Dietary Enigmas
asking questions about our diet
-
Archive for June, 2008
Are anti-oxidants REALLY harmful to you??
Headlines in today’s papers such as ‘Vitamin Pills “Increase Risk of Early Death”‘ claim that anti-oxidants are not good for you and could even do you harm. But, don’t believe everything you read!What’s this review about?This is the fourth time Bjekalovic and his group have reviewed the effects on selected studies on antioxidants. Anyone following the science of antioxidants over the past 20 years will be aware of a vast number of studies reporting positive results. So, how do you end up with a headline that implies antioxidants increase mortality?In this review, which is a rehash of their paper published last year in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), they first excluded over 400 trials, that had no deaths. They then decided which trials they liked (low risk bias) and did not like (high risk bias), a factor that has received criticism in mainstream medical journals.What the experts sayOne of the world’s leading experts in this field, Dr Balz Frei said “This is a flawed analysis of flawed data, and it does little to help us understand the real health effects of antioxidants, whether beneficial or otherwise,” (1)Dr Bernadine Healey, former director of the National Institute of Health said, “Blenderizing these diverse trials into one giant 232,606-patient-strong study to come up with a seductively simple proclamation is just silly. When the researchers tallied up the mortality from the 68 trials, there was no difference based on vitamin intake. The headlines that these supplements significantly increase the risk of death by 5 percent overall came only when the researchers pulled out the 47 trials they deemed to have been the best executed. Actually, in the 21 randomized trials they peeled off, mortality was decreased by 9 percent among those taking the vitamins.” (2)How did they come up with the reported results?Not surprisingly, the selection process in today’s review excluded many of the most positive studies. For example, quoting the review itself, ‘In secondary prevention trials (meaning people with disease) with high-bias risk, mortality was significantly reduced by supplements.’ In those they called ‘low-bias risk’ there was no significant change in mortality.To report an even more negative result, which is what newspapers often home in on, they also excluded all trials on selenium, which actually reduced mortality the most of all the antioxidants considered.Beta-caroteneAs an example, let’s look at beta-carotene, which is given the worst rating. The review states ‘Beta-carotene used singly or in combination with other antioxidants had no significant effect on mortality when including all 24 trials’ BUT ‘After exclusion of high-bias risk and selenium trials, however, beta-carotene singly or combined significantly increased mortality in 12 trials.’Antioxidants and cancerEven if we were to accept the exclusion of the so-called high-bias risk trials let’s look more closely at the apparently negative studies. A graph of all these trials shows five that skew the results towards a negative (p.167). I thought I’d look closer at these trials. The first was by Dr Correa from the pathology department at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Centre, and showed a clear protective effective of antioxidant supplements against gastrointestinal cancer. (3)I decided to contact Dr Correa and he was “amazed”, he said, because his research, “far from being negative, had shown clear benefit from taking vitamins”. Correa told us there was no way the study could show anything about mortality. “Our study was designed for evaluation of the progress of pre-cancerous lesions”, he said. “It did not intend, and did not have the power, to study mortality and has no value to examine mortality of cancer.”Vitamin E and statinsThe next, called the DATOR trial, gave people with high cholesterol, high dose vitamin E (750iu) and statins. (4) As nutritionists we caution against this because statins stop you making CoQ10 which results in vitamin E becoming a potentially harmful oxidant. That’s exactly what this trial reported, “These results indicate that the antioxidant effect of Vitamin E is attenuated (reduced) when given in conjunction with this statin.” So these negative effects of vitamin E might actually be because it’s taken with a drug that makes it harmful! Given that the majority of the trials included in this review were on sick people, presumably taking medication, this kind of confounding variable really should be taken into account. It is not.Selenium’s protective effectsThe next trial, published on the Mayo Clinic’s journal, that skewed the results to a negative reported a positive outcome. (5) It investigated the effect of selenium of oesophageal cancer. It found that ‘among subjects with mild esophageal squamous dysplasia (early stage) at baseline, selenomethionine did have a protective effect.’ For those with more advanced cancer it did not.In January this year the authors published a paper ‘Efficacy of antioxidant supplementation in reducing primary cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.’(6) Their conclusion was that ‘beta carotene supplementation appeared to increase cancer incidence and cancer mortality among smokers, whereas vitamin E supplementation had no effect. Selenium supplementation might have anticarcinogenic effects in men and thus requires further research.’So, what does all this mean?Well, if you look at all the studies reviewed, strictly for reducing mortality, not for other benefits, Bjekalovic concludes ‘Beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin C, used singly or in combination with other antioxidants had no significant effect’ although a number of vitamin C studies did report reduced mortality. ‘Selenium used singly or in combination with other antioxidants significantly decreased mortality.’ (7). Beta-carotene, as we know, is best not taken singly by smokers. Vitamin E in high dose, as we know, should not be taken by those on statins without additional CoQ10. Selenium and vitamin C are most likely to be beneficial.So, should we throw away our antioxidants?Certainly not. Personally, I haven’t recommended isolated antioxidant supplementation for 20 years and doubt they would produce much effect in sick people with advanced disease states, except for vitamin C at high doses - a subject not examined in this review. Antioxidants are team players. I take a combination of vitamin E, CoQ10, vitamin C, glutathione, anthocyanidins, resveratrol, beta-carotene, alpha lipoic acid and selenium. There’s good reason to do so if you look at what’s known about their effects in reducing markers of ageing. But these are as well as eating loads of fruit and veg, nuts and seeds.Wishing you the best of health, and don’t forget - if you want to stay ahead of the pack on health and nutrition news then join my 100%health Club.Vitamins Do Work - Vitamins Don’t Work - Confused
There has been so much published by official studies and scientific experts over the past few years about why vitamins and minerals doon’t work and why they do that this article is in danger of being lost. Simply put food with vitamins and mineral already in them (as nature intended) do produce significant health benefits. Synthetic ones done - they are just chemicals.
alternative and complementary medicine arthritis breast cancer breast feeding chemicals complementary medicine diabetes diabetics food scientists health benefits important news inflammation joint pain journal of alternative and complementary medicine vitamins and minerals alternative and complementary medicine arthritis breast cancer breast feeding chemicals complementary medicine diabetes diabetics food scientists health benefits important news inflammation joint pain journal of alternative and complementary medicine vitamins and mineralsSuperfoods
I’ve just begun creating a super food web page and its coming on really well (at least i think so) its at http://www.squidoo.com/how_to_choose_superfoods If you’d like a copy of my superfood checklist please e mail me at Click here
Please go to the site and let me know what i’ve missed or how we can improve things
Have a great day
food food scientists nutrient dense food super foods superfoods food food scientists nutrient dense food super foods superfoodsTrehalose
We have spent a lot of time researching the use of trehalose instead of sugar and
also for its beneficial health effects.The sites are at:www.squidoo.com/trehalose www.squidoo.com/healthysugars
We are not sugesting that trehalose or other plant sugars can effect miracles but they can help the body do what it needs and when given those elements the body can do remarkable things.
health effects squidoo Trehalose health effects squidoo TrehaloseNitrate Rich Vegetables - very good
According to an Uppsala University press release, a Swedish researcher from the university’s Department of Medical Cell Biology, Joel Petersson, believes that vegetables that are rich in nitrates can protect the stomach from damage. He feels that nitrate-rich vegetables such as spinach, lettuce, radishes and beetroot have a beneficial effect on the stomach by setting its mucous membranes’ own protective enzymes into motion, thereby reducing the risk of gastric ulcers. Nitrates are first transformed into nitrites in the oral cavity and then are converted into biologically active nitric oxide in the stomach.
“Nitrates in food have long been erroneously linked to an increased risk of cancer,” states Petersson. Note that the press release does not advise people to eat processed meats that have been cured with nitrates like bacon and ham. He believes that his research demonstrates the importance of fruits and vegetables, which contain naturally-occurring nitrates, in the diet. “If we followed the National Swedish Food Administration’s recommendation and ate 500 g of fruit and vegetables per person per day,” says Petersson, “it would definitely be better for our stomachs.”Petersson also believes that eating nitrate-rich vegetables will reduce one’s risk of gastric ulcers. According to statistics published at MedicalNewsToday.com, about one in three adults is infected with H. pylori, and one in ten adults will develop a peptic ulcer. Eighty to ninety percent of ulcers are caused by an H. pylori infection. MedicalNewsToday.com also reports that H. pylori is contagious and is a class one carcinogen. (Even if an H. pylori-infected patient is treated with antibiotics, the patient could become re-infected if exposed to the bacterium through H. pylori-infected saliva.)
Petersson’s research, which used animal models, also suggests that eating nitrate-rich foods may protect against the minor damage that often occurs in the gastrointestinal tract as a result of the use of anti-inflammatory drugs. “These sorts of drugs are very common in the event of pain and inflammation. They have the major disadvantage of causing a large number of serious side effects in the form of bleeding and ulcers in the gastrointestinal tract,” says Petersson. “With the aid of a nitrate-rich diet you can thus avoid such damage.”
Another conclusion from Petersson’s study is that antibacterial mouthwashes can kill the important bacteria that normally convert nitrates into nitrites. He performed a study with rats, where one group was given nitrate-rich feed, and the other group was given nitrate-rich feed with an oral antibacterial spray. Anti-inflammatory drugs were administered to both groups of the rats, but only the group which received the oral spray experienced damage to their mucous membranes.
There are several important messages from this research. First of all, eating nitrate-rich vegetables may help to protect the stomach and prevent gastric ulcers, as well as mitigate the damage from the ingestion of anti-inflammatory drugs. Secondly, the use of antibacterial mouthwashes is harmful to the stomach. Since the health of one’s digestive system is very important to overall health and digestive diseases account for more hospitalizations of Americans than any other type of illness according to an article posted at Northwestern Health Sciences University, it may be wise to heed Petersson’s advice.
In my article about the importance of Nitric Oxide i mentioned the value of L-Arginnine - an amino acid that is the direct precursor of Nitric Oxide - it is important in blood disorders like Sickle Cell, Thalessemia etc and also blood pressure problems
animal models anti inflammatory drugs fruits and vegetables fruit and vegetables gastric ulcers gastrointestinal tract h pylori infection importance of fruits importance of fruits and vegetables L arginne medical cell biology nitrates in food nitric oxide oral cavity peptic ulcer swedish food vegetables animal models anti inflammatory drugs fruits and vegetables fruit and vegetables gastric ulcers gastrointestinal tract h pylori infection importance of fruits importance of fruits and vegetables L arginne medical cell biology nitrates in food nitric oxide oral cavity peptic ulcer swedish food vegetablesAspartame - It isn’t safe
You’ve probably heard the adage “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” as many times as I have over the years. In fact, there have been plenty of days where I’ve used it as my personal mantra. But all morale-boosting aside, there are some instances where it isn’t true. Take aspartame, for example.
For years, the food industry and mainstream health “experts” have clung to the idea that this artificial sweetener is safe for human consumption because, they claim, there is no concrete proof that it’s toxic. Of course, you and I both know that simply isn’t true. But even if it was, the argument doesn’t hold much water: Just because something may not be poisonous doesn’t make it safe – after all, I buy non-toxic carpet cleaner, but I don’t think it would be a good idea to put it on ice and drink it with a twist of lemon.
But it looks like some new research has shot even more holes in the mainstream’s already-flimsy case for aspartame.
A recent review published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that while aspartame may not kill you, it certainly won’t make you stronger. In fact, it may have a significant weakening impact on your brain, setting you up for problems ranging from mental and emotional disturbances to learning disabilities.
According to this recent analysis, despite what earlier studies and reviews have claimed, aspartame does appear to cause both direct and indirect changes in brain chemistry. The researchers found that, among other negative effects, aspartame can disturb the brain’s ability to metabolize amino acids and proteins, damage the integrity of nucleic acids, and interfere with the functioning of neurons.Based on all of the data they examined, the research team concluded that “excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders, and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning.”
Sacrificing your mental and emotional function to save calories is hardly a worthwhile trade-off. Save yourself the risk — and the calories — by sticking to natural sweeteners like trehalose, which are both available in natural food stores.
alternative and complementary medicine amino acids and proteins artificial sweeteners artificial sweetener artificial sweeteners artificial sweetener saccharin aspartame body weight gain brain chemistry breast cancer cancer control diabetes diabetes diabetics diet emotional disturbances food industry health experts human consumption ingestion learning disabilities mainstream health mental disorders nucleic acids pathogenesis sugar Trehalose alternative and complementary medicine amino acids and proteins artificial sweeteners artificial sweetener artificial sweeteners artificial sweetener saccharin aspartame body weight gain brain chemistry breast cancer cancer control diabetes diabetes diabetics diet emotional disturbances food industry health experts human consumption ingestion learning disabilities mainstream health mental disorders nucleic acids pathogenesis sugar Trehalose
Sucrose and Fructose Found to Promote Pancreatic Cancer
I saw this article and couldn’t help but think that it confirms we are on the right track with low GI and avoide refined sugars
paul
by David Gutierrez
(NaturalNews) High intake of the sugars fructose and sucrose may increase the risk of developing pancreatic cancer, according to a new study conducted by researchers from the University of Hawaii and the University of Southern California.Researchers analyzed dietary data on 162,150 people who had participated in the Hawaii-Los Angeles Multiethnic Cohort Study, looking for evidence that a diet with a high glycemic load increases the risk of pancreatic cancer. Participants filled out a food frequency questionnaire at the beginning of the study and were followed for eight years. In that time, 434 participants developed cancer of the pancreas.
While the researchers did not find a connection between glycemic index and cancer, they found a more unexpected connection: the fifth of the population that ate the most fructose had a significantly higher pancreatic cancer risk than the fifth that consumed the least. Meanwhile, among obese and overweight patients, high sucrose intake was correlated with a higher risk of pancreatic cancer. Among patients of healthy weight, sucrose intake was not associated with cancer risk.
Participants who drank more fruit juice also had a higher risk of pancreatic cancer risk, but not participants who drank more soda.
No connection was seen between pancreatic cancer risk and intake of total carbohydrates, total sugars or added sugars.
Prior research has shown that people with high blood sugar are at an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer.
“High fructose and sucrose intakes may play a role in pancreatic cancer etiology,” the researchers said. “Conditions such as overweight or obesity, in which a degree of insulin resistance may be present, may also be important.”
Fructose is a sugar that naturally occurs in fruits, while sucrose is usually extracted from sugar cane or sugar beets. While sucrose has a high glycemic index, leading to a quick rise and drop in blood sugar levels, fructose has a lower glycemic index, causing a slower, more sustained increase.
Little or No Evidence Supports Conventional Medical Treatments
I saw this article and couldn’t help echoing its sentiments.
by Barbara L. Minton (see all articles by this author)
(NaturalNews) Do you ever get the feeling that your doctor doesn’t know what he’s doing? Well, you are probably right. There is little or no evidence that today’s $2 trillion-dollar medical system works any better than various other alternatives. Whether you have diabetes, heart trouble, back pain or cancer, this judgment applies. If you are contemplating surgery, you should know that the orthodox disease establishment doctors have little clue about the success rates for the procedures they endorse.
Dr. David Eddy, a consultant for healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente and leader in the development of clinical evidenced based guidelines admits that the medical profession does not know what its doing, according to an article published by Alan Stang. Even today, with a high-tech health-care system that costs the nation so much money, there is little or no evidence that many widely used treatments and procedures actually work.
Eighty-five percent of what doctors do is not backed by hard evidence, which presumably means that only fifteen percent is. “Doctors dangerously over treat patients, because they get paid to treat; they don’t get paid not to treat,” claims Stang.
A hundred and fifty years ago, Ignaz Semmelweis claimed that his fellow physicians were killing women delivering babies in Vienna’s hospitals. Women were so terrified of hospitals that they considered a hospital stay the same as a death sentence. Their families had to bring them there by force because the women would try to escape. Semmelweis suspected that the reason for the deaths was that doctors were going from surgery to surgery without washing their hands. When he demanded that they scrub and sterilize their hands, the death rate dropped dramatically.
Although you would suspect that modern practitioners certainly wash their hands between patients, especially between surgeries, you would be wrong. Eighty percent of hospital infections happen today because doctors don’t wash their hands, resulting in deaths of thousands of people and costs of over a billion dollars a year. For instance, more than one-quarter of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s doctors don’t wash, because proper washing takes time and costs them money they would otherwise be making, according to an article in Business Week that interviewed some of the nation’s leading doctors.
According to these doctors, some of their colleagues are killing and robbing thousands of Americans a year. And these unindicted felons are the same critics calling for the power of the government to raid health food stores and throw so-called “alternative” practitioners into jail. These are also the same moral miscreants who use government propaganda to warn disease victims to reject any other treatment and therapy except theirs. They are the ones in collusion with the pharmaceutical companies who are trying to ban nutritional supplements with Codex Alimentarius. They point with their unwashed hands at anyone who dares to contradict them.
Stang recalls the story of Abraham Cherrix who had Hodgkin’s disease. The doctors told him to take chemotherapy so he did. It failed and the cancer returned. The chemo had left Abraham so weak that he couldn’t walk. He didn’t want to do it again, wanting instead to try “alternative” treatments to restore his immune system. Doctors used the courts to force him to again take the same chemotherapy that had failed him and left him so weak.
Abraham’s dad asked the social worker, “What will you do with my little boy? Will you take him somewhere and strap him down and put duct tape on his mouth and pump him full of this stuff if he doesn’t want it?” The social worker replied, “No, I will come to your house with a uniformed officer, and I will take your son by force if he resists. And I will take him to somebody else who will do that.” As the result of the huge public outrage over this case, Abraham finally won and was returned to his parent’s custody.
How could this have happened? The disease establishment is willing to do anything to protect and maintain its multi-billion dollar control of the people. Establishment medicine as practiced in the U.S. is monopoly medicine. Any threat to that monopoly is taken seriously. The four big players in monopoly medicine are the government, the AMA (American Medical Association), the drug companies, and the medical schools.
No matter how beneficial prevention modalities and alternative treatment modalities are to the people, they must be concealed, controlled, and done away with. There is a kind of psychic disconnect practiced by the establishment mentalities that want to do away with the means to prevent and treat conditions that may eventually threaten their own lives.
As the drug companies and politicians try to line us up for forced vaccinations and treatments, it’s good to remember that forced medical treatment was one of the main principles of Nazism. The Holocaust did not begin with the extermination of Jewish people. It ended with them.
The Holocaust began with the doctors when Hitler was still in jail during the Weimar Republic established after World War I. The Allies had promised Germany there would not be a punitive peace. Of course they lied and ended up imposing a ruinous war debt at the Versailles Conference. When Germany could not pay, the doctors decided to do their patriotic duty by eliminating “useless eaters”. They began with handicapped children and worked their way to criminals and beyond. Since doctors were running the program, the public swallowed it as just being “humane”. Only years later was this program known as the Holocaust, which many people today wrongly believe only exterminated the Jewish.
The fact that Business Week was able to publish much of this information in their cover story suggests that the disease establishment may be losing some of its control. But like many large beasts, monopoly medicine is probably more dangerous in its death throws.
Sources:
Author not noted, “Medical Guesswork”, Business Week, May 29, 2006.
Stang, Alan, “Today’s American Medicine: The Cure,” (www.AlanStang.com)
alternative and complementary medicine cancer complementary medicine costly medications disease mortality health traditional risk factors alternative and complementary medicine cancer complementary medicine costly medications disease mortality health traditional risk factors
