lose weight

Are Peptide Stacks Safe?

by

Would You Like To Be A Guinea Pig?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

MagicPeptide stacks are all latest “magic” weight-loss potion. If you watch social media, the hype is hard to escape. If you believe the promises:

  • The weight will magically melt away.
  • Fat will disappear and be replaced with muscle.
  • You’ll have the energy to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
  • Aches & pains will disappear.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. What’s not to like?

Let’s start at the beginning. Peptide stacks are simply multiple peptide hormones with different benefits that are given as a single injection – usually once or twice a day.

To help you understand their benefits and risks, I will discuss:

  • Metabolism 101: How Do Peptide Hormones Work?
  • The Allure of Peptide Stacks.
  • GLP-1 Drugs: A Cautionary Tale
  • Are Peptide Stacks Safe?
  • Would You Like To Be A Guinea Pig?

Metabolism 101: How Do Peptide Hormones Work?

Peptide hormones are short chains of amino acids, usually 10 to 100 amino acids in length. You can think of them as short proteins. In fact, many peptide hormones start out as a larger precursor protein that is cleaved into several different peptide hormones.

  • Peptide hormones are released from specific cells in response to a physiological signal.
  • They bind to target tissues and produce an effect on metabolism, growth, or reproduction.
  • Once they have achieved the desired effect and the original physiological signal disappears, they are rapidly degraded and replaced by different peptide hormones that often have the opposite effect.

But that simplistic description just scratches the surface.

  • Sometimes they act like a cross between a “bucket brigade” and a spider web.

Regulation of human growth hormone (HGH) is an example.

  • Fasting caused the stomach to release the peptide hormone ghrelin, which stimulates the hypothalamus to release growth hormone releasing factor (HGRF). Low blood glucose, which is associated with fasting, also causes the hypothalamus to release HGRF.
  • Sleep, especially the early stages of deep sleep, also stimulates the hypothalamus to release HGRF.
  • HGRF binds to the pituitary and stimulates it to release HGH. HGH binds to nearly every tissue and organ in the body and has multiple effects. I’ll just mention a few of them here. For example,
  • HGH binds to the liver and causes it to release insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1).
  • IGF-1 opposes the effect of insulin. It causes the liver to release glucose into the bloodstream and the liver and other tissues to release fat into the bloodstream. This helps the body get the energy it needs during the fasting state. It also provides the energy needed for growth.
  • It also stimulates the growth of muscle and bone. This is part of the growth response to HGH.
  • And, of course, all these responses support tissue repair, metabolism, and growth during sleep.

These effects of HGH are short-lived. HGH is meant to be released in short pulses as needed by the body. Once the desired effects of HGH have been realized, its production is stopped and it is rapidly degraded.

  • IGF-1 and/or high levels of blood glucose and fatty acids cause the hypothalamus to halt production of GHRF and release a peptide hormone called somatostatin instead.
  • Somatostatin binds to the pituitary and blocks the release of HGH.

This description is a simplistic view of the effects and regulation of HGH. Ghrelin, HGH and IGF-1 each have multiple other targets within the body. They influence multiple metabolic reactions. And both HGH and IGF-1 are regulated by other peptide hormones, each responding to different physiological stimuli.

So, you can see where my analogy of a bucket brigade and spider web came from.

  • The bucket brigade is: stomach → ghrelin → hypothalamus → GHRF → pituitary → HGH → liver → IGF-1
  • The spider web is the multiple other targets of ghrelin, HGH, and IGF-1 and the other peptide hormones that stimulate the release HGH and IGF-1.

But the analogy of a bucket brigade and spider web is a static representation. Each peptide hormone is constantly changing over time. Perhaps a better analogy would be an intricate dance, with dance partners constantly changing, disappearing, and reappearing.

When I look at the intricacies of metabolic regulation it seems inescapable that there must be a divine creator. This could not have happened by chance. And metabolic regulation is just one aspect of the amazing human body.

The Allure Of Peptide Stacks 

When I think of the allure of peptide stacks, the image that comes to mind is the sirens of Greek Mythology. They were variously described as bird-like or mermaid-like creatures who sat on the shoreline and sang such enchanting songs that they lured sailors to their deaths on the rocky shoals just off the coast.

In Homer’s Odyssey, he wrote about Ulysses putting earplugs in his crew and tying himself to the mast, so they could safely pass by the sirens without being lured to their death.

In this section, I will talk about the allure of peptide stacks. I’ll discuss the rocks later.

Perhaps the best way to talk about the allure of peptide stacks is to give specific examples of some of the most popular peptides included in the stacks.

Tesamorelin is a synthetic analog of growth hormone releasing factor (GHRF) that stimulates the pituitary to release growth hormone (HGH), which stimulates the liver to release insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1).

  • It is associated with muscle growth and fat loss, especially abdominal fat.

Ipamorelin is a synthetic peptide that mimics the effects of ghrelin. In short, it stimulates the hypothalamus to release GHRF, which stimulates the pituitary to release HGH, which stimulates the liver to release IGF-1.

  • It is associated with muscle growth, fat loss, recovery and healing.

CJC-1295 is another synthetic analog of GHRH.

  • It is associated with muscle growth, fat loss, improved recovery and healing, increased energy, and better bone density.

AOD-9604 is a synthetic analog of HGH. However, it is only a portion of the HGH molecule. It promotes weight loss but does not increase muscle mass or help with blood sugar control.

BPC-157 is a synthetic analog of a peptide found in gastric juice.

  • It is associated with wound healing, gastrointestinal health, and reduced inflammation.

TB-500 is a synthetic analog of thymosin-beta-4, a peptide released by platelets, macrophages, and smooth muscle cells after injury.

  • It is associated with accelerated wound healing, reduced inflammation, increased flexibility and mobility, and muscle growth.

Tirzepatide is a synthetic analog of GLP-1. Like other GLP-1 it improves blood sugar control and suppresses appetite, which can lead to significant weight loss.

  • The FDA approved version of tirzepatide is sold under the trade names Mounjaro and Zepbound. However, the tirzepatide you find in peptide stacks is neither FDA approved nor FDA regulated. I will discuss what the FDA says about this below.

Of course, the “magic” of peptide stacks is that several of these peptides are combined in each injection, so you are maximizing the health “benefits”.

And when you look at the claimed health benefits – weight loss, fat loss, muscle growth, reduced inflammation, energy, improved flexibility, and much more – the allure of peptides stacks is easy to understand.

But is there a downside to peptide stacks? It’s time to examine the rocks along the shoreline. But first I should share a cautionary tale about GLP-1 drugs because that helps us understand the potential problems with peptide stacks.

GLP-1 Drugs – A Cautionary Tale 

GLP-1 is a peptide secreted by specialized cells in the intestine every time we have a meal.

  • It activates satiety cells in our brain to tell us we are full and don’t need to eat any more.
  • It also slows the emptying of our stomach and slows the transit time of food in our intestine. That helps us maximize the absorption of nutrients from our meal. It also prolongs the physical feeling of fullness.

But this effect only lasts an hour or two. Soon GLP-1 is broken down, and other peptide hormones take over to keep nutrient levels steady in the bloodstream and prepare us for the next meal. This is part of that “intricate dance” of peptide hormones that I described earlier.

Some bright scientists working for pharmaceutical companies hypothesized that if GLP-1 levels remained high for days rather than hours they could achieve long-term appetite suppression, which would help with weight loss. They created synthetic versions of GLP-1 drugs which were stable in the bloodstream for up to a week and injected them into patients at levels 10 to 100 times higher than found in nature.

Because these drugs were developed by pharmaceutical companies, they went through the complete FDA approval and inspection process. This involves:

  • Double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies with hundreds of patients establishing that the drugs are safe and effective. These studies are of the quality that they are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
  • Careful review of the clinical studies by the FDA as part of the approval process.
  • Regular inspection of the drug production facilities by the FDA to assure adherence to the highest quality and purity standards.
  • Post-Market monitoring after approval to identify any safety concerns that were missed in the approval process. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are required to report any serious side effects to the FDA.
    • During the approval process the drugs are tested in hundreds of patients. After approval the drugs are often used by millions of patients. Also, some side effects are cumulative and do not appear until the drugs have been used for a long time. It is not unusual to identify serious side effects through this post-marketing monitoring process.

Some of the side effects were predictable and were discovered in the original clinical trials of these drugs.

  • Because the GLP-1 analogs are present at higher levels and for much longer than natural GLP-1, stomach emptying and transit times through the intestine were delayed much more than normal.
    • This results in side effects like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, bloating, and stomach pain.

However, some of the most-concerning side effects were only discovered through the post-marketing review process. These include.

  • Increased anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. These side effects, especially suicidal thoughts, are of concern to anyone who already experiences some degree of anxiety and/or depression.
  • Loss of muscle mass. This is of concern to adults over the age of 50 because many of them already suffer from sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss).

Why is this a cautionary tale, you might ask? It’s cautionary because the common side effects and the more serious side effects for GLP-1 drugs were only discovered because of the FDA drug approval and post-marketing review procedures. Spoiler alert: None of the peptide stacks have gone through this kind of review process.

Are Peptide Stacks Safe? 

danger symbolThe question I posed at the beginning of this article is, “Are peptide stacks safe?” The short answer is, “We don’t know but there are several reasons to be cautious”.

#1: Peptide hormones are not natural (And it’s not nice to fool around with Mother Nature).

Specifically, the dosage and timing of peptide stacks is not natural. In my overview of peptide hormones, I talked about the “intricate dance” peptide hormones undergo as they control human metabolism.

In short, peptide hormones are under tight control by our bodies. They are produced in the right amount, at the right time, and for the right duration (They are degraded as soon as they have completed their mission). None of this is true for peptide stacks.

  • They are injected on a fixed schedule – not when our bodies need them (not the right time).
  • They are injected at doses designed to create much higher blood levels than the body produces under normal circumstances (not the right amount).
  • They are injected with frequencies designed to achieve high blood levels far longer than seen under normal circumstances (not the right duration).

And if we have learned anything from GLP-1 drugs, it is that when we create synthetic peptide hormones and inject them at the wrong time, at the wrong amount, and for the wrong duration we create side effects and some of those side effects may have significant health consequences.

#2: We have no idea whether peptide stacks are effective and safe. These are not FDA approved treatments. That means:

  • No human clinical trials have been performed to assess efficacy and safety of peptide stacks.
  • There is no post-marketing monitoring. Simply put, that means there is no system in place to monitor the frequency and severity of side effects.

#3: We have no idea whether peptide stacks are pure and potent. They are typically produced by compounding pharmacies or overseas manufacturers who may not use good manufacturing practices and quality controls.

The FDA has recently released a warning about one of these synthetic peptide hormones (tirzepatide) produced by compounding pharmacies and overseas manufacturers and available online. Their findings were that some of the samples they evaluated:

  • Had inaccurate label information.
  • Contained too little, too much, or no active ingredient at all.
  • Contained the wrong ingredients.
  • Contained harmful contaminants.

While this report focused on a single peptide, there is no reason to suspect that compounding pharmacies and overseas manufacturers would do a better job of producing other synthetic peptide hormones.

In short, it is buyer beware in the online peptide stack marketplace.

Would You Like To Be A Guinea Pig? 

To sum up the previous section:

  • Peptide stacks are not natural. This may result in unexpected side effects.
  • There are no published human clinical studies on peptide stacks. That means:
  • We have no idea whether they are safe and effective. There is no evidence that the claimed benefits are true, and we don’t know what the side effects might be.
  • No one is monitoring the manufacturing practices and quality controls for peptide stacks. That means:
    • We have no idea whether they are pure and potent. We don’t know how much of each peptide hormone they contain and whether the hormones are pure.

In short, using the peptide stacks currently available online is like volunteering to be a guinea pig in a long-term clinical trial with an uncertain outcome.

Now I know many of you prefer to go outside of the medical system, and it may seem to you that I am taking the side of the FDA and pharmaceutical companies.

That is not the case. I do get regular checkups, but my doctor is fully aware that I prefer natural approaches whenever possible. I’m 81, use no medications, and am in excellent health.

I choose natural approaches that are proven to be safe and effective. Peptide stacks are not there yet. I choose not to be a guinea pig.

But if the allure of peptide stacks still tempts you, the best advice I have seen is to work with licensed health professionals.

  • They normally research their sources and know which companies use good manufacturing practices and perform rigorous quality controls on their products.
    • It’s your responsibility to ask them how they choose which products they recommend.
  • They normally monitor you for side effects.
    • It’s your responsibility to ask them how they want to monitor you for side effects and to report any side effects to them as soon as you notice them.

The Bottom Line 

Peptide stacks are the latest “magic” weight-loss potion. When I think of the allure of peptide stacks, the image that comes to mind is the sirens of Greek Mythology. They were variously described as bird-like or mermaid-like creatures who sat on the shoreline and sang such enchanting songs that they lured sailors to their deaths on the rocky shoals just off the coast.

In this article I describe their allure. I also describe the rocky shoals.

  • Peptide stacks are not natural. This may result in unexpected side effects.
  • There are no published human clinical studies on peptide stacks. That means:
    • We have no idea whether they are safe and effective. There is no evidence that the claimed benefits are true, and we don’t know what the side effects might be.
  • No one is monitoring the manufacturing practices and quality controls for peptide stacks. That means:
    • We have no idea whether they are pure and potent. We don’t know how much of each peptide hormone they contain and whether the hormones are pure.

In short, using the peptide stacks currently available online is like volunteering to be a guinea pig in a long-term clinical trial with an uncertain outcome.

For more information on peptide stacks and the best recommendations if you choose to use them, 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 54 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 It Too Late For Weight Loss Goals?

by

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

It’s almost the New Year. And with the New Year comes New Year’s resolutions. Weight loss is the second most popular New Year’s resolution, trailing only exercising more.

But if you are middle-aged and have been overweight most of your adult life, is it too late to lose weight? Has the damage to your health already been done? Has that ship already sailed?

There is good evidence that people who maintain an ideal weight throughout their adult years are healthier and live slightly longer than people who are overweight.

There is also good evidence that weight loss at any age provides short-term improvements to biomarkers of good health such as:

  • lower blood pressure.
  • lower cholesterol levels.
  • better blood sugar control.
  • reduction in chronic inflammation.

But surprisingly there are very few studies to show that weight loss results in long-term health benefits, especially for people who have been overweight through their 40s and 50s. To date there is only a single Chinese study of midlife weight loss, and that study suggested that health benefits were only apparent if the weight loss was maintained for 30 years or more.

The study (TE Strandberg et al, JAMA Network Open, 2025, 8(5); e2511825) I will describe today was designed to fill that gap.

How Was This Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe investigators used data from three large studies that followed healthy individuals in midlife for 10 years or more. None of these studies were designed as weight loss studies, but they measured weight, chronic disease incidence or mortality at multiple points during the study.

The first study was the Whitehall II Study (WHII). This study enrolled 10,308 British civil servants (Whitehall is the district where the British Civil Service is located) between 1985 and 1988 and is still ongoing. The data for this investigation was taken from clinical examinations that occurred around 1991 and 2013.

  • These exams provided information on weight and height, BMI, and risk factors like smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and insulin resistance and/or high blood sugar (indicative of prediabetes or diabetes).
  • The data set was linked to National Health Service records for diagnosed chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, heart attack, stroke, cancer, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).

The study I am describing today included 4118 men and women aged 37-42 years (average = 39 years) from the WHII dara set who were free of chronic disease at the time of the 1991 clinical evaluation.

The second study was the Helsinki Businessmen Study (HBS). In this study 3490 White men, mostly businessmen and executives aged 38-45 years (average 42 years) underwent voluntary health checkups starting in 1964. Cardiovascular risk factors were assessed and the men received health education on diet, exercise, and weight control. Between 1974 and 1975 these men were offered a voluntary follow-up health checkup, and 2335 men completed both checkups.

  • In this study, BMI was measured at both health checkups and all-cause mortality data were obtained from the National Health Registry.

The third study was the Finnish Public Sector Study (FPS). In this study 77,111 men and women in public service were enrolled in 2,000. BMI was measured in 4-year intervals and health data were collected from the European Health Records. The data for this investigation used data from 16,696 men and women who were 34-43 (average age = 39) at the first assessment, had data from at least 3 consecutive assessments, and had no diagnosed chronic disease at the first assessment.

  • As with the WHII study, BMI and chronic disease were measured in at least 2 consecutive assessments.

The average follow-up for the three studies was 22.8 years between the first and last assessment.

In all three cases the study participants were divided into 4 groups:

  • Those who remain overweight (defined as a persistent BMI>25).
  • Those who gained weight – they went from a healthy weight to being overweight (defined as BMI<25 to BMI>25).
  • Those who lost weight – they went from overweight to a healthy weight (defined as BMI>25 to BMI<25).
    • The average weight loss was 11.5 pounds or 6.5% of body weight and was remarkably consistent in all 3 studies.
  • Those who remained at a healthy weight (defined as a persistent BMI<25).

In the WHII and FPS studies, weight differences were correlated with the diagnosis of a chronic disease between the first and last assessment.

In the HBS study, weight differences were correlated with all-cause mortality between the first and last assessment.

In all three cases, the data were corrected for major risk factors like smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and insulin resistance and/or high blood sugar.

In terms of the risk of developing a chronic disease (WHII and FPS studies) or risk of dying (HBS study) the always overweight group was assigned a risk of 1.0 and the other groups were compared to it.

The authors noted that all three studies were performed before surgical and pharmacological interventions were available. And people with pre-existing conditions were excluded from these studies, so disease-related weight loss was unlikely. Thus, the authors felt that the group who lost weight probably did so because of a conscious effort to change their diet and lifestyle, although this was not specifically measured in these studies.

Is It Too Late For A Weight Loss Goal?

If you remember the introduction, this question did not refer to short-term biomarkers of health. Multiple studies have shown that weight loss at any age will improve blood sugar control and lower blood pressure, cholesterol, and inflammation.

This study asked whether weight loss can be shown to have long-term health benefits – namely reduction in the risk of chronic diseases and increase in longevity.

And more specifically, it asked whether weight loss in middle age (the age of participants in these studies ranged from 39 to 42) can be shown to have long-term health benefits – even if they had been overweight for most of their adult life up to that point.

Or as the title of this segment suggested, “Is it too late to set a weight loss goal if you are middle aged.”

The answer from these studies was clear cut:

  • In the WHII study the risk of developing a chronic disease decreased by 48% compared to the always overweight group.
    • And when diabetes was excluded from the analysis the decreased risk was still significant (42%). This is important because diabetes is the most prevalent obesity related disease. The means that weight loss also significantly reduced the risk of the other chronic diseases measured in this study – such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.
  • In the FPS study the risk of developing a chronic disease decreased by 57% compared to the always overweight group.
  • Again, when diabetes was excluded from the analysis the decreased risk was still significant (45%).
  • Finally, in the HBS study, the risk of premature death decreased by 19% compared to the always overweight group.

In each of these studies:

  • The group that gained weight in their middle years did almost as poorly as the always overweight group.

The authors concluded, “Findings from 3 prospective cohort studies support maintaining a healthy weight (BMI<25) throughout life as the best option for overall health. [However] sustained midlife weight loss compared with persistent overweight was associated with a decreased risk of [diabetes and other chronic diseases] and decreased all-cause mortality.”

Simply put, this analysis of three long-term studies shows that weight loss can help you be healthier and live longer in your golden years – even if you waited until you were middle-aged to lose the weight.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

cruise shipAt the beginning of this article I posed the questions: If you are middle-aged and have been overweight most of your adult life, is it too late to set a weight loss goal this January? Has the damage to your health already been done? Has that ship already sailed?

This study shows that the answer to this question is clearly, “No. It’s not too late.” Sustained weight loss can still provide significant long-term benefits.

Three major studies show that sustained weight loss initiated by adults in their forties can reduce the risk of chronic disease by around 50% and reduce the risk of mortality by about 20% twenty years later. The authors of this study said that evidence from one of those studies suggests that the long-term health benefits are still apparent 30 years later.

Of course, these studies represent a single time point – weight loss initiated at age 40.

  • The benefits of sustained weight loss may wane if you delay longer, but we don’t know because those studies have not been done. However, it is likely that sustained weight loss at any age will have significant long-term health benefits.
  • The benefits of sustained weight loss may be even greater if you lose weight at a younger age. Again, we can’t predict how much greater the benefit will be because those studies also haven’t been done yet.
  • However, as the authors of this study said, “Maintaining a healthy weight throughout life is the best option for overall health.” That conclusion is supported by multiple studies.

There are a couple of other important points.

  • These benefits (a 50% reduction in chronic diseases and a 20% increase in longevity) do not require massive weight loss. The subjects in these studies only lost around 11-12 pounds (6.5% of their weight). You have previously heard that as little as 5% weight loss has significant short-term benefits. This study confirms that statement and indicates if the weight loss is sustained, it will significantly improve long-term health outcomes.
  • Weight loss has a bigger effect on quality of life (absence from chronic diseases) than it does on longevity. That is true of every healthy lifestyle improvement that has been studied. I’m sorry to say that losing weight will not help you live as long as Methuselah. But it will help you live your last years in good health.

Of course, losing weight is easy. There are many fad diets that can help you do that. But keeping the weight off is hard. This is where every diet eventually fails. Maintaining weight loss requires lifestyle change. It also requires a change in mindset. It requires that you change how you think about food and how you think about your ability to control what you eat.

This is why I created my online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. If this is the year you have resolved to lose weight and keep it off, check out my course.

What About Weight Loss Surgery and GLP-1 Drugs? 

Weight loss surgery and GLP-1 drugs result in faster and greater weight loss than diet and lifestyle changes alone. For example, clinical trials show that GLP-1 drugs can result in 15-20% body weight loss within the first year. [Subsequent studies suggest that real-life weight loss is often much smaller because of drug discontinuation due to side effects or cost.]

But assuming the 15-20% number, the question becomes whether these interventions have the same or greater benefits than the 6.5% body weight loss due to diet and lifestyle change seen in these studies.

The short answer is that we don’t know because we don’t have any long-term studies of these interventions. However, the authors of this study were skeptical. They said, “It remains uncertain whether the long-term benefits observed in our study extend to these interventions, where greater weight loss may be accompanied by a concurrent and potentially significant loss of lean body mass, which could pose challenges over time.”

I have discussed the importance of muscle mass for health and longevity in a previous issue  of “Health Tips From the Professor”. This article shows why the accelerated loss of muscle mass seen with GLP-1 drugs is so concerning.

The Bottom Line 

The time to set your New Year’s goals is just a few weeks away. If you are middle-aged and have been overweight most of your adult life, is it too late to set a weight loss goal this January? Has the damage to your health already been done? Has that ship already sailed?

A recent study examined that question. The study used data from three earlier studies on the long-term effects of sustained weight loss (20 years or more). These studies show that sustained weight loss initiated by adults in their 40s reduces the risk of:

  • Chronic disease by around 50%.
  • Mortality by about 20%.
  • Data from one of those studies suggests that the long-term health benefits were still apparent 30 years later.

For more information on this study, what it means for you, and where weight loss surgery and GLP-1 drugs fit into the picture, read the article above.

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

 ______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

The Chocolate Myth

by

Can Chocolate Help You Lose Weight? 

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

chocolateSometimes you come across news that just seems too good to be true. The claims that you can lose weight just by eating chocolate are a perfect example. Your first reaction when you heard that was probably “Sure, when pigs fly!”

But it’s such an enticing idea – one might even say a deliciously enticing idea. And, in today’s world enticing ideas like this quickly gain a life of their own. Two popular books have been written on the subject.

Chocolate diet plans are springing up right and left. A quick scan of the internet even revealed a web site saying that by investing a mere $1,250 in a training course you could become a “Certified Chocolate Weight Loss Coach” earning $50,000/year.

If you like chocolate as much as most people you are probably wondering, “Could it possibly be true, or is it just another myth?

Can Chocolate Help You Lose Weight?

Happy woman on scaleThe idea that chocolate could help you lose weight does have some support. There are three published clinical studies suggesting that chocolate consumption is associated with lower weight (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 62: 247-253, 2008; Nutrition Research, 31: 122-130, 2011; Archives of Internal Medicine, 172: 519-521, 2012).

While that sounds impressive, they were all cross-sectional studies. That means they looked at a cross section of the population and compared chocolate intake with BMI (a measure of obesity). Cross sectional studies have a couple of very important limitations:

  • Cross sectional studies merely measure associations. They don’t prove cause and effect. Was it chocolate that caused the lower weight, or was it something else that those populations were doing? We don’t really know.
  • Cross sectional studies don’t tell us why an association occurs. In many ways, this is the old chicken and egg conundrum. Which comes first? In this case the question is whether the people in the studies became obese because they ate less chocolate – or did they eat less chocolate because they were obese and were trying to control their calories? Again, we have no way of knowing.

The Chocolate Myth

Chocolate is relatively rich in fat and high in calories. It’s not your typical diet food. On the surface, it seems implausible that eating chocolate could help you lose weight. When you first saw those headlines you probably thought, “When pigs fly!” You weren’t the only one. Lot’s of scientists had similar thoughts.

And scientists love to poke holes in implausible hypotheses, so it is no surprise that a recent study (JA Greenberg and B Buijsse, PLOS ONE, 8(8) e70271) has poked some huge holes in the “chocolate causes weight loss” hypothesis.

This study analyzed data from over 12,000 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community (ARIC) Study. This was also a cross-sectional study, but it was a prospective, cross-sectional study (That’s just a fancy scientific term which means that the study followed a cross section of the population over time, rather than just asking what that population group looked like at a single time point).

The authors of the study assessed frequency of chocolate intake and weight for each individual in the study at two separate times 6 years apart. The results were very interesting:

  • When they looked at a cross section of the population at either time point, their results were the same as the previous three studies – namely those who consumed the most chocolate weighed less. So, the cross-sectional data were consistent. Overweight people consumed less chocolate. But that still doesn’t tell us why they consumed less chocolate.
  • However, when they followed the individuals in the study over 6 years, those who consumed the most chocolate gained the most weight. The chocolate eaters were skinnier than the non-chocolate eaters at the beginning of the study, but they gained more weight as the study progressed. And the more chocolate they consumed the more weight they gained over the next 6 years. [No surprise here. Calories still count.]
  • When they specifically looked at the population who had developed an obesity-related illness between the first and second time point, they found that by the end of the study those participants had:
  • Decreased chocolate intake by 37%
  • Decreased fat intake by 4.5%
  • Increased fruit intake by 20%
  • Increased vegetable intake by 17%
  • In short, this study is more consistent with the “obesity causes reduced chocolate intake” model than the “reduced chocolate intake causes obesity” model. Simply put, if you are trying to lose weight, sweets like chocolate are probably among the first things to go.

Of course, even prospective cross-sectional studies have their limitations. Double blind, placebo-controlled studies are clearly needed to resolve this question. The only published study of this type has reported a slight weight gain associated with 25 g/day of dark chocolate, but the study was too small and too short in duration to draw firm conclusions.

In summary, more studies are needed, but the current evidence does not support the “miracle diet food” claims for chocolate. This appears to be another food myth. Pigs are flying!

The Bottom Line: 

  • Pigs still haven’t learned how to fly. As enticing as it may sound, the weight of current evidence does not support the claims that chocolate is a miracle diet food or that eating chocolate every day is a sensible strategy for losing weight.
  • On the other hand, dark chocolate is probably one of the healthier dessert foods. There is no reason not to enjoy an occasional bite of chocolate as part of a healthy, calorie-controlled diet.

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 GLP-1 Users Getting Enough Nutrients?

by

What Does This Mean For Your Future Health?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Most people want to lose weight so they can get trimmer and healthier. I don’t know of anyone who wants to be leaner and less healthy. But if they are not getting the essential nutrients their body needs while they are losing weight, they may well end up both lean and unhealthy.

I don’t need to tell you that GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide 1) drugs are all the rage. Total spending on GLP-1 drugs in the United States exceeded $71 billion in 2023, a 500% increase in just 5 years. There are 15 million Americans on GLP-1 drugs at any one time. And most of this increase has been driven by the weight-loss market.

GLP-1 drugs do work. They target the intestine and the brain, increasing satiety (feeling of fullness) and decreasing appetite.

However, like any other drug, they have side effects. The most frequent are:

  • Nausea
  • Vomiting
  • Diarrhea
  • Constipation
  • Increased heart rate.
  • Hypoglycemia
  • Allergic reactions

In a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor” I discussed a serious side effect that is often overlooked, namely increased risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. My recommendations were:

  • If you suffer from depression, anxiety, or suicidal thoughts, GLP-1 drugs may not be the best choice for you. At the very least you should discuss the risks and benefits with your doctor before using them.
  • If you are using GLP-1 drugs and experience an increase in depression, anxiety, or suicidal tendencies, you should discontinue the drug immediately and report your side effects to your doctor.

Another question that has not been addressed previously is whether people using GLP-1 drugs are getting the essential nutrients their bodies need for optimal health. Today’s study (B Johnson et al, Frontiers in Nutrition, published online in April 2025) was designed to measure the nutritional adequacy of GLP-1 user’s diets.

How Was This Study Done? 

clinical studyThe investigators enrolled 69 people who had been using a GLP-1 drug for at least a month in their study using an online research platform through the University of Turin in Italy.

The characteristics of the study participants were:

  • Weight:
    • 5% normal weight
    • 27% overweight
    • 18% Obese Class I
    • 20% Obese Class II
    • 30% Morbidly Obese
  • Age = 49.6 ± 12.3
  • Ethnicity:
    • 82% Caucasian
    • 6% Hispanic
    • 8% African American
    • 1% Asian
    • This is similar to the ethnic distribution of GLP-1 users in this region.
  • Length of GLP-1 use:
    • 7% <3 months
    • 29% 4-6 months
    • 25% 7-12 months
    • 39% >1 year

The participants were trained on how to use an online dietary recall instrument and then recorded their dietary intake for 3 consecutive days.

Are GLP-1 Users Getting Enough Nutrients?

Question MarkThe results of the 3-day dietary recalls from the GLP-1 users were:

  • Their diets were high in fat (39% of calories) and saturated fat (13%).
  • Their diets were low in fruit, vegetables, grains, and dairy foods.
  • Their diets were low in fiber (14 grams). This is half the recommended intake of fiber.
  • Their diets were sufficient for B-vitamins, copper, phosphorous, selenium, and zinc.
  • Their diets were deficient for calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, choline, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin K, vitamin D, vitamin E, and fiber. For example:
    • 99% of participants were not getting enough Vitamins D and K from their diet.
    • 94% weren’t getting enough choline.
    • 90% weren’t getting enough magnesium.
    • 88% weren’t getting enough iron.

The study did not report the intake of omega-3 fats, but the participants were likely deficient in that as well.

The study participants averaged 0.8 gm/kg of protein, which is the recommended intake for sedentary adults who are not on a weight loss diet. However, 0.8 gm/kg of protein is not sufficient for maintaining muscle mass on weight loss diets, especially weight loss diets aided by GLP-1 drugs. Most experts recommend 1.2gm/kg to 1.6 gm/kg to prevent loss of muscle mass, with a few recommending as high as 2 gm/kg.

Most of the participants in this study did not meet the increased protein recommendations for weight loss.

  • Only 43% consumed at least 1.2 gm/kg of protein.
  • Only 10% consumed at least 1.6 gm/kg of protein.
  • Only 5% consumed at least 2.0 gm/kg of protein.

The authors concluded, “Participants on a GLP-1 drug are not meeting the DRI [daily recommended intake] for several vital nutrients through their diet or the higher protein needs during weight loss. Patient-centered nutritional guidance is essential to optimize health outcomes and prevent unintended health consequences.

What Does This Mean For Your Future Health?

QuestionsThe results of this study are both appalling and expected. Weight loss diets often result in nutritional insufficiencies. However, GLP-1-aided weight loss is worse.

That’s because GLP-1 is a drug, not a diet plan. It’s dispensed like any other drug.

  • Your doctor gives you a GLP-1 prescription. If you are lucky, they may give you a “one-size-fits-all” handout on how to lose weight while you are using it. For example, in this study:
    • Only 51% of participants received information from their doctor on how to manage side effects of GLP-1.
    • Only 20% were referred to a dietitian. The other 80% received no information on how to change their diet and lifestyle.
  • When you pick up the drug from the pharmacy, you get a package insert listing the side effects but no information on how to change your diet.

The results were predictable:

From a medical point of view the results were a big success:

  • The participants in the study reduced their caloric intake by 20%.
  • Most of the participants in the study felt the GLP-1 drug was helping them lose weight.

But from a nutritional point of view the study raises a red flag. Most of the participants were not told to change their diet or lifestyle, and they didn’t. Their diet was still:

  • High in total fat and saturated fat and probably low in healthy fats, although that was not assessed.
  • Low in fruits, vegetables, grain, dairy, and fiber.

The typical American diet is bad enough as it is. But when you eat the same diet and decrease calories, the nutritional inadequacies of the American diet are magnified. That is why the diets of the GLP-1 users were deficient in fiber plus 10 essential vitamins and minerals and did not contain enough protein to prevent loss of muscle mass.

Most (52%) of the participants were planning to be on GLP-1 drugs for a short period of time – just long enough to reach their weight loss goals. But the reality is far different.

Studies show that when people lose weight on GLP-1 drugs without changing their diet and lifestyle, the weight comes roaring back as soon as they get off the drugs. The reality is that those people will need to stay on GLP-1 drugs for a lifetime if they want to keep the weight off.

That’s when the nutritional inadequacies shown in this study start to have real health consequences. For example,

  • Long term inadequacies of calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D increase the risk of osteoporosis.
  • Long term muscle loss due to inadequate protein intake leads to frailty and metabolic diseases as we age.

I could go on, but you get the point. GLP-1 drugs are not a panacea. Without diet and lifestyle change, they are just a temporary and expensive solution to weight loss.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at the nutritional intake of GLP-1 users. It found:

  • Their diets were high in fat (39% of calories) and saturated fat (13%).
  • Their diets were low in fruit, vegetables, grains, and dairy foods.They were deficient in fiber plus 10 essential vitamins and minerals.

 

  • They were not getting enough protein to prevent the loss of muscle mass associated with GLP-1 use for weight loss.

The authors concluded, “Participants on a GLP-1 drug are not meeting the DRI [recommended intake] for several vital nutrients through their diet or the higher protein needs during weight loss. Patient-centered nutritional guidance is essential to optimize health outcomes and prevent unintended health consequences.

For details about the study and the health consequences of these nutrient deficiencies, 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.

Does Diet Matter For Weight Loss?

by

Who Benefits Most From A Healthy Diet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Was The Study Done?

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

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

The participants were randomly assigned to:

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

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

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

Does Diet Matter For Weight Loss?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Benefits Most From A Healthy Diet?

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

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

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

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

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

When they used this method to categorize participants they found:

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

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

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanSimply put this study confirms that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ProfessorI would group these changes into 7 recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line 

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

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

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

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

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

At the end of 12 weeks:

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

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

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

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

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

 ______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

 _______________________________________________________________________

About The Author 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Can Healthy Eating Help You Lose Weight?

by

Who Benefits Most From A Healthy Diet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Was The Study Done?

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

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

The participants were randomly assigned to:

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

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

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

Can Healthy Eating Help You Lose Weight?

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

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

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

At the end of 12 weeks:

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

When the investigators measured blood pressure, fasting total cholesterol levels, and triglyceride levels:Heart Healthy Diet

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

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

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

Who Benefits Most From A Healthy Diet?

None of the participants in this study had been diagnosed with diabetes when the study began. However, all of them were middle-aged, overweight, and had abdominal obesity. That means many of them likely had some degree of insulin resistance.

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

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

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

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

When they used this method to categorize participants they found:

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

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

What Does This Study Mean For You?

Questioning WomanSimply put this study confirms that:

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

This study breaks new ground in that a high-nutrient quality diet results in significantly better:

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

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

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

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

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

ProfessorAll these changes make great sense if you are trying to lose weight. I would distill them into these 7 recommendations.

  • Follow a whole food diet. Avoid sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods.
  • Include all 5 food groups in your weight loss diet. Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy, and lean proteins all play an important role in your long-term health.
  • Eat a primarily plant-based diet. My recommendation is to substitute plant proteins for at least half of your high-fat animal proteins. And this study reminds us that soy protein foods are a convenient and effective way to achieve this goal.
  • Eat a diet high in natural fibers. Including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, and soy foods in your diet is the best way to achieve this goal.
  • Substitute healthy fats (monounsaturated and omega-3 fats) for unhealthy fats (saturated and trans fats) in your diet. And this study reminds us that it is hard to get enough omega-3s in your diet without an omega-3 supplement.
  • Reduce the amount of added sugar, especially fructose, from your diet. That is best achieved by eliminating sodas, sweets, and highly processed foods from the diet. I should add that fructose in fruits and some healthy foods is not a problem. For more information on that topic, I refer you to a previous “Health Tips” article .
  • Finally, I would like to remind you of the obvious. No diet, no matter how healthy, will help you lose weight unless you cut back on calories. Fad diets achieve that by restricting the foods you can eat. In the case of a healthy diet, the best way to do it is to cut back on portion sizes and choose foods with low caloric density.

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

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

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

The Bottom Line 

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

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

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

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

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

At the end of 12 weeks:

  • Participants on the high-nutrient quality diet lost 33% more weight than participants on the low-nutrient-quality diet (18.5 pounds compared to 13.9 pounds).

When the investigators measured cardiovascular risk factors at the end of 12 weeks:

  • The reduction in total serum cholesterol was 2.5-fold greater and the reduction in triglycerides was 2-fold greater in the high-nutrient quality diet group than in the low-nutrient-quality diet group.
  • The reduction in systolic blood pressure was 2-fold greater and the reduction in diastolic blood pressure was 1.67-fold greater in the high-nutrient quality diet group than in the low-nutrient-quality diet group.

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

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

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

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

What Is The Truth About Low Carb Diets?

by

Why Is The Cochrane Collaboration The Gold Standard?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney 

low carb dietAtkins, South Beach, Whole30, Low Carb, high Fat, Low Carb Paleo, and Keto. Low carb diets come in many forms. But they have these general characteristics:

  • They restrict carbohydrate intake to <40% of calories.
  • They restrict grains, cereals, legumes, and other carbohydrate foods such as dairy, fruits, and some vegetables.
  • They replace these foods with foods higher in fat and protein such as meats, eggs, cheese, butter, cream, and oils.
  • When recommended for weight loss, they generally restrict calories.

What about the science? Dr. Strangelove and his friends tell you that low carb diets are better for weight loss, blood sugar control, and are more heart healthy than other diets. But these claims are controversial.

Why is that? I have discussed this in previous issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”. Here is the short version.

  • Most studies on the benefits of low carb diets compare them with the typical American diet.
    • The typical American diet is high in fat, sugar and refined flour, and highly processed foods. Anything is better than the typical American diet.
  • Most low carb diets are whole food diets.
    • Any time you replace sodas and highly processed foods with whole foods you will lose weight and improve your health.
  • Most low carb diets are highly structured. There are rules for which foods to avoid, which foods to eat, and often additional rules to follow.
    • Any highly structured diet causes you to focus on what you eat. When you do that, you lose weight. When you lose weight, your health parameters improve.
    • As I have noted before, short term weight loss and improvement in health parameters are virtually identical for the very low carb keto diet and the very low-fat vegan diet.

With all this uncertainty you are probably wondering, “What is the truth about low carb diets?”

A recent study by the Cochrane Collaboration (CE Naude et al, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 28 January 2022) was designed to answer this question.

The Cochrane Collaboration is considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine. To help you understand why this is, I will repeat a summary of how the Cochrane Collaboration approaches clinical studies that I shared two weeks ago.

Why Is The Cochrane Collaboration The Gold Standard?

ghost bustersWho you gonna call? It’s not Ghostbusters. It’s not Dr. Strangelove’s health blog. It’s a group called the Cochrane Collaboration.

The Cochrane Collaboration consists of 30,000 volunteer scientific experts from across the globe whose sole mission is to analyze the scientific literature and publish reviews of health claims so that health professionals, patients, and policy makers can make evidence-based choices about health interventions.

In one sense, Cochrane reviews are what is called a “meta-analysis”, in which data from numerous studies are grouped together so that a statistically significant conclusion can be reached. However, Cochrane Collaboration reviews differ from most meta-analyses found in the scientific literature in a very significant way.

Many published meta-analyses simply report “statistically significant” conclusions. However, statistics can be misleading. As Mark Twain said: “There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics”.

The Cochrane Collaboration also reports statistically significant conclusions from their meta-analyses. However, they carefully consider the quality of each individual study in their analysis. They look at possible sources of bias. They look at the design and size of the studies. Finally, they ask whether the conclusions are consistent from one study to the next. They clearly define the quality of evidence that backs up each of their conclusions as follows:

  • High-quality evidence. Further research is unlikely to change their conclusion. This is generally reserved for conclusions backed by multiple high-quality studies that have all come to the same conclusion. These are the recommendations that are most often adopted into medical practice.
  • Moderate-quality evidence. This conclusion is very likely to be true, but further research could have an impact on it.
  • Low-quality evidence. Further research is needed and could alter the conclusion. They are not judging whether the conclusion is true or false. They are simply saying more research is needed to reach a definite conclusion.

This is why their reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine. If you are of a certain age, you may remember that TV commercial “When EF Hutton talks, people listen.” It is the same with the Cochrane Collaboration. When they talk, health professionals listen.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThe authors of this Cochrane Collaboration Report included 61 published clinical trials that randomized participants into two groups.

  • The first group was put on a low carbohydrate diet (carbohydrates = <40% of calories).
  • The second group was put on a “normal carbohydrate” diet (carbohydrates = 45-65% of calories, as recommended by the USDA and most health authorities).
    • The normal carbohydrate diet was matched with the low carbohydrate diet in terms of caloric restriction.
    • Both diets were designed by dietitians and were generally whole food diets.

The participants in these studies:

  • Were middle-aged.
  • Were overweight or obese.
  • Did not have diagnosed heart disease or cancer.
  • May have diagnosed type-2 diabetes. Some studies selected participants that had diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Other studies excluded those patients.

The studies were of 3 types:

  • Short-term: Participants in these studies followed their assigned diets for 3 to <12 months.
  • Long-term: Participants in these studies followed their assigned diets for >12 to 24 months.
  • Short-term with maintenance: Participants in these studies followed their assigned diets for 3 months followed by a 9-month maintenance phase.

What Is The Truth About Low Carb Diets?

The TruthAll the studies included in the Cochrane Collaboration’s meta-analysis randomly assigned overweight participants to a low carbohydrate diet (carbohydrates = <40% of calories) or to a “normal carbohydrate” diet (carbohydrates = 45-65% of calories) with the same degree of caloric restriction.

If low carb diets have any benefit in terms of weight loss, improving blood sugar control, or reducing heart disease risk, these are the kind of studies that are required to validate that claim.

This is what the Cochrane Collaboration’s meta-analysis showed.

When they analyzed studies done with overweight participants without type 2 diabetes:

  • Weight loss was not significantly different between low carb and normal carb diets in short-term studies (3 to <12 months), long-term studies (>12 to 24 months), and short-term studies followed by a 9-month maintenance period.
  • There was also no significant difference in the effect of low carb and normal carb diets on the reduction in diastolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol.

Since diabetics have trouble controlling blood sugar, you might expect that type 2 diabetics would respond better to low carb diets. However, when they analyzed studies done with overweight participants who had type 2 diabetes:

  • Weight loss was also not significantly different on low carb and normal carb diets.
  • There was no significant difference in the effect of low carb and normal carb diets on the reduction in diastolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c, a measure of blood sugar control.

Of course, the reason Cochrane Collaboration analyses are so valuable is they also analyze the strength of the studies that were included in their analysis.

You may remember in my article two weeks ago, I reported on the Cochrane Collaboration’s report supporting the claim that omega-3 supplementation reduces pre-term births. In that report they said that the studies included in their analysis were high quality. Therefore, they said their report was definitive and no more studies were needed.

This analysis was different. The authors of this Cochrane Collaboration report said that the published studies on this topic were of moderate quality. This means their conclusion is very likely to be true, but further research could have an impact on it.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

confusionIf you are a bit confused by the preceding section, I understand. That was a lot of information to take in. Let me give you the Cliff Notes version.

In short, this Cochrane Collaboration Report concluded:

  • Low carb diets (<40% of calories from carbohydrates) are no better than diets with normal carbohydrate content (45-65% of calories from carbohydrates) with respect to weight loss, reduction in heart disease risk factors, and blood sugar control. Dr. Strangelove has been misleading you again.
  • This finding is equally true for people with and without type 2 diabetes. This calls into question the claim that people with type 2 diabetes will do better on a low carb diet.
  • The published studies on this topic were of moderate quality. This means their conclusion is very likely to be true, but further research could have an impact on it.

If you are thinking this study can’t be true because low carb diets work for you, that is because you are comparing low carb diets to your customary diet, probably the typical American diet.

  • Remember that any whole food diet that eliminates sodas and processed foods and restricts the foods you eat will cause you to lose weight. Whole food keto and vegan diets work equally well short-term compared to the typical American diet.
  • And any diet that allows you to lose weight improves heart health parameters and blood sugar control.

If you are thinking about the blogs, books, and videos you have seen extolling the virtues of low carb diets, remember that the Dr. Strangeloves of the world only select studies comparing low carb diets to the typical American diet to support their claims.

  • The studies included in this Cochrane Collaboration report randomly assigned participants to the low carb and normal carb diets and followed them for 3 to 24 months.
    • Both diets were whole food diets designed by dietitians.
    • Both diets reduced caloric intake to the same extent.

What about the claims that low carb diets are better for your long-term health? There are very few studies on that topic. Here are two:

  • At the 6.4-year mark a recent study reported that the group with the lowest carbohydrate intake had an increased risk of premature death – 32% for overall mortality, 50% for cardiovascular mortality, 51% for cerebrovascular mortality, and 36% for cancer mortality. I will analyze this study in a future issue of “Health Tips From The Professor”.
  • At the 20-year mark a series of studies reported that:
    • Women consuming a meat-based low carb diet for 20 years gained just as much weight and had just as high risk of heart disease and diabetes as women consuming a high carbohydrate, low fat diet.
    • However, women consuming a plant-based low carb diet for 20 years gained less weight and had reduced risk of developing heart disease and diabetes as women consuming a high carbohydrate, low fat diet.

My recommendation is to avoid low-carb diets. They have no short-term benefits when compared to a healthy diet that does not eliminate food groups. And they may be bad for you in the long run. Your best bet is a whole food diet that includes all food groups but eliminates sodas, sweets, and processed foods.

However, if you are committed to a low carb diet, my recommendation is to choose the low-carb version of the Mediterranean diet. It is likely to be healthy long term.

The Bottom Line 

The Cochrane Collaboration, the gold standard of evidence-based medicine, recently issued a report that evaluated the claims made for low carb diets.

All the studies analyzed in the Cochrane Collaboration’s report randomly assigned overweight participants to a low carbohydrate diet (carbohydrates = <40% of calories) or to a “normal carbohydrate” diet (carbohydrates = 45-65% of calories) with the same degree of caloric restriction.

If low carb diets have any benefit in terms of weight loss, improving blood sugar control, or reducing heart disease risk, these are the kind of studies that are required to validate that claim.

The Cochrane Collaboration Report concluded:

  • Low carb diets (<40% of calories from carbohydrates) are no better than diets with normal carbohydrate content (45-65% of calories from carbohydrates) with respect to weight loss, reduction in heart disease risk factors, and blood sugar control.
  • This is equally true for people with and without type 2 diabetes.
  • The published studies on this topic were of moderate quality. This means their conclusion is very likely to be true, but further research could have an impact on it.

My recommendation is to avoid low carb diets. They have no short-term benefits when compared to a healthy diet that does not eliminate food groups. And they may be bad for you in the long run. Your best bet is a whole food diet that includes all food groups but eliminates sodas, sweets, and processed foods.

However, if you are committed to a low carb diet, my recommendation is to choose the low carb version of the Mediterranean diet. It is likely to be healthy long term.

For more details on 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.

Which Diets Are Best In 2022?

by

Which Diet Should You Choose?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Emoticon-BadMany of you started 2022 with goals of losing weight and/or improving your health. In many cases, that involved choosing a new diet. That was only a month ago, but it probably feels like an eternity.

For many of you the “bloom” has gone off the new diet you started so enthusiastically in January.

  • Perhaps the diet isn’t working as well as advertised…
  • Perhaps the diet is too restrictive. You are finding it hard to stick with…
  • Perhaps you are always hungry or constantly fighting food cravings…
  • Perhaps you are starting to wonder whether there is a better diet than the one you chose in January…
  • Perhaps you are wondering whether the diet you chose is the wrong one for you…

If you are rethinking your diet, you might want to know which diets the experts recommend. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. The diet world has become just as divided as the political world.

Fortunately, you have an impartial resource. Each year US News & World Report invites a panel of experts with different points of view to evaluate popular diets. They then combine the input from all the experts into rankings of the diets in various categories.

If you are still searching for your ideal diet, I will summarize the US News & World Report’s “Best Diets In 2022”. For the full report, click on this link.

How Was This Report Created?

Expert PanelUS News & World Report recruited panel of 27 nationally recognized experts in diet, nutrition, obesity, food psychology, diabetes, and heart disease to review the 40 most popular diets.  The panel is not the same each year. Some experts are rotated off the panel, and others are added. The experts rate each diet in seven categories:

  • How easy it is to follow.
  • Its ability to produce short-term weight loss.
  • Its ability to produce long-term weight loss.
  • its nutritional completeness.
  • Its safety.
  • Its potential for preventing and managing diabetes.

 

  • Its potential for preventing and managing heart disease.

They converted the experts’ ratings to scores 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest). They then used these scores to construct nine sets of Best Diets rankings:

  • Best Diets Overall combines panelists’ ratings in all seven categories. However, all categories were not equally weighted. Short-term and long-term weight loss were combined, with long-term ratings getting twice the weight. Why? A diet’s true test is whether it can be sustained for years. And safety was double counted because no diet should be dangerous.
  • Best Commercial Diets uses the same approach to rank 15 structured diet programs that require a participation fee or promote the use of branded food or nutritional products.
  • Best Weight-Loss Diets was generated by combining short-term and long-term weight-loss ratings, weighting both equally. Some dieters want to drop pounds fast, while others, looking years ahead, are aiming for slow and steady. Equal weighting accepts both goals as worthy.
  • Best Diabetes Diets is based on averaged diabetes ratings.
  • Best Heart-Healthy Diets uses averaged heart-health ratings.
  • Best Diets for Healthy Eating combines nutritional completeness and safety ratings, giving twice the weight to safety. A healthy diet should provide sufficient calories and not fall seriously short on important nutrients or entire food groups.
  • Easiest Diets to Follow represents panelists’ averaged judgments about each diet’s taste appeal, ease of initial adjustment, ability to keep dieters from feeling hungry and imposition of special requirements.
  • Best Plant-Based Diets uses the same approach as Best Diets Overall to rank 12 plans that emphasize minimally processed foods from plants.
  • Best Fast Weight-Loss Diets is based on short-term weight-loss ratings.

Which Diets Are Best In 2022?

Are you ready? If this were an awards program I would be saying “Envelop please” and would open the envelop slowly to build suspense.

However, I am not going to do that. Here are the top 5 and bottom 5 diets in each category (If you would like to see where your favorite diet ranked, click on this link). [Note: I excluded commercial diets from this review.]

Best Diets Overall 

The Top 5: 

#1: Mediterranean Diet. The Mediterranean diet has been ranked #1 for 5 consecutive years.

#2: DASH Diet (This diet was designed to keep blood pressure under control, but you can also think of it as an Americanized version of the Mediterranean diet.)

#3: Flexitarian Diet (A flexible semi-vegetarian diet).

#4: MIND Diet (This diet is a combination of Mediterranean and DASH but is specifically designed to reduce cognitive decline as we age.)

#5: The TLC Diet (This diet was designed by the NIH to promote heart health.)

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Whole 30 Diet (A whole food, restrictive diet, designed for a 30-day jump start to weight loss. It was not designed for long-term use).

#37: Modified Keto Diet (A slightly less restrictive version of the Keto Diet).

#38: Keto Diet (A high protein, high fat, very low carb diet designed to achieve ketosis).

#39: Dukan Diet (High protein, low carb, low fat diet).

#40: GAPS Diet (A diet designed to improve gut health).

Best Weight-Loss Diets

The Top 5: Weight Loss

#1: Flexitarian Diet

#2: Volumetrics Diet (A diet based on the caloric density of foods).

#3: Vegan Diet (A diet that only allows plant foods).

#4: Mayo Clinic Diet (A diet designed to establish lifelong healthy eating habits).

#5: Ornish Diet (A whole food, semi-vegetarian diet designed to promote heart health).

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Fertility Diet (A diet designed to improve fertility, but the experts were skeptical that it would increase your chances of becoming pregnant)

#37: Whole 30 Diet

#38: Alkaline Diet (A diet designed to make your blood more alkaline, but the experts were skeptical about that claim)

#39: AIP Diet (A diet designed for people with autoimmune diseases)

#40: GAPS Diet

Best Diabetes Diets

The Top 5: 

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Flexitarian Diet

#3: Vegan Diet

#4: Mayo Clinic Diet

#5: DASH Diet

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Alkaline Diet

#37: Dukan Diet

#38: GAPS Diet

#39: Sirtfood Diet (a very low calorie, fad diet that emphasizes plant foods rich in sirtuins)

#40: Whole 30 Diet

Best Heart-Healthy Diets 

strong heartThe Top 5: 

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Ornish Diet

#3: DASH Diet

#4: Flexitarian Diet

#5: TLC Diet

#6: Vegan Diet

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Keto Diet

#37: AIP Diet

#38: Whole 30 Diet

#39: Modified Keto Diet

#40: Dukan Diet

Best Diets for Healthy Eating

The Top 5: 

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: DASH Diet

#3: Flexitarian Diet

#4: MIND Diet

#5: TLC Diet

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Raw Food Diet

#37: Atkins Diet

#38: Dukan Diet

#39: Modified Keto Diet

#40: Keto Diet 

Easiest Diets to Follow

The Top 5: Easy

#1: Mediterranean Diet

#2: Flexitarian Diet

#3: Fertility Diet

#4: MIND Diet

#5: DASH Diet

The Bottom 5: 

#36: Modified Keto Diet

#37: Keto Diet

#38: Whole 30 Diet

#39: GAPS Diet

#40: Raw Foods Diet 

Best Fast Weight-Loss Diets

The Top 5 (Excluding Commercial Diets): 

#1: Atkins Diet

#2: Biggest Loser Diet

#3: Keto Diet

#4: Raw Food Diet

#5: Vegan Diet

The Bottom 5 

#36: Dr. Weil’s Anti-Inflammatory Diet

#37: The Fertility Diet

#38: AIP Diet

#39: Alkaline Diet

#40: Gaps Diet

Which Diets Are Best For Rapid Weight Loss?

Happy woman on scaleThere are 3 take-home lessons from the rapid weight loss category:

1) If you are looking for rapid weight loss, any whole food restrictive diet will do. The top 5 diets are very different. For example, the keto and vegan diets are polar opposites, yet they both are in the top 5 for rapid weight loss.

  • The Atkins and keto diets are meat heavy, low carb diets. They restrict fruits, some vegetables, grains, and most legumes.
  • The Biggest Loser diet relies on restrictive meal plan and exercise programs.
  • The restrictions of the raw food diet are obvious.
  • The vegan diet is a very low-fat diet that eliminates meat, dairy, eggs, and animal fats.
  • I did not include commercial diets that rated high on this list, but they are all restrictive in one way or another.

2) We should ask what happens when we get tired of restrictive diets and add back some of your favorite foods.

  • If you lose weight on a vegan diet and add back some of your favorite foods, you might end up with a semi-vegetarian diet. This is a healthy diet that can help you maintain your weight loss.
  • If you lose weight on the Atkins or keto diets and add back some of your favorite foods, you end up with the typical American diet – one that is high in both fat and carbs. This is not a recipe for long-term success.

3) Don’t pay too much attention to the bottom 5 diets. None of them were designed with weight loss in mind.

Which Diet Should You Choose?

Food ChoicesWith rapid weight loss out of the way, let’s get back to the question, “Which Diet Should You Choose?” My recommendations are:

1) Choose a diet that fits your needs. That is one of the things I like best about the US News & World Report ratings. The diets are categorized. If your main concern is diabetes, choose one of the top diets in that category. If your main concern is heart health… You get the point.

2) Choose diets that are healthy and associated with long term weight loss. If that is your goal, you will notice that primarily plant-based diets top these lists. Meat-based, low carb diets like Atkins and keto are near the bottom of the lists.

3) Choose diets that are easy to follow. The less-restrictive primarily plant-based diets top this list – diets like Mediterranean, DASH, MIND, and flexitarian.

4) Choose diets that fit your lifestyle and dietary preferences. For example, if you don’t like fish and olive oil, you will probably do much better with the DASH or flexitarian diet than with the Mediterranean diet.

5) In case you were wondering, intermittent fasting ranked 26-30 and the Paleo diet ranked 26-33 on most of the list – not the worst diets, but a long way from the best. If you have a favorite diet I didn’t mention, check the US News website to find where it is ranked.

6) Finally, focus on what you have to gain, rather than on foods you have to give up.

  • On the minus side, none of the diets include sodas, junk foods, and highly processed foods. These foods should go on your “No-No” list. Sweets should be occasional treats and only as part of a healthy meal. Meat, especially red meat, should become a garnish rather than a main course.
  • On the plus side, primarily plant-based diets offer a cornucopia of delicious plant foods you probably didn’t even know existed. Plus, for any of the top-rated plant-based diets, there are websites and books full of mouth-watering recipes. Be adventurous.

The Bottom Line 

For many of you the “bloom” has gone off the new diet you started so enthusiastically in January. If you are rethinking your diet, you might want to know which diets the experts recommend. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. The diet world has become just as divided as the political world.

Fortunately, you have an impartial resource. Each year US News & World Report invites a panel of experts with different points of view to evaluate popular diets. They then combine the input from all the experts into rankings of the diets in various categories. In the article above I summarize the US News & World Report’s “Best Diets In 2022”.

There are probably two questions at the top of your list.

#1: Which diets are best for rapid weight loss? Here are some general principles:

  • If you are looking for rapid weight loss, any whole food restrictive diet will do.
  • We should ask what happens when we get tired of restrictive diets and add back some of our favorite foods.
  • Long term weight loss is possible if you transition to a healthy diet after you have lost the weight.

#2: Which diet should you choose? Here the principles are:

  • Choose a diet that fits your needs.
  • Choose diets that are healthy and associated with long term weight loss.
  • Choose diets that are easy to follow.
  • Choose diets that fit your lifestyle and dietary preferences.
  • Finally, focus on what you have to gain, rather than on foods you have to give up.

For more details on the diet that is best 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.

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.

A Vegan Diet And Weight Loss

by

Is A Vegan Diet The Secret To Permanent Weight Control?

New Year DietThe new year is here, and you, like millions of other Americans, have decided this will be the year to get your weight under control. But how to do that is the question.

You have tried lots of diets over the years. You have given up sugar, then high-fructose corn syrup, then carbs in general. You have eliminated whole food groups from your diet. You have restricted your eating to between noon and 4 PM. You have eaten cabbage on Tuesdays and grapefruit on Thursdays (Just kidding about that one, but some fad diets are almost that bizarre).

You lost weight at first, but none of those diets were sustainable. You started adding back your favorite foods. Then the pounds you lost came back – and brought their friends with them.

At this point you may be desperate. You may be tempted to try one of those “magic” supplements that promises to rev up your metabolism and make those pounds melt away. Resist that temptation! Those supplements are either dangerous or worthless – sometimes both.

Or you may be tempted to sign up for one of those expensive diet programs that sends you low calorie versions of all your favorite junk foods. Don’t waste your money. You don’t really need more highly processed food in your diet. And you aren’t learning healthier food choices.

But what if…

…you could rev up your metabolism just by eating a healthy diet?

…you could lose weight naturally without counting calories or reducing portion sizes?

…you could keep most of the weight off permanently?

The study (H Kahleova et al, JAMA Network Open.2020; 3(11): e2025454) I will review today says there is diet that does all of these things. It is not the latest, greatest fad diet. In fact, it has been around for years. It is called the vegan diet.

How Was The Study Done?

Clinical StudyThis was a small, but very well-designed, study. It enrolled 244 obese (average BMI = 33), middle aged (average age = 54) subjects (87% female, 48% white). They were randomly assigned to a vegan diet or control diet and followed for 16 weeks.

The control group was told not to change their diet and exercise routine.

The vegan group was also told not to change their exercise routine. In addition, they were given printed materials and attended weekly classes that provided detailed instructions and cooking demonstrations to help them follow a vegan diet.

The vegan diet consisted of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes with no animal products or added fats. 75% of the calories came from carbohydrate, 15% from protein, and 10% from fat.

The diets of both groups were assessed by a 3-day dietary recall at the beginning of the study and 16 weeks later, at the end of the study. In addition, dietitians made unannounced telephone calls at random times during the week and weekends to assess the participant’s adherence to the diet.

In the vegan diet group, mean intake of carbohydrate and fiber increased, while intake of fat, protein, and cholesterol decreased. There was no significant change in intake in the control group.

The other parameters measured at the beginning of the study and week 16 were:

  • Body composition:
    • Weight and BMI (a measure of obesity).
    • Fat mass and lean muscle mass.
    • Belly fat.
    • Fat stores in liver and muscle (accumulation of fat stores in the liver and muscle is associated with insulin resistance).
  • Parameters of blood sugar control and insulin resistance:
    • Fasting blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels were measured.
    • Insulin secretion and blood glucose levels were measured during a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test. Insulin secretion was used as a measure of insulin resistance, and blood glucose levels were used as a measure of insulin sensitivity (Note: This is a very simple explanation of complex calculations.)
  • Lipid Levels:
    • Total cholesterol.
    • HDL and LDL cholesterol.

A Vegan Diet And Weight Loss

Vegan FoodsThe study results were impressive:

  1. The vegan group lost 14 pounds, while the control group lost only 1 pound. There were two reasons for the greater weight loss in the vegan group:
    • The vegan group decreased their caloric intake by almost 500 calories per day. This was most likely due to the lower caloric density (calories per serving) of plant foods.

In other words, the vegan group consumed fewer calories without focusing on weight loss or portion size. They ate until they were full and consumed fewer calories in the process. Isn’t this what everyone wants from a weight loss diet?

    • The thermic effect (calories burned due to digestion) of the food they ate increased by 14% in the vegan group. This is because it requires more energy to digest foods when your digestive system has to break down the cellular matrix found in unprocessed plant foods.

In other words, the vegan group burned more calories every day just by eating healthy foods. No other diet can promise this.

2) Fat mass decreased by 10% (9 pounds) in the vegan group but was unchanged in the control group

3) Lean body mass (muscle mass) decreased by 1 pound in the control group and 4.6 pounds in the vegan group. There are two important observations here:

    • All the weight loss in the control group came from muscle.
    • 33% of the weight loss in the vegan group came from muscle. This is the only negative outcome from this study and is likely due to the decreased protein intake in the vegan group. Previous studies suggest this loss of lean body mass could be prevented by increasing the protein content of the diet with a plant-based protein supplement.

4) Belly fat decreased by 15%, liver fat was decreased by 31%, and muscle fat was decreased by 19% in theBelly Fat vegan group. All three parameters were unchanged in the control group.

    • This is perhaps the most significant observation from these studies since these are the three deadliest forms of fat in our bodies. Any diet that significantly reduces these forms of fat is likely to dramatically improve our health.
    • These parameters have not been measured in most studies of other weight loss diets, so we have no idea whether other weight loss diets have this effect.

5) Fasting blood glucose decreased by 11%, insulin resistance decreased by 40%, and insulin sensitivity increased by 22%. These parameters were unchanged in the control group.

    • Note: While insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity are opposite ways of measuring the same phenomenon, they were measured in different ways in this study. That is why the percentage change was different for these two parameters. The important thing is that both parameters changed by a significant percentage in a direction that reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes.
    • These data show that just 16 weeks on a vegan diet is sufficient to significantly reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Previous studies have shown that a vegan diet can reverse type 2 diabetes for many people.

6) Total cholesterol decreased by 11% and LDL cholesterol decreased by 16%. Both parameters were unchanged in the control group.

Is A Vegan Diet The Secret To Permanent Weight Loss?

As I said, the results of this study are impressive. But you have probably heard similar claims for other diets like keto, paleo, etc. To put this into context for you I am going to discuss “The Truth (about weight loss diets) Nobody Talks About” and The Questions (about weight loss diets) Nobody Asks”.

truth signThe Truth Nobody Talks About: Why are there so many conflicting claims about weight loss diets? They can’t all work, or can they? Here is the truth nobody talks about.

If you just focus on short term weight loss and improvement in health parameters like cholesterol and blood sugar levels, the very low fat vegan diet and the very low carb keto diet give virtually identical results.

That statement is true for any restrictive diet, but I chose the vegan and keto diets because they are as different as any two diets can be. That means you can forget all the scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo about why each diet is best and focus instead on what they have in common. Here is what they have in common.

  • They all compare themselves to the typical American diet. The American diet is high in saturated fat, high in sugar, high in refined carbs, and high in junk foods. Almost any diet is better than the typical American diet!

Unfortunately, none of these diets compare themselves to each other, so we don’t know which is best. We just know that all of them are better than the typical American diet.

  • All of them are whole food diets. Any diet that cuts out sodas, junk foods, and highly processed foods will result in weight loss and better health.
  • All of them are restrictive diets. Some restrict sugar. Others restrict fat. Some eliminate particular foods. Others eliminate food groups. Some restrict the time of day you can eat. When you do any of these things you are forced to focus on what you eat.

And when you focus on what you eat, you lose weight. That is why diets that force you to count calories, count carbs, or keep a food journal are successful.

Don’t misunderstand me. Although the vegan and low carb diets have not been directly compared in clinical trials, vegan diets may have some unique benefits that other diets do not. For example, this study shows that:

  • Because of the low caloric density of unprocessed plant foods, you can eat more food and consume fewer calories on a vegan diet. You don’t get this benefit from low carb diets. They are high in fat and have, therefore, a high caloric density.
  • Digestion of unprocessed plant foods increases your metabolic rate. This benefit also doesn’t exist for low carb diets. They contain less unprocessed plant foods than a vegan diet.
  • Belly fat, liver fat, and muscle fat are all decreased in just 16 weeks with a vegan diet. This may occur for other diets. But most studies of other diets have not looked at these parameters, so we don’t know if they have this benefit.

QuestionsThe Questions Nobody Is Asking: Since all these diets result in short-term weight loss, there are two questions we should be asking.

  1. Which of these diets are healthy long term? Numerous studies have shown people who consume vegan diets and other primarily plant-based diets for 10, 20, or 30 years weigh less and have a lower incidence of heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers than people who consume the typical American diet.

Although the Atkins diet has been around for more than 50 years, there is still no evidence that the Atkins diet or other meat-based low carb diets are healthy long term. I have summarized these studies in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths”.

2) What happens when you get tired of the restrictions in these diets and start adding back a few of your favorite foods? If you start with a vegan diet and add a little dairy, eggs, and meat to it, you end up with a semi-vegetarian diet. People following a semi-vegetarian diet weigh less and are healthier than people consuming the typical American diet.

Keto diets are high in meat and saturated fat. If you add carbs, even healthy carbs, to that diet, you end up with the typical American diet, which is characterized by weight gain and poor health.

Vegan BurgerOne Final Thought: Big Food has noticed that many Americans want to eat vegan but still crave the taste and convenience of their favorite foods. Big Food has been only too happy to oblige with a wide selection of highly processed “vegan” foods. Avoid these foods like the plague!

I have discussed the shortcomings of the “vegan” burgers found in your local supermarkets and fast food restaurants in a recent issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

The biggest problem with all these “vegan” food substitutes is that they are highly processed foods. The benefits of a vegan diet come from eating unprocessed plant foods. None of us need more highly processed foods in our diet.

Of course, it isn’t just vegan food substitutes. Any hope that the Atkins diet might have been healthy evaporated with the advent of “Atkins” processed foods. Now I am starting to see the same trend with “keto” and “paleo” foods.

The Bottom Line 

The new year is here, and you, like millions of other Americans, have decided this will be the year to get your weight under control. But how to do that is the question.

You have tried lots of diets over the years. You have given up sugar, then high-fructose corn syrup, then carbs in general. You have eliminated whole food groups from your diet. You have restricted your eating to between noon and 4 PM. You have eaten cabbage on Tuesdays and grapefruit on Thursdays (Just kidding about that one, but some fad diets are almost that bizarre.

You lost weight at first, but none of these diets were sustainable. You started adding back your favorite foods. Then the pounds you lost came back – and brought their friends with them.

But what if…

…you could rev up your metabolism just by eating a healthy diet?

…you could lose weight naturally without counting calories or reducing portion sizes?

…you could keep most of the weight off permanently?

We know people who eat a vegan diet for 10, 20, or 30 years weigh less and are healthier than people consuming the typical American diet. Could the vegan diet be the diet you have been looking for?

The study I review this week was designed to answer this question. The investigators randomly assigned obese, middle-aged Americans, to follow either a vegan diet for 16 weeks or to continue eating their typical American diet.

The study results were impressive:

  • The vegan group lost 14 pounds, while the control group lost only 1 pound. There were two reasons for the greater weight loss in the vegan group:
    • The vegan group decreased their caloric intake by almost 500 calories per day. This was most likely due to the lower caloric density (calories per serving) of plant foods.

In other words, the vegan group consumed fewer calories without focusing on weight loss or portion size. They ate until they were full and consumed fewer calories in the process. Isn’t this what everyone wants from a weight loss diet?

    • The thermic effect (calories burned due to digestion) of the food they ate increased by 14% in the vegan group. This is because it requires more energy to digest foods when your digestive system has to break down the cellular matrix found in unprocessed plant foods.

In other words, the vegan group burned more calories every day just by eating healthy foods. No other diet can promise this.

  • Fat mass decreased by 10% (9 pounds) in the vegan group but was unchanged in the control group
  • Belly fat decreased by 15%, liver fat was decreased by 31%, and muscle fat was decreased by 19% in the vegan group. All three parameters were unchanged in the control group.
    • This is perhaps the most significant observation from these studies since these are the three deadliest forms of fat in our bodies. Any diet that significantly reduces these forms of fat is likely to dramatically improve our health.
    • These parameters have not been measured in most studies of other weight loss diets, so we have no idea whether other weight loss diets have this effect.
  • Fasting blood glucose decreased by 11%, insulin resistance decreased by 40%, and insulin sensitivity increased by 22%. These parameters were unchanged in the control group.
    • These data show that just 16 weeks on a vegan diet is sufficient to significantly reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
  • Total cholesterol decreased by 11% and LDL cholesterol decreased by 16%. Both parameters were unchanged in the control group.

For more details and a more in-depth comparison of the vegan diet with other popular diets 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