Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!

Soon, US Dietary Guidelines will reflect current science.

That it’s the TYPE of fat that matters!  

The Giant Leap:  The 2015 US Dietary Guidelines will remove the upper limit for dietary fat intake and instead, focus on healthful foods and a diet that includes more polyunsaturated fats, particularly omega-3s from fish, nuts, and seeds.

“Dietary advice should put the emphasis on optimizing types of dietary fat and not reducing total fat.”

The other notable change in the forthcoming recommendations, is that cholesterol will no longer be listed as a ‘nutrient of concern’.  For years we’ve known that cholesterol is not the danger it’s purported as being, but cholesterol is inexpensive to measure and there are drugs that lower it (if you can live with the side effects).

JAMA article:  Forthcoming changes in US Dietary Guidelines 

During middle age, muscle mass declines at a rate of about 0.5-1% per year. Loss of muscle mass is associated with higher risk of falling, disability, longer hospital stays, and inability to carry out daily activities in older age. Loss of muscle mass can also lead to sarcopenia, a serious medical condition associated with aging.

A 6-month, double-blind, randomized control in 60 healthy men and women age 60-85 reported that daily supplementation with 3,350 mg of EPA and DHA omega-3 from fish oil significantly increased thigh muscle mass and upper and lower body muscle strength (measured by hand-grip and weight lifting, e.g., chest press, leg press). 

Supplementing with > 3,000 mg of EPA and DHA for at least 6 months can prevent the equivalent of 2-3 years of usual, age-associated muscle loss and function in healthy, older adults. 

Abstract

Smith GI, Jullian S, et al. Fish oil–derived n–3 PUFA therapy increases muscle mass and function in healthy older adults. Am J Clin Nutr. Published ahead of print May 20, 2015. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.105833

Background: Age-associated declines in muscle mass and function are major risk factors for an impaired ability to carry out activities of daily living, falls, prolonged recovery time after hospitalization, and mortality in older adults. New strategies that can slow the age-related loss of muscle mass and function are needed to help older adults maintain adequate performance status to reduce these risks and maintain independence.

Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of fish oil–derived n–3 (ω-3) PUFA therapy to slow the age-associated loss of muscle mass and function.

Design: Sixty healthy 60–85-y-old men and women were randomly assigned to receive n–3 PUFA (n = 40) or corn oil (n = 20) therapy for 6 mo. Thigh muscle volume, handgrip strength, one-repetition maximum (1-RM) lower- and upper-body strength, and average power during isokinetic leg exercises were evaluated before and after treatment.

Results: Forty-four subjects completed the study [29 subjects (73%) in the n–3 PUFA group; 15 subjects (75%) in the control group]. Compared with the control group, 6 mo of n–3 PUFA therapy increased thigh muscle volume (3.6%; 95% CI: 0.2%, 7.0%), handgrip strength (2.3 kg; 95% CI: 0.8, 3.7 kg), 1-RM muscle strength (4.0%; 95% CI: 0.8%, 7.3%) (all P < 0.05), and tended to increase average isokinetic power (5.6%; 95% CI: −0.6%, 11.7%; P = 0.075).

Conclusion: Fish oil–derived n–3 PUFA therapy slows the normal decline in muscle mass and function in older adults and should be considered a therapeutic approach for preventing sarcopenia and maintaining physical independence in older adults.

This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01308957.

This experiment with the Dr. Oz show could have worked.  It required Dr. Oz to hold true to his intelligence and integrity. He had the training, the platform, it could have worked. 

• It was a problem from the beginning that he needed to fill 5 hours (40 minutes/show) of TV programming each week.  One hour of thoughtful programming content could have done a world of good.
•  It was a problem that Oz wasn’t transparent.  He presented bogus products as-if they had real evidence.  His show boosted record sales for dietary supplements, but he promoted supplements that don’t work.  Admitting to this after-the-fact isn’t good.
• It would have been fantastic if Oz had presented honest and accurate information, instead of fiction. There are many traditional medicines and practices that have great benefit and should be honored, but don’t present them like they have the rock solid proof.  America is smarter than that.

New Yorker article here: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/columbia-and-the-problem-of-dr-oz

Given the work I do (in nutrition science and evidence-based, natural therapies), I’m familiar with the evidence.  Given what Oz says on his show, I’ve long wondered how he kept his medical license.  He has good training, he knows good science, and he had to have known that he was misleading the public.

Dr. Oz could have stuck to accurate reporting.  He could have done so much good.  He presented good information when he was a guest on Oprah’s show, and then he was on his own. We had better transparency in Wizard of Oz movie; at least there we learned that the man behind the curtain was just a regular guy. 

I’m happy to be interviewed in the spring issue of Diabetic Living magazine.  The article is succinctly written and has a nice reference chart, too.

Link to article here: Diabetes Living Omega 3 Spring 2015