Dietary Enigmas

Diets work because you get less fructose

Paul Barton — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:48:19 +0000

For those of you who follow this site you’ll know that I have a particular interest in the relationship between carbohydrates and fat - this article just confirms what we know to be true empirically to be true scientifically.

According to new research, people on low-carb diets lose weight in part because they get less fructose, a type of sugar that can be made into body fat quickly.

The study shows that the type of carbs someone eats can be as important as the amount. Although fructose is naturally found in high levels in fruit, it is also added to many processed foods, especially in the form of high-fructose corn syrup.

For the study, six healthy people performed three different tests involving drinking various mixes of glucose and fructose. Researchers found that fructose turned into body fat much more quickly, and that having it for breakfast changed how the body handled fats at lunch.

Sources:

NBC5 July 25, 2008

Journal of Nutrition June 2008, 138:1039-1046

alternative and complementary medicine, artificial sweetener saccharin, aspartame, blood sugar levels, blood vessel disease, body weight gain, carbohydrates, children, complex carbohydrates, control diabetes, diabetes, diabetics, diet, fats, fructose corn syrup, gi tract, glucose, high fructose corn, high fructose corn syrup, low carb diets, lunch, nutrition, processed foods, relationship

Public Winning The Battle Against Aspartame

Paul Barton — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:55:55 +0000

At long last the major UK supermarkets are flexing their corporate mucles and responding to the growing outrage regarding aspartame. Sanisburys, Walmart, Tesco, Marks and Spencer have each instructed their own brand name manufactured product suppliers to remove aspartame from their products. However, there is a down side and the front runner to replace it is seen as splenda or sucralose. Inside information suggests that M&S may be looking at Trehalose

watch this space for more news as it develops.

Paul barton

For more Info Click Here

http://www.squidoo.com/xml/syndicate_lensmaster/paulbarton

alternative and complementary medicine, artificial sweeteners, artificial sweetener, artificial sweeteners, artificial sweetener saccharin, aspartame, chemicals, control diabetes, diabetes, diet, marks and spencer, splenda, sucralose, tesco, Trehalose, type 2 diabetes, uk supermarkets, walmart

US Centre for Disease Control - switch emphasis to prevention

Paul Barton — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:11:49 +0000

I gather from something I read yesterday that the US CDC has begun to recognise that the over reliance on medication has proved to be such a threat to the US economy and security that it has announced a dramatic change in emphasis. I’ve been able to validate the source of the report and looking at the CDC website there is some evidence of a change. However, I remember the UK Cancer Charity said much the same 3 or 4 years ago but I’ve not seen any change in approach yet. So I’m sceptical that the pharmaceutical lobby will not resist such a change.

However, if its true then it could herald the best dawn we’ve seen in years. Yes we all agree that wellness (the absence of disease) must be our focus and for the US CDC to come out and say so is huge. Our approach has to be to keep people as well as possible for as long as possible and when disease does rear its head then treat by the best means we have.Presently only about 5% of healthcare money goes on prevention - what would happen if that multiplied by a factor of 5 times. Would that make a dent in the problem - yes of course it would. Imagine what that would accomplish! However, and it isa serious thought where are the food companies in all of this discussion - because unless they change their approach too then the change is rather idealistic.

What would happen if we spent money, serious money, on studying the causes of illness and disease. I wonder how the pharmaceutical companies would feel if and when, together with the food industry, they had to face the music that they were not only part of the problem but also were exposed as the arch protagonists.

So then, health authorities see what is happening and are calling for a major shift to true health care. That’s a paradigm change — a radical change in thinking. And when such changes happen, they always occur suddenly, like a dam bursting.

So lets wait and see if the actions match the intent or for that matter what the food industry and pharmaceutical industry’s response will be. I guess they may try to stop it all by CODEX.

www.squidoo.com/trehalose

alternative and complementary medicine, cancer charity, causes of illness, cdc, cdc website, dramatic change, food companies, food industry, health care, paradigm change, pharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical lobby, prevention, radical change, true health

Statins For Children

Paul Barton — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:58:00 +0000

I saw this report in Natural Nwes today and was frankly appalled but not surprised.

In case you haven’t heard the reports this morning, The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is today recommending cholesterol screening for kids as young as two if there are weight issues or a family history of heart attacks or high cholesterol.

And if the kids have high cholesterol levels? Don’t hesitate – medicate!

According to the New York Times, the AAP is backed up 100 percent by “proponents.”

NY Times: “Proponents say there is growing evidence that the first signs of heart disease show up in childhood.” And: “For some children, cholesterol-lowering drugs, called statins, may be their best hope of lowering their risk of early heart attack, proponents said.”

Best hope!? Insanity!

Of course, “proponents” is just a fuzzy word for medical mainstreamers who never met a health concern they wouldn’t medicate.

One of those proponents is Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, a member of the AAP nutrition committee, who told the Times: “The risk of giving statins at a lower age is less than the benefit you’re going to get out of it.”

That’s the standout quote that rattled my rafters this morning. Why? Because the evidence to back up that quote is miniscule. And that’s being charitable. And Dr. Bhatia knows it. In fact, after his bold risk/benefit comment, he completely weakened his argument by telling the Times there is not “a whole lot” of data on pediatric use of cholesterol-lowering drugs.

And THAT should have been the leadoff message this morning: Based on not a whole lot of data, the AAP is recommending widespread use of drugs for very young children.

And let’s keep in mind that for adults, who can choose for themselves whether or not to take a certain medication, the benefits haven’t been proven to outweigh the risks. (Sorry, I should clarify that. By benefits, I mean number of lives saved, not pharmaceutical profit margins.)

Please share this special e-Alert with friends and family members who have kids or grandkids. Let them know that this naked attempt to expand the market for statins by exploiting kids is baseless and misguided. Not to mention infuriating!

Click here for the Full Article From www.naturalnews.com

children, cholesterol

Trehalose - Update - Available Late July 2008

Paul Barton — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:07:46 +0000

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

Are anti-oxidants REALLY harmful to you??

Paul Barton — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:20:36 +0000

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 say

One 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-carotene

As 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 cancer

Even 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 statins

The 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 effects

The 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

Paul Barton — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:19:40 +0000

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

Superfoods

Paul Barton — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:43:51 +0000

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

Trehalose

Paul Barton — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:57:23 +0000

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

www.squidoo.com/plantsugars

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

Nitrate Rich Vegetables - very good

Paul Barton — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:05:44 +0000

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