Drinking Water Better than Drugs in Suppressing Acid Reflux
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/08/water-works-better-than-ulcer-pills-to-decrease-stomach-acid.aspx?np=true
Sunday, July 10, 2011
The Amazing Oil That Trims Women's Waistlines
Coconut Oil Increases Good Cholesterol and Lowers Abdominal Obesity
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/22/magical-fat-that-increases-good-cholesterol-and-lowers-abdominal-obesity-in-women.aspx?np=truehttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/22/magical-fat-that-increases-good-cholesterol-and-lowers-abdominal-obesity-in-women.aspx?np=true
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/22/magical-fat-that-increases-good-cholesterol-and-lowers-abdominal-obesity-in-women.aspx?np=truehttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/22/magical-fat-that-increases-good-cholesterol-and-lowers-abdominal-obesity-in-women.aspx?np=true
HEALTH WARNING-The Toxic Danger of Fabric Softener and Dryer Sheets
Many people will remember a famous TV ad where a woman races to her washing machine, fabric softener in hand, only to arrive just as the wash ends. This woman who forgot to ad the fabric softener was actually doing herself and her family a favor.
Although they may make your clothes feel soft and smell fresh, fabric softener and dryer sheets are some of the most toxic products around. And chances are that the staggering 99.8 percent of Americans who use common commercial detergents, fabric softeners, bleaches, and stain removers would think twice if they knew they contained chemicals that could cause cancer and brain damage.
Here is a list of just some of the chemicals found in fabric softeners and dryer sheets:
*Benzyl acetate: Linked to pancreatic cancer
* Benzyl Alcohol: Upper respiratory tract irritant
* Ethanol: On the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Hazardous Waste list and can cause central nervous system disorders
* Limonene: Known carcinogen
* A-Terpineol: Can cause respiratory problems, including fatal edema, and central nervous system damage
* Ethyl Acetate: A narcotic on the EPAs Hazardous Waste list
* Camphor: Causes central nervous system disorders
* Chloroform: Neurotoxic, anesthetic and carcinogenic
* Linalool: A narcotic that causes central nervous system disorders
* Pentane: A chemical known to be harmful if inhaled
So how could products with pretty names like Soft Ocean Mist, Summer Orchard and April Fresh be so dangerous?
The chemicals in fabric softeners are pungent and strong smelling so strong that they require the use of these heavy fragrances (think 50 times as much fragrance) just to cover up the smells. Furthermore, synthetic fabrics, which are the reason fabric softeners were created in the first place, do not smell good either when heated in a dryer or heated by our bodies … hence the need for even more hefty fragrances.
In other words, remove all the added fragrance that endears people to fabric softeners and like the cliché wolf in sheeps clothing the real smells of the chemical-laced fabric softener and the synthetic fabrics they were designed around may prompt people to shoot their laundry machines and be done with it.
Are Soft Clothes Worth It?
Fabric softeners are made to stay in your clothing for long periods of time. As such, chemicals are slowly released either into the air for you to inhale or onto your skin for you to absorb. Dryer sheets are particularly noxious because they are heated in the dryer and the chemicals are released through dryer vents and out into the environment. Health effects from being exposed to the chemicals in fabric softeners include:
* Central nervous system disorders
* Headaches
* Nausea
* Vomiting
* Dizziness
* Blood pressure reduction
* Irritation to skin, mucus membranes and respiratory tract
* Pancreatic cancerSoften Your Clothes Safely With These Tips
Even if you dont feel the effects of these chemicals today, they can affect you gradually over time, and children, whose systems are still developing, are particularly at risk. Theres really no reason to expose yourself to these risky chemicals when natural alternatives exist. Not only are they safer for you, your family and the environment, but theyre much more economical too:
* Add a quarter cup of baking soda to wash cycle to soften fabric
* Add a quarter cup of white vinegar to rinse to soften fabric and eliminate cling
* Check out your local health food store for a natural fabric softener that uses a natural base like soy instead of chemicalsIts likely that fabric softeners and dryer sheets arent the only toxic products in your home. Many household products that consumers regard as safe are also full of toxic chemicals.
Jan. 21, 2011
It's not all white: The cocktail of up to 20 chemicals in a glass of milk
By David Derbyshire
A glass of milk can contain a cocktail of up to 20 painkillers, antibiotics and growth hormones, scientists have shown.
Using a highly sensitive test, they found a host of chemicals used to treat illnesses in animals and people in samples of cow, goat and human breast milk.
The doses of drugs were far too small to have an effect on anyone drinking them, but the results highlight how man-made chemicals are now found throughout the food chain.
the highest quantities of medicines were found in cow’s milk.
Researchers believe some of the drugs and growth promoters were given to the cattle, or got into milk through cattle feed or contamination on the farm.
The Spanish-Moroccan team analysed 20 samples of cow’s milk bought in Spain and Morocco, along with samples of goat and breast milk.
Their breakdown, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, revealed that cow’s milk contained traces of anti-inflammatory drugs niflumic acid, mefenamic acid and ketoprofen – commonly used as painkillers in animals and people.
It also contained the hormone 17-beta-estradiol, a form of the sex hormone oestrogen. The hormone was detected at three millionths of a gram in every kilogram of milk, while the highest dose of niflumic acid was less than one millionth of a gram per kilogram of milk.
However, the scientists, led by Dr Evaristo Ballesteros, from the University of Jaen in Spain, say their technique could be used to check the safety of other types of food.
Dr Ballesteros said: ‘We believe the new methodology will help to provide a more effective way of determining the presence of these kinds of contaminants in milk or other products.
‘Food quality control laboratories could use this new tool to detect these drugs before they enter the food chain. This would raise consumers’ awareness and give them the knowledge that food is… harmless, pure, genuine, beneficial to health and free of toxic residues,’ he added.
The tests also found niflumic acid in goat’s milk, while breast milk contained traces of painkillers ibuprofen and naproxen, along with the antibiotic triclosan and some hormones.
The researchers say their new 30-minute test is the most sensitive of its kind. If the findings are true for Spanish and Moroccan milk, they could equally be true for milk produced in Britain and northern Europe.
Last year Portsmouth University scientists found that fish were being contaminated with the anti-depressant Prozac.
The drug enters rivers from the sewer system and tinkers with the brain chemistry of fish, the researchers claimed.
Previous studies have shown that caffeine is released into our waterways after surviving the sewage treatment process.
The hormones from the contraceptive pill and HRT have been blamed for feminising fish, leading to male fish producing eggs.
The effects of antibiotics, blood pressure drugs and cholesterol-lowering drugs on wildlife are also being studied around the world.
A glass of milk can contain a cocktail of up to 20 painkillers, antibiotics and growth hormones, scientists have shown.
Using a highly sensitive test, they found a host of chemicals used to treat illnesses in animals and people in samples of cow, goat and human breast milk.
The doses of drugs were far too small to have an effect on anyone drinking them, but the results highlight how man-made chemicals are now found throughout the food chain.
the highest quantities of medicines were found in cow’s milk.
Researchers believe some of the drugs and growth promoters were given to the cattle, or got into milk through cattle feed or contamination on the farm.
The Spanish-Moroccan team analysed 20 samples of cow’s milk bought in Spain and Morocco, along with samples of goat and breast milk.
It also contained the hormone 17-beta-estradiol, a form of the sex hormone oestrogen. The hormone was detected at three millionths of a gram in every kilogram of milk, while the highest dose of niflumic acid was less than one millionth of a gram per kilogram of milk.
However, the scientists, led by Dr Evaristo Ballesteros, from the University of Jaen in Spain, say their technique could be used to check the safety of other types of food.
Dr Ballesteros said: ‘We believe the new methodology will help to provide a more effective way of determining the presence of these kinds of contaminants in milk or other products.
‘Food quality control laboratories could use this new tool to detect these drugs before they enter the food chain. This would raise consumers’ awareness and give them the knowledge that food is… harmless, pure, genuine, beneficial to health and free of toxic residues,’ he added.
Net result: Compounds manufactured and used by humans are showing up in all parts of the food chain
The researchers say their new 30-minute test is the most sensitive of its kind. If the findings are true for Spanish and Moroccan milk, they could equally be true for milk produced in Britain and northern Europe.
Last year Portsmouth University scientists found that fish were being contaminated with the anti-depressant Prozac.
The drug enters rivers from the sewer system and tinkers with the brain chemistry of fish, the researchers claimed.
Previous studies have shown that caffeine is released into our waterways after surviving the sewage treatment process.
The hormones from the contraceptive pill and HRT have been blamed for feminising fish, leading to male fish producing eggs.
The effects of antibiotics, blood pressure drugs and cholesterol-lowering drugs on wildlife are also being studied around the world.
Chiropractic is concerned with ONE thing and one thing ONLY: To make sure your spine is continually functioning optimally so as to allow the clearest possible CONNECTION between your brain and your body. This allows your Life Force to be maximally expressed in every cell of your body, so that you can move consistently toward expressing your full potential in your health and your life. It really is as simple as that.
Chiropractic Care Naturally Treats Colic
Friday, April 17, 2009 by: Sheryl Walters Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/026069_colic_chiropractic_care.html#ixzz1RjG5GcaA
(NaturalNews) Colic is defined as inconsolable crying in an infant for as least three hours a day, at least three days a week, for at least three weeks. A colicky baby typically presents with a loud piercing cry, flexed legs, tensed abdominal muscles, and clenched fingers. It typically starts around three weeks of age and lasts until around three months but sometimes lasts for as long as six months. Approximately 10-20% of babies are affected by colic. Doctors diagnose colic based on the previously mentioned "Rule of 3" and after ruling out diseases that may make a baby cry uncontrollably. Parents of infants with colic report significantly higher stress levels than parents whose babies don't have colic. The stress and frustration of trying to soothe a colicky baby may interfere with mother-baby bonding and can increase the risk of postpartum depression. In addition, colicky babies are more likely to be victims of child abuse and shaken baby syndrome. Despite the research done on colic there is no known cause, which can make treatment difficult. Chiropractic care has shown some of the best results, with 94% of colicky babies demonstrating improvement with chiropractic adjustments.
Research on chiropractic care and colic has shown significant benefits over other treatments such as dietary changes, medication, and infant positioning. A randomized clinical trial published in 1999 in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics found that "Spinal manipulation is effective in relieving infantile colic". For this study the researchers randomly assigned infants diagnosed with colic into two groups. One group received chiropractic care for two weeks and the other group was given the anti-gas medication dimethicone for two weeks. The babies in the chiropractic group showed a 67% decrease in crying while the babies on medication showed a 38% decrease in crying.
Another study with 316 children also showed significant improvement in colic in response to chiropractic care. This prospective study used diaries from mothers of colicky babies to track the amount of crying. The three month long study showed a "satisfactory result of spinal manipulative therapy in 94% of the cases". The improvements occurred after an average of only three adjustments within two weeks.
Chiropractic care is a conservative, gentle, and very successful option for treating infants with colic. Chiropractic adjustments for infants are specific, gentle, and safe. The International Chiropractic Pediatrics Association has a database of chiropractors who work with babies and children. To locate a chiropractor visit www.icpa4kids.org/locator.
Sources:
4 Healthy Kids, Infant Colic Treatment (http://www.4healthykids.com/infant-...)
Infantile Colic Treated by Chiropractors: A Prospective Study of 316 Cases http://www.chiro.org/research/ABSTR...)
The Short-Term Effect of Spinal Manipulation in the Treatment of Infantile Colic: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial with a Blinded Observer J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1999 (Oct); 22 (8): 517-522
(NaturalNews) Colic is defined as inconsolable crying in an infant for as least three hours a day, at least three days a week, for at least three weeks. A colicky baby typically presents with a loud piercing cry, flexed legs, tensed abdominal muscles, and clenched fingers. It typically starts around three weeks of age and lasts until around three months but sometimes lasts for as long as six months. Approximately 10-20% of babies are affected by colic. Doctors diagnose colic based on the previously mentioned "Rule of 3" and after ruling out diseases that may make a baby cry uncontrollably. Parents of infants with colic report significantly higher stress levels than parents whose babies don't have colic. The stress and frustration of trying to soothe a colicky baby may interfere with mother-baby bonding and can increase the risk of postpartum depression. In addition, colicky babies are more likely to be victims of child abuse and shaken baby syndrome. Despite the research done on colic there is no known cause, which can make treatment difficult. Chiropractic care has shown some of the best results, with 94% of colicky babies demonstrating improvement with chiropractic adjustments.
Research on chiropractic care and colic has shown significant benefits over other treatments such as dietary changes, medication, and infant positioning. A randomized clinical trial published in 1999 in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics found that "Spinal manipulation is effective in relieving infantile colic". For this study the researchers randomly assigned infants diagnosed with colic into two groups. One group received chiropractic care for two weeks and the other group was given the anti-gas medication dimethicone for two weeks. The babies in the chiropractic group showed a 67% decrease in crying while the babies on medication showed a 38% decrease in crying.
Another study with 316 children also showed significant improvement in colic in response to chiropractic care. This prospective study used diaries from mothers of colicky babies to track the amount of crying. The three month long study showed a "satisfactory result of spinal manipulative therapy in 94% of the cases". The improvements occurred after an average of only three adjustments within two weeks.
Chiropractic care is a conservative, gentle, and very successful option for treating infants with colic. Chiropractic adjustments for infants are specific, gentle, and safe. The International Chiropractic Pediatrics Association has a database of chiropractors who work with babies and children. To locate a chiropractor visit www.icpa4kids.org/locator.
Sources:
4 Healthy Kids, Infant Colic Treatment (http://www.4healthykids.com/infant-...)
Infantile Colic Treated by Chiropractors: A Prospective Study of 316 Cases http://www.chiro.org/research/ABSTR...)
The Short-Term Effect of Spinal Manipulation in the Treatment of Infantile Colic: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial with a Blinded Observer J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1999 (Oct); 22 (8): 517-522
AARP Logo The Magazine: 4 Surgeries to Avoid
Reasons to think twice before going under the knife
Think twice before going under the knife — even if your doctor recommends it. — Paul Taylor/Getty Images
Any surgery is dangerous. The body considers an operation a serious insult, and even some minor procedures come with major risks, such as bleeding, blood clots, infections, and damage to other organs. So it's essential to know if surgery is necessary — or beneficial.
The four operations discussed on the following pages are overperformed for a variety of reasons: Some are moneymakers for hospitals and doctors, others are expedient, and still others seem to work, at least in the short term. But evidence shows that all have questionable long-term outcomes for treating certain conditions, and some may even cause harm. Here's what to do if your doctor recommends one of them.
Next: Surgery # 1 - Stents for stable angina. >>
1. Stents for Stable Angina
Stents are tiny mesh tubes that surgeons use to prop open arteries carrying blood to the heart. If a patient is having a heart attack, a stent can be a lifesaver. But for heart disease patients with stable angina — chest pain brought on by exertion or stress — a stent is not better at preventing a heart attack or prolonging survival than lifestyle changes such as exercising and taking statins to lower cholesterol, according to a landmark 2007 Department of Veterans Affairs study.
If your doctor orders a heart catheterization, ask that he or she wait to perform any treatment such as stenting in a separate procedure.
Despite stents' ineffectiveness, close to 500,000 are implanted each year for stable chest pain, says Sanjay Kaul, M.D., a cardiologist at Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles. Surgeons frequently insert the stents during heart-catheterization procedures to evaluate patients' blood vessels, says Lee Lucas, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, who argues that the catheterization should be done first as a diagnostic test, and stenting done later, if necessary. "This should be a two-stage procedure, but patients never get to leave the cath lab to think about it," says Lucas.
Alternatives to Surgery
If your doctor orders a heart catheterization, ask that he or she wait to perform any treatment such as stenting in a separate procedure. Even before submitting to a heart cath, make sure you've explored other alternatives. Have you had a stress test? Do you adhere to a strict diet, exercise, or take medications to manage your cholesterol? "The reality is that 20 percent of patients who undergo this [catheterization with stents] do not have any symptoms, 30 to 50 percent have not had a stress test, and 30 percent are not treated with medical therapy first," says Kaul. If plaque is forming in your arteries, this is a systemic disease; a stent won't keep even a full inch of your arteries clear. You'll still need aggressive medical therapy to prevent future problems.
Next: Surgery # 2 - Complex spinal fusion for stenosis. >>
If your doctor orders a heart catheterization, ask that he or she wait to perform any treatment such as stenting in a separate procedure. Even before submitting to a heart cath, make sure you've explored other alternatives. Have you had a stress test? Do you adhere to a strict diet, exercise, or take medications to manage your cholesterol? "The reality is that 20 percent of patients who undergo this [catheterization with stents] do not have any symptoms, 30 to 50 percent have not had a stress test, and 30 percent are not treated with medical therapy first," says Kaul. If plaque is forming in your arteries, this is a systemic disease; a stent won't keep even a full inch of your arteries clear. You'll still need aggressive medical therapy to prevent future problems.
Next: Surgery # 2 - Complex spinal fusion for stenosis. >>
2. Complex Spinal Fusion for Stenosis
With spinal fusion, a surgeon places bone grafts that "weld" two or more vertebrae together to prevent motion and stop pain. The procedure is often used to treat back pain from spinal stenosis, which occurs when the soft tissues between the vertebrae flatten out, creating pressure on the spinal cord or nerves that go to the back, arms, neck, shoulders, and legs. There is little consensus on how best to relieve pain from stenosis, so doctors tend to develop their own preferences, says Richard Deyo, M.D., professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University.
Not all surgeries are worth the risk. — Getty Images/Uppercut RF
The risks are significant: Those who underwent complex fusion were nearly three times more likely to suffer life-threatening complications than those who underwent less invasive surgery. Previous studies have also found that most fusion patients experience no more relief from their chronic back pain than those who had physical and behavioral therapy. "There is even some evidence that [complex fusion surgery] is worse than other surgeries," says Floyd J. Fowler Jr., Ph.D., senior scientific advisor for the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making (FIMDM). "The vertebrae right above and below the fusion have to do a lot more bending, and it puts stress on your back above and below."
Alternatives to Surgery
Before considering any type of back surgery, make sure you have exhausted more conservative measures, including physical therapy, cortisone injections, acupuncture, and medications. "Probably less than 5 percent of all back pain requires surgery," says Arnold Weil, M.D., clinical assistant professor of rehabilitation medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
Next: Surgery # 3 - Hysterectomy for uterine fibroids. >>
Before considering any type of back surgery, make sure you have exhausted more conservative measures, including physical therapy, cortisone injections, acupuncture, and medications. "Probably less than 5 percent of all back pain requires surgery," says Arnold Weil, M.D., clinical assistant professor of rehabilitation medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
Next: Surgery # 3 - Hysterectomy for uterine fibroids. >>
3. Hysterectomy for Uterine Fibroids
Each year approximately 600,000 American women have hysterectomies, or removal of the uterus, and studies show that the vast majority are unnecessary. A hysterectomy is critical when the patient has cancer (which is the case for about 10 percent of those women). But most patients undergo the procedure for quality-of-life concerns such as heavy bleeding or pain caused by uterine fibroids — benign growths in the uterine wall.
Complications are common. Women who undergo a hysterectomy have a 60 percent increased risk of incontinence by age 60, a University of California, San Francisco study found. A hysterectomy that includes removal of the ovaries — an oophorectomy — throws the patient into instant menopause. These patients also face a higher risk of heart disease and lung cancer, says William Parker, M.D., author of A Gynecologist's Second Opinion and lead investigator of a 2009 study on the long-term health consequences of hysterectomy.
Alternatives to surgery
If you suffer from uterine fibroids, ask your doctor about other options, including uterine-artery embolization, in which the arteries leading to the uterus are blocked, causing the fibroids to stop growing. You might also consider a new procedure, focused ultrasound, which shrinks fibroids via ultrasound waves. "It's kind of amazing that we've had all these alternative procedures for many years and they haven't gained a lot of traction," says Parker.
Next: Surgery # 4 - Knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis. >>
If you suffer from uterine fibroids, ask your doctor about other options, including uterine-artery embolization, in which the arteries leading to the uterus are blocked, causing the fibroids to stop growing. You might also consider a new procedure, focused ultrasound, which shrinks fibroids via ultrasound waves. "It's kind of amazing that we've had all these alternative procedures for many years and they haven't gained a lot of traction," says Parker.
Next: Surgery # 4 - Knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis. >>
4. Knee Arthroscopy for Osteoarthritis
With this procedure a surgeon places a tiny camera in the knee, then inserts small instruments through other incisions to repair torn or aging cartilage. Studies show the operation works well when patients have in fact torn their meniscal tissue, but it is no more successful than noninvasive remedies in treating osteoarthritis of the knee. In a 2008 study, 178 patients with osteoarthritis received either physical and medical therapy without surgery, or therapy plus surgery. After two years the two groups had nearly identical outcomes, reporting less pain and stiffness and more mobility.
Alternatives to surgery
If you have knee pain, "start with the least harmful and invasive treatment and work your way up the ladder," says Colin Nelson, a senior research associate at FIMDM. This includes lifestyle changes such as exercise, as well as medication and cortisone injections.
Related
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Last Week's Health Talk
We had a great turn out at our Health Talk last Saturday! Thank you to everyone who participated and helped make it possible! We have had some welcomed constructive feedback on a few issues, and are working toward resolving these issues in time for the next class.
#1 Lack of Space: I know we all felt a little like packed sardines :) And a special thanks to a couple of southern gentlemen that gave up there seats and stood the entire presentation! Instead of limiting the number of attendees at our next class, we are looking into larger areas (preferably in the same building) that will comfortably allow for all participants!
#2 Too HOT: The combination of a packed house, and projector heat left us all feeling like we were having a hot flash! We will make sure the next class is well ventilated and the air is on high!
#3 Mass Chaos after class: When the class was over, it got a little chaotic. There was not much structure or organization between selling product, compass readings, muscle testing, Q & A's, and appointment scheduling. We apologize for this and we have decided to resolve this issue in the following ways:
We will now designate specific rooms for each category. We have talked about having one or two people helping us with ringing up products so all of the practitioners are available for questions. We also will have 2 designated credit card areas where you can pay for ALL products together at once. This will eliminate having to make multiple payments for the different products or services.
Please feel free to let us know of any other suggestions you have that will improve future classes! Please also include any subjects you would like to see be included in our classes.
We are so grateful to our wonderful patients that make all of this possible! Thank you for supporting us in what we do, and embracing our guidance and services in helping you lead a Healthier, Happier, and more Harmonious life!
Yours in Health,
Dr. Tiffany Dubec
#1 Lack of Space: I know we all felt a little like packed sardines :) And a special thanks to a couple of southern gentlemen that gave up there seats and stood the entire presentation! Instead of limiting the number of attendees at our next class, we are looking into larger areas (preferably in the same building) that will comfortably allow for all participants!
#2 Too HOT: The combination of a packed house, and projector heat left us all feeling like we were having a hot flash! We will make sure the next class is well ventilated and the air is on high!
#3 Mass Chaos after class: When the class was over, it got a little chaotic. There was not much structure or organization between selling product, compass readings, muscle testing, Q & A's, and appointment scheduling. We apologize for this and we have decided to resolve this issue in the following ways:
We will now designate specific rooms for each category. We have talked about having one or two people helping us with ringing up products so all of the practitioners are available for questions. We also will have 2 designated credit card areas where you can pay for ALL products together at once. This will eliminate having to make multiple payments for the different products or services.
Please feel free to let us know of any other suggestions you have that will improve future classes! Please also include any subjects you would like to see be included in our classes.
We are so grateful to our wonderful patients that make all of this possible! Thank you for supporting us in what we do, and embracing our guidance and services in helping you lead a Healthier, Happier, and more Harmonious life!
Yours in Health,
Dr. Tiffany Dubec
Thursday, June 9, 2011
7 Everyday Products That are Linked to Cancer
Over a lifetime, 41 percent of Americans will develop cancer, and 21 percent will die from it. While the leading culprits include smoking, obesity, and sun exposure, a variety of common products—some of them quite surprising—can also be triggers, according to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Here’s a guide to seven known or probable carcinogens:
Are Americans “bombarded with…dangerous exposures” to cancer-causing toxins, as a scary report from the President’s Cancer Panel contends? Of more than 80,000 chemicals on the US market--some found in products used by millions of people in daily life—only a few hundred have ever been tested for safety, warns the report, released in May. Yet these largely unregulated chemicals, including some linked to cancer risk, are now so ubiquitous in our environment that 300 contaminants have been detected in the umbilical cord blood of newborns, leading the authors to warn that babies are born “pre-polluted.”
- Coffee: There’s hot debate brewing about the health effects of coffee, since it lifts risk for some cancers and cuts risk for others. A 1991 IARC report linked drinking coffee to increased risk for bladder cancer, while a study released in May found that men who consumed six or more cups daily were 60 percent more likely to develop fatal prostate cancer. Quaffing two or more cups a day raises lung cancer risk by 14 percent, according to a 2010 review. Classification: Probable carcinogen.
- Flame retardant baby products: In the 1970s, the flame retardant Tris was removed from kids’ sleepwear as a suspected carcinogen. In May, a study found chlorinated Tris in more than one-third of the polyurethane foam baby products tested, including nursing pillows, car seats, baby carriers and high chairs. A program within the EPA not only has identified the chemical as a cancer hazard, but also reports that animal studies link it to developmental defects, anemia, liver failure and reproductive problems. Classification: Probable carcinogen.
- Talcum powder: Widely used to keep skin dry and prevent rashes, talcum powder may cause ovarian cancer if applied to the female genitals. Particles from sanitary napkins, diaphragms, condoms and talcum power applications could travel through the vagina, uterus and fallopian tubes to the ovaries. An analysis of data from 16 studies found a 30 percent rise in ovarian cancer risk among talcum users. A safe alternative is cornstarch powder, which is not linked to cancer. Classification: Possible carcinogen.
- Alcohol: Nearly 10 percent of cancers in men—and 3 percent in women—are sparked by drinking too much alcohol, German researchers reported in April. They calculate that in the eight European countries studied, about 54,500 cases of alcohol-related cancer, such as cancers of the upper digestive tract, colon, liver and breast (in women), would have been prevented in 2008 if women limited themselves to no more than one alcoholic drink a day and men to two drinks. Classification: Known carcinogen.
- Hormone replacement therapy: Used to relieve menopause symptoms and delivered as a pill, patch or vaginal ring, hormone replacement therapy may involve estrogen alone or a combination of estrogen and progesterone. The Women’s Health Initiative study reports that daily use raised women’s risk for breast cancer by five to six percent for each year HRT was taken. Estrogen-only HRT more quintuples risk for uterine cancer. Doctors advise women who use HRT to take it for the shortest possible time. Classification: Known carcinogen.
- Salted fish. Eating salted fish, a popular food in Asian countries, raises risk for cancers of the nose, stomach and colon. Studies also link consumption of highly salty foods, including fish, to increased threat of ovarian and prostate cancer. Also be wary of caviar: A 2010 study of 77,500 Japanese men and women found that those who ate salted fish roe the most frequently had the highest overall rate of cancer. Classification: Known carcinogen.
- Tanning beds: There’s no such thing as a “healthy tan.” Some tanning beds emit 10 to 15 times more UV radiation than the midday sun. A 2010 study found that young people who have ever used a tanning bed are 1.41 times more likely to get melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, and those who have used them 10 or more times have double the risk. Melanoma rates in young women have tripled over the past 30 years, largely due to use of tanning beds. Classification: Known carcinogen.
Pay close attention to the sidebar at the bottom, "Don't Fall for Fake." Sugar-Free is NOT the answer!
Sugar Shock : Experience Life Magazine
Sugar can contribute to cellular inflammation, which is like a continuing series of paper cuts that compromise cell function. Deep inside the body, these microscopic wounds fester below the pain threshold. Because many of us don’t see or feel the damage, there is little incentive to cut back on the inflammatory diet that is causing this constant cellular damage, so the party continues.
That is, until the body blows a gasket. Left unchecked, inflammation can unleash dozens of different diseases, including heavy hitters like diabetes, heart disease and autoimmune disorders. “It takes roughly 10 to 15 years of a high-sugar diet before a person develops a chronic illness,” says Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, medical director of the Nutritional Magnesium Association. In the meantime, though, sugar can do plenty of other damage, depleting your immunity, disrupting your metabolism, contributing to yeast overgrowth and so on.
The good news: By curtailing sugar consumption you can prevent the damage. And this doesn’t mean you have to squeeze every granule of sugar out of your diet. With a little awareness and restraint, you can still enjoy some sweetness while respecting your body’s built-in limits.
Glucose, along with the sucrose and fructose it comes from, is one of the most abundant sugars in foods and is the body’s preferred source of quick energy. It fuels every cell in the body, particularly muscle cells and brain cells. Deprive the body of blood glucose and it goes into a coma. Give it too much and it stalls and sputters, like gasoline flooding a carburetor.
“Sugar must be made available to cells in just the right amount,” says Jacob Teitelbaum, MD, author of Beat Sugar Addiction Now! (Fair Winds Press, 2010). To maintain a healthy equilibrium in the body, he notes, the blood circulates roughly 2 teaspoons of sugar at any given time. But that’s not a lot — a single orange may contain 16 grams of sugar, the equivalent of 4 teaspoons.
All naturally sweet foods, such as ripe fruits, yams, squash and dairy, tend to be relatively dense in nutrients and calories. That’s why survival of the human species depended, in part, on our biological pull toward sweets, says Kevin Spelman, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute of Aging’s Laboratory of Clinical Investigation in Baltimore: “We have a deep, instinctual, evolutionary drive to eat sweets.”
The hitch is that the sweets our ancestors enjoyed came entirely from whole foods, like fruit, roots and tubers. These were available only in small quantities or at certain times of the year and contained health-enhancing macro- and micronutrients, such as fiber, antioxidants and other phytochemicals.
Thanks to the presence of all that naturally occurring fiber, our ancestors’ bodies digested any sugar they ate much more slowly. So, glucose entered their bloodstream in a steady stream. And because they were active, they burned through that sugar almost immediately as much-needed fuel.
Today, basic human biology is the same, but most of the sugar in our diets doesn’t come from whole foods; instead it is refined, purified, crystallized and liquified. And our lives are far more sedentary. As a result, the concentrated sugar in the modern diet hits the body like a hurricane, and often the energy it produces has nowhere good to go.
While some sources of sugar are obvious — the packet you pour into your coffee or the spoonful you sprinkle on your cereal — experts worry much more about the sugar you don’t see. “Hidden sugar lies at the heart of many modern-day health epidemics,” Teitelbaum says. “If you eat a standard American diet, you likely have a problem with sugar, whether you know it or not.”
The main source of added sugar in the American diet is soda. A 12-ounce can of soda packs more than 8 teaspoons of sugar, usually in the form of high-fructose corn syrup.
But sugar also pops up in everything from breads to sauces to salad dressings. “No one would knowingly pour a packet of sugar over lettuce or spaghetti, but that’s what food makers do all the time,” says David Katz, MD, director and cofounder of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.
Sugar is also seductive because it makes it easier for the amino acid tryptophan to get into the brain, where it is converted into serotonin. Dubbed the “happiness molecule,” serotonin is known for its ability to bestow mellowness and calm. “Sugar calms us down, makes us feel relaxed and at peace with the world, but at a price. When it wears off, we are in big trouble,” says DesMaisons.
What’s more, studies suggest that each sweet indulgence reinforces those neuropathways, causing the brain to become increasingly hardwired to crave sugar. In a 2007 study published in PLoS ONE, for instance, laboratory rats chose sugar water over intravenous cocaine.
Think you’re home free with calorie-free sweeteners? Sorry, the same thing happened when the rats were offered water mixed with saccharin, a common artificial sweetener.
To make matters worse, most simple carbohydrates, such as white bread, white rice and white potatoes, are quickly metabolized and digested as sugar (glucose). That’s why it’s important to keep the big picture in mind when watching sugar intake. “Excessive sugar in the typical diet is compounded by refined flours, which are compounded by artificial sweeteners,” explains Katz. Simply eliminating sweets and added sugars won’t even touch those concerns, he notes, but it’s “a step in the right direction.”
To learn more about how and why to moderate the sugars in your diet, read on.
The problem with having multiple names is twofold, says David Katz, MD, director and cofounder of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center. For starters, calling them different things implies there are meaningful differences in terms of their effect on health. “Gram for gram, the differences between types of sugar are just not worth talking about,” he says. “I suppose water at 215 degrees burns more than water at 212 degrees, but who really cares? Either way, it’s going to burn you.”
Secondly, when sugar appears on a food label under various noms de plumes, it confuses shoppers who are savvy enough to know that ingredients appear on a food label in order of weight. For instance, a shopper might compare the ingredients of two different jars of jam and choose the one that lists fruit first, like strawberry, over one that starts off with sugar. But the jam very likely includes several different sugars. Individually, none weighs more than the strawberries, but collectively they do. “Shoppers are being duped,” says Katz.
Most likely you recognize sugar’s most common aliases: cane syrup, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, glucose, lactose, maltose and sucrose. Pretty much anything ending in “ose” (the chemical name for sugar) is suspect. But you might be surprised by how many different ingredients are . . . well, sugar. Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, a medical doctor, practicing naturopath and author of more than 20 books on health, compiled a list of 100 different names for sugar. Here are just a few to watch out for:
Barley malt
Beet sugar
Brown rice syrup
Carbitol
Carmel coloring
Concentrated fruit juice
Date sugar
Dextrin
Dextrose
Diglycerides
Disaccharides
Florida crystals
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS)
Glucitol
Glucoamine
Glycerides
Glycerol
Hexitol
Inversol
Invert sugar
Karo syrups
Lactose
Malt dextrin
Malted barley
Mannitol
Monoglycerides
Pentose
Polydextrose
Ribose rice syrup
Rice malt
Saccharides
Sorbitol
Sorghum
Sucanet
Turbinado sugar
Xylitol
Zylose
The average American now consumes some 22 teaspoons of sugar a day. And our sweet tooth isn’t just making us fat — it’s triggering all kinds of inflammation, fueling chronic diseases and even increasing our risks of cancer.
As kids, we were taught that too much sugar would rot our teeth, but today we know that the ramifications of a lifelong sugar splurge are scarier than a finger-wagging dentist. Yes, sugar can cause cavities, but of much greater concern is the sweet stuff’s link to bodywide inflammation.Sugar can contribute to cellular inflammation, which is like a continuing series of paper cuts that compromise cell function. Deep inside the body, these microscopic wounds fester below the pain threshold. Because many of us don’t see or feel the damage, there is little incentive to cut back on the inflammatory diet that is causing this constant cellular damage, so the party continues.
That is, until the body blows a gasket. Left unchecked, inflammation can unleash dozens of different diseases, including heavy hitters like diabetes, heart disease and autoimmune disorders. “It takes roughly 10 to 15 years of a high-sugar diet before a person develops a chronic illness,” says Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, medical director of the Nutritional Magnesium Association. In the meantime, though, sugar can do plenty of other damage, depleting your immunity, disrupting your metabolism, contributing to yeast overgrowth and so on.
The good news: By curtailing sugar consumption you can prevent the damage. And this doesn’t mean you have to squeeze every granule of sugar out of your diet. With a little awareness and restraint, you can still enjoy some sweetness while respecting your body’s built-in limits.
Sweet Beginnings
One of the five basic tastes, sweet is the first we encounter, thanks to the lactose in breast milk (as well as most infant formulas). That’s one reason why people have a penchant for sugar. Another is that sugar is a source of quick energy for cells. So, biologically speaking, the body orients toward sweets the way a plant seeks out the sun.Glucose, along with the sucrose and fructose it comes from, is one of the most abundant sugars in foods and is the body’s preferred source of quick energy. It fuels every cell in the body, particularly muscle cells and brain cells. Deprive the body of blood glucose and it goes into a coma. Give it too much and it stalls and sputters, like gasoline flooding a carburetor.
“Sugar must be made available to cells in just the right amount,” says Jacob Teitelbaum, MD, author of Beat Sugar Addiction Now! (Fair Winds Press, 2010). To maintain a healthy equilibrium in the body, he notes, the blood circulates roughly 2 teaspoons of sugar at any given time. But that’s not a lot — a single orange may contain 16 grams of sugar, the equivalent of 4 teaspoons.
All naturally sweet foods, such as ripe fruits, yams, squash and dairy, tend to be relatively dense in nutrients and calories. That’s why survival of the human species depended, in part, on our biological pull toward sweets, says Kevin Spelman, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute of Aging’s Laboratory of Clinical Investigation in Baltimore: “We have a deep, instinctual, evolutionary drive to eat sweets.”
The hitch is that the sweets our ancestors enjoyed came entirely from whole foods, like fruit, roots and tubers. These were available only in small quantities or at certain times of the year and contained health-enhancing macro- and micronutrients, such as fiber, antioxidants and other phytochemicals.
Thanks to the presence of all that naturally occurring fiber, our ancestors’ bodies digested any sugar they ate much more slowly. So, glucose entered their bloodstream in a steady stream. And because they were active, they burned through that sugar almost immediately as much-needed fuel.
Today, basic human biology is the same, but most of the sugar in our diets doesn’t come from whole foods; instead it is refined, purified, crystallized and liquified. And our lives are far more sedentary. As a result, the concentrated sugar in the modern diet hits the body like a hurricane, and often the energy it produces has nowhere good to go.
Invisible Sources
Early humans ate about 4 pounds of sugar a year. By comparison, in 2008, the average American ate 136 pounds of sugar in the form of white sugar (cane sugar and beet sugar), corn sweeteners, honey, molasses and other syrups. That boils down to roughly 22 teaspoons of sugar per person per day.While some sources of sugar are obvious — the packet you pour into your coffee or the spoonful you sprinkle on your cereal — experts worry much more about the sugar you don’t see. “Hidden sugar lies at the heart of many modern-day health epidemics,” Teitelbaum says. “If you eat a standard American diet, you likely have a problem with sugar, whether you know it or not.”
The main source of added sugar in the American diet is soda. A 12-ounce can of soda packs more than 8 teaspoons of sugar, usually in the form of high-fructose corn syrup.
But sugar also pops up in everything from breads to sauces to salad dressings. “No one would knowingly pour a packet of sugar over lettuce or spaghetti, but that’s what food makers do all the time,” says David Katz, MD, director and cofounder of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.
The Taste of Happiness
One reason that we find sugar so appealing, so addictive, is that it activates the brain’s reward center, causing it to release feel-good substances, such as dopamine and beta-endorphins (natural pain killers). Some people have naturally lower levels of beta-endorphins, so they get a bigger rush from sweets, says Kathleen DesMaisons, PhD, author of Potatoes Not Prozac: Solutions for Sugar Sensitivity (Simon & Schuster, 2008) and a pioneer in the field of sugar and addiction. DesMaisons’s research shows that people who are “sugar sensitive” have naturally lower levels of these feel-good chemicals and are biochemically driven to eat more sweets from a very early age.Sugar is also seductive because it makes it easier for the amino acid tryptophan to get into the brain, where it is converted into serotonin. Dubbed the “happiness molecule,” serotonin is known for its ability to bestow mellowness and calm. “Sugar calms us down, makes us feel relaxed and at peace with the world, but at a price. When it wears off, we are in big trouble,” says DesMaisons.
What’s more, studies suggest that each sweet indulgence reinforces those neuropathways, causing the brain to become increasingly hardwired to crave sugar. In a 2007 study published in PLoS ONE, for instance, laboratory rats chose sugar water over intravenous cocaine.
Think you’re home free with calorie-free sweeteners? Sorry, the same thing happened when the rats were offered water mixed with saccharin, a common artificial sweetener.
Sweet Nothings
The problem isn’t limited to what sugar is, it’s also what sugar is not. Fill up on sugar, and you won’t have room for foods rich in important vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients and fiber. In a 2010 study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, researchers found that, among kids ages 2 to 18, nearly 40 percent of their total energy intake came in the form of empty calories. Half of those empty calories were from a handful of foods, including grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts and granola bars), pizza, fruit drinks and soda. “That means 40 percent of their diet is stripped of all nutrients,” says Teitelbaum. “Most people’s diets don’t have that much leeway.”To make matters worse, most simple carbohydrates, such as white bread, white rice and white potatoes, are quickly metabolized and digested as sugar (glucose). That’s why it’s important to keep the big picture in mind when watching sugar intake. “Excessive sugar in the typical diet is compounded by refined flours, which are compounded by artificial sweeteners,” explains Katz. Simply eliminating sweets and added sugars won’t even touch those concerns, he notes, but it’s “a step in the right direction.”
To learn more about how and why to moderate the sugars in your diet, read on.
Catherine Guthrie is a health writer in Bloomington, Ind., and a contributing editor to Experience Life.
Web Extra!
Sugar by Any Other Name
One of the most confusing things about sugar is not only that simple carbohydrates, such as white flour, white bread, white rice and white potatoes, are viewed as sugar by our bodies, but also that it has more than 100 different names on food labels.The problem with having multiple names is twofold, says David Katz, MD, director and cofounder of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center. For starters, calling them different things implies there are meaningful differences in terms of their effect on health. “Gram for gram, the differences between types of sugar are just not worth talking about,” he says. “I suppose water at 215 degrees burns more than water at 212 degrees, but who really cares? Either way, it’s going to burn you.”
Secondly, when sugar appears on a food label under various noms de plumes, it confuses shoppers who are savvy enough to know that ingredients appear on a food label in order of weight. For instance, a shopper might compare the ingredients of two different jars of jam and choose the one that lists fruit first, like strawberry, over one that starts off with sugar. But the jam very likely includes several different sugars. Individually, none weighs more than the strawberries, but collectively they do. “Shoppers are being duped,” says Katz.
Most likely you recognize sugar’s most common aliases: cane syrup, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, glucose, lactose, maltose and sucrose. Pretty much anything ending in “ose” (the chemical name for sugar) is suspect. But you might be surprised by how many different ingredients are . . . well, sugar. Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, a medical doctor, practicing naturopath and author of more than 20 books on health, compiled a list of 100 different names for sugar. Here are just a few to watch out for:
Barley malt
Beet sugar
Brown rice syrup
Carbitol
Carmel coloring
Concentrated fruit juice
Date sugar
Dextrin
Dextrose
Diglycerides
Disaccharides
Florida crystals
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS)
Glucitol
Glucoamine
Glycerides
Glycerol
Hexitol
Inversol
Invert sugar
Karo syrups
Lactose
Malt dextrin
Malted barley
Mannitol
Monoglycerides
Pentose
Polydextrose
Ribose rice syrup
Rice malt
Saccharides
Sorbitol
Sorghum
Sucanet
Turbinado sugar
Xylitol
Zylose
Still Think Organic is Too Expensive???
Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.
Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bio-availability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."
Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.
"Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," wrote the report authors in their conclusion. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.
"They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so," the authors added. "This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards."
First Posted: 06/ 7/11 07:48 PM ET Updated: 06/ 9/11 11:05 AM ET
WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.
Published by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open source collaboration to advance sustainable food production, the report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bio-availability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."
Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.
"Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," wrote the report authors in their conclusion. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.
"They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so," the authors added. "This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards."
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The 'Other' Sweetener That's Made from Sugar, but is Closer to DDT
Posted By Dr. Mercola | April 26 2011 | 131,986 views | 
Disponible en Español
Researchers recently investigated sucralose (Splenda) to see if it could reduce hunger and keep blood sugar steady. They found that it could not.The researchers hoped to find that sucralose could cause the intestine to produce a hormone that reduces blood sugar and decreases appetite, which prior study had indicated might be a possibility. But the effect did not occur when it was ingested orally -- hunger remained the same and the blood sugar remained the same.
According to FYI Living:
"Worse, other research has shown that artificial sweeteners might contribute to weight gain ... [when the] sweet taste is not accompanied by the calories (energy) our brain expects it to be, the complex systems our bodies have to regulate energy balance may be thrown off kilter. The result is that a diet high in artificial sweeteners may possibly, over time, cause people to seek out more calories from other sources".
Sources:
| Dr. Mercola's Comments: |   |
Avoiding sugar is a crucial component of a healthy lifestyle, but, instead of consuming a naturally low-sugar diet based on whole foods, some people are still trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately, the belief that artificial sweeteners can allow you to have the best of both worlds is simply not based in reality. It's a carefully orchestrated deception. So if you're still consuming artificially sweetened foods, snacks and beverages because you think it'll help you manage your weight, please understand that you've been sorely misled.
In reality, "diet" foods and drinks ruin your body's ability to count calories, thus boosting your inclination to overindulge. This effect appears to be true for all artificial sweeteners.
Unfortunately, most public health agencies and nutritionists in the United States still recommend these toxic artificial sweeteners as acceptable and even preferred alternatives to sugar, which is at best confusing and at worst seriously damaging the health of those who listen to this well-intentioned but foolish advice.
Artificial Sweeteners INCREASE Your Risk of Obesity
Contrary to popular belief, research has shown that artificial sweeteners can stimulate your appetite, increase carbohydrate cravings, and stimulate fat storage and weight gain. In fact, diet sodas may actually double your risk of obesity!
How's that for being misled?
Studies have repeatedly shown that consuming artificial sweeteners may be ruining your ability to control your food intake and body weight. For example, I have listed the results of six studies on aspartame that found it increases hunger and body weight on my Aspartame Studies page, and research on other artificial sweeteners have come to the same conclusion.
It's thought that consuming artificial sweeteners breaks the inherent connection between a sweet taste and a high-calorie food, thereby changing your body's ability to regulate your intake of calories. The end result is that by consuming artificially sweetened foods and beverages, you end up gaining more body fat than if you were to eat the same foods sweetened with regular sugar!
But weight gain isn't the only health-harming side effect of these man-made chemical sweeteners.
Splenda Destroys Your Gut Flora
Different artificial sweeteners have been found to wreak havoc in a number of different ways. Aspartame, for example, has a long list of studies indicating its harmful effects, ranging from brain damage to pre-term delivery.
Splenda (sucralose) has been found to be particularly damaging to your intestines.
A study published in 2008 found that Splenda:
They also found unmistakable evidence that Splenda is absorbed by fat, contrary to previous claims.
- Reduces the amount of good bacteria in your intestines by 50 percent
- Increases the pH level in your intestines, and
- Affects a glycoprotein in your body that can have crucial health effects, particularly if you're on certain medications like chemotherapy, or treatments for AIDS and certain heart conditions
In response to this study, James Turner, chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health issued the following statement:
"The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about side effects from using Splenda and this study ... confirms that the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red warning label."I agree. It's truly disturbing that Splenda can destroy up to 50 percent of your healthy intestinal bacteria, as these bacteria are absolutely vital for supporting your general health! Many people are already deficient in healthy bacteria due to consuming too many highly processed foods. This is why a high quality probiotic is one of the very few supplements I highly recommend for most, if not all, people.
Believe me, if you continually destroy up to half of your gut flora by regularly consuming Splenda, then poor health is virtually guaranteed!
Splenda has Never Been Proven Safe for Human Consumption
Splenda was approved by the FDA as a tabletop- and general-purpose sweetener in processed foods in 1998. The FDA claims the approval was based on more than 110 animal and human safety studies. However, what they don't specify was that out of these 110 studies, only two were human studies, consisting of a combined total of 36 people, of which only 23 people actually ingested sucralose.
Additionally, the longest of these two human trials lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance!
Many people have sent me stories about their adverse reactions to Splenda, which are posted on my site. This list alone contains more people than were formally studied in the research submitted for FDA approval!
The remainder of those 110-plus "safety studies" were done on animals, and they actually revealed plenty of problems, such as:
- Decreased red blood cells -- sign of anemia -- at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day
- Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
- Enlarged and calcified kidneys (McNeil stated this is often seen with poorly absorbed substances and was of no toxicological significance. The FDA Final Rule agreed that these are findings that are common in aged female rats and are not significant.)
- Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group
- A 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent death rate in the control group
Common Side Effects of Splenda
The web site www.truthaboutsplenda.com lists a variety of consumer complaints from Splenda consumption, such as:
| Gastrointestinal problems | Blurred vision |
| Migraines | Allergic reactions |
| Seizures | Blood sugar increases |
| Dizziness | Weight gain |
You can also read the first-hand accounts of many of my readers here, at least one of whom say that allowing Splenda on the market is "worse than chemical warfare" based on the adverse effects she suffered before she figured out the cause. Just as with aspartame, many Splenda users complain of general malaise or "feeling under the weather," along with a variety of neurological changes, such as foggy-headedness, lack of concentration, and "bad mood."
If you have ever suffered any side effects from taking Splenda or any artificially sweetened product, I strongly recommend reporting it to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator in your area.
Splenda—"Made from Sugar" But More Similar to DDT...
That's right.
The catchy slogan "Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar" has fooled many, but chemically, Splenda is actually more similar to DDT than sugar.
Sucralose starts off with a sugar molecule, yes, but that's where the similarity ends. (A sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars bound together, i.e. glucose and fructose.) Then, in a five-step patented process, three chlorine molecules are added to that sucrose (sugar) molecule.
This process converts the sugar molecule to a fructo-galactose molecule.
This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature, and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes its claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, hence it has zero calories.
But, if you look at the research, you will find that an average of 15 percent of sucralose IS in fact absorbed into your digestive system, and ultimately is stored in your body. To reach the average number of 15 percent means that some people absorb more and some people absorb less, depending on your biochemical makeup.
If you are healthy and your digestive system works well, you may be at HIGHER risk for breaking down this product in your stomach and intestines, so for you the adverse reactions may be more acutely felt.
How to Kick the Artificial Sweetener Habit
Sweet cravings are very common for the simple reason that sugar is as addictive as cocaine. Unfortunately, switching to artificial sweeteners will neither reduce these cravings nor increase your satiety. On the contrary, as discussed above, you're likely making matters worse.
Your body also craves sweets when you're denying it the fuel it needs. Sugar (and grain carbs) is very quick fuel and can give your body a boost when it's running low. Again, using artificial sweeteners does not trick your body into thinking it has had its fill; rather it wants more sweets because it didn't get the energy boost with that sweet taste!
A powerful solution to help curb your cravings is to determine your nutritional type, which will tell you which foods you need to eat to feel full and satisfied.
It may sound hard to believe right now, but once you start eating right for your nutritional type, your sweet cravings will disappear. To help you turn your health around, I now offer the full nutritional typing program online for free, so please take advantage of this opportunity to dramatically change your health for the better.
Interestingly, nutrition- and fitness expert Ori Hofmekler recently shared a fascinating benefit of caffeine that can be helpful here. If you like coffee, drinking organic black coffee (meaning without sugar or milk) can help eliminate sugar cravings because the caffeine is an opioid receptor antagonist.
As you may know, sugar binds to the same opioid receptors as cocaine and other addictive substances. But once an opioid receptor antagonist occupies that receptor, it prohibits you from becoming addicted to something else. Therefore, caffeine may attenuate the addictive impact of sugar.
There are a few caveats to using this strategy however, including:
In addition to eating right for your nutritional type, I highly recommend addressing the emotional component of your food cravings, using a tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). It's one of the most profoundly effective tools I've ever used or researched to help overcome food cravings and reach dietary success.
- Only drink organic coffee (as it's one of the most pesticide-heavy crops there are)
- Drink it black, sans sugar/artificial sweeteners or milk
- Only drink coffee in the morning, prior to exercise
- Limit your consumption to one or two cups
Turbo Tapping is particularly useful if you're addicted to soda. It's an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your addiction in a short period of time.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
2011 Health Symposium Coming Soon!
If you haven’t registered yet for the 2011 Health Symposium, take a minute and register now at www.healthsymposium.com! This is a unique opportunity to learn from some of the country’s top health experts, who will focus on natural, effective solutions to everyday health issues. Below is the approved list of Health Symposium speakers, which includes Young Living’s own D. Gary Young:
- Dan C. Purser, MD—Headaches, Stress, Insomnia: Hormones and Women’s Health
- D. Gary Young, ND—The Science of Living Naturally
- HK Lin, PhD—Breakthroughs in Cancer Research
- Ed Dailey, RN—PANIC: Pain, Anxiety, Nausea, Insomnia, Constipation
- Tom Reed, DPM—Weight Loss & Restored Vitality
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)