SUPPLEMENT RESEARCH UPDATE
NEWSLETTER


 Ray Sahelian, M.D.

 

Vol. 3,  Issue 4 -- February 15,  2006

 


 


 

   

          

   NEVER, yes, NEVER believe the headlines of a health story in the news.. or, in my opinion, any story. The media uses attention grabbers when they cover a story  (just as I did), but the real results are far more involved than what the headlines indicate. For instance, we had two studies published that made big news since my last newsletter. The headlines read, "Eating Low Fat Offers Little Disease Protection," and "Saw Palmetto Fails in Prostate Study." Now, if you did not have time to read the entire articles and look deeper into this, you may form an opinion that could turn out to be inaccurate. In this issue I offer my thoughts on the Low Fat study and inform you why the news media headlines are clearly misleading. In the next issue of the newsletter in 2 weeks will I present a review of the saw palmetto study and my interview with Dr. Bent, the lead researcher who conducted the saw palmetto trial. The headlines, again, do not tell the whole story.

    



      
PRODUCT DISCOUNTS - For the next 10 days, the following 5 items will be highly discounted: CoQ10 100 mg, Ashwagandha, DMAE, Curcumin, and Milk Thistle. CoQ10 is an antioxidant used for energy and cardiovascular health. If the 100 mg dosage is high for you, there is also the 50 mg option. Ashwagandha is an Ayurvedic herb with excellent antioxidant properties, along with mind and sexual health support; DMAE is a methyl donor used for mind enhancement and mental clarity; Curcumin continues to get a lot of press for its many health benefits found in lab studies; Milk Thistle has liver protecting functions.



Visit
http://www.physicianformulas.com
or click on the images to your left. For more information on these herbs, see http://www.raysahelian.com for an index.

 

 


 




















 

 


We Lost a Few Hundred Million Dollars -- But no Fat

According to the headlines, a low-fat diet fails to decrease cancer and heart risks in older women. With such an important announcement, it behooves us to take a closer look at this 415 million dollar study funded with your tax dollars. Perhaps we can find flaws that may get it nominated for the "Worthless Research of the Year," award. This is an award that I created this week, motivated by this study. I know it's still early in the year 2006 and another study could still trump this one.
     Here are the basic facts about the study published in the February 8, 2006 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. It involved 48,000 postmenopausal women with an average age of 62. These women were advised to cut overall fat consumption and increase vegetables, fruits and grains. The women in the study had 18 sessions in small groups with a trained nutritionist in the first year and four sessions a year after that. Women in the intervention group were instructed to reduce their intake of total fat to 20 percent of their energy intake and to increase their consumption of vegetables and fruits to at least five servings daily, and to increase their grain consumption. All fats were supposed to be reduced without distinction between various types of fat. The results were compared to women (the control group) who continued their usual eating habits. Supposedly, and according to the headlines, the eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of breast cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate lower-fat diets and those who didn’t.

SuperSized Study Flaws

1. It is naive and simplistic to categorize all fats as having the same health benefit or risk. There are good fats, neutral fats, and bad fats, and the ratios can make a huge difference. The scientific thinking on the role fats play in disease prevention has evolved since this study was designed back in the early 1990s. We now know that not all fats are bad. Some fats, like the kind in fish, olive oil and nuts, are healthier than the saturated fats and trans fats found in processed and fried foods, cookies, cakes, and junk foods. Study participants probably reduced intake of all kinds of fats, assuming that all fats carried the same risk.

2. The women started this diet too late, an average age of 62. Most cancers take years or decades to form and be detected. For breast cancer in particular, earlier eating habits may have the most influence on risk. Hardening of the arteries takes years and decades to form.

3. The researchers mentioned that in the study women did not reduce the fat content of their diet to the extent that the study required. They admit the low fat diet was difficult to follow. The diet they were told to follow meant, for example, no butter on bread, no cream cheese on bagels, no oil in salad dressings. The researchers did not differentiate between trans fats (for instance in baked goods), saturated fats, monounsaturated fats (found in olive oil), and polyunsaturated fats. They told the women to reduce all fats.

4. Both groups started out with about 37 percent of daily calories from fat. The goal was to cut that to 20 percent for the low-fat group; the women managed about 24 percent on average in the first year, but it climbed to about 29 percent later on. We all know how difficult it is to follow a particular diet for prolonged periods without cheating. And, by the way, not overtly mentioned by the media, the subgroup of women who reduced their fat intake the most, did have a lower rate of breast cancer and heart disease.

5. Most of the women in the study remained overweight. Excess pounds increase the risk for heart disease and cancer, whether the pounds come from fats or carbohydrates. Both groups had on average a similar weight at the end of the study and they consumed about the same number of calories.

6. When a person is asked to lower their fat intake, guess what they often substitute: carbohydrates. Carbohydrates, particularly simple carbohydrates from sugar, fructose, and pasta, get converted into saturated fats, one of the worst kinds of fats. If you are not getting enough fat in the diet, your body may crave simple carbs, and simple carbs are probably worse than saturated fats.

7. Some of the women in the control group who ate their regular diet may possibly have changed their eating habits with time by just following recommendations mentioned in the media and women's magazines over the past few years on how to eat healthier. Therefore, their diet may not have been significantly different than those in the study group as the researchers would have hoped. It appears that both groups had relatively low rates of heart disease, about 2.5 percent compared with just over 4 percent among postmenopausal women nationally.

Who and What to Believe

Certain comments by so called researchers and pundits regarding the results of this study were clearly.... how shall I say... eh... stupid. Yes, that's the word I'm looking for, Stupid.

Dr. Timothy Johnson, the medical commentator on ABC nightly news, said, "This is a wake up call. This study shows we can't rely on lifestyle changes, like weight loss, exercise, diet changes, to reliably reduce the risk of disease. I say to people to take advantage of testing, colonoscopy, blood tests, and mammograms. We can get these diseases even living a good lifestyle."
     Yes, Dr. Johnson, it is very true that we can get these diseases even by living a good lifestyle, but I am shocked that you would minimize the role of food choices on health and disease based on this flawed study.

Barbara V. Howard, an epidemiologist at MedStar Research Institute, a nonprofit hospital group, and a principle investigator in the study, is quoted in a newspaper article saying "People should realize that diet alone is not enough to stay healthy. We are not going to reverse any of the chronic diseases in this country by changing the composition of the diet."
     I wonder if she said this while wolfing down a double cheeseburger sandwiched with two large empty calorie white buns along with a 64 ounce sugared soda refill cup and a side order of deep fried onion rings.
     No one denies that genetics, smoking and exercise play a crucial role in health and disease, but to minimize and dismiss the role of diet is just plain.... what's the word... (you fill in the blank).

Summary

We did learn a few things from this 415 million dollar study: a) Most people find it difficult to stick to a low fat diet for prolonged periods, b) Scientists, even with the best intentions, may design a study with a poor understanding of nutritional knowledge, ie, not recognizing that different fats have different health effects, and c) After several decades of nutritional research the consumer, and researchers, are as confused as ever about the role of diet in health and disease.
     My suggestion is that you try your best at eating a variety of foods, increase your intake of fresh vegetables, fruits, whole grains and beans, spices, and fish, and reduce your intake of simple sugars and trans fats, along with reducing intake of pastry and junk food. It's not that complicated.
     A friend of mine commented recently that she learned more about the influence of diet on health from seeing the movie Supersize Me than learning the results of this study.

For suggestions on a reasonable diet you can follow for long term health maintenance, see
http://www.raysahelian.com/diet.html


PRODUCT DISCOUNTS - For the next 10 days, the following 5 items will be highly discounted: CoQ10 100 mg, Ashwagandha, DMAE, Curcumin, and Milk Thistle.

Physician Formulas is now offering a generous affiliate program for those who have a website.   See http://www.physicianformulas.com for more details.

Feel free to forward this supplement research update to a friend who might be interested in these topics.

For prior issues, visit
http://www.raysahelian.com/supplement_research_update.html

 





Powered by List Builder
Click here to change or remove your subscription

Bitcoin Passive Income