Cholesterol Theory - Fatally Cracked

September 9, 2008 // No Comments »

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
by Craig Weatherby

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 scapegoat

Healthy 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 better Advice 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 eggs

A 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 medicine

Posted in Drugs, Omega 3, cholesterol, diet, food, heart, medicine, pharmaceutical drugs

Trehalose is here in EU/UK

September 3, 2008 // No Comments »

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 here

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 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 diabetes

Posted in Low GI, NIDDM, Trehalose, aspartame, aspartame poisoning, cancer, diabetes, diet, food, health, heart, nutrasweet, nutrition, obesity, splenda, sucralose, sweet-n-low, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes

Living With Diabetes - controlling your blood glucose levels

March 7, 2008 // 1 Comment »

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.

Posted in Low GI, NIDDM, diabetes, diet, heart, nutrition, obesity, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes

Cholesterol - lowering with drugs is ineffective

March 6, 2008 // No Comments »

Hey - seems as if my drift on Cholesterol is right on cue. To hear that drug companies in the advertisements are now saying that with small print like this

“In a large clinical study, 3 percent of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack
compared to 2 percent of patients taking Lipitor.”
- HOW DUMB do you have to get to realise that there is no real benefit

 

It begs the question “why would anyone take a drug like this when it improves results by just 1% over the placebo” - as a scientis that is surely questionable in terms of significance. In terms of money for the drug company its huge - how may read the fine print (if its there at all). We have been using food to reduce cholesterol for over 8 years and guess what it works.

e mail me

Healthy Mentors - here to help you
Trehalose - the safe sugar
Phil Hughes - Homeopath

 

 

Last month, I told you about the latest statin shockwave involving Vytorin and the failing grade it received in a recent study evaluating its effectiveness (2/21/08 eTip, subject line: “New recruits”). Not surprisingly, attention quickly shifted to other statins, and the question on the forefront of everyone’s mind — not to mention the cover of Business Week magazine — was “Do cholesterol drugs do any good?”

Now, you read the eTips three times a week, so I’m guessing chances are good that you’re as skeptical as Dr. Wright and I are about patent medications. But, I’ve got to say, the answer to the statin question even surprised me. Thanks to Dr. Wright, I’ve known for years that statins aren’t the miracle workers that Big Pharma makes them out to be. But I had no idea just how inflated that claim really is.

To get a better sense of statins’ effectiveness you have to look beyond the percentages the drug ads are always spouting out. The print ads for the drug claim that it helps reduce heart attack risk by 36 percent. But follow the asterisk next to that number down to the fine print at the bottom of the page and things get a whole lot less impressive. There it says “In a large clinical study, 3 percent of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2 percent of patients taking Lipitor.”

(more…)

Posted in Drugs, cholesterol, health, heart

Cholesterol - the truth is coming out now

March 4, 2008 // 2 Comments »

For those of you that read this blog you will know that i have a bone to pick with the medical world who persist in pushing statin drugs to artificially lower cholesterol. They did it to me, or i allowed them to do it to me, for years until i said enough. Slowly bit by bit the real truth is coming out and this article continues that trend. If you are interested in this subject this article is a must read.

The widespread belief that “bad Cholesterol” ( LDL cholesterol) is a major factor driving heart disease — and that cholesterol-lowering drugs like Lipitor and Crestor can protect us against fatal heart attacks — is turning out to be a theory filled with holes. These drugs, which are called “statins,” are the most widely-prescribed pills in the history of human medicine. In 2007 world-wide sales totaled $33 billion. They are particularly popular in the U.S., where 18 million Americans take them.

We thought we knew how they worked. But last month, when Merck/Schering Plough finally released the dismal results of a clinical trial of Zetia, a cholesterol-lowering drug prescribed to about 1 million people, the medical world was stunned. Dr. Steven E. Nissen, chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic called the findings “shocking.” It turns out that while Zetia does lower cholesterol levels, the study failed to show any measurable medical benefit. This announcement caused both doctors and the mainstream media to take a second look at the received wisdom that “bad cholesterol” plays a major role in causing cardiac disease. A Business Week cover story asked the forbidden question, “Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?“

The answer, says Dr. Jon Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, and the author of Overdosed America, is that “statins show a clear benefit for one group — people under 65 who have already had a heart attack or who have diabetes. But,” says Abramson, “there are no studies to show that these drugs will protect older patients over 65 — or younger patients who are not already suffering from diabetes or established heart disease from having a fatal heart attack. Nevertheless, 8 or 9 million patients who fall into this category continue to take the drugs, which means that they are exposed to the risks that come with taking statins — which can include severe muscle pain, memory loss, and sexual dysfunction.”

Finally — and here is the stunner — it turns out we don’t have any clear evidence that statins help the first group by lowering cholesterol levels. It’s true that they do lower cholesterol, but many researchers are no longer convinced that this is what helps patients avoid a second heart attack. It now seems likely that they work by reducing inflammation. In other words, these very expensive drugs seem to do the same thing that aspirin does. (Are they more effective than the humble aspirin? We’ll need head-to-head studies to find out.)

e mail me

Healthy Mentors - here to help you
Trehalose - the safe sugar
Phil Hughes - Homeopath

(more…)

cholesterol diabetes diet health heart attack serum lipids cholesterol diabetes diet health heart attack serum lipids

Posted in cholesterol, health, heart

Drug interactions hidden or Unknown?

January 21, 2008 // No Comments »

Hi its Monday morning and a quick trawl through the news brings up this article which seems to point to the fact that drug interactions are indeed harming our health. Thats no surprise to many of the people who read this blog but what was more interesting is that the negative evidence around the Cholesterol lowering drugs is growing. For someone who was told 15 years ago that i’d have to be on Zocor for the rest of my life and that once on the drug could never come off - hoggwash. I’m now off the dru, have been for 10 years and my cholesterol is lower than its been in 20 years. Please don’t always believe what the drug companies say. If you want to find out what i did and do today just email or Skype me.

e mail me

Healthy Mentors - here to help you
Trehalose - the safe sugar

January 17, 2008
Major Heart and Mood Drugs Take Huge Credibility Hits
Cholesterol drug enlarges artery clogs; Makers of major anti-depressants hid studies with inconveniently negative outcomes
by Craig Weatherby

America’s biggest prescription drugs, and the patients taking them, were reeling today after reading headlines about the second of two disturbing medical reports to appear this week.

We hope that these findings prove decisive in energizing the public to insist that legislators enact urgent data-disclosure reforms.
(more…)

Posted in Omega 3, cholesterol, heart, hypotension, nutrition

Too fat - not fat enough - where is the truth

November 30, 2007 // 1 Comment »

OK - i am going crazy with this whole thing of overweight/obesity - lets get one thing straight - well several actually.

1. Carrying too much fat around our middle puts us at far greater risk of developing cancer, diabetes, heart disease and more.
2. being undernourished also damages our health.
3. eat the right food, supplement the nutrients that are missing, combat the chemical toxins with antioxidants, exercise

Now Doctors Say Its Good to be Overweight

By David Usborne, The Independent UK
November 13, 2007

A startling new study by medical researchers in the United States has caused consternation among public health professionals by suggesting that, contrary to conventional wisdom, being overweight might actually be beneficial for health.

The study, published yesterday in the respected Journal of the American Medical Association, runs counter to almost all other advice to consumers by saying that carrying a little extra flab — though not too much — might help people to live longer.

Struggling dieters, used to being told that staying thin is the best prescription for longevity, are likely to be confused this morning if not heartily relieved. While being a bit overweight may indeed increase your chances of dying from diabetes and kidney disease — conditions that are often linked with one another — the same is not true for a host of other ailments including cancer and heart disease, the report suggests.

In fact, scanning the whole gamut of diseases that could curtail your life, being over weight is, on balance, a good thing. The bottom line, the scientists say, is that modestly overweight people demonstrate a lower death rate than their peers who are underweight, obese or — most surprisingly — normal weight.

The findings will be hard to dismiss. They are the result of analysis of decades of data by federal researchers at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. This is not a study from a fringe group of scientists or sponsored by a fast-food chain.

Being overweight, the report asserts in its conclusions, “was associated with significantly decreased all-cause mortality overall”.

“The take-home message is that the relationship between fat and mortality is more complicated than we tend to think,” said Katherine Flegal, the lead researcher. “It’s not a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all situation where excess weight just increases your mortality risk for any and all causes of death.”

That the CDC has even published the report and thus threatened to muffle years of propaganda as to the health benefits of staying slender has enraged some medical experts.

“It’s just rubbish,” fumed Walter Willett, the professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. “It’s just ludicrous to say there is no increased risk of mortality from being overweight.”

Not that the CDC results are an invitation to throw caution to the winds and take cream with everything. The scientists are careful to stress that the benefits they are describing are limited to those people who are merely overweight — which generally means being no more than 30 pounds heavier than is recommended for your height — and certainly do not carry over to those who fall into the category of obese.

Obesity has been declared one of the main threats to health in the US, including among children. Those considered obese, with a body mass index (BMI) of more than 30, continue to run a higher risk of death, the study says, from a variety of ailments, including numerous cancers and heart disease. It said that being underweight increases the risk of ailments not including heart disease or cancer.

The scientists at the CDC first hinted at the upside of being overweight a few years ago. Since then, however, they have expanded the base of their analysis, with data that includes mortality figures from 2004, the last year for which numbers were available, for no fewer than 2.3 million American adults.

Highlighting how a bit of bulge might help you, the scientists said that in 2004 there were 100,000 fewer deaths among the overweight in the US than would have been expected if they were all considered to be of normal weight. Put slightly differently, those Americans who were merely overweight were up to about 40 per cent less likely than normal-weight people to die from a whole range of diseases and risks including emphysema, pneumonia, Alzheimer’s, injuries and various infections.

Aside from escaping diseases, tipping the scales a little further may also help people recover from serious surgery, injuries and infections, Dr Flegal suggested. Such patients may simply have deeper bodily reserves to draw on in times of medical crisis.

Not everyone in the medical profession was surprised or angry about the study. “What this tells us is the hazards have been very much exaggerated,” said Steven Blair, a professor of exercise science and biostatistics at the University of South Carolina, who has long argued that the case for dietary restraint has been taken too far.

“I believe the data,” added Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego, who believes that a BMI of 25 to 30 — roughly the the so-called overweight range — “may be optimal”.

Critics, however, were quick to point out that the study was concerned with mortality data only and did not take account of the quality of life benefits of keeping your weight down. The study “is not about health and sickness”, noted the obesity researcher Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina.

The report “definitely won’t be the last word”, said Dr Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society, who pointed out, in a report released last week by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research, that staying slim was the main recommendation for avoiding cancer.

Others in the American medical community, while a little bemused, were withholding judgement. “This is a very puzzling disconnect,” said Dr JoAnn Manson, the chief of preventive medicine at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The suggestion that a bit of extra weight may assist patients recovering from an infection or surgery was of no surprise to Dr Flegal. “You may also have more lean mass — more bone and muscle,” she said. “If you are in an adverse situation, that could be good for you.”

In their conclusions, the authors of the study note: “Overweight … may be associated with improved survival during recovery from adverse conditions, such as infections or medical procedures, and with improved prognosis for some diseases. Such findings may be due to greater nutritional reserves or higher lean body mass associated with overweight.”

Those of us mostly likely to benefit from a little bulge beneath the belt, the study adds, are between 25 and 59 years old, although there were also some advantages for people over 60.

Posted in Uncategorized, cancer, diabetes, diet, food, health, heart, medicine, minerals, nutrition, obesity, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes

Apricot Kernels - B17 - benefits

November 16, 2007 // No Comments »

I’ve recommended Apricot Kernels and other things as a source of B17 - wrongly called B17 as far as i can figure but that might be changing. Here is a great summary - if a little technical about B17 and what it does. We have seen some fascinating results with Sickle Cell Disease and B1, Apricot Kernels, Millet, and even Apricot Kernel Oil (cold pressed).

Apricot Kernels (B17 – called Vitamin B17 in error)

Apricot Kernels are the richest source of B17 (Laetrile). Ernst Krebs is the world’s leading authority on the relationship between cancer and nitrilosides, and the inventor of laetrile.

• G. Edward Griffin’s book World Without Cancer (American Media, 1974), available from Health World
• Ernst Krebs discussion of The Nature of Cancer
• Ernst Krebs discussion of the Trophoblast Theory of Cancer
• Ernst Krebs discussion of Trophoblasts and Morning Sickness
• Ernst Krebs discussion of the Metabolism of nitrilosides (Vitamin B17)
• Charles Gurchot’s explanation of How Vitamin B17 Works

Apricot kernels are known to prevent and cure cancer, even though the medical establishment has worked night and day and even lied to suppress it. B17 is found in most all fruit seeds such as the apple, peach, cherry, orange, nectarine and apricot. It is found in some beans and many grasses such as wheat grass. The hard wooden pit in the middle of the peach is not supposed to be thrown away. In fact, the wooden shell is strong armor protecting one of the most important foods known to man, the seed. It is one of the main courses of food in cultures such as the Navajo Indians, the Hunzas the Abkhasians and many more. Did you know that within these tribes there has never been a reported case of cancer. (And there are doctors and scientists from the U.S. living within these tribes right now studying this phenomena) We don’t need to make the seed a main course but we do need the equivalent of about seven apricots seeds per day to nearly guarantee a cancer free life. Other foods that contain vitamin B-17 are: bitter almonds, millet, wheat grass, lima beans and more. (The bitter almond tree was banned from the U.S. in 1995.) The kernel or seed contains the highest amounts of  B17.

 One of the most common nitrilosides is amygdalin. This nitriloside occurs in the kernels of seeds of practically all fruits. The seeds of apples, apricots, cherries, peaches, plums, nectarines, and the like carry this factor; often in the extraordinary concentration of 2 to 3 per cent. Since the seeds of fruits are possibly edible, it may be proper to designate the non-toxic water soluble accessory food factor or nitriloside that they contain as vitamin B-17. The presence of nitriloside in the diet produces specific physiologic effects and leaves as metabolites specific chemical compounds of a physiologically active nature. The production by a non-toxic, water-soluble accessory food factor of specific physiological effects as well as identifiable metabolites suggests the vitamin nature of the compound.

 In metabolism, nitriloside is hydrolyzed to free hydrogen cyanide, benzaldehyde or acetone and sugar. This occurs largely through the enzyme Beta-glucosidase produced by intestinal bacteria as well as by the body. The released HCN [hydrocyanide] is detoxified by the enzyme rhodanese to the relatively non-toxic thiocyanate molecule. The sugar is normally metabolized. The released benzaldehyde in the presence of oxygen is immediately oxidized to benzoic acid which is non-toxic. Thus this newly designated vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) could account for:

1. The thiocyanates in the body fluids–blood, urine, saliva, sweat, and tears;
2. For part of the benzoic acid (and subsequently hippuric acid); salicylic acid isomers;
3. For the HCN that goes to the production of cyanocobalamin from hydrocobalamin, or production of vitamin B₁₂ from provitamin B₁₂.

These are the physiological properties of the common nitriloside amygdalin. Before considering the possible antineoplastic activity of this vitamin B-17, let us recall that the benzoic acid arising from it has certain antirheumatic and antiseptic properties. It was rather widely used (in Germany and elsewhere) for rheumatic disease therapy prior to the advent of the ortho-hydroxy addition product of benzoic acid known as ortho-hydroxybenzoic acid or salicylic acid. It was originally obtained from beech-wood bark. As a matter of interest, the para- hydroxy isomer of benzoic acid occurs in the para hydroxybenzaldehyde aglycon (non-sugar) of the nitriloside found in the cereal millet. Millet was once more widely used in human nutrition than wheat. Wheat seed contains little or no nitriloside.

Recall now, that thiocyanate also was once widely used, in both Germany and American medicine, as an effective agent for hypertension. Used as such, as the simple chemical, the dosage was difficult to control. Obviously, this difficulty does not arise from the thiocyanate usually produced in the body through metabolizing B-17 (nitriloside). However, chronic hypotension (the opposite of hypertension) has been reported in Nigerians who eat quantities of the nitriloside-containing manioc (cassava)–especially that of the bitter variety.

Let us pause to reflect upon this question: Might not the rheumatic diseases as well as certain aspects of hypertension be in some cases partially related to a dietary deficiency in nitrilosides? One can hardly deny that the ingestion of a sufficient quantity of nitriloside-containing foods will metabolically yield sufficient benzoic acid and/or salicylic acid isomers to palliate rheumatic disease and certainly to decrease, however temporarily, hypertension as well as to foster the nitrilosation of provitamin B-12 to active vitamin B-12: cyanocobalamin.

Despite all this, are we justified in suggesting that cancer itself might be another chronic metabolic disease that arises from a specific vitamin deficiency–a deficiency specifically in B-17 (nitriloside)?

There are many chronic or metabolic diseases that challenge medicine. Many of these diseases have already been conquered. What proved to be their solution? By solution we mean both prevention and cure. What really cures really prevents. Let us think of some of these diseases that have found total prevention and hence cure. We are speaking of metabolic or non-transmissible diseases. At one time the metabolic disease known as scurvy killed hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes entire populations. This disease found total prevention and cure in the ascorbic acid or vitamin C component of fruits and vegetables. Similarly, the once fatal diseases so aptly called pernicious anaemia, pellagra, beri beri, countless neuropathies, and the like, found complete cure and prevention in specific dietary factors, that is, essential nutrients in an adequate diet.

Let’s go a step further, almost to the border of dogmatism, to advance an axiom in medicine and biology:

No chronic or metabolic disease has ever found cure or prevention, that is, real cure and real prevention–except through factors essential to an adequate diet and/or normal to animal economy.

I would welcome a contradiction to this principle; but even an exception would “prove the rule.”

Does it seem likely, therefore, that cancer will be the first exception to this generalization that to date has not had a single known exception? In my humble opinion, certainly not. But does it follow from this that B-17 (nitriloside) is the specific antineoplastic compound? Logically, by itself, alone, this conclusion that nitriloside is the specific antineoplastic compound does not follow. However, examine the brilliant laboratory studies of Dr. Dean Burk of the Department of Cytochemistry of the National Cancer Institute in Washington. I believe that in light of the experimental evidence that he has produced, you might agree that B-17 (nitriloside) is indeed the antineoplastic compound.*

One might ask, then, whether we suggest that B-17 (nitriloside) or Laetrile is an effective cancer drug. Our reply must be: it is not a drug; it is a food.

REFERENCES

Baker, J.E., Rainey, D.P., Norris, D.M., and Strong, F.N., p-Hydroxybenzaldehyde and other Phenolics as Feeding Stimulants for the Smaller European Bark Bettle, Forest Sci., 14(1):91-95, 1968.
Blum, M.S., and Woodring, J.P., Secretion of Benzaldehyde and Hydrogen Cyanide by the Millipede Pachydemus crassicutus (Wood), Science, 158: 512-513, 1962.
Briese, R.R., and Couch, J.F., Preservation of Cyanogenetic Plants for Chemical Analysis, J.Agr.Research, 57(2): 81-107, 1937.
Brown, W.E., Wood, C.D., and Smith, A.N., Sodium Cyanide as a Cancer Chemotherapeutic Agent — Laboratory and Clinical Studies, Am.J.Obst. & Gynec., 80: 907-918, 1960.
Browne, J.G., Progress Report on the Work Done on the Hydrocyanic Acid Content of California Grown Lima Beans, Univ. Calif. Coll. of Agr., Agr. Exptl. Station, Project No. 521, p. 770 et seq., June 17, 1932.
Brioux, and Jones, E., The Production of Cyanogenetic Glycosides by Linseed: Measurement of HCN Production, Ann. Agron., 8(4): 468-480, 1932.
Chappel, C., Toxicity Studies on Amygdalin, McNaughton Foundation, Montreal, Canada, 1967, p.2.
Charlton, J., The Selection of Burma Beans for Low Hydrocyanic Acid Content, Memoirs Dept. Agr. India Chemical Series, 9(1), 1926-1928.
Dedolph, R.R., and Hamilton, R.A., The Bitterness Problem in Some Seedling Macadamias (Due to amygdalin — ed.), Hawaii Farm. Sci., 8(1): 7-8, 1959.
Delga, J., Mizoula, J., Veverka, B., and Bon, R., Studies on the Treatment of Cyanide Intoxication by Hydroxycobalamin (Provitamin B-12), Ann. Pharmaceut., 19(12): 740-752, 1961.
Dillemann, G., Hydrocyanic Acid in Hybrids of the Pear with the Quince, Bull. Museum Natl. Hist. Nat., 18: 465-467, 1946.
Doak, B.W., Cyanoglucosides in White Clover, New Zealand J.Agr., 51: 159-162, 1935.
Domingues, J.B., Hydrocyanic Acid in Shoots of Dendrocalamus giganteus (Bamboo), An.Fac.Farm., E. Odontal Univ., Sao Paulo, 13: 169-171, 1955-1956.
Dunstan, W.R., Henry, T.A., and Auld, S.J.M., Cyanogenesis
IV. Occurrence of Phaseolunatin in Common Flax
V. Occurrence of Phaseolunatin in Cassava,Proc.Roy.Soc., 1906, 78B, 145-158.
Dunstan, W.R., and Henry, T.A., and Auld, S.J.M., Cyanogenesis in Plants
II. The Great Millet, Sorghum vulgare, Phil.Trans.Roy.Soc.,199A: 399-410, 1902.
Dunstan, W.R., Henry, T.A., and Auld, S.J.M., Cyanogenesis
VI. Phaseolunatin and the Associated Enzymes in Flax, Cassava, and the Lima Bean, Proc.Roy.Soc., 79B: 315-322, 1907.
Ekpechi, O.L., Dimitriadoo, A., and Fraser, R., Goitrogentic Activity of Cassava (A Staple Nigerian Food), Nature, 5041: 1137, June 11, 1966.
Festenstein, G.U., Substrates for Rumen Beta-Glucosidase, Biochem. J., 70(1): 49-51, 1958.
Flux, D.S., Butler, G.W., Johnson, J.M., Glenday, A.C., and Petersen, G.B., Goitrogenic Effects of White Clover, New Zealand J.of Sci. and Tech., 38(A): 88-102, 1956.
Flux, D.S., Butler, G.W., Rae, A.L., and Brougham, R.W., Relationship between Levels of Iodine and Cyanogenetic Glucoside in Pasture and the Performance of Sheep, J.Agric.Soc., 55(2): 191-196, 1960.
Golse, J., New Method for the Determination of Hydrocyanic Acid and Benzaldehyde in Cherry Brandy, J.Phar.Chim., 12:44-65, 1915.
Greshoff, M., The Distribution of Prussic Acid (HCN) in the Vegetable Kingdom, Report Brit.Assn., 138-144, 1906.
Guignard, L., The Development of Cyanogenetic Glucosides During the Germination of Plants, Compt.rend., 147: 1023-1038, 1908.
Guignard, L., The Presence of Cyanide-Yielding Compounds in the Elderberry, Compt.rend., 141: 16-20, 1905.
Herissey, H., The Cyanogenetic Glycoside Prulsurasin Crystallized from the Leaves of the Cherry Laurel, Compt.rend., 141: 959-961, 1905.
James, M.B., Fleming, J.W., and Bailey, L.F., Cyanide as a Growth-Inhibiting Substance in Extracts of Peach Leaves, Proc.Amer.Soc.Hort. Sci., 69: 152-157, 1957.
Jones, M.B., Seasonal Trend of Cyanide in Peach Leaves and Flower Buds and Its Possible Relation to the Rest Period.Proc. amer.Soc.Hort.Sci., 77: 117-120, 1961.[nee Jones?, rsc]
Liebig, J., and Wohler, F., The Composition of Bitter Almonds,Annalen, 22(1): 1-24, 1837.
Liebig, J., and Wohler, F., Formation of the Oil of Bitter Almonds, Ann.Chim.Phys., 64: 185-209, 1837.
Luh, B.S., and Pinochet, M.F., Spectrophotometric Determination of Hydrogen Cyanide in Canned Apricots, Cherries and Prunes, Food Research, 24: 423-427, 1950.
Martin, J.H., Couch, J.F., and Briese, R.R., Hydrocyanic Acid Content of Different Parts of the Sorghum Plant, Jour.Amer.Soc.Agron., 30(9): 725-734, 1938.
Michajlovski, M., Stukovsky, R., and Nemeth, S., Effects of Feed Composition on the Thiocyanate Content of Cow Milk, Biologica(Broteslavia), 16: 459-468, 1961.
Monekosso, G.L., and Wilson, J., Plasma Thyocyanate and Vitamin B-12 in Nigerian Patients with Neurological Disease, Lancet, No. 7446: 1062-1064, 1966.
McIlroy, “The Plant Glycosides,” Edward Arnold & Co., London, 1951, pp.21-22.
Oke, O.L., Chemical Studies of Some Nigerian Vegetables, Exp.Agr., 1(2): 125-129, 1965.
Osborne, D., Solving the Riddle of Wetherhill Mesa, Natl.Geo.Mag., 125(2): 155-194, 1964.
Perry, I.H., The Effect of Prolonged Cyanide Treatment on Body and Tumor Growth in Rats, Am.J.Cancer, 25: 592-[ff.],1935.
Pobiondek-Eabini, R., The Hydrogen Cyanide Content of Millet, Arch.Tiernarh., 2/3, 71-80, 1951.
Pjoan, M., Cyanide Poisoning from Choke Berry Seed, Am.J.Med.Sci., 204: 350-553, 1942.
Rabati, J., Biochical Study of the Peach Tree, The Presence of Amygdonitrile Glucoside, Bull.Soc.Chim.Biol., 15: 385-395, 1933.
Schroder, J., and Damman, H., Studies of the Amount of Hydrocyanic Acid Obtained from Different Millets, Chem.Ztg., 35: 1436-7 (Chem.Abst. 62 1327).
Stebbins, R.C., Lizards Killed by Millipede (Through HCN-benzaldehyde emission from latter, ed.), Amer.Midland Nat., 32(3); 771-778, 1944.
Weiss, M., Hydrocyanic Acid in Apple Embryos, Flora, 149(3): 386-395, 1960.
Wokes, F., and Willimott, S.G., The Determination of Cyanide in Seeds, J.Pharm. & Pharmacol., 3: 905-917, 1951.
Worth, F.J., A Note on the Hydrocyanic Acid Content in Burma Beans, Memoirs Dept. Agi. India Chem.Series, 7(1), 1928 (cf paper by Browne, J.G.).

 

Posted in Nitric Oxide, Sickle Cell, Vitamins, cancer, chemicals, diet, heart, hypotension, medicine

Blood Pressure Vs Cholesterol

November 7, 2007 // 4 Comments »

A high blood level of cholesterol, which damages the heart by clogging the arteries with plaque and fat deposits, is probably the number one contributing factor for heart disease. But high blood pressure (currently defined as anything above 140/90) comes in as a close second, also known as hypertension, it is often called the silent killer, because there are usually no symptoms.Hypertension can often be controlled with medication, but there are a number of other measures you can take that may help as well. You might want to experiment with some of the following to see how they work for you, but consult your doctor beforehand.