Dietary Enigmas
asking questions about our diet
-
Archive of "diet" Category
Roundup Ready Sugar Beet - What is next
This article hit my desk today and being a keen gardener, but amateur, I know what the effect on my plants that roundup or Glyphosphate has on them. To think that they are now genetically modifying sugar beet to be resistant to this chemical horrifies me. I remember talking to a lady quite recently who ended up in hospital from Glyphosphate poisoning from just spraying the paths in her farm. has anyone analysed the harvested sugar been for traces of glyphosphate or its derivatives - i guess not. My prediction is that these beet will contain high levels of this dangerous chemical - but thats OK because the governments and chemical companies say it is safe. Yeah right. Anyway make up your own mind.
alzhiemers chemicals childbirth monsanto pharmaceutical companies pharmaceutical industry pharmaceutical lobby roundup ready sugar beet alzhiemers chemicals childbirth monsanto pharmaceutical companies pharmaceutical industry pharmaceutical lobby roundup ready sugar beetUnderstanding About Diabetes
The Glycemic Index
Your health is the most important part of your life. With out your health you can not take care of family or yourself. You can start by fixing your diet. Once you get your diet under control then you can move on from there with exercise and other personal health care activities. Lets look into diet and the glycemic index.
The Glycemic Index is a common food ranking system that is used to determine the overall effect that particular foods play when it comes to the issue of the glucose level in the blood. It has been discovered that food types that are carbohydrate based and break down in a quick manner in the process of digestion have the highest index when it comes to the Glycemic Index. This means that the overall response from the sugar levels in the blood is relatively fast and occurs at a very high rate. If the same type of foods breakdown at a slow rate, then it is said that those foods have a low Glycemic Index.
There should be an emphasis on the Glycemic Index when it comes to the foods that we consume and our diet in general. The following groups of people should be especially concerned about this:
1. Individuals who have diabetes, or those who are at high risk for developing this medical condition
2. Those who are engaging in a diet program
3. Individuals who are involved in athletics
4. Individuals who suffer from medical conditions like a resistance to insulin, and even Syndrome X
5. Those who suffer from the effects of hypoglycemia
If foods that are consumed have a high index as far as glycemics is concerned, there are many complications that can arise. The following outlines the many problems that may develop when it comes to the foods that break down the fastest when it comes to digestion:
1. Individuals who experience foods with a Glycemic Index that is really high often experience small bursts of hyperactivity and long periods of fatigue immediately thereafter.
2. Those who consume these foods often find that their physical performance is hindered a great deal.
3. Those who consume these types of foods are most likely to gain weight more quickly than individuals who consume foods that have a low Glycemic Index.
If you are concerned about your weight, your blood glucose level, and your health in general, it is absolutely imperative to ensure that you learn as much as you are able when it comes to the Glycemic Index.
carbohydrate diabetes diet exercise fatigue food types glucose level health care activities high risk hyperactivity insulin long periods low glycemic index medical conditions personal health care physical performance resistance sugar levels carbohydrate diabetes diet exercise fatigue food types glucose level health care activities high risk hyperactivity insulin long periods low glycemic index medical conditions personal health care physical performance resistance sugar levels
1000 Calorie Low Glycemic Index DietDiabetes And Obesity Are Responsible For A Society Epidemic Of Unparalled Importance
Diabetes and obesity go hand in hand as two of our biggest killers. Diabetes is the sixth most natural cause of death in the United States and the biggest cause of diabetes is obesity.
Although diabetes is manageable with proper glycemic control and insulin therapy, it’s estimated that about one third of diabetics have never been identified and therefore are never treated. So, the big question is how do we halt this mass epidemic and how can those disposed to diabetes and obesity reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in their future?
The solution is not complex. Reducing one’s sugar consumption, getting out and exercising on a daily basis, supplementing you food intake with good nutritional supplements, and eating healthy will multiply one’s chances of a long healthy life. It sounds easy but as we “foodies” know, it’s easier said than done. We just have to make up our minds is it more important to fill our bodies with high fat snacks or to have the quality of your life reduced to dependency?
For many years, diabetes has simply been thought of as ahereditary sickness, but now people of younger and younger ages are becoming affected. Diabetes is the primary reason adults go blind. According to the American Diabetes Association, diabetes has the possibility, for the first time in over a hundred years, shrink Americans life expectancy.
Eventually diabetes will affect us all, whether it is taking care of relatives with the illness or simply paying the higher insurance premiums and taxes. In this couch potato society in which we live, there has been a sharp rise in cases diagnosed worldwide. So, what can we do to stop this and to call attention of this problem?
In addition to the things listed above, we also need to inform people to get a regular checkup by a doctor. Some signals that you could have undiagnosed diabetes are frequent urination; wounds that will not heal; constantly thirsty; recurring skin, bladder, and gum infections; numbness in hands and feet; extreme fatigue. Even though you may not experience any of these symptoms, do not think that you’re off the hook.
A change of lifestyle will have to be made to eliminate the possibility of the disease from showing up as an uninvited guest in your future. Studies show that nearly 60% of newly diagnosed cases could have been eliminated or at least significantly postponed if the person had simply got down to a health body weight. In this day of junk food and video games, it can be hard to make the choice to eat healthy and get plenty of exercise. Everyone has their excuses but we need to give them hope that it can be done and ideas of how to start.
As a country we can curtail the epidemic of diabetes and obesity but only if we get the word out and encouraging those who are eating themselves to poor health
cause of diabetes diabetics food intake glycemic control insulin resistance insulin resistance insulin sensitivity insulin therapy numbness in hands numbness in hands and feet nutritional supplements sugar consumption symptoms of type 2 diabetes type 2 diabetes type ii diabetes cause of diabetes diabetics food intake glycemic control insulin resistance insulin resistance insulin sensitivity insulin therapy numbness in hands numbness in hands and feet nutritional supplements sugar consumption symptoms of type 2 diabetes type 2 diabetes type ii diabetesGM Food Debate - Good or Bad - You Decide
I’ve been a long term watcher of the GM debate and know the arguments for and against. This article, recently published, makes very interesting reading. My personal views are that we should not go down the GM route as the consequences are unclear - why take the risk. If GM food can cause mice to kill each other then how is it going to affect us? You take a look and decide for yourselves.
paul Barton
Why Schools Should Remove GE-Tainted Foods from Their Cafeterias
Institute for Responsible TechnologyNewsletter on GM Foods, Spilling the Beans
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria’s processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was described as out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student disruptions, and a cop on duty full-time. After the change in school meals, the students were calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more weapons violations, and no suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet and improved behavior has lasted for seven years, and now other schools are changing their meal programs with similar results.
Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet by conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed them the junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The mice freaked out. Their behavior was totally different than the three mice in the neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they were fed nutritious whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept during the day inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted very mouse-like.
The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard tube, were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought often, and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food mice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came around.
Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days. Even on the first day of junk food, the mice’s behavior “changes drastically.” They become lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the experiment again a few months later with the same mice, but this time the animals refused to eat the junk food.
Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts of the cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of the experiment.
It’s interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the Wisconsin experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients. And although the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway. That’s because GM foods such as soy and corn and their derivatives are largely found in processed foods. So when the school switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM crops were taken out automatically.
Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans or animals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of a single student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the other hand, it is equally irresponsible to say that it doesn’t.
We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. A study in Science in December 2002 concluded that “food molecules act like hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division. The molecules can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness.” The problem is we do not know which food molecules have what effect.
The bigger problem is that the composition of GM foods can change radically without our knowledge. Genetically modified foods have genes inserted into their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don’t just snap into place. Gene insertion creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In one study, for example, a gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a single foreign gene was inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA’s genes changed the amount of protein they were producing. Not only is that huge in itself, but these changes can multiply through complex interactions down the line.
In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GM foods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known nutrient levels. But even if we could identify all the changed compounds, at this point we wouldn¹t know which might be responsible for the antisocial nature of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning to identify the medicinal compounds in food. We now know, for example, that the pigment in blueberries may revive the brain¹s neural communication system, and the antioxidant found in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce heart disease. But what about other valuable compounds we don¹t know about that might change or disappear in GM varieties?
Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market, independent researchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that we don¹t know about? [Monsanto responded with its own study, which concluded that soy¹s phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. They failed to disclose, however, that the laboratory that conducted Monsanto¹s experiment had been instructed to use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens results.]
In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition that concluded in the title, “The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans.” The study only compared a small number of nutrients and a close look at their charts revealed significant differences in the fat, ash, and carbohydrate content. In addition, GM soy meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor, a well-known soy allergen. The study also used questionable methods. Nutrient comparisons are routinely conducted on plants grown in identical conditions so that variables such as weather and soil can be ruled out. Otherwise, differences in plant composition could be easily missed. In Monsanto’s study, soybeans were planted in widely varying climates and geography.
Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM and non-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paper altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in the archives of the Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the scientists left them out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin that may block the body¹s ability to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the amount of trypsin inhibitor, indicating that the allergen may survive cooking more in the GM variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was introduced.)
We don’t know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, but certainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports from all over North America describe how several types of animals, when given a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk, deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch student mentioned above first determined that his mice had a two-to-one preference for non-GM before forcing half of them to eat only the engineered variety.
Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on children. They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they convert more of the food into body-building material. Altered nutrients or added toxins can result in developmental problems. For this reason, animal nutrition studies are typically conducted on young, developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and often studied under magnification. If scientists used mature animals instead of young ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young ones.
They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12fold before feeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined them under a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding study on GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding problems.
Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we are all a part of. We’re being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the impact of these foods on our health, our behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe, have decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have banned GM foods.
The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of several reasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse (see http://www.seedsofdeception.com).
With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in Appleton, parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that diet plays. When making changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods should be a priority.
consequences diet gm GM food gm debate gm food human consumption risk consequences diet gm GM food gm debate gm food human consumption riskCholesterol Theory - Fatally Cracked
As many of you may know I have a particular interest in the Cholesterol Theory of heart disease and this article came across my desk today and i thought it so important that i just had to post it. The unerlying premise that Cholesterol and coronary heart disease are linked is clearly coming under increasing scrutiny and may well be not only disproved but blown out of the water - where does that leave the pharmaceutical companies????
September 8, 2008
Egg Study Puts Cracks in Anti-Cholesterol Claims
Results undermine the never-proven hypothesis that diets high in cholesterol and saturated fat promote cardiovascular disease
A new study from Britain further undermines a decades-old medical myth regarding the role of dietary cholesterol in cardiovascular disease.
And these findings add to fast-deepening doubts surrounding the broader, near century-old “lipid hypothesis” of heart disease, which is reflected in public health policies, including the USDA Food Guide Pyramid.
This increasingly discredited hypothesis holds that “excess” dietary saturated fat and cholesterol – and resulting rises in blood cholesterol and lipid (fat) levels – are major contributing factors to cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis) and resulting coronary heart disease.Key Points
- UK study finds that two eggs a day did not raise cholesterol levels in overweight dieters.
- Study affirms prior findings that dietary cholesterol does not cause cardiovascular disease.
- The idea that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease is increasingly discredited by the evidence.
Atherosclerosis – which is the chief defining characteristic of cardiovascular disease – is the medical term for arteries lined with inflamed, unstable, plaque.
This inflammatory condition is the leading cause of heart attacks, stroke, congestive heart failure and the arrhythmias that induce sudden cardiac death.
(For a summary of the relationships and distinctions between inflammation, cardiovascular disease, atherosclerosis, and coronary heart disease, see our accompanying article, “What is Heart Disease, Exactly?”.)
Incredibly, given the decades-old public health advice to avoid saturated fat and cholesterol – and the several billion dollars spent annually on cholesterol-lowering drugs – the evidence supporting the lipid hypothesis of heart disease is astonishingly weak.
We covered the declining credibility of the lipid hypothesis of cardiovascular disease earlier this year: see “Cholesterol Fiasco Undermines Accepted Theory”, which contains links to several eye-opening articles in The New York Times and The Boston Globe.
Eggs and heart disease: The overdue exoneration of a scapegoatHealthy people and heart patients alike have routinely been advised to strictly limit intake of eggs … or avoid egg yolks, where most of their fat and cholesterol reside (along with their valuable vitamin A and D).
Omega-3-enriched eggs:
Making a good food betterAdvice to avoid eggs is misguided, given their blamelessness with regard to heart disease, and the fact that each egg provides about 10 percent of the recommended daily intake of protein and vitamin A.
And anti-egg advice is especially wrong-headed now that most supermarkets offer eggs high in omega-3 fatty acids, which are proven to enhance heart health.
Eggs high in omega-3s were the norm before competitive pressures caused most farmers to confine their hens in cages and feed them grains such as corn, which are low in omega-3s and high in pro-inflammatory omega-6s.
Today, it’s easy to find omega-3-enriched eggs, which come either from “free-range” hens raised on pasture or, more commonly, from hens raised on grain-based feed fortified with fish meal.
This advice flowed from the lipid hypothesis of heart disease, which holds that foods high in cholesterol and saturated fat – such as egg yolks – promote cardiovascular disease, atherosclerosis, and resulting coronary heart disease.
Yet, misguided medical advice was never supported by a persuasive preponderance of evidence.
Indeed, with the exception of people diagnosed with diabetes – among whom high egg intake is associated with increased heart risks – none of the large epidemiological studies that looked for links between eggs and coronary heart disease or stroke have found any.
As early as 1982, researchers who examined data from the famous Framingham Heart Study found no association between eggs and heart disease: “It is concluded that … differences in egg consumption were unrelated to blood cholesterol level or to coronary heart disease incidence.” (Kritchevsky SB et al. 1982)
Then, researchers from Harvard School of Public health analyzed diet and health data from two of the largest, best-controlled epidemiological studies ever conducted: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-1994) and the Nurses’ Health Study (1980-1994), which together involved 37,851 male physicians and 80,082 female nurses.
The Harvard team found no evidence that eggs were risky: “These findings suggest that consumption of up to 1 egg per day is unlikely to have substantial overall impact on the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] or stroke among healthy men and women.” (Hu FB et al. 1999)(The only exception was diagnosed diabetics, among whom a higher intake of eggs was associated with greater risk of developing heart disease. This could simply reflect the facts that diabetics are more prone to developing coronary heart disease, and that diets high in fat are associated with higher risk of CHD.)
And a study in Japan yielded more evidence exonerating eggs as risk factors for developing coronary heart disease: “In conclusion, eating eggs more frequently, up to almost daily, was not associated with an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] incidence for middle-aged Japanese men and women.” (Nakamura Y et al. 2006)
Last year, researchers at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey came to similar conclusions after analyzing diet and health data from 9,734 adults aged 25 to 74. The title of their publication summarized their exculpatory findings: “Regular egg consumption does not increase the risk of stroke and cardiovascular diseases.” (Qureshi AI et al. 2007)
Die-hard defenders of the lipid hypothesis of heart disease might say that while epidemiological studies like these reveal associations, they cannot provide final proof of a hypothesis regarding diet and disease.However, the results of a British clinical trial should help end the debate over heart health and eggs.
British study exonerates eggsA research team from the University of Surrey recruited 45 overweight but otherwise healthy volunteers, and divided them into two groups (Harman NL et al. 2008).
- Group A (egg group) followed a low-calorie diet that included two eggs per day for 12 weeks.
- Group B (control group) followed the same low-calorie diet for 12 weeks, but ate no eggs.
The people in both groups lost 7- 9 lbs (3 to 4 kg) and their average levels of blood cholesterol fell.
Their blood cholesterol levels were measured at six weeks and 12 weeks, and both groups showed either unchanged or reduced cholesterol levels … particularly in their LDL (bad) cholesterol levels.
This finding came despite the egg group increasing their dietary cholesterol intake to around four times that of the control group.
As the authors concluded, “An increased intake of dietary cholesterol from two eggs a day does not increase total … or LDL cholesterol when accompanied by moderate weight loss. These findings suggest that cholesterol-rich foods should not be excluded from dietary advice to lose weight on account of an unfavorable influence on … LDL cholesterol.” (Harman NL et al. 2008)
Team leader Bruce Griffin, Ph.D., RPHNutr summarized their findings in a press release: “We have shown that when two eggs a day are eaten by people who are actively losing weight on a calorie-restricted diet, blood cholesterol can still be reduced.”
And Dr. Griffin’s companion comment focused on the heart of the matter: “There is no convincing evidence to link an increased intake of dietary cholesterol or eggs with coronary heart disease through raised blood cholesterol.”
In fact, saturated fat – whose primary dietary sources among Americans are red meats, butter, and foods made with butter – is more responsible for raising blood cholesterol than cholesterol-rich foods, such as eggs.
However, this does not mean that saturated fat is a significant villain, either.
The available evidence shows that diets high in saturated fat are not linked much more closely to risk of heart disease than are diets high in total fat, polyunsaturated fats, or monounsaturated fats. The main exception is that younger people’s risk is exacerbated more by high fat intake. (Artaud-Wild SM et al. 1993; Esrey KL et al. 1996; Jakobsen MU et al. 2004; Xu J et al. 2006; Volk MG 2007)
Sadly, many doctors remain unaware that the lipid hypothesis of heart disease rests on a foundation of sand, with numerous studies proving that diets high saturated fat and cholesterol are not inherently unhealthful.
Instead, it is a lack of plant foods and exercise and an excess of refined carbohydrates (i.e., white flour products) that can make fatty diets dangerous. These contextual differences explain why people in Finland and France have widely divergent rates of heart disease despite having similar intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol (Volk MG 2007).
In other words, it appears safe to eat reasonable amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol as long as your diet meets the basic criteria outlined in our accompanying article, “What is Heart Disease, Exactly?”
Sources
- Artaud-Wild SM, Connor SL, Sexton G, Connor WE. Differences in coronary mortality can be explained by differences in cholesterol and saturated fat intakes in 40 countries but not in France and Finland. A paradox. Circulation. 1993 Dec;88(6):2771-9.
- Dawber TR, Nickerson RJ, Brand FN, Pool J. Eggs, serum cholesterol, and coronary heart disease. Am J Clin Nutr 1982;36:617-25.
- Dawber TR, Nickerson RJ, Brand FN, Pool J. Eggs, serum cholesterol, and coronary heart disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982 Oct;36(4):617-25.
- Esrey KL, Joseph L, Grover SA. Relationship between dietary intake and coronary heart disease mortality: lipid research clinics prevalence follow-up study. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Feb;49(2):211-6.
- Gramenzi A, Gentile A, Fasoli M, Negri E, Parazzini F, La Vecchia C. Association between certain foods and risk of acute myocardial infarction in women. BMJ 1990;300:771-3.
- Harman NL, Leeds AR, Griffin BA. Increased dietary cholesterol does not increase plasma low density lipoprotein when accompanied by an energy-restricted diet and weight loss. Eur J Nutr. 2008 Sep;47(6):287-93. Epub 2008 Aug 26.
- Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB, Manson JE, Ascherio A, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Spiegelman D, Speizer FE, Sacks FM, Hennekens CH, Willett WC. A prospective study of egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease in men and women. JAMA. 1999 Apr 21;281(15):1387-94.
- Jakobsen MU, Overvad K, Dyerberg J, Schroll M, Heitmann BL. Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: possible effect modification by gender and age. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Jul 15;160(2):141-9.
- Kritchevsky SB, Kritchevsky D. Egg consumption and coronary heart disease: an epidemiologic overview. J Am Coll Nutr. 2000 Oct;19(5 Suppl):549S-555S. Review.
- Lacombe CR, Corraze GR, Nibbelink MM, Boulze D, Douste-Blazy P, Camare R. Effects of a low-energy diet associated with egg supplementation on plasma cholesterol and lipoprotein levels in normal subjects: results of a cross-over study. Br J Nutr. 1986 Nov;56(3):561-75.
- Nakamura Y, Iso H, Kita Y, Ueshima H, Okada K, Konishi M, Inoue M, Tsugane S. Egg consumption, serum total cholesterol concentrations and coronary heart disease incidence: Japan Public Health Center-based prospective study. Br J Nutr. 2006 Nov;96(5):921-8.
- Qureshi AI, Suri FK, Ahmed S, Nasar A, Divani AA, Kirmani JF. Regular egg consumption does not increase the risk of stroke and cardiovascular diseases. Med Sci Monit. 2007 Jan;13(1):CR1-8. Epub 2006 Dec 18.
- Volk MG. An examination of the evidence supporting the association of dietary cholesterol and saturated fats with serum cholesterol and development of coronary heart disease. Altern Med Rev. 2007 Sep;12(3):228-45. Review.
Xu J, Eilat-Adar S, Loria C, Goldbourt U, Howard BV, Fabsitz RR, Zephier EM, Mattil C, Lee ET. Dietary fat intake and risk of coronary heart disease: the Strong Heart Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Oct;84(4):894-902.
alternative and complementary medicine alternative and complementary medicineTrehalose is here in EU/UK
We are delighted that Trehalose has been made available in the UK to end user customers. The prices are quite reasonable and the quality is excellent. Click herealzhiemers artificial sweeteners artificial sweetener artificial sweeteners artificial sweetener saccharin aspartame blood sugar levels carbohydrates complex carbohydrates control diabetes diabetes diabetics diet food food companies fructose corn syrup nutrasweet splenda sucralose sugar Trehalose type 2 diabetes alzhiemers artificial sweeteners artificial sweetener artificial sweeteners artificial sweetener saccharin aspartame blood sugar levels carbohydrates complex carbohydrates control diabetes diabetes diabetics diet food food companies fructose corn syrup nutrasweet splenda sucralose sugar Trehalose type 2 diabetesTrehalose - Update - Available Late July 2008
We are really pleased that almost 2 years of work has resulted in establishing a long term supply of the worlds finest trehalose for the UK and Europe.Trehalose has many benefits:
- natural alternative to sucrose - look and taste identical
- does not trigger rapid rise in blood sugar levels
- suitable for those with neurological issues:
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Parkinsons
- Huntingtons
- Alzhiemers
- Motor Neurone Disease
- easy to use - the family probably won’t even notice the switch
- safe for everyone to use
- comparatively great value
To pre order your supply e mail me
alzhiemers blood sugar levels blood vessel disease diabetes diabetics diet europe health benefits huntingtons motor neurone disease multiple sclerosis neurological issues nutrasweet nutrient dense food nutrition parkinsons rapid rise Trehalose type 2 diabetes alzhiemers blood sugar levels blood vessel disease diabetes diabetics diet europe health benefits huntingtons motor neurone disease multiple sclerosis neurological issues nutrasweet nutrient dense food nutrition parkinsons rapid rise Trehalose type 2 diabetes
Aspartame - 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
Artificial Sweeteners - make you put on weight
OK - i write frequently about health issues and one of the most pressing we face today is that of obesity. I see people drinking diet or low calorie drinks as if they are helping them lose weight. At last a study that ’shuts that theory up’ once and for all. Straight and simple artificial sweeteners make you put on weight not lose it.
Plant Sugars Blog
Down Syndrome
Healthy Mentors - here to help you
Trehalose - the safe sugar
Ethos FR - cut fuel costs
Hazel’s Health Matters
The Safe sugare mail me
Paul barton
Scientists at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, studied rats that were fed food with the artificial sweetener saccharin and rats fed food with glucose, a natural sugar.
In comparison to rats given yogurt sweetened with glucose, those that ate yogurt sweetened with saccharin went on to consume more calories and put on more weight and body fat.
The researchers said sweet foods may prompt the body to get ready to take in a lot of calories, but when sweetness in the form of artificial sweeteners is not followed by a large amount of calories, the body gets confused, which may lead to eating more or expending less energy than normal.
“The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with high-calorie sugar,” Purdue researchers Susan Swithers and Terry Davidson wrote in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience, published by the American Psychological Association.
artificial sweeteners artificial sweeteners artificial sweetener saccharin aspartame body weight gain cancer clinical researchers diabetes diabetics diet health low calorie nutrasweet obesity sickness sugar artificial sweeteners artificial sweeteners artificial sweetener saccharin aspartame body weight gain cancer clinical researchers diabetes diabetics diet health low calorie nutrasweet obesity sickness sugarLiving With Diabetes - controlling your blood glucose levels
Diabetes is a problem of such large scale that it is attarcting the attention of the fiscal controllers in Government around the world. It is wholly treatable but very costly and once drus are used they probably have to continue for the rest of a persons life.
What is not so well known is that with very simple dietary modification before onset we can prevent diabetes entirely. Once it has taken hold then we can achieve the same or similar result with a much more radical diateray regime. The point of this entry is to alert you to the fact that you can do a lot to prevent diabetes and it can be redressed without drug intervention in most if not the majority of cases.
To learn more e mail me
Have a great day
Paul Barton
Living well with diabetes - controlling your blood glucose levels
The odds are that you or someone you know has diabetes already or is at risk for developing this disease. Nearly 21 million Americans—or roughly one in every 14 people—have diabetes, and many more are at risk. Of course, if you or someone you love has diabetes, the disorder is about much more than a statistic. It means a new way of life.
However, there’s plenty of good news emerging about diabetes. Research shows that keeping your blood sugar levels as close to normal as possible is worth the time and effort. Rigorous blood sugar control can enable you to delay or even prevent the progression of diabetes and its debilitating long-term complications.
The treatment regimens needed to achieve and maintain near-normal, or “tight,” blood sugar control differ for type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Type 1 treatment centers on replacing insulin to offset the body’s inability to produce it. Type 2 treatment typically relies on exercise, weight loss, and one or more medications to overcome insulin resistance and compensate for the insulin shortfall. Insulin injections, though, may become necessary. Most people with type 2 diabetes also have the added burden of managing one or more other conditions, such as obesity, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. Your treatment goal, regardless of which type of diabetes you have, is to keep your blood sugar levels as close to normal as possible to prevent damage to your eyes, kidneys, heart, nerves, and blood vessels.
