Thursday, September 14, 2017

Individual foods and risk of mortality

The Study
We have known for decades that our dietary choices can positively or negatively impact our long-term risk of chronic disease.  A recently published meta-analysis summarizes the results from hundreds of studies that investigated the association between different food groups and all-cause mortality. The results were interesting:

Foods that reduced risk of mortality
1 serving per day of nuts reduced risk of mortality by 15%
1 serving per day of legumes reduced risk of mortality by 10%
1 serving per day of whole grains reduced risk of mortality by 9%
1 serving per day of fish reduced risk of mortality by 7%
1 serving per day of vegetables reduced risk of mortality by 6%
1 serving per day of fruits reduced risk of mortality by 6%

Foods that increased risk of mortality
1 serving per day of red meat increased risk of mortality by 16%
1 serving per day of processed meat increased risk of mortality by 12%
1 serving per day of sugar sweetened beverages increased risk of mortality by 7%
1 serving per day of eggs increased risk of mortality by 7%
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2017; 105:1462-73.

Take Home Message
The take home message here is pretty simple: eat more of the foods that decrease mortality risk and less of the foods that increase it.  It is easy to focus solely on results when you are trying to lose weight and lose sight of the long-term health consequences of your dietary choices.  Many popular fad diets are guilty of this.  The goal is to eat in a way that helps you lose weight and reduces your long-term risk of chronic disease. This way you’ll have a lot longer to enjoy your fit new body!

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Is intermittent fasting healthy?

The Study
Fasting or skipping meals has become a popular strategy for losing weight. However, the long-term health effects of this practice are not known. A recently published investigation in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked into this question. In this crossover trial, 17 normal weight subjects underwent 3 separate 24-hour interventions: a day that they skipped breakfast, a day that they skipped dinner and a day that they ate three conventional meals.  Energy was measured in a respiration chamber and calories were kept constant on each of the three days. Blood glucose, insulin and inflammatory factors were measured throughout the study protocol. The results were quite interesting. Compared to 3 normal meals per day, when subjects skipped breakfast, they showed signs of disturbed glucose homeostasis and increased inflammation. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2017; 105:1351-61.

Take Home Message
This is the second recent publication that has shown a disturbed glucose homeostasis with meal skipping or fasting. Disturbed glucose homeostasis has the potential to increase risk of type 2 diabetes. The increased inflammation found in this investigation with breakfast skipping is also problematic as inflammation has been associated with many chronic diseases. 

I don’t recommend meal skipping or fasting as a weight loss strategy to my clients. Besides the negative health consequences outlined in this study and others, it has also been shown to slow down metabolism in a recent investigation. When metabolism slows down, the risk of weight gain increases because you are burning fewer calories each and every day. 

If weight loss is your goal, eat 3 nutritious meals each day. In addition, hit your cardio goals and lift weights at least twice per week. Be patient with your rate of weight loss, there are no quick fixes.

Diet soda and risk of stroke

The Controversy
A few weeks back, just about every major newspaper ran a headline that diet soda consumption causes stroke and dementia. The papers were referring to an investigation that was recently published in the journal Stroke.

The Study
In this study, 2,888 older men and women from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort were followed for 10 years (Reference 1). Beverage intake was measured by means of a food frequency questionnaire that was filled out 3 times during the 10 year follow-up. When compared to subjects that never drank diet soda, subjects that had one or more diet sodas daily had a 296% greater risk of ischemic stroke and a 289% greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease. These are very big increases and the media went crazy with the headlines. But in typical fashion, the newspapers did not tell the whole story here. 

There are some pretty big problems with the methods in this study and a far better designed study performed the same analysis and came up with very different results.

Let’s start with some of the problems with the methods in the Framingham investigation:
1) For a prospective cohort study, this was a pretty small investigation that included only 2,888 subjects and 97 cases in the stroke analysis. The dementia analysis included 1,484 subjects and only 81 cases.

2) There was significant loss to follow-up. Only 72% of subjects completed all 3 food frequency questionnaires.

3) The subjects who drank a lot of diet soda were not nearly as healthy as those that did not. They had a higher waist to hip ratio, body mass index, had more hypertension, lower HDL cholesterol, more diabetes, atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular disease, exercised less and consumed more saturated fat. This would not be a problem if confounders were well measured and adequately controlled for. In my opinion, they were not, which brings us to points 4 and 5.

4) There was an incomplete measurement of confounders, particularly those related to diet. 

5) I believe there were some problems with the modeling in this investigation.

For me, these 5 factors really hurt the generalizability of this study. Harvard University published a study on diet soda consumption and risk of stroke that was much better designed and came up with a very different result (Reference 2). Let’s see some of the ways that this second study was better designed.

1) The Harvard study included 84,085 women from the Nurses Health Study for 28 years of follow-up and 43,371 men from the Health Professional Follow-up Study for 22 years of follow-up. This is compared to only to 2,888 subjects in the Framingham study. The Harvard study included 4,354 strokes while the Framingham study had only 97.

2) Follow-up rates for the Harvard Study were 96% in men and 97% in women. In the Framingham cohort, only 72% of subjects completed all food frequency questionnaires.

3) The Harvard study measured and controlled for many more confounders than the Framingham study. Here is a list of confounders that the Harvard group included that the Framingham group left out of their study: consumption of red meat, poultry, fish, nuts, whole and low fat dairy, fruits and vegetables, cereal fiber, alcohol, parental history of myocardial infarction, trans fat, multivitamin use, aspirin use, vitamin E use, and menopausal status. The Framingham study controlled for diet by including a variable that measured how closely subjects followed the 2005 dietary guidelines. To me, this is inadequate because the guidelines from 2005 don’t really reflect all that can be healthy about one’s diet.

4) The Harvard study included every possible variable in the final model. In other words, they controlled for every potential confounder in the statistical model that they presented in their final results. In the Framingham study, the researchers did not include waist to hip ratio in their final model. This is a major confounder of the relationship between diet soda consumption and risk of stroke because people who are overweight have a much higher risk of stroke and people that are overweight are often more likely to drink diet soda (in an effort to lose weight). I’m not quite sure why this was left out, but the fact that they did not measure for all potential confounders and did not include weight in their final model leaves open the strong possibility of residual confounding in this study.

The Harvard study found a 16% increased risk of stroke for those that consumed 1 or more diet sodas per day when compared to those that did not drink diet soda. This is a far cry from the 296% increased risk found in Framingham. In my opinion, the Harvard results are much more in line with the true association between diet soda consumption and risk of stroke. 

Conclusions And Recommendations
I apologize if this post is a little long or technical. The media has a way of just running with a headline without really understanding the methods or limitations of the study in question. This causes a lot of confusion in my field.

Let me get one thing straight, I am not an advocate for diet soda. It is much better to drink water than any type of soda. I view diet soda the same way as I think of foods like bacon, butter, steak or cheese:  If you eat a ton of these foods, they can cause problems for you. If you have them only occasionally, they are not a major problem. For those that don’t eat sugar at all, an occasional diet soda once or twice a week can be a real treat. 

Incidentally, this level of consumption was not associated with stroke in the better designed Harvard study. In fact, in the discussion section of the Harvard study, the authors mention that the slight increase in risk of stroke with daily diet soda consumption should be interpreted with caution. They mention that there is no known mechanism between diet soda and incident stroke and that in previous analyses in the Harvard cohorts, diet soda has not been associated with weight gain, heart disease, or type 2 diabetes.

1) Pase MP, Himali JJ, Beiser AS, et al. Sugar and artificially sweetened beverages and the risks of incident stroke and dementia. Stroke 2017 DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016027.

2) Bernstein AM, de Koning L, Flint AJ, et al. Soda consumption and the risk of stroke in men and women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2012; 95:1190-9.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Is Coconut Oil Healthy?

This subject perfectly illustrates the deep chasm between nutrition research and the general public’s views of nutrition. They are very often not aligned. I’m not sure when or how it started, but a few years back, the idea that coconut oil was health promoting began to build momentum.

The answer is no, coconut oil is not the best oil to use. It is not even close to being the best oil to use. In fact, it is probably the one you most want to avoid using.

Coconut oil is extremely high in saturated fat. Almost 90% of the fat in coconut oil is saturated. For comparisons sake, butter contains 64% saturated fat and beef contains 40% saturated fat. 

The saturated fat in coconut oil raises LDL cholesterol, which increases risk of heart disease and stroke. In fact, the American Heart Association recently released a report advising against use of coconut oil, citing a review of 7 randomized trials showing that coconut oil increased LDL cholesterol in all 7 studies!

Oils with high amounts of mono and polyunsaturated fats, such as olive oil and canola oil, have the exact opposite effect. They lower LDL cholesterol and have been associated with reduced risk of heart disease and stroke. These are the oils you should be using.

Prebiotic supplementation and weight loss in children

The Study
Prebiotics are a non-digestible carbohydrate that promote the growth of healthy bacteria in the gut. The role of prebiotic supplementation in weight loss is controversial. In this randomized trial, 42 overweight boys and girls between the ages of 7-12 were assigned 8 grams of oligofructose-enriched inulin (a prebiotic) each day or placebo for 16 weeks. After the intervention, a variety of measures were taken and an all you can eat breakfast buffet was offered to the subjects. 

After 16 weeks of supplementation, there were no significant differences in the amount of food the subjects were consuming on a daily basis. There were no significant differences in body mass index between the two groups. When all subjects were included, there were no significant differences in the amount of food consumed at the all you can eat breakfast buffet. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2017; 105:790-99.

Take Home Message
It appears that prebiotic supplementation is not effective as a weight loss strategy. It is interesting to note that when the analysis was restricted to just 11-12 year old subjects, there was a significantly lower consumption of food at the breakfast buffet at the end of the intervention for those in the prebiotic group. 

However, when all of the data was looked at together, there was no significant difference in daily energy consumption or BMI after 16 weeks of supplementation. It will take some more research to fully answer this question, but right now it does not look like prebiotics will do much to aid in the weight loss process.  

Can whole grains increase metabolism?

The Study
The impact of whole grains on body weight remains a controversial topic. In this randomized controlled trial, 81 men and women were put on a 6 week diet. The diets were identical except for the fact that one group received 207 grams of whole grain and 40 grams of fiber each day, while the other received refined grains and only 21 grams of fiber. The goal of this intervention was to maintain weight and observe any metabolic differences between the two groups. By the end of follow-up, the whole grain group had a significant increase in resting metabolic rate and a higher stool energy content than the refined grain group. The combined difference between the two groups amounted to 92 calories per day. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2017; 105:589-99.

Take Home Message
In the last few years, several fad diets have attempted to demonize whole grains as unhealthy and an obstacle to weight loss. The research does not support this view. The literature is replete with studies associating whole grains with a reduced risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, inflammatory disease and cancer. This study is a great example of some emerging evidence that it can help maintain body weight as well.

There are several potential mechanisms to explain the relationship between whole grains and a lower weight. Whole grains are thought to suppress appetite, improve glycemic control, improve insulin sensitivity and are also thought to positively alter gut-microbiota. The 92 calorie per day difference found in this study does not sound like a lot but it adds up. In a year’s time, this difference equates to a weight loss of about 6 pounds. 

Don’t listen to those that tell you to avoid whole grains. They are a very important part of a healthy diet and may actually help you lose weight. Shoot for 1-2 servings per day. Great choices are oatmeal, brown rice, and quinoa.

Book Review: Blast The Sugar Out

Next up for review is Blast the Sugar Out. The author, Dr. Ian Smith, is a medical doctor who used to be a co-host of the television show, The Doctors. He has written several other bestselling health, fitness and weight loss books.

This book presents a 5 week weight loss strategy packed with recipes, meal plans and snack ideas. It has a particular focus on reducing blood sugar levels for those who are diabetic or prediabetic. The author mentions that the book was also written for anyone who wants to lose weight or reduce their sugar consumption. The book is 240 pages long. It is well written and I truly enjoyed reading it.

5 Things I Really Liked About Blast the Sugar Out
1) I like how the primary focus of this book is to reduce refined sugar consumption. After trans fat, I rate sugar as the worst thing that we can eat. The number of problems that refined sugar causes is staggering. I treat it like a drug, because to me that is what it is. 

2) I really like that the book emphasizes cardiovascular exercise as a big part of the program. It needs to be a major focus if weight loss is your goal.

3) I like the recommendation to drink a lot of water. It is essential not only for weight loss, but for overall health and quality of life.

4) The recipes and meal plans are well organized and very well done.

5) I really liked the Sugar Swap in the back of the book (Appendix 1). In this section, the author lists a much healthier alternative for every kind of sugary treat that you may be tempted by. This is a very practical little section.

5 Things I Didn’t Agree With In Blast the Sugar Out
1) A lot of high glycemic load carbs are allowed on this program. All of the following are regulars in the meal plans: cold cereals, dried fruit, smoothies, French toast with maple syrup, French fries, lots of bread (even whole grain bread can spike blood sugar), onion rings, pizza, popcorn, fruit juice, pancakes, crackers, rice cakes, pita bread, animal crackers, vanilla wafers, pretzels, etc.  When it comes to spikes in blood sugar, increased hunger and cravings, many of these foods are as damaging as sugar.

2) This book is very big on snacking. In addition to 3 meals, the plan calls for 2 or even 3 snacks per day. In my experience, this can lead to overeating and really slow down rate of weight loss. If the average woman needs to be close to 1,200 calories/day to effectively lose weight, each meal/snack needs to be around 200 calories. This is not a lot of food! If she goes over by even 50 calories per meal or snack, she is looking at 300 extra calories per day or 9,000 extra calories per month. Further, if you are eating in a way that stabilizes blood sugar, you will not need to eat every 2 or 3 hours. You simply won’t be hungry.

3) Allows late night snacking. In the section on snacking, the book mentions that it is OK to have a snack at 8:30 PM or later. I have found that late night eating is a really bad idea for those trying to lose weight. I have seen it completely prevent weight loss in past clients and I actually use it as a strategy to gain weight for the rare client that works with me in an effort to increase their weight.

4) A lot of the meals are really low in fat. Fat is actually a very good thing in your diet, if you choose it carefully. Vegetable based fats like olive oil, canola oil, nuts, and avocados have a positive impact on risk of chronic disease. They also help to stabilize the blood sugar, decrease insulin spikes and keep you full longer than meals without fat. The research literature has also shown that low fat diets are not effective for long term weight loss.

5) The book could focus a bit more on resistance training. While a good amount of time is spent on cardio, strength training is mentioned only briefly. I believe that weight training is the secret ingredient to lasting weight loss. Sparing lean tissue during the weight loss process is the absolute key to keeping the weight off.

Is Blast the Sugar Out Worth Reading?
Absolutely. This book gets a lot right. As a nation, we all need to be eating a lot less sugar. It is far more damaging to our health than most people realize. This book will help you to do that. I would just make a few additions to this program. I would be a little stricter with the high glycemic carbs, cut down on the snacking (especially at night), add in a bit more healthy vegetable fat and add a whole bunch of strength training.