniors.

How Was This Study Done?

clinical studyThe investigators recruited 67 healthy, elderly, overweight adults (34 men and 33 women; average age = 69.7; average BMI = 26.4) in Basel, Switzerland for the study. The participants selected for the study were not engaged in any kind of regular resistance or aerobic training in the previous 6 months.

Participants were asked to fill in three 24-hour dietary recalls (2 on non-consecutive weekdays and one on a weekend day). A trained nutritionist gave instructions on how to perform the dietary recalls. After the dietary recalls were completed, the nutritionists used pictures of foods included in each participant’s diet recall to confirm the accuracy of their portion size estimates. This diet information was used to calculate habitual daily protein and leucine intake.

The investigators used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure quadriceps cross-sectional area – a measure of muscle mass. They also used performance on a leg extension machine to measure unilateral maximum dynamic muscle strength – a measure of muscle strength.

The study correlated leucine intake with both muscle mass and muscle strength. The data were corrected for sex, age, and total protein intake normalized to body weight.

How Much Leucine Do Seniors Need? 

leucineThere was a biphasic correlation between leucine intake and both muscle mass and muscle strength in this population.

  • There was a positive association between leucine intake and muscle mass up to 7.6 gm/day. After that a plateau was reached. Additional leucine had no effect on muscle mass.
  • There was a positive association between leucine intake and muscle strength up to 8.0 gm/day. After that a plateau was reached. Additional leucine had no effect on muscle strength.
  • These associations held true even after correcting for total protein intake. This is an important control because none of these participants were taking a leucine supplement, so those consuming more leucine were also consuming more protein.

The authors concluded, “We demonstrated that total daily leucine intake is associated with muscle mass and strength in healthy older individuals, and this association remains after correcting for multiple factors, including overall protein intake. Furthermore, our…analysis revealed…a potential threshold for habitual leucine intake, which may guide future research on the effect of chronic leucine intake in age-related muscle loss [sarcopenia].

Randomized control trials should test the utility of additional leucine to counteract frailty in the elderly.”

What Does This Study Mean For You?

ConfusionLet me start by saying that leucine is not a “magic bullet” that will prevent sarcopenia (age-related loss of muscle mass) by itself. Three things are essential for preventing sarcopenia:

  • Resistance (weight bearing) exercise. You should aim for at least 3 days/week of moderate intensity weight bearing exercise a week.

If you have physical limitations, consult with your health professional before beginning an exercise program. And if you have not done weight bearing exercise before, it is best to start with instruction from a personal trainer to be sure you are using appropriate weights and appropriate form.

[Note: The participants in this study had not done weight bearing exercise for 6 months prior to the study and did not exercise during the study.]

  • Adequate protein. I have discussed this in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”. If you are in your 30’s, 15-20 grams of protein per meal will do. But if you are in your 60’s and above, it’s better to aim for 25-30 grams of protein per meal.

[Note: On average the men in this study were consuming 87 grams of protein per day. That’s 29 grams per meal. The women in this study averaged 67 grams of protein per day or 22 grams per meal. So, most of the participants in this study were consuming adequate protein.]

  • Adequate leucine. This study showed that the benefits of leucine plateaued at around 7.6-8.0 grams per day or 2.5 to 2.7 grams per meal for non-exercising adults in their 60’s and 70’s.

This is in close agreement with studies showing that 25-30 grams of protein and 2.7 grams of leucine were optimal for seniors in this age range following weight bearing exercise.

[Note: This study only determined the optimal intake of leucine. Remember for maximal effectiveness at reducing age-related muscle mass (sarcopenia) you need optimal protein, optimal leucine, and an optimal resistance (weight bearing) exercise program.]

Where Can Seniors Find The Protein And Leucine They Need?

For most Americans this is not too difficult as the table above shows. If you look at single foods, chicken and soybeans are the best sources of both protein and leucine. Other meats and other beans & legumes are also good choices.

I included things like eggs, dairy foods, broccoli, and spinach as a reminder that you don’t need to get all your protein and leucine from a single food source. Other whole foods included in your meal can contribute to your protein and leucine totals.

This table also shows that you don’t need to be a carnivore to get the protein and leucine you need. However, if you avoid most meats or are a pure vegan, you will need to plan your diet a bit more carefully.

Finally, if you are looking to optimize your workouts with an after-workout plant-based protein shake, soy protein would be your best choice. If you chose plant protein, you should look for high-quality protein shakes with added leucine to make sure you meet both your protein and leucine goals.

The Bottom Line

Most Americans lose lean muscle mass as we age, a physiological process called sarcopenia. This loss of muscle mass leads to reduced mobility, a tendency to fall (which often leads to debilitating bone fractures) and a lower metabolic rate – which leads to obesity and all the illnesses that go along with obesity.

Fortunately, sarcopenia is not an inevitable consequence of aging. There are 3 things we can do to prevent it.

  • Exercise – and I’m talking about resistance (weight) training, not just aerobic exercise. This is the most important thing that we can do to prevent muscle loss as we age.
  • Optimize our protein intake.
  • Optimize our leucine intake.

Previous studies have determined the optimal protein intake for preventing sarcopenia. The study I describe above determined the optimal leucine intake.

For more details about the study and what it 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.

Is HDL Good For Your Heart?

by

Is Everything You Knew About HDL Wrong?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

HDL CHolesterolIn last week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” I talked about one of the greatest strengths of the scientific method – namely that investigators constantly challenge, and occasionally disprove, existing paradigms. That allows us to discard old models of how things work and replace them with better ones.

Last week I shared a study that disproved the paradigm that low to moderate alcohol consumption is healthier than total abstinence. This week I share several studies that challenge the belief that HDL cholesterol is good for your heart.

The belief that HDL is good for your heart has all the hallmarks of a classic paradigm.

  • It is supported by multiple clinical studies.
  • Elaborate metabolic explanations have been proposed to support the paradigm.
  • It is the official position of most medical societies, scientific organizations, and health information sites on the web.
  • It is the recommendation of most health professionals.
  • It has been repeated so often by so many trusted sources that everyone assumes it must be true.

Once we accept the HDL/heart health paradigm as true, we can construct other hypotheses on that foundation. For example:

  • Raising your HDL levels naturally takes effort. Pharmaceutical companies have been pursuing the “magic pill” that raises HDL levels without any effort on your part.
  • Low carb diets like the Keto and Paleo diets are high in saturated fat. The low carb enthusiasts claim this is a good thing because saturated fat raises HDL levels, and HDL is good for your heart.

But what if the underlying HDL/heart health paradigm weren’t true? These hypotheses would be like the parable of a house built on a foundation of sand. The paradigm will be washed away as soon as it is critically tested.

So, let’s look at experiments that have challenged the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Do Drugs That Increase HDL Levels Work?

The first hint that the HDL/heart health paradigm might be faulty happened when a pharmaceutical company developed a drug that selectively increased HDL levels.

The drug company thought they had found the goose that laid golden eggs. Just imagine. People wouldn’t have to lose weight, exercise, or change their diet. They could simply take a pill and dramatically decrease their heart disease risk. A drug like that would be worth $billions.

The problem was that when they tested their drug (torcetrapib) in clinical trials, it had absolutely no effect on heart disease outcomes (AR Tall et al, Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 27:257-260, 2007).

The pharmaceutical company couldn’t believe it. Raising HDL levels just had to reduce heart disease risk. They concluded they didn’t have the right drug, and they continued to work on developing new drugs.

That was 16 years ago, and no HDL-increasing drug has made it to market. Have they just not found the right drug, or does this mean the HDL/heart health paradigm is incorrect?

Does Saturated Fat Decrease Heart Disease Risk?

Now let’s turn to two claims of low carb enthusiasts.

#1: Saturated fats decrease your risk of heart disease in the context of a low carb diet. I have debunked that claim in several previous issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”. But let me refer you to two articles here – one on saturated fat and heart disease risk and one on low-carb diets.

#2: Saturated fats decrease heart disease risk because they raise HDL levels. This is the one I will address today.

The idea that saturated fats decrease heart disease risk because they raise HDL levels is based on a simplistic concept of HDL particles. The reality is more complex. Several clinical studies have shown:

  • The type of fat determines the property of the HDL particles.
    • When polyunsaturated fats predominate, the HDL particles have an anti-inflammatory effect. When saturated fats predominate, the HDL particles have a pro-inflammatory effect.
  • Anti-inflammatory HDL particles relax the endothelial cells lining our blood vessels. That makes the lining of our blood vessels more pliable, which improves blood flow and reduces blood pressure.
    • Anti-inflammatory HDL particles also help reduce inflammation of the endothelial lining. This is important because an inflamed endothelial lining is more likely to accumulate fatty plaques and to trigger blood clot formation that can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

So, the question becomes, “What good is it to raise HDL levels if you are producing an unhealthy, pro-inflammatory HDL particle that may increase the risk of high blood pressure, heart attacks, and strokes?”

In short, these studies suggest it isn’t enough to just focus on HDL levels. You need to ask what kind of HDL particles you are creating.

Is HDL Good For Your Heart?

strong heartOnce the studies were published showing that…

  • Drug-induced increase of HDL levels without any change in health habits is not sufficient to decrease heart attack risk, and…
  • Not all HDL particles are healthy. There are anti-inflammatory or pro-inflammatory HDL particles, which likely have opposite effects on heart attack risk…

…some people started to question the HDL/heart health paradigm. And one group came up with the perfect study to test the paradigm.

But before I describe the study, I need to review the term “confounding variables”. I described the term and how it affects clinical studies in last week’s article. Here is a brief synopsis:

  • The studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm are association studies. Association studies measure the association between a single variable (in this case, increase in HDL levels) and an outcome (in this case, heart disease events, heart disease deaths, and total deaths).
  • Associations need to be corrected for other variables known to affect the same outcome (things like age, gender, smoking, and diabetes would be examples in this case).
  • Confounding variables are variables that also affect the outcome but are unknown or ignored. Thus, they are not used to correct the associations, which can bias the results.

The authors of this study (M Briel et al, BMJ 2009:338.b92) observed that most interventions that increase HDL levels also lower LDL levels. Lowering LDL is known to decrease the risk of heart disease deaths. But this effect had been ignored in most studies looking at the association between HDL and heart disease deaths.

They hypothesized that the change in LDL levels was a confounding variable that had been ignored in previous studies and may have biased the results.Heart Disease Study

To test this hypothesis the authors searched the literature and identified 108 studies with 299,310 participants that:

  • Compared the effect of drugs, omega-3 fatty acids, or diet with either a placebo or usual care.
  • Measured both HDL and LDL levels.
  • Measured reduction in cardiovascular risk.
  • Had a randomized control design.
  • Lasted at least 6 months.

They found that every 10 mg/dl decrease in LDL levels in these studies was responsible for a:

  • 7.1% reduction in heart disease events (both heart disease deaths and non-fatal heart attacks).
  • 7.2% reduction in heart disease deaths.
  • 4.4% reduction in total deaths.

After correcting for the effect of decreased LDL levels on these heart disease outcomes, the increase in HDL levels had no statistically significant effect on any of the outcomes.

The authors concluded, “Available data suggest that simply increasing the amount of circulating HDL cholesterol does not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease events, coronary heart disease deaths, or total deaths. The results support reduction in LDL cholesterol as the primary goal for lipid modifying interventions.”

In other words, this study:

  • Supports the author’s hypothesis that LDL levels were a confounding variable that biased the studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm.
  • Concludes that increasing HDL levels has no effect on heart disease outcomes, thus invalidating the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Is Everything You Knew About HDL Wrong?

Peek Behind The CurtainDoes that mean that everything you knew about HDL is wrong? Not exactly. It just means that you need to change your perspective.

Don’t focus on HDL levels. Peek behind the curtain and focus on what’s behind the HDL levels. For example:

  • Losing weight when overweight increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to weight loss than to the increase in HDL levels.
  • Exercise increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to exercise than to the increase in HDL levels.
  • Reversing pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the reversal of diabetes than to the increase in HDL levels.
  • High-dose omega-3 fatty acids increase HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the omega-3 fatty acids than to the increase in HDL levels.
  • The Mediterranean diet increases HDL levels. But the decrease in heart disease outcomes is more likely due to the diet than to the increase in HDL levels.

And if you want to go the drug route:

  • Statins and some other heart drugs increase HDL levels, but the reduction in heart disease outcomes is probably due to their effect on LDL levels rather than their effect on HDL levels.

On the other hand:

  • Saturated fats increase HDL levels. But saturated fats increase heart disease risk and create pro-inflammatory HDL particles. So, in this case the increase in HDL levels is not a good omen for your heart.
  • Drugs have been discovered that selectively increase HDL levels. However, there is nothing of value behind this increase in HDL levels, so the drugs have no effect on heart disease outcomes.

The Bottom Line 

In this article I discuss several studies that have challenged the HDL/heart health paradigm – the belief that HDL is good for your heart.

For example, one group of investigators analyzed the studies underlying the HDL/heart health paradigm. They hypothesized that these studies were inaccurate because they failed to account for the effects of LDL levels on heart disease outcomes.

After correcting for the effect of decreased LDL levels on heart disease outcomes in the previous studies, the authors showed that increases in HDL levels had no significant effect on any heart disease outcome.

The authors concluded, “Available data suggest that simply increasing the amount of circulating HDL cholesterol does not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease events, coronary heart disease deaths, or total deaths. The results support reduction in LDL cholesterol as the primary goal for lipid modifying interventions.”

In other words, this study:

  • Supports the author’s hypothesis that LDL levels were a confounding variable that biased the studies supporting the HDL/heart health paradigm.
  • Concludes that increasing HDL levels has no effect on heart disease outcomes, thus invalidating the HDL/heart health paradigm.

Does that mean that everything you knew about HDL is wrong? Not exactly. It just means that you need to change your perspective. Don’t focus on HDL levels. Focus on what’s behind the HDL levels. For more information on that, read the article above.

For more information on this study, and what it 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

Best Way To Reduce Risk Of Breast Cancer

by

What Does The American Cancer Society Say About Reducing Breast Cancer Risk? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

breast cancerBreast cancer is a scary disease. The American Cancer Society tells us:

  • 281,000 women will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2021.
  • 43,000 women will die from breast cancer in 2021.
  • The good news is that both prevention and treatment of breast cancer have gotten much better:
    • The 5-year survival rate is 90%.
    • The 10-year survival rate is 84%.
    • For women over 50 the death rate has decreased by 1%/year between 2013 and 2018 (mainly due to recognition that hormone replacement therapy is a risk factor for breast cancer).
  • The bad news is:
    • The cost of breast cancer treatment can range from $50,000 to over $180,000.
    • The side effects of breast cancer treatment can be brutal.
      • For example, there is an effective treatment to prevent breast cancer recurrence for some forms of breast cancer, but many women discontinue the treatment after a few years because of the side effects.

So, wouldn’t it be wonderful if there were some simple changes you could make that would dramatically reduce your risk of developing breast cancer in the first place? There are lots of options for reducing your risk of developing breast cancer, but which one(s) should you choose?

  • Dr. Strangelove and his friends are only too happy to recommend their favorite potion, food, or diet.
  • There are long lists of foods you should avoid if you want to reduce your risk of breast cancer.
  • There are also lists of harmful chemicals in cleaners and other household products that you should avoid.

It can become confusing. It can become overwhelming. It would be easy to just throw up your hands and say, “I give up. I don’t know what to do.”

You may be thinking, “Why doesn’t someone simplify things by identifying the top few lifestyle changes that are most effective for reducing my risk of developing breast cancer?”

It turns out someone has. Today I will share two recent studies that have identified the top 6 strategies for reducing your risk of breast cancer, and I have ranked them from 1 to 6 in order of effectiveness.

What Is The Best Way To Reduce Risk Of Breast Cancer?

AwardThe first study (RM Tamimi et al, American Journal of Epidemiology, 184: 884-893, 2016 was designed to identify the major modifiable risk factors for invasive, postmenopausal breast cancer (The term “modifiable risk factors” refers to those risk factors that are under your control.

The study utilized data collected from the Nurses’ Health Study between 1980 and 2010. During that time 8,421 cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed in 121,700 postmenopausal women in the study. The study looked at the effect of nonmodifiable and modifiable risk factors on the development of invasive breast cancer in these women.

  • Nonmodifiable risk factors included current age, age at which menstruation began, height, age of first birth, number of births, weight at age 18, family history of breast cancer, and prior benign breast disease.
  • Modifiable risk factors included weight change since age 18, alcohol consumption, physical activity level, breastfeeding, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use.

Here were the results from the study:

  • All the risk factors included in this study accounted for 70% of the risk of developing invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women.
  • Modifiable risk factors accounted for 34.6% of the risk of developing invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

When they analyzed the effect of modifiable risk factors on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer separately:

  • 44 pounds of weight gain since age 18 increased the risk by 50%.
  • Postmenopausal hormone replacement use increased the risk by 35%.
  • More than one alcoholic beverage/day increased the risk by 32%.
  • Low physical activity increased the risk by 7%.
  • Lack of breastfeeding increased the risk by 5%.

What About The Effect Of Diet On Breast Cancer Risk?

You may be wondering, “What about the effect of a healthy diet on my risk developing invasive breast cancer?” Unfortunately, the study I described above completely disregarded the effect of diet on breast cancer risk.

However, the second study (MS Farvid et al, International Journal of Cancer, 144: 1496-1510, 2019) I will discuss today partially addresses this issue. It uses the same database as the first study and looks at the effect of fruit and vegetable consumption on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer.

When this study compared high versus low intake of fresh fruits and vegetable on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer:

  • Women eating >5.5 servings/day of fruits and vegetables had a 11% lower risk than women consuming ≤2.5 servings/day.
  • Women consuming >2.5 servings/day of fruit had a 9% lower risk than women consuming ≤0.5 servings/day.
  • Women consuming >4.5 servings/day of vegetables had a 9% lower risk than women consuming ≤0.5 servings/day.

While all fresh fruits and vegetables contributed to this effect:

  • The most protective fruits were berries and cantaloupe & melons.
  • The most protective vegetables were yams & sweet potatoes, green leafy vegetables (such as kale, mustard greens, and chard), and cruciferous vegetables (such as Brussels sprouts).

The authors concluded, “Our findings support that higher intake of fruits and vegetables, and specifically cruciferous and yellow/orange vegetables, may reduce the risk of breast cancer, especially those that are more likely to be aggressive tumors.”

Now we are ready to answer your question, “Which lifestyle changes are most effective for reducing your risk of developing breast cancer?” If we combine the two studies and rank order the modifiable risk factors, it would look like this.

#1: Minimize weight gain during your adult years.

#2: Don’t use postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy unless absolutely necessary.

#3: Drink little or no alcohol.

#4: Eat a healthy diet with lots of fresh fruits and vegetables.

#5: Be physically active.

#6: Breastfeed when possible.

What Does The American Cancer Society Say About Reducing The Risk Of Breast Cancer?

American Cancer SocietyThe advice of the American Cancer Society is remarkably similar. Here are their recommendations:

  1. Get to and stay at a healthy weight.

After menopause, most of your estrogen comes from fat tissue. Having more fat tissue increases the amount of estrogen your body makes, raising your risk of breast cancer. Also, women who are overweight tend to have higher levels of insulin. Higher insulin levels have also been linked to breast cancer.

If you are already at a healthy weight, stay there. If you are carrying extra pounds, try to lose some. Losing even a small amount of weight can also have other health benefits and is a good place to start.

3) Be physically active and avoid time spent sitting.

Current recommendations are to get at least 150-300 minutes of moderate intensity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous intensity activity each week. Getting to or exceeding 300 minutes is ideal.

In addition, you should limit sedentary behavior such as sitting, lying down, watching TV, and other forms of screen-based entertainment. This is especially important if you spend most of your working day sitting.

3) Follow a healthy eating plan.

A healthy eating pattern includes a variety of vegetables, fiber-rich legumes (beans and peas), fruits in a variety of colors, and whole grains. It is best to avoid or limit red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products. This will provide you with key nutrients in amounts that help you get to and stay at a healthy weight.

4) It is best not to drink alcohol.

Research has shown that drinking any alcohol increases the risk of breast cancer. If you choose to drink alcohol, the American Cancer Society recommends that women have no more than 1 alcoholic drink on any given day. A drink is 12 ounces of regular beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of hard liquor.

5) Think carefully about using hormone replacement therapy.

Studies show that HRT using a combination of estrogen and progestin increases the risk of breast cancer. This combination can also lead to increased breast density making it harder to find breast cancer on mammogram.

Talk with your doctor about all the options to control your menopause symptoms, including the risks and benefits of each. If you decide to try HRT, it is best to use it at the lowest dose that works for you and for as short a time as possible.

The Bottom Line

Breast cancer is a scary disease. The good news is that detection and treatment of breast cancer has improved over the past decade. The bad news is that treatment is expensive, and the side effects can be brutal.

There are lots of options for reducing your risk of developing breast cancer, but which one(s) should you choose?

  • Strangelove and his friends are only too happy to recommend their favorite potion, food, or diet.
  • There are long lists of foods you should avoid if you want to reduce your risk of breast cancer.
  • There are also lists of harmful chemicals in cleaners and other household products that you should avoid.

It can become confusing. It can become overwhelming. It would be easy to just throw up your hands and say, “I give up. I don’t know what to do.”

You may be thinking, “Why doesn’t someone simplify things by identifying the top few lifestyle changes that are most effective for reducing my risk of developing breast cancer?”

It turns out someone has. Today I will share two recent studies that have identified the top 6 strategies for reducing your risk of breast cancer, and I have ranked them from 1 to 6 in order of effectiveness in the article above.

For more details about these studies, my ranking of the top 6 strategies for reducing your risk of breast cancer, and the American Cancer Society recommendations, 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.

Health Tips From The Professor