Conspiracy, bias, or just plain stupidity? Part II.

Introduction

In a previous newsletter, I broached the subject that there appears to be something “fishy” about the portrayal of natural products in the major medical journals. I questioned whether the major medical journals are truly presenting accurate information and pointed out that even the editors or former editors of prestigious journals like the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and British Medical are simply extensions of the marketing departments of major drug companies.

Previously, a review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated that 95% of medical studies in the most prestigious journals contain false or misleading statistics. To illustrate the nature of the problem, let’s take a look at the most recent “negative” review of fish oils against cardiovascular mortality.
In case you missed it, in early April 2006 the media headlines claimed “Fish oil Supplements have no Effect on Heart Disease or Cancer.” The source of these false statements was a review article published in BMJ (British Medical Journal).1 What the study concluded and what the media grabbed a hold of was that the “Long chain and shorter chain omega 3 fats do not have a clear effect on total mortality, combined cardiovascular events, or cancer.” That is far different than saying that they do not have benefit. So, what is the truth behind the headline? Read on. But, before you do I want to stress here first is that the use of a high quality fish oil supplement is one of the most important tools in the prevention and treatment of many diseases. That fact is irrefutable based upon a large body of clinical evidence from double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

What did the Study Really Say?

According to the lead author of the study, Dr. Lee Hooper:

“We did not report that ‘long chain omega-3 does not offer any protection from heart disease’, that ‘omega-3 fats have no effect on total mortality, combined cardiovascular events, or cancer’ or that omega 3 fats are of ‘no benefit’ – this is not what we found, or what we reported (despite our being misquoted in much of the press).”2

That is very interesting. So, what Dr. Hooper and his group actually found by looking at the data was that omega-3 fatty acid intake was associated with a 13% reduction on mortality. I think that finding is quite in line with what one might expect. While long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from fish oils clearly reduce the risk for heart attacks and strokes (previous reports show somewhere between 25-40%),3-5 it is highly unlikely that they would impact other causes of mortality. Therefore, when selecting total mortality as the study’s endpoint we need to make some adjustments. For example, given that heart attacks and strokes would account for between one-quarter to one-half of all deaths in the populations studied it would be expected that long-chain omega-3 fatty acid intake would reduce total mortality somewhere between 6% (25% reduction x 25% heart attack and stroke deaths) to 20% (40% reduction x 50% CHD deaths), or an average of 13% overall. Hey, wait a minute. That 13% reduction is exactly the same number that Dr. Hooper found in his analysis of the results from the randomized trials using fish oil supplements. Interesting, isn’t it?

Some Issues with the Study

First of all, the study was not a new study at all. What it was is a detailed review and meta-analysis. The authors of a meta-analysis review the medical literature and then select published studies to include in their analysis based upon the studies meeting certain criteria. A meta-analysis is almost always fraught with methodological issues and this study was no different.

One of the first issues to mention is that the biggest problem with meta-analysis type reviews is that they are often the collection of poorly designed studies. If all the studies are of high quality and well-designed, a meta-analysis can be quite helpful to illustrate statistical significance because the total number of subjects is often greatly increased. However, if the meta-analysis includes a very large poorly designed study it can tip the scales to a very wrong conclusion. That appears to be exactly what happened in this particular meta-analysis. In fact, the overall conclusion of the meta-analysis can be changed from “no benefit” to “clear benefit” simply by eliminating one flawed study (DART-2). This study should not have been included in the first place because of its poor methodological quality. I am not making that judgment. TheU.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Evidence Report from 2005 states that this study is of very poor methodology.7 One of the biggest problems with the study was that the dietary instructions were only given at the start of the 9-year study and again after 6 months. Lack of compliance was obviously a huge problem. The study failed to demonstrate compliance in 98% of the subjects. Again, if this study is excluded (as it should have been) the results are also changed from “no benefit” to “clear benefit.” Clearly, the results of the well-designed studies show considerable benefits from a higher intake of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from fish oils.

Another huge problem with the meta-analysis is that many of the studies utilized based the intake of omega-3 fatty acids upon dietary questionnaires. These sorts of food frequency questionnaires used have been sharply criticized because they are often so inaccurate. So, what should researchers use instead? Well, in evaluating the role of omega-3 fatty acids they should rely on blood measurements. For example, in one study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that measured the levels of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA in the blood it was demonstrated that these omega-3 fatty acids produced a very clear reduction in heart attacks.8 The group with the highest intake of EPA and DHA had an 80% reduced risk of a fatal heart attack compared to the group with the lowest intake.

Next, I have a big issue when the effects of fish consumption are linked to the effects of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. Sure, fish is the best natural source of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, but our fish supply is also tainted with mercury, lead, pesticide residues, and other harmful compounds. Mercury has been known to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. While fish oils may protect against heart disease, is the benefit of eating fish counteracted by a higher intake of mercury? Apparently not as results from another study published in the New England Journal of Medicine show that while higher body levels EPA and DHA were associated with a decreased risk for heart attacks, the higher the body mercury level the greater risk of a heart attack.9 Researchers concluded that the high mercury content of fish may diminish the protective effect of fish intake against heart disease. So, it is entirely inappropriate to lump fish consumption into the analysis of the health benefits of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids.

Another mistake is pooling the data with both the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from fish oils with the short-chain omega-3 fatty acids alpha- linolenic acid. While the data on the beneficial effects of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids is quite solid, for alpha- linolenic acid the evidence is less convincing and randomized controlled trials are lacking. One of the studies included in the analysis that should not have been was conducted not on fish oil, but rather a margarine containing alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) – that’s the omega 3 found in flax – versus a margarine with linoleic acid (an omega-6 fatty acid).10 Again, including this study appears inappropriate and its exclusion may have changed the picture entirely.

Lastly, it has been stated that “conducting a meta-analysis study on the effectiveness of omega-3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease and cancer, without considering the impact of excess omega-6 fat in the diet, is akin to reviewing the efficacy of a healthy diet without factoring the effects of smoking.”11 In other words, a high omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio would counteract the impact of an increased omega-3 fatty acid intake and make the results difficult to interpret. The reason omega-6 fatty acids counteract the effects of the omega-3 fatty acids relates to the production of eicosanoids (prostaglandins, thromboxanes, and leukotrienes) from omega-6 fatty acids. Chronic excessive production eicosanoids derived from omega-6 fatty acids is associated with an increased risk heart attacks, thrombotic stroke, arrhythmia, arthritis, osteoporosis, inflammation and cancer. The overall benefits of a higher intake of omega-3 fatty acids appears to be related to reducing the omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio and availability of omega-6 fatty acids for eicosanoid synthesis.

Final Comments

The bottom line is that a pharmaceutical grade fish oil supplement is one of the key foundation formulas for good health. In fact, the development of these high quality fish oil products is one of the major developments in nutritional medicine. In previous newsletters and throughout my website I have continually stressed the importance of supplementing the diet with these long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. Based upon the totality of research, in order to significantly promote health and reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease the daily dosage of EPA and DHA combined should be at least 1,000 mg per day.

The specific product that I recommend is RxOmega-3 Factors from Natural Factors. It is one of the few fish oil products that truly is a pharmaceutical grade product. Each capsule provides 400 mg of EPA and 200 mg of DHA – the exact ratio used in so many of the clinical studies. So, two capsules daily easily achieve the recommended dosage. [eRegimens note: NSI Mega EFA is the same product as Natural Factors RxOmega-3 Factors]

Key references:

1. Hooper L, Thompson RL, Harrison RA, et al. Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332:752-60.
2. Hooper L, Riemersma R, Durrington P, et. Al. Authors’ reply – omega 3s and health. BMJ.com April 7, 2006.
3. He K, Song Y, Daviglus ML, Liu K, Van Horn, L, Dyer AR, Greenland P. Accumulated evidence on fish consumption and coronary heart disease mortality: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Circulation 2004;109:2705- 11.
4. Whelton SP, He J, Whelton PK, Muntner P. Meta-analysis of observational studies on fish intake and coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol 2004;93:1119-23.
5. Bucher HC, Hengstler P, Schindler C, Meier G. N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Am J Med 2002:112:298-304. 4. Burr ML, Ashfield-Watt PA, Dunstan FD, Fehily AM, Breay P, Ashton T, et al. Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men with angina: results of a controlled trial. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2003;57:193- 200.
6. Burr ML, Ashfield-Watt PA, Dunstan FD, et al. Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men with angina: results of a controlled trial. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003; 57:193-200.
7. Effects of omega-3 fatty acids on cardiovascular disease. http://www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/epcsums/o3cardsum.htm/dec.2004
8. Albert CM, Campos H, Stampfer MJ, et al. Blood levels of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and the risk of sudden death. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(15):1113-8.
9. Guallar E, Sanz-Gallardo MI, van’t Veer P, Bode P, et al. Mercury, fish oils, and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1747-54.
10. Bemelmans WJ, Broer J, Feskens EJ, et al. Effect of an increased intake of alpha-linolenic acid and group nutritional education on cardiovascular risk factors: the Mediterranean Alpha-linolenic Enriched Groningen Dietary Intervention (MARGARIN) study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Feb;75(2):221-7.
11. Tribole EF. Excess Omega-6 Fats Thwart Health Benefits from Omega-3 Fats. BMJ.com March 27, 2006.

Personally, I enjoy the Bobs Red Mill Organic extra thick oatmeal.  For a 32 ounce package you’ll pay about $4 plus tax.  That’s about $2 a pound compared to the cost of Quaker Oats in Bulk at Costco for about $70 cents a pound.  So there is a definite premium to be paid not only for the “Organic” quality, but for the boutique type of product.  But in my view it’s worth it and here is why.  2 pounds of oatmeal is about 8 very large servings.  So that’s only 50 cents per serving to eat the very best oatmeal.  Compare that to the other foods in your diet on a per meal basis and you’ll find the cost of eating organic oatmeal from Bob’s pretty cheap!  Throw in the fact that these are “extra thick” which means more chewy and less pasty and you have a real winning combination.

For my daily breakfast I like to include a quarter cup of blueberries (or other in season fruit), banana slices (almond slices are great too), a sprinkle of cinnamon, a few teaspoons of honey, and freshly made almond milk (from the Vitamix).  This combination of nutrition just can’t be beat – yummy, filling, and packed with nutrients.

Bobs Red Mill gluten free products are also among the very best, but y0u’ll pay a significant premium for these above and beyond the premium paid for Bobs Organics.  For some people this is simply not an option financially, but for those that must eat gluten free and can afford the prices this is a god send.

Sadly most of Bobs Red Mill recipes advocate the use of Canola oil which in my view is toxic poison.  Sure Canola Oil looks healthy on paper, but it’s crap cheap junk oil.  Canola oil is made from a Genetically Modified Rape Seed… and I’m not going to get into why it’s such unhealthy crap oil here, only that it’s very disappointing that an otherwise good manufacturer could advocate it’s use.

Back on point – if you are looking for a very tasty wholesome Organic Oatmeal give the “Extra Thick” Bobs Red Mill Oatmeal a try.  I’ve tried many types of Oatmeal (Including Coaches Oats) and it simply doesn’t compare.

And before I forget… try the Organic Quinoa Flour to really boost the nutrition profile of your baked goods.

Not surprisingly, reaction to the news among dieters has been disparaging and defensive, as each person cycles through the Kubler-Ross five stages of grief, from denial and anger to bargaining, depression and acceptance.

“Now the health police tell us we can’t drink Diet Coke,” captures the tone on many of the diet blogs.

If it’s any consolation for diet-soda fans, the results presented at the meeting — based on preliminary analysis from a 2,500-person subset of the ongoing Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS) — are far from definitive. There’s no way to tell yet, for example, what ingredient would be associated with strokes or whether lifestyle choices among drinkers are the real cause.

That said, is drinking diet soda safe? Of course not, especially when it is the main source of liquid refreshment every day. You’re drinking copious amounts of phosphoric acid, artificial colors, artificial flavors, and some laboratory-crafted chemical that tricks your brain into perceiving the sensation of sweet.

Diet soda is an alternative to regular soda, but neither is healthy. You are merely trading calories from sugar for chemicals of questionable nature.

Hooked on sugar

The proliferation of diet soda cuts to the core of what’s wrong with the Western diet. The Western approach is to remove the most obvious dangers from an unhealthy habit — in this case, removing the 12 teaspoons of sugar per can of fizzy water laced with acids, colors and flavors of uncertain origin — so that we can continue that habit in denial of other dangers.

The underlying problem is that we are addicted to sugar; beverages without a sweetener now seem bland. For the first million years or so of pre-human and human existence, water was adequate to quench our thirst. But apparently no longer.

Hold the sugar and corn syrup and pass the aspartame. Some doctors actually encourage dieters to drink diet soda to cut calories instead of recommending zero-calorie water or tea.

We see this “short-cut” diet phenomenon also among some people who want to be vegetarian. They eat vegetarian hot dogs and other faux-meat dishes made from heavily processed soy and vegetable meal loaded with salt, sugar and fat. This is likely unhealthier than the meat they are shunning.

So, similarly, at issue is that we are so addicted to meat that meals without it no longer seem satiating. To do vegetarianism right, you’d have to learn how to cook lentils, beans, grains and other staples of a vegetarian diet, and that’s too consuming for many people.

Writing on the wall

Studies on diet soda have been flawed, because researchers have discounted one important fact: Those drinking diet soda likely drink it not because they are health nuts but because they have a certain health condition. They are either overweight or diabetic. Thus, they are at risk for strokes, heart attacks and cancer regardless of the type of beverage they prefer.

One of the more impressive aspects of the NOMAS project is that researchers can control for weight and other health conditions. It’s inevitable that NOMAS and similar studies will tease out the dangers of drinking too much soda in general, either diet or regular.

It is a shame the United States cannot adopt Asia’s tradition of unsweetened teas, ubiquitous in shops and vending machines. But even otherwise healthy green tea in the United States is tainted with sugar or artificial sweetener — yet another example of corrupting a healthy alternative.

The bottom line is that dieters need to cycle through those Kubler-Ross stages to reach acceptance: Diet soda is no healthy alternative, and nothing beats water.

Source:  Yahoo News Live Science

Of 115 published animal studies, 81 percent found signi?cant effects from even low-level exposure to BPA. While none of the 11 industry-funded studies found signi?cant effects, over 90 percent of government-funded studies did so. – Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Types of Plastics and Food Safety By Plastic Number

Plastic Container Symbols for Food Grade Plastics

Please reference Graphics for Quick View of Numbers to look for embedded into plastic products to help determine their safety.

1. PETE: Polyethylene terephthalate ethylene, used forsoft drink, juice, water, detergent, cleaner and peanutbutter containers.

2. HDPE: High density polyethylene, used in opaque plastic milk and water jugs, bleach, detergent and shampoo bottles, and some plastic bags.

3. PVC or V: Polyvinyl chloride, used for cling wrap, plastic squeeze bottles, cooking oil and peanut butter containers, and detergent and window cleaner bottles.

4. LDPE: Low density polyethylene, used in grocery store bags, most plastic wraps, Ziplock bags and some bottles.

5. PP: Polypropylene, used in most Rubbermaid, deli soup, syrup and yogurt containers, straws and other clouded plastic containers, including baby bottles.

6. PS: Polystyrene, used in styrofoam food trays, egg cartons, disposable cups and bowls, carry-out containers and opaque plastic cutlery.

7. Other: This is a catch-all category for plastics that don’t fit into the #1-6 categories. It includes polycarbonate, bio-based plastics, co-polyester, acrylic, polyamide and plastic mixtures like styrene-acrylonitrile resin (SAN). Number 7 plastics are used for a variety of products like baby bottles and “sippy” cups, baby food jars, 5-gallon water bottles, “sport” water bottles, plastic dinnerware and clear plastic cutlery.

What to look for on Plastic Containers

Here are some things to keep in mind when using the microwave:

• Most takeout containers, water bottles, and plastic tubs or jars made to hold margarine, yogurt, whipped topping, and foods such as cream cheese, mayonnaise, and mustard are not microwave-safe.
• Microwavable takeout dinner trays are formulated for one-time use only and will say so on the package.
• Don’t microwave plastic storage bags or plastic bags from the grocery store.
• Before microwaving food, be sure to vent the container: Leave the lid ajar, or lift the edge of the cover.
• Don’t allow plastic wrap to touch food during microwaving because it may melt. Wax paper, kitchen parchment paper, or white paper towels are alternatives.
• If you’re concerned about plastic wraps or containers in the microwave, transfer food to glass or ceramic containers labeled for microwave oven use.

Source:  Harvard Health Publications

Our homes are full of plastic, and the kitchen is no exception. The problem: Chemicals in plastic containers and other kitchenware may leach into the foods or drinks that they’re holding. Scientific evidence suggests that some of these chemicals may be harmful to people, especially infants and children.

The two best-studied offenders are bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates. BPA mimics estrogen and has been shown to disrupt hormone and reproductive system function in animals. Research by the National Toxicology Program found a moderate level of concern about its “effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children.” Phthalates have been shown to disrupt the endocrine system and have led to malformations in the male reproductive system in animals. Studies in humans have found associations between high phthalate exposure and a variety of health concerns including low sperm quality, high waist circumference and insulin resistance.

Researchers are still debating whether phthalates and BPA actually cause these health problems and, if so, how much exposure is necessary to trigger them. While these issues are being figured out, some experts recommend taking a preventive approach: “Minimize contact of food with problematic plastics as a precautionary measure to protect your health,” suggests Rolf Halden, PhD, adjunct associate professor of environmental health sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Here are six simple tips for reducing your exposure to the potentially harmful chemicals in plastics.

1. Know the code. Look on the bottom of your plastic to find the recycling symbol (a number between 1 and 7 enclosed in a triangle of arrows). The code indicates the type of plastic you are using and can give you important clues about safety. “We generally say 1, 2, 4 and 5 are considered to be the safest,” says Sonya Lunder, senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group. Try to avoid using plastics with 3 or 6, as these leach chemicals that may be harmful. Number 7 is an “other” category that includes BPA-containing plastics called polycarbonates. These plastics, which you should avoid, will have the letters PC printed underneath the 7.

2. Reconsider the microwave. Heat can increase the rate at which chemicals like BPA leach from plastic. Containers labeled “microwave safe” have been tested by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and found to leach extremely small amounts, which the FDA has determined to be safe. However, some experts advise people to keep plastic out of the microwave altogether. “I don’t microwave anything in plastic,” says Lunder. “It’s really easy and fast to put my food into a ceramic or glass container and heat it that way.” And never put plastic wrap on top of your food in the microwave, since it can melt. Use wax paper or a paper towel instead.

3. Use it for its intended purpose. Plastics that are designed for single use should only be used once. “Plastic breaks down over time,” Lunder explains. “Some aren’t designed to withstand heating and cooling.” Most plastics with recycling code number 1 are intended for single use, such as disposable water bottles. And that takeout container from six months ago? Toss it. In general they’re fine for refrigerating leftovers, but aren’t designed for heat exposure or long-term use.

4. Wash by hand. Only put plastics into the dishwasher if they have a dishwasher safe label. If you want to be extra-cautious, wash all plastics by hand or use only glass and ceramic plates and dishes. In the dishwasher, plastics are exposed to detergents and heat, which may accelerate the leaching of BPA from food containers.

5. Do not freeze. Only put plastics in the freezer if they have a freezer-safe label. Freezer temperatures can cause plastics to deteriorate, which increases the leaching of chemicals into the food when you take containers out of the freezer to thaw or reheat.

6. Don’t panic. Cutting down on exposure to potentially harmful chemicals in plastics can benefit your health. But as Dr. Halden reminds us, “Many things in your life pose a much higher risk than exposure to plastics, such as smoking, poor diet and even driving a car.”

Source: Diane Blahut, Woman’s Day

Twinlab Corp., which has 320 workers in American Fork, was accused in a lawsuit filed Tuesday by Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation and two environmentalists of misleading consumers about the levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, in two of their fish oil supplements, Twinlab’s Norwegian Cod Liver Oil and Emulsified Norwegian Cod Liver Oil.

Even though these two Twinlab supplements claim they are “PCB and heavy metal free,” they allegedly contain PCBs above the “safe harbor” limits set for human consumption under California’s Proposition 65, which requires consumers to be warned about exposure to toxic chemicals, according to the San Francisco Superior Court suit.

The two Twinlab supplements are sold online at www.twinlab.com, said Justin Boone, spokesman for the company. But he wasn’t able to specify on Wednesday which retailers in Utah carry the two products. The company’s Web site shows its supplements are available through retailers including Wal-Mart, Target, Sam’s Club, Whole Foods, Wild Oats, Walgreens, Vitamin World, Vitamin Shoppe, Rite Aid and GNC.

In addition to Twinlab, the suit names seven retailers and manufacturers of fish oil, shark oil, fish liver oil and shark liver oil supplements. They include: CVS Pharmacy Inc.; General Nutrition Corp.; Now Health Group Inc.; Omega Protein Inc.; Pharmavite LLC (which sells fish oils under the Nature Made brand); Rite Aid Corp.; and Solgar Inc.

What makes the defendants’ marketing claims egregious is that the 10 fish oil supplements, which are recommended to pregnant women and children for their health benefits, are marketed as being already treated for PCB contamination when the problem still exists, said Benson Chiles, an environmentalist that brought the lawsuit.

Christopher Manthey, another plaintiff, said he and Chiles found in their investigation that the supplements industry “seems very aware that fish oils can be high in PCBs.”

“That’s why many of them say their supplements have been ‘treated’ to remove or reduce PCBs,” he said. “But since they don’t say how much PCB contamination is still left, even consumers who choose ‘treated’ supplements can’t know what PCB levels they’re swallowing along with their daily Omega-3.”

Twinlab, in a statement Wednesday, said it cannot comment on the validity or accuracy of the plaintiffs’ test results, but said its supplements meet stringent government standards and are “molecularly distilled and tested for purity.”

Greg Grochoski, Twinlab’s chief science officer, notes that among the 10 supplements tested, its products were reported as having some of the lowest levels of impurities.

The company also said it has been working with Mateel for several months to develop scientifically valid standards for impurities that can be found in fish oils. It said it uses fish oil suppliers that adhere to industry safety standards.

“This lawsuit is about plaintiffs seeking additional standards under California’s Prop. 65, a consumer disclosure law,” the Twinlab statement said.

David Roe, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said they are seeking civil penalties of up to $2,500 a day for each violation of the California Health and Safety Code.

“The amount of the penalty will depend on what their supplements sales are since Aug. 6, 2009 when we notified the California office of the Attorney General of this problem, and will continue every day until the PCBs are taken out of the products, or until warnings are given,” he said.

“We’re hoping that the suit will stimulate the industry as a whole to get PCBs out of fish oils,” Roe said.

The brand name supplements named in the lawsuit include:

1. Nature Made Cod Liver Oil

2. Nature Made Odorless Fish Oil

3. TwinLab Norwegian Cod Liver Oil

4. TwinLab Emulsified Norwegian Cod Liver Oil

5. Now Foods Shark Liver Oil

6. Now Foods Double Strength Cod Liver Oil

7. Now Foods Salmon Oil

8. Solgar 100% Pure Norwegian Shark Liver Oil Complex

9. Solgar Norwegian Cod Liver Oil

10. GNC Liquid Norwegian Cod Liver Oil

Source: fishoilsafety.com

More information is available at www.fishoilsafety.com.

Soft drinks are hard on your health

Soft drinks contain little to no vitamins or other essential nutrients. However, it is what they do contain that is the problem: caffeine, carbonation, simple sugars — or worse, sugar substitutes — and often food additives such as artificial coloring, flavoring, and preservatives.

A lot of research has found that consumption of soft drinks in high quantity, especially by children, is responsible for many health problems that include tooth decay, nutritional depletion, obesity, type-2 diabetes, and heart disease.

Why the sugar in soft drinks isn’t so sweet

Most soft drinks contain a high amount of simple sugars. The USDA recommendation of sugar consumption for a 2,000-calorie diet is a daily allotment of 10 teaspoons of added sugars. Many soft drinks contain more than this amount!

Just why is too much sugar so unhealthy? Well, to start, let’s talk about what happens to you as sugar enters your body. When you drink sodas that are packed with simple sugars, the pancreas is called upon to produce and release insulin, a hormone that empties the sugar in your blood stream into all the tissues and cells for usage. The result of overindulging in simple sugar is raised insulin levels. Raised blood insulin levels beyond the norm can lead to depression of the immune system, which in turn weakens your ability to fight disease.

Something else to consider is that most of the excess sugar ends up being stored as fat in your body, which results in weight gain and elevates risk for heart disease and cancer. One study found that when subjects were given refined sugar, their white blood cell count decreased significantly for several hours afterwards. Another study discovered that rats fed a high-sugar diet had a substantially elevated rate of breast cancer when compared to rats on a regular diet.

The health effects of diet soda

You may come to the conclusion that diet or sugar-free soda is a better choice. However, one study discovered that drinking one or more soft drinks a day — and it didn’t matter whether it was diet or regular — led to a 30% greater chance of weight gain around the belly.

Diet soda is filled with artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, sucralose, or saccharin. These artificial sweeteners pose a threat to your health. Saccharin, for instance, has been found to be carcinogenic, and studies have found that it produced bladder cancer in rats.

Aspartame, commonly known as nutrasweet, is a chemical that stimulates the brain to think the food is sweet. It breaks down into acpartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol at a temperature of 86 degrees. (Remember, your stomach is somewhere around 98 degrees.) An article put out by the University of Texas found that aspartame has been linked to obesity. The process of stimulating the brain causes more cravings for sweets and leads to carbohydrate loading.

Carbonation depletes calcium

Beverages with bubbles contain phosphoric acid, which can severely deplete the blood calcium levels; calcium is a key component of the bone matrix. With less concentration of calcium over a long time, it can lower deposition rates so that bone mass and density suffer. This means that drinking sodas and carbonated water increases your risk of osteoporosis.

Add in the caffeine usually present in soft drinks, and you are in for even more trouble. Caffeine can deplete the body’s calcium, in addition to stimulating your central nervous system and contributing to stress, a racing mind, and insomnia.

Skip the soda and go for:

• Fresh water

Water is a vital beverage for good health. Each and every cell needs water to perform its essential functions. Since studies show that tap water is filled with contaminants, antibiotics, and a number of other unhealthy substances, consider investing in a quality carbon-based filter for your tap water. To find out more about a high-performance filtration system, click here.

On the go? Try using a stainless steel thermos or glass bottle, filled with filtered water. Enhance the flavor of your water with a refreshing infusion of basil, mint leaves, and a drop of honey.

• Fruit Juice

If you are a juice drinker, try watering down your juice to cut back on the sugar content. Buy a jar of organic 100% juice, especially cranberry, acai, pomegranate, and then dilute three parts filtered water to one part juice. You will get a subtle sweet taste and the benefit of antioxidants. After a couple of weeks, you will no longer miss the sweetness of sugary concentrated juices.

• Tea

Tea gently lifts your energy and has numerous health benefits. Black, green, white, and oolong teas all contain antioxidant polyphenols. In fact, tea ranks as high or higher than many fruits and vegetables on the ORAC scale, the score that measures antioxidant potential of plant-based foods.

Herbal tea does not have the same antioxidant properties, though it is still a great beverage choice with other health benefits, such as inducing calming and relaxing effects.

If tea doesn’t satisfy your sweet tooth, try adding cinnamon or a little honey, which has important health benefits that refined sugar lacks. For a selection of healthy teas that promote total body wellness, click here. Drink up!

I hope you find the ways and means to avoid soft drinks. I invite you to visit often and share your own personal health and longevity tips with me.

May you live long, live strong, and live happy!

–Dr. Mao

Source: Yahoo Health

This story released by the Associated Press on Friday Sept. 25, 2009

Can you trust the Government to provide you with clean, safe, drinking water?

CUTLER, Calif. – Over the last decade, the drinking water at thousands of schools across the country has been found to contain unsafe levels of lead, pesticides and dozens of other toxins.

An Associated Press investigation found that contaminants have surfaced at public and private schools in all 50 states — in small towns and inner cities alike.

But the problem has gone largely unmonitored by the federal government, even as the number of water safety violations has multiplied.

“It’s an outrage,” said Marc Edwards, an engineer at Virginia Tech who has been honored for his work on water quality. “If a landlord doesn’t tell a tenant about lead paint in an apartment, he can go to jail. But we have no system to make people follow the rules to keep school children safe?”

The contamination is most apparent at schools with wells, which represent 8 to 11 percent of the nation’s schools. Roughly one of every five schools with its own water supply violated the Safe Drinking Water Act in the past decade, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency analyzed by the AP.

In California’s farm belt, wells at some schools are so tainted with pesticides that students have taken to stuffing their backpacks with bottled water for fear of getting sick from the drinking fountain.

Experts and children’s advocates complain that responsibility for drinking water is spread among too many local, state and federal agencies, and that risks are going unreported. Finding a solution, they say, would require a costly new national strategy for monitoring water in schools.

Schools with unsafe water represent only a small percentage of the nation’s 132,500 schools. And the EPA says the number of violations spiked over the last decade largely because the government has gradually adopted stricter standards for contaminants such as arsenic and some disinfectants.

Many of the same toxins could also be found in water at homes, offices and businesses. But the contaminants are especially dangerous to children, who drink more water per pound than adults and are more vulnerable to the effects of many hazardous substances.

“There’s a different risk for kids,” said Cynthia Dougherty, head of the EPA’s Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water.

Still, the EPA does not have the authority to require testing for all schools and can only provide guidance on environmental practices.

In recent years, students at a Minnesota elementary school fell ill after drinking tainted water. A young girl in Seattle got sick, too.

The AP analyzed a database showing federal drinking water violations from 1998 to 2008 in schools with their own water supplies. The findings:

• Water in about 100 school districts and 2,250 schools breached federal safety standards.

• Those schools and districts racked up more than 5,550 separate violations. In 2008, the EPA recorded 577 violations, up from 59 in 1998 — an increase that officials attribute mainly to tougher rules.

• California, which has the most schools of any state, also recorded the most violations with 612, followed by Ohio (451), Maine (417), Connecticut (318) and Indiana (289).

• Nearly half the violators in California were repeat offenders. One elementary school in Tulare County, in the farm country of the Central Valley, broke safe-water laws 20 times.

• The most frequently cited contaminant was coliform bacteria, followed by lead and copper, arsenic and nitrates.

The AP analysis has “clearly identified the tip of an iceberg,” said Gina Solomon, a San Francisco physician who serves on an EPA drinking water advisory board. “This tells me there is a widespread problem that needs to be fixed because there are ongoing water quality problems in small and large utilities, as well.”

Schools with wells are required to test their water and report any problems to the state, which is supposed to send all violations to the federal government.

But EPA officials acknowledge the agency’s database of violations is plagued with errors and omissions. And the agency does not specifically monitor incoming state data on school water quality.

Critics say those practices prevent the government from reliably identifying the worst offenders — and carrying out enforcement.

Scientists say the testing requirements fail to detect dangerous toxins such as lead, which can wreak havoc on major organs and may retard children’s learning abilities.

“There is just no excuse for this. Period,” said California Sen. Barbara Boxer, Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. “We want to make sure that we fix this problem in a way that it will never happen again, and we can ensure parents that their children will be safe.”

The problem goes beyond schools that use wells. Schools that draw water from public utilities showed contamination, too, especially older buildings where lead can concentrate at higher levels than in most homes.

In schools with lead-soldered pipes, the metal sometimes flakes off into drinking water. Lead levels can also build up as water sits stagnant over weekends and holidays.

Schools that get water from local utilities are not required to test for toxins because the EPA already regulates water providers. That means there is no way to ensure detection of contaminants caused by schools’ own plumbing.

But voluntary tests in Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Seattle and Los Angeles have found dangerous levels of lead in recent years. And experts warn the real risk to schoolchildren is going unreported.

“I really suspect the level of exposure to lead and other metals at schools is underestimated,” said Michael Schock, a corrosion expert with the EPA in Cincinnati. “You just don’t know what is going on in the places you don’t sample.”

Since 2004, the agency has been asking states to increase lead monitoring. As of 2006, a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found nearly half of all schools nationwide do not test their water for lead.

Because contaminant levels in water can vary from drinking fountain to drinking fountain, and different children drink different amounts of water, epidemiologists often have trouble measuring the potential threats to children’s health.

But children have suffered health problems attributed to school water:

• In 2001, 28 children at a Worthington, Minn., elementary school experienced severe stomach aches and nausea after drinking water tainted with lead and copper, the result of a poorly installed treatment system.

• In Seattle several years ago, a 6-year-old girl suffered stomach aches and became disoriented and easily exhausted. The girl’s mother asked her daughter’s school to test its water, and also tested a strand of her daughter’s hair. Tests showed high levels of copper and lead, which figured into state health officials’ decision to phase-in rules requiring schools to test their water for both contaminants.

Many school officials say buying bottled water is less expensive than fixing old pipes. Baltimore, for instance, has spent more than $2.5 million on bottled water over the last six years.

After wrestling with unsafe levels of arsenic for almost two years, administrators in Sterling, Ohio, southeast of Cincinnati, finally bought water coolers for elementary school students last fall. Now they plan to move students to a new building.

In California, the Department of Public Health has given out more than $4 million in recent years to help districts overhaul their water systems.

But school administrators in the farmworker town of Cutler cannot fix chronic water problems at Lovell High School because funding is frozen due to the state’s budget crisis.

Signs posted above the kitchen sink warn students not to drink from the tap because the water is tainted with nitrates, a potential carcinogen, and DBCP, a pesticide scientists say may cause male sterility.

As gym class ended one morning, thirsty basketball players crowded around a five-gallon cooler, the only safe place to get a drink on campus.

“The teachers always remind us to go to the classroom and get a cup of water from the cooler,” said sophomore Israel Aguila. “But the bathroom sinks still work, so sometimes you kind of forget you can’t drink out of them.”

Say it isn’t so! A recent study out of the University of Carolina at Chapel Hill cites what animal studies have hinted at for years: MSG (aka monosodium glutamate) could be a factor in weight gain.

The study focused on 750 Chinese men and women, ages 40-59, living in 3 rural villages in north and south China. Most of the study subjects prepared their meals at home without commercially processed foods and roughly 82 percent used MSG. Those participants who used the highest amounts of MSG had nearly 3 times the incidence of overweight as those who did not use MSG, even when physical activity, total caloric intake, and other possible explanations for body mass differences were accounted for. The positive correlation between MSG and higher weight confirmed what animal studies have been suggesting for years.

Maybe you’re wondering what monosodium glutamate is exactly, and what you can do to avoid it in your diet. MSG is a flavor enhancer in foods—some believe it may even provide a fifth basic taste sensation (in addition to sweet, sour, salt, and bitter), what the Japanese call “umami” (roughly translated as “tastiness”). MSG is considered an “excitotoxin,” since its action in the body is to excite neurotransmitters (important brain chemicals), causing nerve cells to discharge and also exciting nerves related to taste. Perhaps this ability to excite these nerves is a factor in an association between increased MSG usage and weight gain.

How prevalent is MSG in the U.S. diet? Americans consumed about 1 million pounds of MSG in 1950, and today that number has increased by a factor of 300!

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) describes MSG as “naturally occurring,” and has it on the GRAS (“generally regarded as safe”) list. However, not only could MSG be causing us to gain weight, but some studies also reveal that as many as 25 to 30 percent of Americans have adverse reactions to it (e.g., palpitations and migraine headaches), and as many as 30 percent are extra sensitive to it if they consume more than 5 grams at one sitting.

OK, if you’re an MSG user who could stand to lose a little weight (or know someone who is), what should you do?

Unfortunately, eliminating MSG from the diet is much easier said than done, since—given the fact that food processors often change recipes—there’s no list of “safe” foods that never contain MSG. A good start is to avoid anything with MSG anywhere in the ingredient list, but there will still be many foods that have MSG hidden inside other ingredients. Likewise, even products labeled “no MSG added” can still contain these hidden sources.

Best bets for avoiding MSG

• Buy organic produce whenever possible.
• Make things from scratch, avoiding processed ingredients as much as possible.
• Limit making stews or soups in a crock pot, since slow-cooking tends to cause small amounts of glutamic acid to be released from the protein sources (e.g., meat, chicken) in the recipe.

What are your thoughts on MSG? I’d love to hear from you!

Editors Note: To say MSG occurs naturally is missing the point.  It is NOT natural to eat MSG in the quantity that Corporate America is cramming into the food supply.  Nicotine occurs naturally in potatoes, tomatoes, etc.  But you wouldn’t add it to food stuffs.

And there has been a real negative attack on Organic Produce lately. Media all over the world keeps saying it’s not more healthy.  Again missing the point entirely.  While an organic apple may have the same nutrition as a conventionally (Meaning grown with pesticide) apple the Organic apple is free of pesticide.  So the real issue is the pesticide NOT the nutrition.

It’s always about money.  Propaganda and Bullshit coming from the Media being spoon fed by Governments and Corporate interests.

MSG is toxic to the body in any form but naturally occurring.  Avoid it.

In people with hypokalemia, a drop in blood potassium levels results in problems with vital muscle functions. Symptoms can range from mild weakness to serious paralysis, say Greek researchers who conducted a review of people who drank between two to nine liters of cola a day.

Two of the patients were pregnant women who were admitted to hospital with low potassium levels. One was a 21-year-old woman who drank up to three liters of cola a day and complained of fatigue, appetite loss and persistent vomiting. An electrocardiogram revealed she had a heart blockage, and blood tests showed she had low potassium levels, the researchers explained in a news release.

The second pregnant patient, who’d consumed up to seven liters of cola a day for 10 months, had low potassium levels and was suffering from increasing muscular weakness, the researchers noted.

Both patients made a rapid and full recovery after they stopped drinking cola and took oral or intravenous potassium. The case studies are described in the June issue of the International Journal of Clinical Practice.

“We are consuming more soft drinks than ever before, and a number of health issues have already been identified including tooth problems, bone demineralization and the development of metabolic syndrome and diabetes,” and there’s increasing evidence that excessive cola consumption leads to hypokalemia, Dr. Moses Elisaf, of the University of Ioannina, said in the news release.

Elisaf said the three most common ingredients in cola — glucose, fructose and caffeine — can contribute to hypokalemia.

“The individual role of each of these ingredients in the pathophysiology of cola-induced hypokalemia has not been determined and may vary in different patients,” Elisaf said. “However, in most of the cases we looked at for our review, caffeine intoxication was thought to play the most important role. This has been borne out by case studies that focus on other products that contain high levels of caffeine but no glucose or fructose.”

However, “caffeine-free cola products can also cause hypokalemia because the fructose they contain can cause diarrhea,” Elisaf said.

Source: Yahoo Health News

Nutritious Foods

By Stephanie Breakstone, Prevention

More and more research suggests that what we eat is linked to how long we live. “The Biggest Loser” nutritionist Cheryl Forberg, R.D., sets eating guidelines to help contestants get healthy. “What works best for weight loss helps slow the aging process as well,” says Forberg, an expert in anti-aging nutrition.

1. Have a daily dose of omega-3s. “I like to call them the anti-aging fat,” say Forberg. Getting the recommended amount can help lower cholesterol, keep cells functioning properly, and combat inflammation, which reduces your risk of cancer, stroke, and heart attack. Flaxseed, walnuts, and some leafy greens contain omega-3s, but seafood is the best source. Research published in the December 2008 Journal of Nutrition found that DHA, an omega-3 found in cold-water, fatty fish, helps keep aging brains healthy.

Have two 3-ounce servings of salmon, herring, lake trout, or other fatty fish a week; and a daily serving of ground flaxseed, walnuts, soybean oil, spinach, or kale.

2. Eat antioxidants every four hours. These nutrients slow the aging process by protecting our cells from harmful free radicals. But some, such as vitamin C, are water soluble. “That means they only remain in our body for four to six hours, so you have to replenish regularly,” explains Forberg. Vibrantly colored fruits and vegetables are loaded with these disease-fighting substances.

Have a fruit or veggie at every meal and snack—and aim for three to five different colors a day.

3. Double your fiber. It may help protect against cancer and can keep blood sugar levels steady and promote heart health. In fact, according to research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, every additional 10 g of dietary fiber consumed daily reduces the risk of death from coronary heart disease by 17 percent. The daily recommendation is 25 to 35 g per day; most Americans eat half or less.

Boost your intake with star sources: cooked lentils (8 g per ½ cup), cooked chickpeas (6 g per ½ cup), barley (16 g per ½ cup), apples (4 g in one medium), and raspberries (8 g per cup).

4. Stop when you’re 80 percent full. Centenarians in Okinawa, Japan, practice this eating ritual; they also consistently consume a lower-calorie diet, which researchers hypothesize is a key component to longevity. Eating slowly can automatically help control calories: A recent study found that women who ate at slower rates felt fuller and ate fewer calories than those who ate more quickly.

The key is to stop when you’re satisfied, not stuffed, says Forberg. A reminder: “You shouldn’t have to unbutton or unzip anything.”

5. Get about 25 percent of calories from healthy fats. The good-for-you variety—like monounsaturated fatty acids—can lower bad LDL cholesterol, raise cardio-protective HDL cholesterol, and decrease your risk of atherosclerosis. Plus, studies suggest that a higher intake of these fats may also contribute to longer life expectancy. For a 1,600-calorie diet, that’s about 44 g per day.

Healthy fats include 1/4 cup of pistachios (7 g), 1/4 cup of almonds (11 g), 1 tablespoon of olive oil (10 g) or 1/4 cup of avocado (3.5 g).

6. Pack protein into every meal and snack. Protein provides essential building blocks for the daily repair of nearly every single cell in your body. Getting enough is critical to your health and vitality, especially as you get older, when cellular damage can become more frequent. Aim to get 30 percent of your daily calories (or 120 g based on a 1,600-calorie diet) from lean protein.

Good sources of protein include skinless white meat from chicken, pork, or turkey (about 21 g per 3 ounces), fat-free milk (8 g per cup), egg whites (7 g for two), and beans (about 8 g per 1/2 cup).

Material adapted from The Biggest Loser 30-Day Jump Start by Cheryl Forberg, R.D.; Melissa Roberson; Lisa Wheeler; and The Biggest Loser Experts and Cast (Rodale; available Feb. 17 wherever books are sold). Copyright 2009 by Universal Studios Licensing LLLP, The Biggest Loser and NBC Studios, Inc., and Reveille LLC. Permission granted by Rodale, Inc., Emmaus, Penn. 18098.

Provided by Prevention