Tag Archive for: nutrition

How Much Time Did You Invest?

/in /by

As the new year approaches, it’s a good time for reflection. Regardless of your age, taking care of your body should always be a top priority, so let’s assess 2024. Here’s a series of questions—not a complete list by any means, just a place to begin. The overall question is this:

How much time do you spend each day taking care of your body?

How many minutes do you spend on aerobic exercise?

How much time in resistance exercise to maintain or gain muscle?

How much time stretching to maintain flexibility?

How much time massaging your aching muscles?

How much time do you spend cooking foods with natural nutrients?

How much time recording the foods that you eat?

How much time flossing and taking care of your teeth?

How much time caring for your skin?

How much sleep are you getting?

These are not just rhetorical questions. Spend some time thinking about it. Add other questions related to how you take care of your body or issues you’ve been having. Write down the minutes per day you spend in each one of those areas. Do it for the next three days, and you’ll see where you stand now and where you can improve.

You get out of your body what you put into it. You need to think and assess so you can identify what you need to work on in 2025.

This year’s final Insider Conference Call is tomorrow night. The main topic is going to be why research on science should never stop or slow down. This is the time to become an Insider to help you achieve your health goals in 2025. Join by 8 p.m. ET tomorrow night and you’ll be a part of the call.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Should You Put Probiotics in Your Smoothie?

/in /by

Continuing with smoothies and shakes, another popular ingredient most people want to add are probiotics, either from yogurt or a supplement. Would there be any issue with adding probiotics to smoothies? No, as far as I could find. It’s the same idea as with the digestive enzymes: the probiotic will start to do its job, which is to ferment once it’s fed. Starches, prebiotics like inulin and dextrin, and fructooligosaccharides (FOS) are the preferential foods for the microbes.

Adding fruit or vegetables to the smoothie would be adding some FOS as well as some naturally occurring fibers. Again, just like the digestive enzymes, the shake would have to be left out a long time for any reasonable fermentation to occur. One more thing: while the probiotics would have fluids and food, the one thing they would not have in a smoothie is heat. Probiotics are not likely to start fermentation when they’re closer to refrigerator temperature than internal body temperature.

And one more thing. Would putting the probiotics in a blender at high speed damage the bacteria? The answer appears to be no based on comments from scientists who do research on bacteria. Imagine slicing a mosquito with a chainsaw; the blender’s blades aren’t small enough to slice and dice the bacteria, and the heat the blades generate isn’t enough to damage a significant amount of probiotics.

The one thing that will destroy probiotics is heat over 165 degrees, so don’t put them in soup or hot drinks. More to come.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

What Do You Want to Know?

/in /by

I’m back from a weekend in Louisville where I talked to many, many people about their nutrition questions. One of the great advantages of these trips is that I know which nutrition questions are most important to people right now. So let’s talk about shakes.

I prefer chewing my food. I’ve tried shakes and smoothies, and they just don’t do it for me, but it’s become a convenient and nutritious way of life for many of you. I’ve gotten a number of questions on what you should and maybe shouldn’t put into smoothies, so let’s cover several of them as well as other questions in the next few memos.

Let’s begin with digestive enzymes. The typical digestive enzyme supplement has several different enzymes to digest food. There are proteases to digest protein, lipases to digest fats, several enzymes that can break down different classes of carbohydrates, and many also have lactases to digest lactase, the milk sugar.

What would putting digestive enzymes in smoothies do? Some enzymes require stomach acids to activate. More than likely, other enzymes would start to breakdown the nutrients they’re designed to digest. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, unless you leave the smoothie to sit for hours—which is exactly what you probably wanted to avoid. It may change the flavor if it sits too long but otherwise, it should be fine.

More on Saturday. And if you have any questions about nutrition or supplements, let me know and if I think it applies to lots of other people, your question could star in an upcoming Memo!

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Ice Cream, the Health Food

/in /by

Paula gave me an article to read from The Atlantic written last summer, in which author David Merritt Johns tackled the issue of outlandish results in nutrition-science studies. In this case, the issue was research demonstrating that eating ice cream regularly reduced the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. He interviewed the chairman of acclaimed nutrition research schools and departments. He interviewed the scientists who published the results of the studies—or not, in one case, because they wouldn’t talk about it. No one could explain it, it didn’t fit their model, so the results got buried.

I reviewed the studies in question, including the dissertation of the researchers who wouldn’t talk about the study. Any way you look at it, two servings per week of a half cup of high-fat ice cream reduced the risk of the aforementioned conditions between 12–54%. The researchers didn’t want to talk about it or acknowledge it, but the data is the data.

Five Reasons the Data Should Be Accepted

  • The assumption is that the Dietary Guidelines are correct for everyone. Maybe they aren’t.
  • The studies used a food frequency questionnaire. They’ve been used forever and are still no better than they were when developed, like trying to paint the Mona Lisa with a 6-inch brush. For example, how many servings of carrots did you have in July? Few people could answer with any accuracy, so why are we still depending on these tools?
  • They could have assessed the data differently. Divide the subjects by caloric intake first, then by foods or macronutrients. They used the same approach as I’ve talked about before and statistically added a percentage of calories to see how it would impact the results.
  • Maybe the results are just the results. It really confirmed prior studies. Why would you ignore data just because it doesn’t agree with your view of how things should be?
  • Maybe it’s time to stop parsing the imparsible. When the data tell a different story, quit trying to make it fit your theory of nutrition.

Maybe what they should have done is find out what is found in full-fat ice cream but not in high-fat milk or cream, which do contribute to CVD and T2D. Maybe it’s a microbiome issue. Stop saying it’s an outlier and find out why it appears to work.

The Bottom Line

Nobody asked me, but I think it’s portion control. Two half-cup servings per week is very different from two pints a day. That may be the real reason behind the positive results. If you want to have a couple of half-cup servings of ice cream a week, I don’t think it will harm you and just may help. Just pay attention to the portion size.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37925665
2. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:997-1003
3. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2081-2089. doi:10.1001/jama.287.16.2081
4. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cream-bad-for-you-health-study/673487/

A Closer Look at Ultra-Processed Food Risk

/in /by

I think the results of the UK Biobank ultra-processed food (UPF) study were interesting, as I relayed on Tuesday, but the researchers went further. They estimated how substituting non-UPF plant-sourced foods for any of the other three sources of food resulted in a reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Further, and what got the headlines, substituting UPF plant-sourced foods for any of the other three increased the risk of CVD morbidity and mortality.

That led some experts to speculate about how processing destroyed fiber and phytonutrients and may even increase the amounts of negative chemicals that have been associated with disease in UPF plant-sourced foods. The problem is that there are no randomized-controlled trials to prove that. Here are a few things that stood out to me.

Theoretically…

The most important issue was this: The determination made about UPF increasing or decreasing the risk of CVD was theoretical and based on calculations. They used a 10% substitution for the non-UPF or UPF plant-sourced foods to calculate the expected raising or lowering of risk. What they could have done was divide the subjects into actual groups based on percentage of nutrients they actually ate instead of running theoretical statistical formulae. My impression is that so few people were diagnosed or died from CVD during the nine-year observational period that they wouldn’t have enough subjects for each group.

So few subjects were diagnosed or died? In the entire subject population—over 118,000 subjects followed for nine years—there were only 7,806 people diagnosed with CVD and only 529 deaths from CVD. Only? Most of the subjects were between 40 and 70, prime time for being diagnosed with some form of CVD.

When looking at the percentage of UPF-plant-sourced foods, the highest percentages were from industrialized packaged breads (9.9%),

pastries, buns, and cakes (6.9%) and biscuits (the kind called cookies in the U.S.) at 3.9%. That’s over half the amount of UPF-plant based foods on the list provided in the research paper. While wheat and other grains were certainly stripped of nutrients in the ultra-processing, that’s nothing new—that’s been happening to flour for over 100 years. What was missing were any fruits or vegetables processed in that manner.

The Bottom Line

Should you take the corn chips and vegan burgers out of your cart? Don’t get the impression that I think UPF plant-based foods should be eaten in mass quantities. I don’t. But I don’t think this study provided much direction in a reasonable response to the issue. On top of that, the analysis of the data may be just plain wrong. We’re not done yet, but we’ll get to that after the 4th of July. One more holiday challenge coming up on Tuesday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100948


Is Ultra-Processed Food Worthless?

/in /by

Ultra-processed food (UPF) has been in the news again: researchers have found a relationship between plant-based UPF and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. Health news writers were brimming with opinions on what the study meant. The comment that got my attention was that UPF manufacturing destroyed good nutrients found in plant foods to the point that there was no benefit to eating them. For example, store-bought cereals and cookies are worthless no matter how much fruit or nuts are added.

Is that true?

Let’s begin by looking at the study. Researchers used data from the UK Biobank database. They selected only the participants who completed at least two 24-hour dietary recalls—118,397 subjects. All participants were part of the healthcare system in the UK, so the researchers were able to collect diagnostic and mortality data from electronic medical records.

Researchers divided the dietary data into four groups:

  • Non-UPF plant-sourced foods (fresh grapes or canned corn)
  • UPF plant-sourced foods (corn chips or vegan burgers)
  • Non-UPF animal-sourced foods (ground beef or canned tuna)
  • UPF animal-sourced foods (chicken nuggets or ice cream)

The two main findings were that the more UPF plant-sourced foods were eaten, the higher the risk of CVD and CVD mortality; second, the increase of non-UPF plant-sourced foods reduced the risk of CVD and mortality. I think those results were to be expected. In Saturday’s Memo, we’ll take a closer look at whether the expert diatribes about negating the benefits of UPF-plant-sourced foods were warranted.

Don’t forget that the Men’s Health Webinar is this Wednesday evening. If you want to participate, respond by tonight to get the login information. The live webinar is free.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100948

Yes, the Nutrients Are There

/in /by

My question is whether you get any nutrients besides sugar and fat from those marshmallow-covered yams or the green beans swimming in condensed mushroom soup and topped with fried onions from a can. The research on cooking techniques and retention of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients in vegetables and fruits is not extensive but overall, the answer is yes. Here’s a synopsis of what I found.

Cooking and Nutrients

The vitamin that seems to be lost regardless of whether it’s boiled, microwaved, or sauteed is vitamin C. Microwaving seems to preserve the most nutrients, but close to 90% of vitamin C is lost.

For some nutrients, such as beta-carotene and other carotenoids, starting with fresh vegetables as opposed to frozen seems to help retain nutrients. The amounts of carotenoids in carrots, sweet potatoes, pumpkins, and yams seem to increase when they are cooked. The same may be true in greens such as spinach and collard greens. Adding bacon doesn’t appear to cause any issues. Using nuts and fruit to make the veggies more attractive can add nutrients as well; for added color and texture, we added slivered almonds and pomegranate seeds to the brussels sprouts with parmesan—yum!

Casseroles may provide the best cooking style when appropriate. Whatever minerals leech out of the vegetables or fruits will be retained in the liquid of the casserole.

Surprise Finding

Cooking may reduce the amount of pesticide residues in vegetables. It’s nice to know that blanching, boiling and even stir frying may decrease residues by 10–80%. The research didn’t look at the liquid used for blanching or boiling, so we don’t know whether it’s a chemical change in the structure of the pesticide or it just leaches it out. Still, it was a welcome surprise.

The Bottom Line

Traditional holiday foods do retain beneficial nutrients. They can’t offset all the fat and sugar that were added, but we’re getting some of the vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients the foods contain. To me, the real lesson is that the way the food is prepared may help you eat more vegetables and fruit. Steamed green beans? Yecch. But covered in a sauce? Maybe that will help get more vegetables into your picky eaters. As long as we control the amount and the frequency, we can feel good about eating holiday foods all year long.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2017 Dec 12;27(2):333-342
2. Nutr Bull. 2022 Dec;47(4):538-562.  doi: 10.1111/nbu.12584.
3. Foods. 2022 May 18;11(10):1463. 

Nutrients in Holiday Foods

/in /by

I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. With all the traditional and maybe not-so-traditional foods associated with the holidays, did you wonder how you fared from a nutrient perspective? We had a few of those foods that make you wonder: cheesy grits, corn pudding, and cranberry chutney to go along with the turkey. And don’t forget that pumpkin pie.

Never one to leave well enough alone, I wondered how much nutrition we actually get from traditional holiday foods that typically include more fat and involve more than just lightly steaming vegetables. How much butter and cream did you add to those mashed potatoes? How long did those greens beans cook? How about those marshmallows on the yams?

Do we end up with any nutrients—especially phytonutrients—from all those vegetables and fruit? Yes, you do, and how you cook the food makes a difference; in fact, one nutrient may increase with cooking! I’ll tell you what the research says on Saturday, but one thing’s for sure: Thanksgiving beats Halloween for nutrition.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Protein Intake: Perspective Required

/in /by

The research paper that concluded that higher protein intake was associated with muscle loss and sarcopenia seems to offer more questions than answers. That’s actually a good thing, because future research can examine those questions. But there are questions that the researchers didn’t mention.

Researcher Observations

This is an observational study. Simply put, the subjects who completed all the tests were followed for several years, depending on when they joined the study. Therefore, no cause and effect can be inferred because the researchers were watching, not intervening.

The original number of subjects with sarcopenia was low at just 4.3%. With so many subjects over 72, the number should have been closer to 10%. The researchers acknowledged as much. If the study’s subjects had less sarcopenia than the general population, it’s hard to draw conclusions that are helpful to everyone.

My Observations

The single characteristic most closely associated with loss of muscle mass and sarcopenia was age. Protein intake was a covariate for sarcopenia but it was actually in the middle of the pack as a risk; a covariate is a separate attribute that can be measured alongside the primary variable being investigated.

The study included limited data on diet and exercise. I would expect that not very many subjects were exercising at levels high enough to sustain or increase muscle mass. That conflicts with the research data from clinical trials that show that increasing protein intake in older subjects on a weight training program increases strength and muscle mass.

What stood out more than anything was the limited amount of testing for sarcopenia and the mixed bag of testing procedures. If it’s such a problem, which every researcher in aging admits is the case, why aren’t there better diagnostic tools available to diagnose the condition? How can physicians treat a disease they aren’t diagnosing?

The Bottom Line

There is no reason to worry about protein intake as we get older based on this observational study. What we need to do is begin to retain muscle mass or reclaim our muscle through resistance training, better protein intake, and the strategic use of supplements. If you’re interested in a program to do just that, the Taking Back Your Muscle is still available on my website.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/52/2/afad018/7036280

Is High Protein Intake Associated with Sarcopenia?

/in /by

If there’s one thing I’ve learned studying health, fitness, and nutrition for 35 years, it’s this: what we thought we knew yesterday may change based on what we learn today. Given that, I was still surprised to see an article in my news feed with a title “High Protein Intake Associated With Sarcopenia.” The Taking Back Your Muscle webinar uses strategies that research has shown help increase muscle strength, including eating more protein. What gives with this latest research?

Researchers selected as their subjects from the TwinsUK cohort. Subjects must be over 60 years old and have completed specific tests since 2010. Just over 3,300 men and women were selected to be included in the data analysis. Researchers examined a variety of variables including education, income, other diseases and conditions, strength, and muscle mass. Protein intake was measured. Researchers did find the opposite of what they expected: higher protein intake was associated with sarcopenia.

Did I get it wrong? I’ll talk about the rest of the study on Saturday. I wouldn’t change your protein intake just yet because there seems to be a larger problem that looms over us as we age. The article is open access, and you can read it at this link.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference:https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/52/2/afad018/7036280