Category: Nutrition

  • Weight Bias in Health Care

    Weight Bias in Health Care

    Please note: This blog and its accompanying video discuss the important and troubling issue of weight bias and discrimination, which may be a sensitive topic for some readers.

    How common is weight stigmatization in health care?

    Described as the last “acceptable” form of bias, weight stigma is the rampant discrimination and stereotyping of overweight individuals. Fifty overweight women were asked to keep a diary of all the times they felt they were being stigmatized for their weight. Over a single week, more than a thousand instances were recorded. An overweight woman may expect to be harassed (such as being called names or insulted), run into physical barriers (like being unable to fit into public seats), or discriminated against (such as receiving perceived poorer service at restaurants or stores) on average about three times a day. Obese men report three times less discrimination than women of the same size, so it may be only a daily occurrence for them.

    They’re not just being paranoid. Studies using professional actors posing as job applicants made up with theatrical prostheses to appear overweight were significantly more likely to face discrimination than when appearing at their normal weight. This employment bias was found to be especially prejudiced against overweight women compared to men.

    Attitudes can also be explored in surveys. In a comparison of 16 stigmatized social groups, such as people experiencing homelessness, “only drug addicts and smokers were seen as more disgusting than obese people,” as you can see below and at 1:42 in my video Weight Bias: Hating Their Guts.

    The researchers did note, however, there was effectively a tie: “[O]bese people were rated just as disgusting as politicians.”

    This weight stigma starts surprisingly young. Children as young as three years old describe overweight peers as “mean,” “stupid,” “lazy,” and “ugly.” The negative language increases with age, as you can see below and at 2:14 in my video.

    Then, there was that famous study published in 1961. Children in summer camps and schools across a swath of different social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds in California, Montana, and New York were shown pictures of different children and asked to rank who they liked best. The images included a child with crutches and a leg brace, a child in a wheelchair, a child missing a hand, a facially disfigured child, and an obese child. In every group of kids tested, there was “remarkable uniformity.” The obese child always came in dead last.

    That was ages ago, though. In 2003, researchers published the 40-year follow-up. The study was repeated, and the title of the study gives it away: “Getting Worse: The Stigmatization of Obese Children.” The obese child was liked even less in the follow-up study than in 1961! This parallels trends throughout society, with a near 70% jump in perceived weight discrimination recorded in national surveys since the mid-1990s.

    Attitudes among teachers may not be helping. More than a quarter of teachers and other school staff surveyed felt that becoming obese is “one of the worst things that could happen to a person.” Even parents can be biased, providing less support for college for their overweight daughters compared to thinner siblings, for example. As two prominent obesity researchers commented, “It is strong prejudice indeed when parents discriminate against their own children.”

    What about doctors? One representative national survey found that more than half of physicians “viewed obese patients as awkward, unattractive, ugly, and noncompliant.” About a quarter of nurses agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “Caring for an obese patient usually repulses me.”

    This antagonism can have serious health consequences for those who may need it the most. For example, obese women are at higher risk for developing cervical cancer, as well as developing endometrial and ovarian cancers, yet they are less likely to be screened. Morbidly obese patients have only about half the odds of getting their recommended pelvic exams. Part of this may be avoidance on the part of the patient, but some doctors turn obese patients away. The Sun Sentinel polled OB/GYN practices in Florida and found that as many as one in seven refused to see heavier women and set weight cut-offs for new patients beginning at 200 pounds.

    Even doctors who welcome obese patients have been found to give them short shrift. Physicians randomized to receive a medical chart of a migraine patient who was either presented as average weight, overweight, or obese said they would give the obese patient about 28% less of their time. And it’s less quality time. Recorded doctors’ visits found that physicians tend to build “less emotional rapport with overweight and obese patients.”

    Even obesity specialists profess increasingly explicit anti-fat attitudes. Worsening in surveys taken between 2001 and 2013, obesity specialists “described fat people as significantly more lazy…stupid…and worthless…compared to thin people.” Even in the medical literature, you’ll find lines like this, an example from Annals of Internal Medicine: “Obesity is an aesthetic crime: it is ugly.”

    The good news is that they appear able to hide their disdain. In a study entitled “Obese Patients Overestimate Physicians’ Attitudes of Respect,” despite the negative attitudes doctors harbored toward their obese patients, the same patients expressed their satisfaction with their providers. The researchers concluded, “While physicians may be successfully playing the part, the lack of true respect suggests…the authenticity of the patient-physician relationship should be questioned.”

    Doctor’s Note

    The next blog in this two-part series is The Burden of Weight Bias.

    Both blogs in the series are drawn from my book How Not to Diet.



    Source link

  • Nuts, Meat, and the Flaw in Nutrition Studies

    Nuts, Meat, and the Flaw in Nutrition Studies

    Do people who eat nuts live longer simply because they replace protein from animals with protein from plants?

    The American Journal of Clinical Nutritionis the highest-ranked peer-reviewed scientific journal in nutrition and dietetics.” That should tell you a lot about the field, since it’s published by the American Society of Nutrition, whose sustaining partners include The Sugar Association, soda companies, and the meat, dairy, and egg industries. This is the highest-ranked nutrition journal! The fact that the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is a sustaining partner may help explain its publication of an article that claimed eating red meat “does not negatively influence cardiovascular disease risk factors.”

    Imagine you’re in the pocket of Big Beef and Big Pork. How could you possibly pull off a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials purporting to show that eating more versus less red meat does not influence cholesterol or blood pressure? Drs. Neal Barnard and Walter Willett pointed out the fatal flaw in their editorial “The Misuse of Meta-analysis in Nutrition Research” by asking the question: “Compared with what?” Of the 39 trials on LDL cholesterol that the authors of that meta-analysis had chosen, nearly 90% of them just swapped one meat for another, comparing red meat to white meat!

    Indeed, the researchers used control diets of chicken or fish. And we know that when it comes to cholesterol, the impact of consuming beef is just as bad as fish or poultry. That’s how they pulled it off—they just swapped meats. That’s like publishing a study saying total Twinkie intake does not negatively influence risk factors by switching Twinkies with Ding Dongs. Those randomized to zero Twinkies didn’t do any better. Obviously, because they were eating Ding Dongs! It’s a classic drug industry trick: testing your drug against something known to be terrible.

    Whereas if you swap out meat for plant-based meat—plant-based sausages, plant-based chicken patties, and veggie dogs—you end up with significantly lower cholesterol, as you can see below and at 2:31 in my video Are the Health Benefits of Nuts Limited to Those Eating Bad Diets?.

    That shouldn’t be a surprise; there is less saturated fat in plant-based meats. But even independent of saturated fat content, you end up with higher LDL cholesterol when eating red meat or white meat—any kind of meat—compared to non-meat protein sources. The researchers conclude that this is “keeping with recommendations promoting diets with a high proportion of plant-based food,” but, based on cholesterol effects, white meat like chicken and turkey is just as bad as red meat. Fish may be even worse, though what they often did is try to standardize the saturated fat content by adding something like butter. But at the same saturated fat content, fish appears to be worse than beef, and chicken is just as bad as beef. Yet plant protein sources like soy, nuts, and legumes (beans, split peas, chickpeas, and lentils) did better, as you can see below and at 3:20 in my video.

    Replacing a single serving of even lean beef with the same amount of calories of nuts or soybeans can lower LDL cholesterol, a key risk factor for the number one killer of men and women in the United States and around much of the world. Is that why a single serving of nuts a day is associated with 22% reduction in the risk of premature death? Why millions of deaths every year may be attributable to inadequate nut intake? Is the benefit just from eating nuts instead of meat? No. The drop in heart attacks amongst more frequent nut eaters is just as strong among nonvegetarians, as you can see below and at 4:10 in my video.

    The reduced mortality associated with nut consumption is independent of health condition. It’s not just health nuts eating nuts. In fact, in a comparison of a dozen different food groups, nuts beat out even vegetables when it came to a lower risk of premature death.

    Doctor’s Note

    In my Daily Dozen Checklist, I recommend a quarter cup (about an ounce) of nuts a day. Check out some of my other videos on nuts in the related posts below to see why.

    If you were intrigued by the industry hijinks of study manipulation, you’ll probably like:

    A whole series is coming up soon, starting with The Corporate Playbook Behind Undermining Dietary Guidelines.



    Source link

  • How to Coach GLP-1 Clients: 7 Types to Know

    How to Coach GLP-1 Clients: 7 Types to Know

    Reviewed by Brian St. Pierre, MS, RD


    “Is this drug going to steal my job?”

    That’s the thought many health and fitness coaches had when GLP-1 medications first hit the mass market.

    Though semaglutide (Ozempic) became available in 2017, it initially felt like a theoretical threat. Prescription rates were still very low; it seemed like no one actually knew anyone who was taking it.

    Now, in 2026, over 1 in 10 US adults are taking a GLP-1 medication. Most of us know someone on it (or we’re on it ourselves).

    With wider use, opinions towards the medication have softened too. Most coaches no longer see it as a threat, and rather appreciate it as a valuable tool for certain clients, with coaching as an additive complement.

    Many still have concerns though, primarily about their clients’ long term health on the medication. (Among the worries: Loss of muscle mass! Using a “band-aid” solution! Bypassing foundational health habits! And more!)

    However, whether you count yourself as a GLP-1 supporter or a GLP-1 skeptic, there’s a framing that might change the way you think about your work in this field:

    “As a coach, you’re not in the GLP-1 world; you’re in the GLP-1 support world.”

    That quote comes from Kate Solovieva, Super Coach and PN’s Director of Community. She says that coaches need to recognize that their market isn’t “people on GLP-1s,” but rather “people on GLP-1s who want support.”

    Trying to coach everyone taking a GLP-1 just isn’t possible. And spending time thinking about all the people using GLP-1s “the wrong way” is, bluntly, wasted energy. Some of those people just don’t want, need, or aren’t ready for your help.

    Meanwhile, there is a subgroup of people on GLP-1s who are ready, willing, and able to receive your support. Honing in on this group is where you can actually make a difference (and where your business can thrive).

    In the following article, we’ll cover seven different GLP-1 client “types,” each with their own level of coaching readiness. Based on our experience coaching over 175,000 clients (of which an increasing number are on GLP-1s), we’ll offer strategies to deal with each.

    Let’s get into it.

    The 7 types of GLP-1 clients

    Before we begin, a reminder: People change, and readiness isn’t fixed.

    A person who starts off saying “I’m doing fine on my own” may eventually morph into “I’m flailing and really need someone else in my corner”—and vice versa.

    If the person in front of you fits into a certain type, that’s their type right now. So listen carefully to how your client speaks at every session, and respond dynamically.

    In general, Coach Kate says someone is usually ready for coaching when they demonstrate two things:

    • Their issue feels important, urgent, or distressing: Taking better care of their health feels especially valuable right now. (“This really matters to me.”)
    • They feel they have the capacity to devote some resources to the issue: Be it time, money, or both, they’re ready to accept some kind of cost. (“I have space to deal with this.”)

    Keep that in the back of your mind as you interact with client prospects, and as you read about the client types, which we’ve summarized in the below table.

    Client Type Readiness Level Coaching Move
    The Honeymooner Very Low Build rapport and encourage reflection, while also respecting their choice to not pursue coaching if they’re not ready yet.
    The Ambivalent Candidate Low-to-moderate
    The Ready-to-Quitter Moderate Bring awareness to opportunities and risks—specifically, that strategic nutrition and training can make medication more tolerable and safer long term.
    The Muscle-Loss Risk Moderate
    The Under-Fueler Moderate-to-High
    The Graduate High Discontinuing medication can make clients feel vulnerable, knowing the risk of regain is high. Temper expectations and work on maintaining habits—which is the best bet to sustain results.
    The Priced-Out High

    Now, on to our GLP-1 client types.

    Client Type #1: The Honeymooner

    This is the person who’s started a GLP-1 medication—and they love it.

    They’ve experienced minimal side effects, and have gotten great results on a relatively low dose.

    They haven’t changed much about their exercise habits or their diet (except the eating less part, which the medication has taken care of), but they’re seeing what they want to see on the scale, so they don’t feel motivated to change anything.

    Coaching move:

    It might be tempting to “lure” this kind of client in by warning them of the dangers of using a GLP-1 medication without adding in long-term health behaviors (like resistance training and strategic nutrition), but this type of approach can backfire.

    At best, you may sound like a downer. At worst, you may sound like an active antagonist.

    In Motivational Interviewing, a communication approach commonly used in coaching, this is called the “righting reflex.” It’s the urge that coaches, counselors, and therapists often have to help or “correct course” for their client. You see them doing something “wrong,” and you want to help them “fix” it.

    However, following this instinct may actually strengthen a client’s defenses, and prevent change.

    If a person is flying high on their current approach, their readiness for coaching is extremely low.

    As Coach Kate says, “they’re just not my person yet.”

    Your best move with this type is to genuinely celebrate their current results, then plant the seed for support should they need it in the future.

    For example, you could say: “It must feel so good to see all these positive results! If you ever feel like you want to work on another layer, like resistance training or optimizing your nutrition, I’d love to work together.”

    Then, just stay available. (“My door is always open!”)

    Client Type #2: The Ambivalent Candidate

    This is the person who hasn’t started a GLP-1 medication—and might never, despite being a great candidate for one.

    Maybe their doctor has already suggested the medication to them and they’ve read everything they can on the topic.

    And yet, they’re frozen with fear at the starting line. They’re afraid of side effects, of being on medication for life, of not holding up their end of the bargain. (“I’ve been trying to start strength training for years. If I take this medication it matters even more… What if I still can’t do it?”)

    Toni Bauer, Super Coach and PN’s Director of Coaching and Education Operations also says that, in some cases, a client’s hesitation isn’t about side effects. “Some of our clients wonder, Am I a good person or a bad person if I start taking a GLP-1 medication? Am I weak? Am I giving up?’” Coach Toni says these concerns aren’t unique to GLP-1 medications, but they seem to be especially common.

    She reasons, “If you have high cholesterol, are you weak for taking cholesterol medication? No. But often people don’t view obesity as a disease at a societal level, so the conversation is different here.”

    Regardless of the root cause of this person’s hesitation, the advice below can help them find clarity.

    Coaching move:

    First, let’s be clear: Deciding whether or not to take a medication isn’t a coaching decision, and falls out of your scope of practice. That choice is ultimately up to your client and a medical provider who can assess whether a GLP-1 is appropriate given their medical history.

    That said, clients may still come to you wanting to discuss their options.

    So the question becomes: How do you support someone through a decision you can’t make for them?

    Coach Toni advises: “You can share facts and data. For example, study results and what you’ve seen with other clients. But you can’t say, ‘For you, this is the right choice.’”

    Instead, the biggest coaching opportunity here is to help clients articulate what’s actually driving their hesitation.

    This hesitation about whether to do something different or stay the same is called ambivalence, and it’s a normal (albeit uncomfortable) stage of change.

    Problem is, without the right tools, a person can stay stuck in ambivalence for months or even years. And, much like being stuck at an airport in between two destinations, it sucks.

    But at PN, we have a cool exercise to deal with client ambivalence. It’s called the 4 Crazy Questions. Essentially, you explore:

    • What’s GOOD about changing?
    • What’s BAD about changing?
    • What’s GOOD about NOT changing?
    • What’s BAD about NOT changing?

    In this context, the questions can help a client explore the risk of starting a GLP-1 (which they’ve probably already voiced), but also the risk of not starting, which they may not have considered yet.

    Our 4 Crazy Questions worksheet can encourage clients to explore the pros and cons of both choices. With these considerations laid out explicitly, most people feel a lot more clear about their next steps—or at least what questions they need to ask their medical provider before they can move forward.

    Importantly, this exercise doesn’t have a “right” outcome. Some people work through it and fill the prescription. Others decide the medication isn’t for them, and that’s fine. (It’s also worth reminding clients that starting isn’t necessarily permanent: With their provider’s input, a trial run on the medication is a perfectly valid way in.)

    Either way, there are opportunities to support your client. As Coach Toni puts it: “Whether you go ‘natural’ or whether you go GLP-1, the foundational habits are essentially the same.”

    Client Type #3: The Ready-to-Quitter

    This is the person who started a GLP-1 with lots of optimism—and now feels like they have a plague that won’t end.

    In a cruel twist, this person might actually be seeing great fat loss results. And yet, they’re nauseated, exhausted, dreading their next dose, and wondering whether it’s worth continuing this medication.

    Adding to their sense of defeat, they may also be comparing themselves to a “Honeymooner” in their life, so they might also be wondering if there’s something wrong with them. (“It worked so well for my friend! I must be broken in some way.”)

    Coaching move:

    First, offer some neutral education to depersonalize their experience.

    Namely, they should know that side effects are extremely common: About half of users report nausea, a third report diarrhea, and a fifth report vomiting.1 So, what this person thinks is exceptional might actually just be a normal adjustment. (This doesn’t make the experience suck less, but it can give them some hope.)

    Also, getting GLP-1s right is a process of trial and error: the right medication, the right dose, and the right nutritional strategies to reduce symptoms.

    If their symptoms are severe, get them to loop in their doctor. Medication type and dosing is under the purview of a medical professional, so involving them is essential.

    After that, your best coaching move is to suggest an experiment.

    ▶ Ask about dose. To be clear, you’re asking about it, not adjusting it. Says Coach Toni: “Often, when people are experiencing extreme side effects, they’ve ratcheted up their dose too quickly. Sometimes the easiest way to keep somebody on a GLP-1 who’s experiencing high side effects is to lower their dosage.” Coach Toni makes clear that while dosage isn’t a coach’s domain, you can help draw a client’s attention to it.

    ▶ Start a food journal. It doesn’t need to be every day—just around the meals that precede the worst symptoms. You’re looking for three things:

    • Fat content: GLP-1 medications slow down digestion. This is what contributes to its satiety effects, but also its side effects at the beginning. Fats also slow down digestion, so high-fat foods and meals (oils, nuts and seeds, and fried foods) can compound symptoms.
    • Volume: Again, due to the slowing of digestion, a large meal can feel extremely uncomfortable to digest. A portion that felt normal a month ago may now be far too much at once.
    • Random triggers: Spicy foods, tomatoes, chocolate, caffeine. All kinds of foods may trigger symptoms like nausea, acid reflux, or diarrhea in a client who used to tolerate them. These foods won’t always be obvious GLP-1 symptom triggers, so the best way to hunt them down is via a food log.

    ▶ Try smaller portions, eaten more often. Coach Toni says if you only try one thing, this one is the most reliable strategy. GLP-1 clients may be tempted to cut meals when symptoms are high, but this increases the likelihood of undereating and nutrient deficiencies. The goal, in her words: “Can we get small enough, frequent enough meals that we get nutrients in, but they never feel overwhelmed or super full?”

    To stay within your scope of practice, language matters.

    Don’t say: You’re nauseous, so you should eat smaller meals.”

    Instead, say: “Folks who are nauseous sometimes do better with smaller, more frequent meals. Want to try it this week and see what you notice?”

    In the first example, you’ve offered a “prescription” (which coaches can’t legally do). In the second example, you’ve offered an experiment to consider.

    Red flags: When to loop in a medical practitioner

    Side effects (such as nausea, vomiting, constipation, and/or diarrhea) are extremely common among GLP-1 users, and typically last one to two weeks after initiating the medication. Some symptoms can last longer (particularly constipation), but most are mild to moderate, and usually improve within a few weeks.

    Symptoms can also return each time a dosage is increased, though they’re usually milder and more short-lived. These too tend to improve after the first week or so.

    However, you should strongly encourage a client to reach out promptly to their medical provider if they notice:

    • Severe or persistent abdominal pain—especially upper-belly pain that radiates to the back, or comes with vomiting or fever
    • Right-upper-abdomen pain, fever, or yellowing of the skin/eyes (jaundice)
    • Vomiting that keeps them from holding fluids down for 24+ hours
    • Dizziness, fainting, or confusion
    • Rapid, uncontrolled weight loss or an inability to accomplish basic daily functions

    Reassure your client they’re not being dramatic by reporting these symptoms. Their medical team needs to hear this kind of information to help them get the best results, while preserving overall health.

    Also: Your client will get better care if they show up prepared. So, get them to jot down and bring:

    • Symptoms they’ve noticed and roughly when they started
    • How daily life is affected—eating, energy, mood, workouts
    • What they’ve already tried, and what helped (if anything)
    • Rough daily intake and protein, if they’ve been tracking
    • Specific questions they want answered before they leave

    Client Type #4: The Muscle-Loss Risk

    This is the person whose results look great, but less visible changes are creating longer term risks.

    This person is likely to be quite sedentary, and when you ask what they do for exercise, they might tell you “I walk.” But they’re not the outlier type who consistently gets 20,000 steps a day. They just… walk a little.

    Women are more likely to fall into this category, especially if they come from a generation or culture where strength training simply wasn’t a thing women did (or were welcomed to do).

    Additionally, this person might be running on a decades-long plain-toast-and-coffee breakfast habit, with lower protein intake already ingrained before medication further reduced appetite.

    The scale is dropping though, so they’re thrilled. It’s just that nobody’s measuring what kind of weight is dropping.

    Coaching move:

    Your job is to bring awareness to the invisible. Because once this person sees what’s at stake, they’ll be more likely to see the value in changing their habits, and in coaching.

    However, theoretical warnings about muscle loss are easy to dismiss.

    This is one of the reasons why Coach Kate says, “I don’t care if I coach you or not—please just get a DEXA as a baseline.”

    When a person has a quantifiable, objective measure of their muscle composition, it’s often more motivating than any amount of abstract concern.

    Ideally, every person who begins a GLP-1 medication should get a DEXA scan before they start, then again at six or twelve months to see how they’re progressing.

    If a client can’t or won’t do a DEXA, assess strength and function in other ways. Ask: “How do the stairs feel compared to a few months ago? What about carrying groceries?” Gather objective data too, recording baselines for squat, deadlift, and bench press (or other accessible exercises) to compare to over time. Declines in any of these areas can reveal potential muscle loss, and can motivate a client to take action.

    Without protective strategies, up to 40 percent of weight lost from GLP-1 medications can come from lean mass, with a majority of that being muscle.2

    In order to prevent that from happening, there are two behaviors to prioritize:

    ▶ Protein at every meal. When appetite is suppressed, every bite has to earn its place. Aim for 25-40 grams of protein at every meal and 15-20 grams for snacks. (On days when appetite is severely suppressed, protein powders can be a more palatable way to reach that target.)

    ▶ Strength training, scaled to what they’d actually do. The term “weight lifting” might overwhelm a person who’s never set foot in a gym, so don’t start there. Start where PN always starts: Ask what they could do twice this week that they’re 9-out-of-10 confident they’d actually do. Sit-to-stands off the couch. A few moves with a resistance band. Bodyweight anything. Scale up from there, one week at a time.

    Client Type #5: The Under-Fueler

    This is the person for whom the medication has worked a little too well.

    Their appetite hasn’t just decreased—it’s gone.

    They’re not eating enough, and often don’t notice until you ask. “When did you last eat?” you say, and they say, “Ummm… Yesterday afternoon? I think?”

    Their protein and overall calorie intake is plummeting, and soon their energy levels will too.

    Plus, something more subtle might also be happening: Food stops being a pleasure and becomes a chore, or even a source of dread.

    For some, this might seem like an upside down world. They may have spent their whole life fighting to eat less. The idea of fighting to eat more feels completely absurd—and entirely off their radar.

    Coaching move:

    Before anything else: If there’s an active eating disorder in the picture, this medication likely shouldn’t have been prescribed. A vulnerability to disordered eating can both contribute to or be triggered by the above scenario.

    So, scope of practice first. Ask this person if they’ve ever struggled with disordered eating. If the answer is yes, refer out to a doctor or a dietitian. You can absolutely stay involved as a guide, but not as the only professional in the room. Have your referral network ready before you need it.

    But sometimes, you won’t know. Your client may have been screened and cleared. Or, they may not have disclosed. So your job is to figure out what you’re actually looking at—and that starts with what Coach Toni calls the “show me” approach.

    Rather than acting on a hunch, collect something concrete, such as a few days of food logging (in writing or via photos).

    From there, it branches two ways.

    ▶ If they’ll track, do some food math, and the numbers may do the work for you. When some clients see that their calorie intake is hovering around 800 to 1,000 Calories per day, it’s the only wake up call they need. They weren’t intentionally restricting; they genuinely just had no idea.

    For this client, establishing an eating routine is the best next action.

    Your client may be used to following appetite as a cue to eat, but now that medication has removed it, they need a different cue. That means eating on a schedule, likely every 3–4 hours, including protein at every one of those occasions. Portions can be small if appetite is very low, but they should be nutrient-dense.

    ▶ If they won’t track—and especially if they resist in a way that feels purposely avoidant—that resistance itself is information.

    Coach Toni suggests that if you suspect that disordered eating is in the picture and a client is really resistant about tracking, it might be time for a crucial conversation—an often uncomfortable, but honest and essential conversation between a client and a coach.

    She suggests leading with non-judgement and safety. For example:

    “I want you to know this is a safe space to talk. My goal as a coach is always to prioritize your overall health. However, there have been a couple of things you’ve shared recently that have me wondering whether we’re protecting your body’s basic needs.”

    Then name the specific things you noticed, sticking to facts. (“You’ve mentioned you’ve been losing hair and struggling more during workouts. Those can both be signs of undereating. Would you be open to revisiting food journaling for a short stretch so we can see more clearly what’s happening, or telling your doctor about your symptoms?”)

    If this conversation is enough to help a client see the value in tracking, follow the advice after “If they’ll track” above.

    If what surfaces is a genuinely troubled relationship with food, refer out, while offering to stay involved for support as needed.

    Client Type #6: The Graduate

    This is the person who got the results they wanted with the medication, and is now choosing to wean off.

    They’re not quitting because of crappy results or intolerable side effects, they’ve simply decided they don’t want to be on a GLP-1 forever.

    The coaching opportunity here is, in part, about tempering expectations.

    Most people imagine coming off as the finish line. Instead though, it’s more like starting a different endurance course: The medication has been managing their appetite, and now they have to.

    Coaching move:

    Ideally, you start working with this client while the medication is still doing some of the heavy lifting with appetite regulation. If you can have six months to build the right habits as well as prepare mentally for the tapering off period, your client will be in a much better position.

    Make sure the previously mentioned habits—like resistance training and optimizing protein—are already firmly established. If your client is managing those habits consistently (not perfectly, but consistently), even on their busiest, most stressful, most side-effect-disrupted days, then they’re more likely to be able to maintain them when they’re off their medication and food distractions re-enter the picture.

    After that, work on how you’ll continue to define success. This client has been accustomed to measuring it on the scale, but the scale will move—some regain is normal. So, ask them early: What does success look like if the scale ticks up eight pounds but your habits hold?

    Be honest about the odds, too. People who changed nothing while on the medication almost universally regain most of the weight—usually within the first year and a half or so3—because the appetite that went down comes right back up.

    However, people who integrate and sustain healthier nutrition and exercise behaviors while they’re on medication are four times better at maintaining a ten percent or higher weight loss when they come off the medication.4

    Client Type #7: The Priced-Out

    This is the person who was also getting great results on the medication—except instead of choosing to go off it on their own time, they’re forced to quit due to external circumstances.

    Maybe their insurance stopped covering it, or they lost the job that came with the benefits, or the one drug they tolerated turned out to cost four times as much as the one they couldn’t tolerate.

    About 50 percent of GLP-1 users stop the medication within the first year of using it.5 Some stop due to side effects, and others stop because they’ve gotten the results they want and they want to see if they can maintain them drug-free. But many are simply priced out. The latter is an especially frustrating scenario because, for this person, a “solution” exists. It’s just that, for them, the solution is out of reach.

    Understandably, this person may be angry or even ashamed that they can’t afford this medication. Those feelings may or may not show up in your coaching, but it’s good to prepare for them anyway.

    Coaching move:

    First, reassure this person that this is a system failure, not a personal one.

    Whether someone can access affordable medication comes down to their insurance plan, the region they live in, and their socioeconomic status—also known as the social determinants of health. Those forces shape health outcomes far more than willpower does, and none of them are a measure of how hard someone has tried or how “worthy” they are.

    Acknowledging that reality isn’t about throwing up your hands and saying, “Well, I’m screwed!” Rather, it’s about accepting some miserable truths about the world, and then shifting from self-blame to problem-solving.

    Once they’ve had a chance to process some (very valid) anger and disappointment, it’s time to focus on what they can control.

    At PN, we call this the Spheres of Control exercise. The image below shows you how it works.

    Diagram showing three

    Access, price, and coverage are not on the list of controllables, and fighting those realities may only compound frustration.

    Meanwhile, they can control other influential factors, like their protein intake, their training, their sleep, their food environment, and maybe their next insurance appeal.

    Use the image above to begin a conversation with your client about what is within their control, and lean in hard on those factors.

    What can coaches honestly promise when it comes to getting and maintaining GLP-1 results?

    The truth is, you can’t predict how a client will respond to medication. And, some regain after stopping it is expected.

    However, diet and lifestyle habits hugely affect what kind of weight is lost, plus the rate and amount of that regain.

    Says Coach Toni:

    “I can’t promise anyone they’ll lose a specific amount of weight or that they’ll never regain it—and I’d be suspicious of any coach who did. What I can tell you is that the habits we build while the medication is doing its work are the ones that’ll still stand when it isn’t.”

    Of course, “coming off” isn’t the endpoint for everyone. Many providers now treat obesity as a chronic condition and these medications as long-term therapy—the same way we’d treat cardiac disease. Again, whether someone stays on, tapers, or stops is a conversation for them and their provider.

    But for those who do come off, Coach Toni says the people who hold their results share one thing: “They maintain consistency with their behaviors as if they were still on the medication. Like nothing changes.”

    She shares an analogy for why that works:

    “Think about the Oregon Trail. The ruts in the trail were made by wagon wheels hitting the same ground over and over and over. You can still see those ruts today—they’re still there. Habits are the same way: If you lay down those neural pathways and reinforce them enough times while your client is on the medication, then they’ll have a better chance of continuing on the same path even when they go off the medication.”

    So that’s the actual promise.

    It’s not: “You’ll keep it off.”

    It’s: “While the medication is doing its work, we’ll cut ruts deep enough that those pathways will still be there after the medication is gone.”

    Practically, that means regular resistance training, rock solid nutrition, appetite awareness, and attending to the parts of health that never show up on a scale—sleep, energy, mood, relationships, and identity, which is where Coach Toni lands:

    “Ideally, your client will have embraced the identity of a ‘new person.’ As in, ‘I am the person who wakes up at 6 a.m. and walks two miles. I am the person who eats protein at every meal. I am the person who does resistance training because it builds the tissue I need to age well.’ That’s the client who maintains.”

    References

    Click here to view the information sources referenced in this article.

    If you’re a coach, or you want to be…


    You can help people build sustainable nutrition and lifestyle habits that will significantly improve their physical and mental health—while you make a great living doing what you love. We’ll show you how.


    If you’d like to learn more, consider the PN Level 1 Nutrition Coaching Certification. (You can enroll now at a big discount.)

    Source link

  • Micromorts: Putting Risk Into Perspective

    Micromorts: Putting Risk Into Perspective

    A micromort, a unit for comparing and communicating risk to patients, is equivalent to a one-in-a-million chance of dying.

    Hundreds of millions of operations are performed every year, and the risk of death is typically around half a percent, to which patients might say things like, “I could die just as easily crossing the road,” making it clear they really don’t understand the difference in magnitude of risk. One way to communicate risk is by analogy. For example, just going under anesthesia carries about a 1-in-100,000 chance you won’t wake up. How much is that? Well, that’s about the same risk as an expert sky dive. But that still may be kind of tough to wrap your head around. It’s hard to think in terms of small numbers. Can you imagine a 0.0017 mile by 0.00227 mile rug? How big (or small) is that? We need more digestible units. Enter the micromort as a unit for comparing and communicating risk.

    A micromort (mM) is a unit equivalent to a one-in-a-million chance of dying. That’s like the odds of flipping a coin and getting tails 20 times in a row, or a little less than the chances of getting a royal flush in poker. But the real utility is to help compare different risks to one another using the same metric. For example, driving 100 miles entails about a one-in-a-million chance of death, so that’s one micromort. Scuba diving is about five micromorts per dive, so each dive is as risky as driving 500 miles. So, now we have a way to directly compare the risk of surgical procedures and common activities.

    Giving birth is as risky as driving from New York to Los Angeles and back again, but getting a Caesarean section is more than twice as risky. Even something like a simple hernia repair carries the same risk of dying as something like skydiving 200 times. Now, obviously, sometimes you have no choice, but death from varicose vein surgery or circumcision could probably be avoided, as you can see below and at 2:32 in my video Micromorts: How Risky Is It to Go Under Anesthesia?.I was surprised to learn that horseback riding is about four times deadlier than rock climbing, but getting chemotherapy and radiation for head and neck cancer is riskier than rock climbing for 500 years, driving 5 million miles, or skydiving 5,000 times.

    One leading cause of death I didn’t really talk about in How Not to Die is accidental death. We have approximately a one-in-a-million chance of dying just by accident every day of our lives, and about half of that risk is dying in a car crash, based on U.S. averages. There are all sorts of other hazards, which you can see below and at 3:19 in my video.

    I was surprised to learn Americans have about a 1-in-200,000 chance every year of dying from a foreign body entering an orifice other than the mouth.

    Other things we may want to avoid include climbing Mount Everest, which is about 30 times riskier than coal mining or base jumping. Trains and planes are actually equivalent over the same distance, but riding a motorcycle is about 50 times deadlier than riding in a car, though cycling to a destination is riskier too, about 10 times as deadly as driving in the near term.

    Here’s a good example of how one can use micromort comparisons to help put things in perspective. Certain types of breast implants can cause a rare type of cancer, a type of breast implant–associated lymphoma. You can imagine how scary this is for the millions of women who have implants, but check out that risk compared to the risk of other common activities in the table below and at 4:12 in my video.

    Your risk of dying from that kind of cancer is less than a single day of skiing. Some might say it’s preferable to die quickly on the slopes than going through the slow suffering of cancer, and without the risk of bankrupting your family, but at least it can put the risk of the implant-cancer killing you in context.

    Doctor’s Note

    How dangerous are medical interventions in general? Surprisingly, physicians are a leading cause of death. See Why Prevention Is Worth a Ton of Cure. You can also check out How Doctors Responded to Being Named a Leading Killer.



    Source link

  • What Foods Help Hair Growth?

    What Foods Help Hair Growth?

    Hot peppers, soy foods, and pumpkin seeds may help with hair loss.

    Androgenic or androgenetic alopecia is one of the most common chronic problems seen by dermatologists. In men, it’s called male pattern hair loss, and in women, it’s called female pattern hair loss. It’s characterized by progressive hair loss, mostly of the central scalp. I’ve talked about hair-loss supplements and hair-loss drugs; what about foods for hair loss? What role might diet play in the treatment of hair loss?

    Human experiments with fecal transplants offer a clue to how powerful our microbiome is, with reports of improvements in hair loss after a “fecal slurry made from freshly passed stools” from a donor was administered into another person’s colon. These weren’t just subtle improvements. As you can see below and at 1:14 in my video Food for Hair Growth, a totally bald guy started growing back hair a few months after a fecal transplant.

    A little more than a year later, his hair had completely regrown, as you can see below and at 1:18.

    The moral of the story is not to drink brown smoothies, but to keep your good gut bugs happy.

    Population studies have found that male pattern baldness is associated with poor sleeping habits and the consumption of meat and junk food; whereas protective associations were found for the consumption of raw vegetables and fresh herbs, as well as frequently consuming soymilk. Drinking soy beverages on a weekly basis was associated with 62% lower odds of moderate to severe hair loss, raising the possibility that there may be protective compounds in plants.

    Complementary and alternative medicine treatments “boast the ability to ‘cure’ hair loss ‘safely’ with ‘less side effects’ than conventional medicine. However, it is important…to look beyond the overarching claims and marketing to critically review the literature.” For example, many studies have little relevance because the evidence was obtained from shaved rodents. (Hey, let’s smear shaved mice with bee venom!) And even when researchers do clinical studies on actual people, sometimes there’s no placebo control, so there’s no way to know if the food had anything to do with the results.

    But there has been a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of compounds in hot peppers and soy, showing significantly higher promotion of hair growth. Below are some before-and-after pictures of both men and women, which you can also see at 2:49 in my video.

    What doses were they taking? They took 6 milligrams of capsaicin a day and 75 milligrams of isoflavones. What does that look like in real food? You can get 6 milligrams of capsaicin in just a quarter of a fresh jalapeno pepper. That sounds pretty doable. You can get 75 milligrams of isoflavones by eating ¾ of a cup of tempeh or just straight soybeans. Soy nuts (dry-roasted soybeans) are even more concentrated, but given the formation of advanced glycation end-products in high-fat, high-protein foods prepared at high temperatures, I’d suggest avoiding routinely eating roasted or toasted nuts, seeds, or soy.

    There’s also been a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pumpkin seed oil. Where did that idea come from? In 2009, a study out of South Korea found that randomizing men with BPH—benign prostatic hyperplasia, also known as enlarged prostate glands—to just 320 milligrams of pumpkin seed oil a day (that’s about a 16th of a teaspoon, so just a few drops a day) improved urinary flow rates. Urinary flow continued to kink off and decline in the control group, but those taking the equivalent of eating just two single pumpkin seeds a day saw a significant improvement, as you can see below and at 4:18 in my video.

    That would seem to be an anti-androgen effect, so maybe it would help with hair loss. It seems to work in mice when used topically, but what about in people just eating pumpkin seeds? Sadly, we often throw away pumpkin seeds, squash seeds, watermelon seeds, and they actually have a “rich repertoire” of nutrition. But you don’t know if they actually work for hair loss until you put them to the test.

    In a study, 76 men with male pattern baldness received either 400 milligrams of pumpkin seed oil a day hidden in capsules or placebo capsules for a few months. (Again, 400 milligrams is like eating two or two and a half pumpkin seeds a day.) The researchers measured scalp hair growth with all sorts of objective and subjective measures, and after 24 weeks of treatment, self-rated improvement and satisfaction scores in the pumpkin seed oil group were higher, and they objectively had more hair—a 40% increase in hair counts compared to only 10% in the placebo group. Below are some representative before-and-after shots of the improvement in hair coverage on two and a half pumpkin seeds’ worth of daily oil, which you can also see at 5:25 in my video.

    Show those pictures to investigators blinded to group assignment, and they rate the placebo groups as getting slightly worse over time but the pumpkin seed oil group getting significantly better. In the pumpkin seed oil group, 95% were rated as either unchanged or improved, whereas in the placebo control group, more than 90% were classified as unchanged or worsened. Given such a pronounced effect, might we be worried about sexual side effects? Researchers used an index of erectile dysfunction before and after the study and found no evidence of adverse effects.

    Doctor’s Note

    This is the last in a three-part series on hair loss and growth. The previous two blogs were Do Hair Growth Supplements Work? and The Benefits and Risks of Hair Loss Drugs.

    A handful of pumpkin seeds would satisfy my Daily Dozen recommendation for nuts and seeds. See Dr. Greger’s Daily Dozen Checklist.

     



    Source link

  • The Benefits and Risks of Hair Loss Drugs

    The Benefits and Risks of Hair Loss Drugs

    What are the pros and cons of Propecia and Rogaine for hair loss?

    “Any consumer looking on the Internet for a treatment for hair loss is exposed to a multitude of remedies.” However, we only have good evidence for efficacy for drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration: finasteride (sold as Propecia) and minoxidil (sold as Rogaine). It’s considered a myth that all the patented hair-loss supplements on the market will increase hair growth. And they may actually be more expensive, with over-the-counter supplement regimens costing up to more than $1,000 a year, whereas the drugs may cost between $100 and $300 annually. The drugs can help but can cause side effects. Propecia can diminish libido and cause sexual dysfunction, while the topical minoxidil can cause itching.

    Below and at 1:12 in my video Pills for Hair Growth, you can see a list of some of the more common side effects of these FDA-approved drugs.

    To understand why there are so many hormonal side effects for Propecia, like impotence, testicular pain, and breast enlargement, it’s important to understand how the drug works.

    Androgens, male hormones like testosterone, are the principal drivers of hair growth in both men and women. We know this from studies half a century ago that show that castration of men stopped their hair loss. Why exactly were they being castrated? It was due to eugenics laws in the United States, when “mentally handicapped people” were castrated or forced to undergo tubal ligations against their will “to prohibit contribution to the genepool.” So-called “retarded persons were routinely sterilized without their consent or knowledge,” and the United States was the first country to introduce eugenic laws, which were later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 1930s, a vocal proponent complained: “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”

    Back to hair loss. Testosterone is the primary androgen circulating in the blood and can be converted to dihydrotestosterone, which is even more powerful, by an enzyme called 5-alpha reductase, shown below and at 2:28 in my video.

    That’s the enzyme that is blocked by Propecia, so it inhibits the souping up of testosterone. That’s why women are not supposed to take it since it could feminize male fetuses; whereas for men, it has sexual side effects like erectile dysfunction, which can affect them for years. It’s something the drug companies had to disclose for the last decade: a “difficulty in achieving an erection that continues after stopping the medication,” a side effect that may even be permanent. Up to 20% of study participants reported “persistent sexual dysfunction” for six or more years after stopping the drug, suggesting the possibility that it may be permanent.

    It’s possible that the drug may structurally change the part of your brain responsible for sexual function. Indeed, though blood levels of hormones in users with persistent effects appear normal, analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid surrounding the brain, obtained via spinal tap, shows that neurosteroid levels do appear to end up being altered. So, “it is recommended that prescribers of finasteride, as well as potential users, be aware of the potential serious long-term risks of a medication used for a cosmetic purpose.”

    To date, no new interventions are used routinely in treating male or female pattern baldness. Given the side effects of the current drug options, “there is a need for alternative treatments.” So, what about food? Could what we eat help combat hair loss? That’s exactly what we’re going to explore next.

    Doctor’s Note

    This is the second in a three-part series on hair loss and growth. Do Hair Growth Supplements Work? is the first video, in case you missed it.

    Antidepressants like Prozac can also cause sexual dysfunction, but there is something that may help. See Best Food for Antidepressant-Induced Sexual Dysfunction.



    Source link

  • Do Hair Growth Supplements Work?

    Do Hair Growth Supplements Work?

    Might biotin or zinc supplements prevent hair loss in men and women?

    By the time we’re 50, about half of us, men and women, will experience hair loss. No, it’s not caused by washing your hair too much or, for that matter, brushing it too much either—two of the many myths out there. Researchers found that the majority of hair loss with age is genetic for both women and men. And, based on studying twins, researchers discovered that the heritability of baldness in men is 79%, meaning about 80% of the differences in hair loss between men are genetically determined. But that still leaves some wiggle room.

    Even when it comes to identical twins—in one case, identical twin sisters with the same DNA—one can have more hair loss than the other, thanks to increased stress, increased smoking, having more children, or having a history of high blood pressure or cancer.

    Check out the two identical twin brothers below and at 1:24 in my video Supplements for Hair Growth. They have the same genes, but the twin on the right reported more stress in his life.

    In this pair of twins, shown below and at 1:32, the identical twin on the right was a smoker and drank more alcohol.

    Smoking can contribute to the development of both male and female pattern baldness because cigarettes’ genotoxic compounds may damage the DNA in hair follicles and cause microvascular poisoning in the base of the follicle. Other toxic agents associated with hair loss include mercury, because it seems to concentrate about 250-fold in growing scalp hair. In fact, the reason William Shakespeare started losing his hair may have been due to mercury poisoning from syphilis treatment. Thankfully, doctors don’t give people mercury anymore. These days, as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention points out, mercury mainly enters the body through seafood consumption.

    Often, women of reproductive age seek medical treatment for what is considered hormone-related hair loss, particularly at menopause. For example, a 43-year-old woman evaluated for early menopause was seen for hair loss, and blood tests indicated elevated mercury levels. No wonder—she had a diet high in tuna. But the good news is that her mercury levels fell after she stopped eating it. Within two months, her hair started to come back, and after seven months on a fish-free diet, her hair regrew completely. So, doctors should consider screening for mercury toxicity when they see hair loss, since it may be treatable. Advising patients to reduce fish intake and repeat blood tests could offer symptom relief and uncover dietary habits that may be a source of heavy metal–induced hair loss.

    Can nutrient deficiencies cause hair loss? After bariatric surgery, the most frequent nutrient deficiency symptom is hair loss, but that’s because those individuals have had their anatomy rearranged to purposefully cause malabsorption. In general, there is little evidence to suggest that vitamin and mineral supplementation benefits people unless they are actually deficient.

    For example, we’ve known for centuries that scurvy (severe vitamin C deficiency) can cause hair loss, but there are no data correlating vitamin C levels and hair loss once you have a certain baseline sufficiency of vitamin C (enough to keep your gums from bleeding, for example).

    It’s also a myth that supplements containing zinc will increase hair growth, unless there is a zinc deficiency, which can occur in people who abuse alcohol. However, if blood zinc levels are normal, taking more zinc won’t help. In fact, it can have negative side effects. The same is true for iron supplements.

    The most common ingredient in top-selling hair loss products is vitamin B7, also known as biotin. Yes, biotin deficiency causes hair loss, but there are no evidence-based data that supplementing biotin promotes hair growth. Severe biotin deficiency has never been reported in healthy people eating a normal diet, though deficiency can develop from eating raw egg whites since certain compounds attach to biotin and prevent it from being absorbed. But other than rare deficiency syndromes, it is a myth that biotin supplements increase hair growth.

    Why not just have the attitude ‘‘can’t hurt, might help?” Because of the lack of regulatory oversight of the supplement industry and, in the case of biotin, interference with lab tests. Many dietary supplements promoted for hair health contain biotin levels up to 650 times the recommended daily intake of biotin. Excess biotin in the blood can interfere with a bunch of different blood tests, including thyroid function tests, other hormone tests (including pregnancy tests), and the test used to determine whether someone has had a heart attack, so the consequences could potentially be life or death.

    In terms of poor regulation, I’ve talked a lot about all sorts of supplement manufacturer shenanigans. For example, there was an outbreak in which hundreds suffered selenium toxicity because an error resulted in a supplement containing 200 times the labeled dose, so it ended up causing hair loss. The same thing can happen with getting too much vitamin A.

    Doctor’s Note

    This is the first in a three-part series on hair loss and growth. Stay tuned for The Benefits and Risks of Hair Loss Drugs and What Foods Help Hair Growth?.

    For more on what you can do about mercury exposure, see How to Lower Heavy Metal Levels with Diet.

    Check the related posts below for some of my videos about the sketchy supplement industry.



    Source link

  • The Protein Debate: Why Source Matters More Than Amount

    The Protein Debate: Why Source Matters More Than Amount

    I discuss a public health case for modernizing the definition of protein quality.

    In 2019, Dr. David Katz and colleagues, including one of my favorite researchers, David Jenkins, published a “public health case for modernizing the definition of protein quality.” The prevailing definition seems to have more to do with biochemistry than the overall effects on human health. The common belief that protein is “good,” and the more the better, combined with a definition of protein quality that favors animal protein, gives the impression that eating more meat, eggs, and dairy is desirable and preferable. But this is directly opposed to nutrition guidelines that are instead trying to push more plants. Although protein malnutrition is still common in many areas of the world, it is extremely rare in the industrialized world, where “the most formidable public health threats…are from chronic diseases,” not something like kwashiorkor, severe protein and calorie malnutrition.

    In 2016, a landmark study was published out of Harvard, involving more than 100,000 people, that found that replacing animal protein with plant protein was associated with lower risk of dying prematurely. The worst offenders seemed to be processed meat like bacon, as well as egg protein (the egg whites). But swapping in even just 3% plant protein for any of the animal proteins, such as processed meat, unprocessed meat, chicken, fish, eggs, or dairy, was associated with a significantly lower risk of arguably the most important endpoint of all: death. See below and at 1:32 in my video Animal Protein vs. Plant-Based Protein.

    But how do we know it’s the protein? The researchers adjusted for factors such as saturated fat intake, which suggested it wasn’t just the animal fat. But how can our body differentiate between protein from a plant and protein from an animal? Isn’t protein…protein? No. Generally, plant protein is low in branched-chain amino acids, unlike animal protein, and decreased consumption of branched-chain amino acids improves metabolic health. It could be the IGF-1, a cancer-promoting growth hormone that is boosted by so-called high-quality animal protein intake, though. We suspect the IGF-1 connection is cause and effect, since people born with higher IGF-1 levels, regardless of what they eat, appear to suffer higher rates of killers like type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Or, it could be something the Harvard researchers didn’t control for, such as toxic pollutants like dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), since they tend to accumulate up the food chain into cattle, pigs, chickens, and fish and therefore end up on our plates. So, “plant-based protein, besides other health benefits, stands as an important step to lower the body burden of harmful pollutants of dietary animal-protein origin.”

    If you don’t think a study with 100,000 people is enough, how about 400,000 people? The U.S. National Institutes of Health–AARP Diet and Health Study is the largest diet cohort study in history, and, again, researchers found that simply replacing 3% of calories from animal protein with plant protein was associated with a 10% lower overall mortality—and you get even twice that benefit if you get rid of eggs, too. That’s not a surprise, since egg consumption is associated with a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

    Put all the studies together on dietary protein intake and mortality, and people who eat more protein tend to live shorter lives. But this is “mainly driven by a harmful association of animal protein.” Plant protein intake is actually inversely associated with mortality, meaning those who eat more plant protein tend to live longer lives. More animal protein may mean more mortality, whereas more plant protein is correlated with less mortality, as you can see below and at 3:30 in my video.

    So, the best of both worlds would be to increase the intake of plant protein instead of animal protein. In other words, as another meta-analysis concluded, “Persons should be encouraged to increase their plant protein intake to potentially decrease their risk of death.”

    Doctor’s Note

    The benefits of calorie restriction may arise from the drop in animal protein intake. See Caloric Restriction vs. Animal Protein Restriction for more on this.

    I also discuss branched-chain amino acids in Are BCAA (Branched Chain Amino Acids) Healthy?.

    Do you need to combine plant proteins, like rice and beans? See The Protein Combining Myth.

    How much protein do we need? See Do Vegetarians Get Enough Protein?.

    What about plant-based meats? Are Beyond Meat and the Impossible Burger Healthy?

     



    Source link

  • Are Potassium Chloride Salt Substitutes Safe and Effective?

    Are Potassium Chloride Salt Substitutes Safe and Effective?

    Healthy kidneys are required for potassium excretion. If you aren’t sure if you’re at risk, ask your doctor about getting your kidney function tested.

    Based on how we evolved, the optimum dietary potassium intake likely greatly exceeds current and even recommended intakes. The problem is we replaced many of the potassium-rich plant foods that used to fill our diets—fruits, vegetables, leafy greens, roots, tubers—with calorie-dense junk heavy with added fats and sugars, and stripped not only of fiber but also potassium.

    In a traditional, mostly plant-based diet, potassium intake is high and sodium intake is low. But now, high blood pressure is the second leading risk factor for death worldwide, killing more than 10 million people each year. Only unhealthy diets rank higher among global risk factors for death, as you can see below and at 0:41 in my video Potassium Chloride Salt Substitute Side Effects.

    We can improve both by eating more whole, healthy plant foods like greens and beans, which are packed with potassium and help lower blood pressure. But since most of us are getting too much sodium along with too little potassium, what about using salt substitutes? Potassium chloride is the most common salt substitute, so you’d be swapping out sodium for potassium.

    And it works. Based on a meta-analysis of more than a dozen randomized controlled trials, replacing sodium chloride with potassium chloride lowers blood pressure. Most of the trials involved swapping out regular salt for substitutes with less than 30% potassium chloride, and they still got results. And at less than 30% potassium chloride, most people can’t even tell the difference between regular salt and the potassium salt. So, it can taste the same yet still lower blood pressure? What’s the catch?

    Potassium chloride is “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The only major concern for healthy people is that if you go 100% sodium-free and use potassium chloride salt substitutes exclusively, you may find it can taste kind of funny, adding a bitter or metallic taste. I’ve found that it depends on what I’m seasoning. Potassium chloride works perfectly well on some dishes and snacks, but I find it makes other foods inedible. When I learned about the sodium science and threw out my salt shaker for good, within a few weeks, my palate totally changed. Everything tasted fine without salt—except pesto. For some reason, pesto without salt didn’t have the same taste that I loved. So, I tried the potassium chloride salt substitute, and it worked perfectly. I couldn’t tell the difference at all! So, I had the best of both worlds. Then, I remembered how, as a kid, I used to put a tiny sprinkle of salt on watermelon like they do in the South to make it even sweeter. I tried it with the potassium salt and almost gagged. The salt substitute is definitely not for everything.

    The reason healthy people don’t have to worry about getting too much potassium is that they just pee out the excess, thanks to the kidneys. But that’s with the potassium in food—what about supplements? No adverse effects have been shown with long-term potassium supplementation at doses as high as 3,000 mg a day. In fact, blood levels of potassium are maintained in the normal range by healthy kidneys even when potassium intake is increased to about 15,000 mg a day. That’s no surprise since we evolved eating so many potassium-rich plant foods that the natural intake of potassium for the human species may have been on the order of 15,000 mg a day.

    Basically, the normal range for potassium levels in the blood is between 3.5 and 5.0 mmol/L; it becomes concerning when it starts creeping up towards 6 mmol/L. But give people potassium supplements—like the salt substitution trials where participants receive an average of about 2,000 daily milligrams—and blood levels only increase by 0.14 mmol/L. So, they might go from 4 to 4.14 mmol/L, not something that would push levels into the danger range.

    Now, there is a limit. Someone with a “massive banana eating habit” could bump their potassium from a normal level to above 6 mmol/L, but this specific case was evidently the result of eating little else besides up to 20 bananas a day for years. Eating 10 pounds of carrots every day is also probably not a good idea. That’s like 75 carrots in one day—only really possible with a juicer, which is what one person attempted as part of a quack cancer cure. What about overdoing salt substitutes?

    A 1940s report focused on lithium poisoning from the use of salt substitutes. Why? Because lithium chloride was used as a salt substitute. Yikes! But what about potassium chloride, which is what’s used today? There is one case where someone committed suicide by taking a little more than a tablespoon of a potassium chloride salt substitute. That doesn’t seem like a lot—just a tablespoon? I mean, how can we keep that on the shelves if only a tablespoon will kill you? Well, even smaller amounts of regular salt, if taken all at once, can kill you, too. In fact, ingesting salt water was evidently a traditional suicide method in ancient China.

    Having said all that, a small number of the population may run into problems, primarily people with severely impaired kidney function. That’s why there’s been such a reluctance to push potassium‐based salt substitutes on a population level. If your kidneys can’t regulate potassium, then it can definitely become a serious issue. We’re talking about folks with known kidney disease, diabetes (since diabetes can lead to kidney damage), severe heart failure, those on medications that impair potassium excretion, older adults, and people with adrenal insufficiency. If you aren’t sure if you’re at risk, ask your doctor about getting your kidney function tested.

    Ironically, potassium is so good at reducing deaths from high blood pressure—even among those with kidney disease—that using potassium chloride salt substitutes would probably still save more lives despite the risk, as you can see below and at 5:45 in my video.

    Traditional dietary recommendations to kidney patients limited the consumption of fruits and vegetables because they were high in potassium. However, this paradigm is changing quickly given the many benefits of a fundamentally plant-based diet. A whole food, plant-based diet may even ameliorate chronic kidney disease. For example, there’s increasing evidence that a whole food, plant-based diet may help slow the progression of chronic kidney disease and delay kidney failure. So, the practice of restricting dietary potassium in kidney patients should really be reserved for patients with documented hyperkalemia, a potassium level of 6 or higher, because the key to halting the progression of chronic kidney disease might in fact lie in the produce aisle.

    Doctor’s Note

    If you are in crisis, you can call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at 800-273-8255.

    This is the final blog in a three-part series. If you missed the first two, check out The Mineral Intake Recommendations Only 1 in 6,000 U.S. Adults Meet and Are Potassium Chloride Salt Substitutes Worth Trying?.



    Source link

  • Are Potassium Chloride Salt Substitutes Worth Trying?

    Are Potassium Chloride Salt Substitutes Worth Trying?

    Is potassium chloride a win-win by decreasing sodium intake and increasing potassium intake?

    Of all the terrible things about our diets, high dietary sodium intake—high salt intake—is the leading risk. It’s estimated to be causing millions of deaths every year, killing mainly through adverse effects on blood pressure and increased risk of stroke, heart attack, and kidney damage. Hypertension (high blood pressure) is still called the “silent and invisible killer” because it rarely causes symptoms, but it’s one of the most powerful independent predictors of some of our leading causes of death.

    We evolved eating a diet very rich in potassium and low in sodium, but today that pattern has been completely reversed. This flip reflects a shift away from traditional plant-based diets high in potassium and low in sodium—a shift away from fruits, greens, roots, and tubers—and a move towards salty processed foods stripped of potassium, which is considered a “nutrient of public health concern” because 98% of the U.S. population doesn’t even reach the recommended minimum daily intake. As I’ve mentioned previously, low potassium intake itself is implicated in high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. However, few physicians actually consider telling their patients to eat more potassium-rich foods, like fruits and vegetables, to better control blood pressure, even though several meta-analyses have confirmed that high potassium intake appears to reduce stroke risk.

    There is even a reduction in stroke risk independent of blood pressure effects, consistent with other protective effects of potassium, such as reducing clot formation, reducing arterial stiffening, and reducing the generation of free radicals. Higher sodium intake is associated with a 20% increased risk of dying prematurely, while higher potassium intake is associated with a 20% reduced risk of dying prematurely. Since sodium is found in junky processed foods, while potassium is concentrated in healthy foods like beans and greens, could having low sodium intake and high potassium intake just be a marker for a healthier diet—meaning more plant foods and less junk? How do we know sodium is cause-and-effect bad? Because randomized controlled trials show that sodium reduction leads to blood pressure reduction, just like randomized controlled trials show that if people are given extra potassium, their blood pressure can be lowered as well. So, what about using potassium chloride to salt your food, rather than sodium chloride? That’s what’s found in these zero-sodium salt substitutes, which you can see below and at 2:28 in my video Are Potassium Chloride Salt Substitutes Effective?.

    Potassium chloride is considered a naturally occurring mineral salt, obtained in the same way as regular sodium salt. Since we get too much sodium and not enough potassium, this would seem to make potassium chloride a win-win solution.

    Whole healthy plant foods would be the best way to increase potassium intake, especially since fruits and vegetables have all sorts of other good things in them. But we now have 10 studies, comprised of 11 randomized controlled trials, showing that just swapping in some potassium chloride for regular salt can lead to significant reductions in blood pressure in people with hypertension, suggesting that salt substitutes may even help prevent hypertension as well. We know that salt substitutes can lower blood pressure, but does it actually decrease the incidence of hypertension, and more importantly, disease endpoints like stroke and mortality? You don’t know until you put it to the test.

    In a randomized controlled trial, households had their salt replaced with just a quarter potassium chloride. At that level, most people either couldn’t tell the difference or even preferred the salt with the potassium mixed in. But did it actually do any good? The use of even the quarter salt substitute was associated with cutting the risk of developing hypertension in half.

    But what about actually following people out to see if there’s any change in the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease? Five kitchens in a veterans’ retirement home were randomized into two groups for about two and a half years, salting meals with regular salt or, unbeknownst to the cooks and the diners, a 50/50 blend of potassium chloride. Those in the half potassium group cut their risk of dying from cardiovascular disease by about 40% and lived up to nearly a year longer. The life expectancy difference at age 70 was “equivalent to that which would have naturally occurred in 14 [years],” meaning that just switching to half potassium salt appeared to effectively make people more than a decade younger when it came to risk of death. In a recent massive randomized controlled trial in China involving 600 villages and more than 20,000 people over five years, participants received either a salt substitute made of a quarter potassium chloride, or they received regular salt. Not only did the salt substitute reduce strokes, and cardiovascular events in general, but it also reduced the risk of death from all causes put together!

    China is a perfect setting for this study because up to 75% of the population’s sodium intake comes from salt added in the home kitchen or dining room, whereas most sodium in the American diet comes prepackaged in the meat and processed foods we buy, though certainly the food companies could switch over themselves. Why haven’t they? And why haven’t more people embraced these salt substitutes if they work well and can taste just as good? We could be “Achieving the Benefits of a High-Potassium, Paleolithic Diet, Without the Toxicity,” says the title of a Mayo Clinic review. So, “Is Salt Substitution Ready for Prime Time?” a commentary asks. What about safety? There are convincing arguments about the benefits, but what about the risks, like the “inclusion of potentially fatal salt substitutes in the food supply”? Wait, what? We’ll talk about the potential downsides next.

    Doctor’s Note

    This is the second in a three-part series on salt and potassium. If you missed the first video, see The Mineral Intake Recommendations Only 1 in 6,000 U.S. Adults Meet. We finish the series with Are Potassium Chloride Salt Substitutes Safe and Effective?.

    I talk about the randomized controlled trials for sodium in The Evidence That Salt Raises Blood Pressure.

     



    Source link