Science frequently does junk research but there is no area where this practice is more common than with nutrition and weight loss.

We are bombarded with research study after research study which only create confusion because they all seem so contradictory. There are two reasons for this:

* Doing good and valid research in nutrition and weight loss is enormously difficult and it’s this difficulty that leads to contradictory outcomes.

* The results of the research are inappropriately presented to the public.

It is this second reason that the American Dietetic Association is targeting. Here are their ten red flags you should watch out for:

1. Recommendations that promise a quick fix
2. Dire warnings of danger from a single complex study
3. Claims that sound too good to be true
4. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study
5. Recommendations based on a single study
6. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations
7. Lists of “good” and “bad” foods
8. Recommendatons made to help sell a product
9. Recommendations based on studies published without peer review
10. Recommendations from studies that ignore differences among individuals or groups.

My advice? Ignore all scientific research reported on by the media. There is no way you can separate the wheat from the chaff.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Learn about another dietary supplement that seems to do no good

ShareThis

Why? Because folic acid reduces homocysteine levels in the blood and high homocysteine levels have been associated with heart disease.

Cool idea and, up until recently, a lot of folks bought into this recommendation.

Well, it turns out it probably isn’t true.

Some researchers from the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine did a “meta-analysis” of 12 clinical trials involving 52,000 participants and found that folic acid does NOT reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease or all-cause mortality.

Whoops!

You wonder how much money has been spent on folic acid in the hopes of receiving some health benefit.

Instead, the authors of the study suggest people’s time and money should be focused elsewhere:

“It is important to focus on strategies of proven benefit in the prevention of cardiovascular disease, including smoking cessation, lipid reduction, treatment of hypertenion and diabetes, and maintenance of a healthy weight and physical activity.”

Bravo!

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness

ShareThis

How do you think this is working?

Well, the FDA has decided — not too well.

And, they’ve concluded the problem is that consumers don’t know how to use these labels. Therefore, they have launched a web-based learning program called “Make Your Calories Count.”

The interactive program features an animated character called “Labelman” who leads the viewer through a series of exercises on the food label. The program includes exercises to help consumers explore the relationship between serving sizes and calories, while they learn how to limit certain nutrients and get enough of others.

The FDA — to keep the program simple — presents just two nutrients that should be limited (saturated fat and sodium) and two that should be consumed in adequate amounts (fiber and calcium).

So, what do you think? Is this website going to finally allow food labels to have their promised postive impact on our health and weight?

The Center for Science in Public Interest doen’t think so. They are quoted as saying, “the governement is just delusional if they think yet another website and brochure will make a dent in the obesity epdemic.”

I agree.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness

ShareThis

As a result, worldwide vitamin E supplement sales are enormous.

I first remember reading about the incredible health benefits of vitamin E back in the 60s. Several popular health books were published which promoted this “magical” substance.

Since then there have been a few epidemiological studies suggesting these nutritionists were right. However, such studies can’t fully address biases due to selection of the study population, measurement error of deitary vitamin E intake and other residual confounding errors.

Therefore, what has been needed is a well-designed and well-conducted randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, conducted over a long period of time, that would avoid all these biases.

Well, such a trial has been completed.

Researchers studied almost 40,000 U.S. women over a 10 year period. About half the group received 600 IU of vitamin E every other day and the other half received a placebo.

During the ten-year follow-up, there were 827 cases of diabetes in the vitamin E group and 869 in the placebo group. In other words — statistically — there were no differences between the two groups.

Here is the conclusion of the study as stated by the researchers:

“In this large trial with 10-year follow-up, alternate-day does of 600IU of vitamin E provided NO significant benefit for type 2 diabetes in initially healthy women.”

This is just one recent study of many showing that taking a vitamin E supplement provides NO health benefit. In fact, a couple of recent studies have demonstrated a negative health impact (increased mortality) from taking vitamin E.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness

ShareThis

This “truth” is just one of the many pieces of health and fitness advice which are so well established they are almost never questioned.

Well, maybe some of this “proven” advice should be questioned.

Some researchers recently analyzed different postures and concluded that the strain of sitting upright for long hours is a perpetrator of chronic back problems.

What?

Yep, you read this correctly. These researchers found that a 90-degree sitting position causes the spinal disks to move and misalign more than any other position.

They used a new form of magnetic resonance imaging to study 22 volunteers sitting in three different positions — slouching, sitting up straight, and sitting back with a 135 degree posture.

Which one do you think put the least strain on the back?

I’ve already told you that sitting up straight put the most strain so you only have two to choose from.

Well, it turns out the 135-degree sitting posture was the best (as far as sitting — laying down with the knees slightly bent put the least strain on the back).

Back pain is the most common cause of work-related disability in the United States and costs Americans nearly $50 billion annually. Most researchers believe one of the major causes of this ailment is sitting — and, given the results of this study, sitting incorrectly.

Here is what one of the study’s authors said about their results:

“This may be all that is necessary to prevent back pain, rather than trying to cure pain that has occurred over the long term due to bad postures.”

My point? Don’t assume that long-standing health and fitness advice is correct.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness

ShareThis

The article analyzed the scientific literature related to the effect of flavonoids on cardiovascular disease — and found the effect to be a positive one.

Let me provide some background.

Flavonoids are a subgroup of a class of compounds known as polyphenols and are present in fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds.

Over 4,000 flavonoids have been identified in six major subgroups — flavonols, flavanones (the catechins), flavones, anthocyanins, and isoflavonoids. But scientists believe more than 25,000 exist.

The flavonoids in chocolate have received a lot of attention recently because of studies showing improved “endothelium-dependent flow-mediated dilation” (whatever that is) in people who eat a lot of chocolate.

No one really knows why these flavonoids have their positive effect — but it seems to happen pretty consistently.

This specific article focused on the positive effect of grapes and grape-seeds, a food which has received a lot of attention due to the “French paradox”

See, the French have a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease even though they eat a high-fat diet and scientists have been trying to figure out why. One theory that’s been proposed is that this “paradox” is due to the French drinking a lot of wine (and, as a result, consuming more grapes).

So, scientists have done a lot of research on the effects of the flavonoids found in grapes. And, sure enough, they’ve discovered these substances do some pretty amazing things inside the human body.

But, here’s the key point. There are more than 25,000 types of flavonoids and scientists know very little about any of them other than they seem to have some positive health effects.

What does this mean to you?

* Don’t think a multivitamin is going to cover your nutritional needs. These pills contain only 20 to 30 substances so there’s a ways to go before any pill will be complete nutrient supplement.

* Eating a lot of certain food (red wine, chocolate) because some study has shown a positive effect is silly. First, it’s possible the substances in these foods cause problems if they are over-consumed. But, the bigger issue is that, by eating a lot of one food, it’s very possible you are missing out on flavonoids in other foods which have even more positive effects.

* The best strategy to gain the health-benefits of flavonoids is to eat a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness

ShareThis

Have you noticed how almost everything we eat is fortified with extra vitamins? There are cereals that provide 100% of your daily requirement and power bars that provide another 50%. Bread has been fortified with vitamins for a long time but, now, even orange juice and bottled water have extra vitamins added.

The article makes this point and then says, “Before you know it, you’ve dosed yourself with five, six, maybe 10 times the recommended allowance for the day’s nutrients.”

So, should you take a daily vitamin for insurance — or, could that cause an overdose?

Actually no one knows. The advice in the article — “if you don’t take multivitamins, there’s no reason to start. If you do, there’s no evidence to stop.”

Pretty definitive, huh?

That’s the problem with nutrition — no one really knows what you should do or should not do. There just hasn’t been valid studies done that prove one thing or another — and there probably never will be. It’s just too difficult to do a good study that deals with what people eat. It’s impossible to track everything subjects put in their mouths and survey data is notoriously inaccurate.

But the studies get funded none-the-less and then get reported by the media — but the studies are all so contradictory we all just get more and more confused.

For example, although nutritionists have told us for years to take extra vitamin E, a study in 2005 with 40,000 women found the vitamin had no effect.

Or what about taking the B vitamins to lower the risk of heart attack? Again, recent studies have shown it doesn’t work.

In fact a large NIH study examined ALL the evidence available through clinical trials and could only find three well-established benefits from taking vitamins:
* Folic acid protects against neural tube disorders in developing fetuses (but a pregnant women only needs to take as much folic acid as what is contained in most multivitamins).
* Calcium with vitamin D helps prevent bone fractures (you can get plenty of each by drinking some milk and getting some sunshine).
* Vitamins C, E and zinc reduces eyesight deterioration from age-related macular degneration.

But, what about the other side of the equation. What is the negative health effect of overdosing on vitamins? Again, no one knows — but the doctors quoted in this article all said this was a potential concern.

Bottom line, it probably is OK to take a basic multivitamin. But, taking megadoses of anything is likely a mistake.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness

ShareThis

Dr. Helena Laroche performed a survey of 6,600 adults living with and without children.

And, sure enough, adults living with kids ate 5 more grams of fat each day than the adults without kids.

Why did this research produce these results. Well, here are the theories proposed by the researchers:

1. Parents are under more time pressure so they are more prone to opt for snacks and convenience foods.

2. Parents buy high fat foods for their kids (hot dogs, macaroni and cheese, pizza) and then end up eating what their kids eat. In other words, parent’s eating habits are shaped by their children’s food choices.

3. Parents end up eating the food left over by their children — even after completing their own meal.

Which of these reasons is it? No one knows. In fact, the reason might not be any of these three.

But, that doesn’t stop the researchers from guessing and it doesn’t stop the media from reporting on their guesses.

What gets lost in the media coverage is that ALL the adults — where they had kids living with them or not — ate more fat than what is recommended by healthy eating guidelines.

This is interesting because over the last forty years fat consumption by Americans, as a percentage of total calories, has dropped significantly (from over 40% in the 1960s to less than 34% today).

In reading this study, the clear message is that we must cut our fat consumption even more — and that parents with kids have the most cutting to do.

All this despite little evidence that American’s current level of fat consumption is unhealthy — and a fair amount of evidence that certain subgroups of the population (pregnant women, growing kids) are negatively impacting their health by eating too little fat.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness

ShareThis

What I didn’t mention was the number of participants included in this literature review — 232,606! In other words, this study had some real weight.

Given that 80 to 160 million people are taking these supplements in the United States, the results of this study should cause some real concerns.

But, it will probably get mentioned by the media for a week or two and then get overwhelmed by all the advertising for these supplements. Within a few weeks, the results of this study will likely be forgotten and we’ll go back to purchasing the $20 billion we spend annually on these supplements.

So, why do antioxidants have this negative effect on mortality?

Well, the researches offered this explanation:

“By eliminating free radicals for our organism, we interfere with some essential defensive mechanisms like apoptosis, phagocytosis, and detoxification.”

Now, I’m not sure exactly what this means but it doesn’t sound too good. But, what’s interesting is how often nutrition theories change.

Everyone thought that getting rid of free radicals was a good thing (the theory why these supplements were supposed to be good for us) but now — after almost 40 years of believing in this theory — it turns out this probably isn’t true.

Here’s the reality — scientists know very little about nutrition. But that doesn’t keep food and dietary supplement companies from making health claims.

Rather than listening to these claims and acting upon them, we should just eat a variety of real foods that we truly like. That’s the way to optimize our nutrition.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness

ShareThis

For as long as I can remember, nutritionists have told us to increase our intake of the major antioxidants — beta carotene, vitamin A, vitamin E, vitamin C and selenium.

The theory was that these antioxidants would help eliminate “free radicals” that are thought to cause all sorts of problems in our bodies.

Vitamin companies adopted this theory years ago and used it to heavily market their products as substances that would improve health, guard against diseases such as cancer and heart disease, and slow down the aging process.

Well, this was a nice theory and it made all kinds of sense — but the actual research on real people demonstrates it probably isn’t valid.

In fact, it seems like just the opposite is true — through some mechanism these products actually increase mortality levels.

The authors of this 2007 paper reviewed 815 clinical trials (all studies prior to October 2005 testing the health outcomes from taking these vitamins) and sifted through the data to identify those studies having the least amount of bias.

When they reviewed this subset of data they discovered the following:

* Taking vitamin A increased death risk by 16%
* Taking beta carotene increased death risk by 7%
* Taking vitamin E increased death risk by 4%
* Taking vitamin C increased death risk by 6% (with less clear results)

Only taking selenium showed a decreased death risk but this decrease was not shown to be statistically significant (meaning, the death risk difference could have happened by chance).

The overall conclusion of the study was that on balance, the best quality research shows that beta caroten, vitamin A and vitamin E may increase mortality risk, but vitamin C and selenium need further study.

Yikes! 10 to 20% of the US population take dietary supplements (beyond just a multivitamin which is taken by about half the population). This seems like a bit of a problem to me!

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness

ShareThis