Diabetes News | Diabetic Resources

Internet, Cyberspace, Forums And Diabetes 2 !

By admin on Friday, August 6th, 2010 | Comments Off

Being diagnosed with Type two Diabetes is news many people do not like to hear. However, Type two diabetes is a frequently diagnosed condition, and is a condition of high blood glucose. Note that 90 – 95 % of the population is diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes as opposed to the other type of diabetes, Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Type 2 often starts developing in adults at the age of 40 and older. It’s most commonly seen in adults that are over the age of 55. Majority of Type 2 diabetics are overweight and since more children and young people are becoming overweight, type 2 is now common among the younger crowd. Often there are many questions, concerns and things people don’t understand after they’ve been diagnosed. Read the rest of this entry »

Diabetes is the fifth-deadliest disease.

By admin on Friday, July 23rd, 2010 | Comments Off

Diabetes is the fifth-deadliest disease. Since 1987 the death rate has increased 45 percent. In 2002; diabetes claimed an astonishing 224,092 lives in the United States alone. It is believed that the number was actually higher since most deaths of the elderly had multiple chronic conditions associated with their death including diabetes. Read the rest of this entry »

Health Warning! Diabetes Drug Gets Thumbs Up

By admin on Wednesday, July 21st, 2010 | Comments Off

An FDA panel has voted to keep Avandia on the market. You've probably heard of Avandia: it's a controversial diabetes pill made by Glaxo Smith Kline. The drug controls blood sugar levels by sensitizing the body to insulin. It used to be the world's best selling diabetes drug after the FDA first approved its sale. By 2006 U.S. sales totaled $2.2 billion per year. Read the rest of this entry »

Likely Causes Of Type 2 Diabetes & Insulin Resistance

By admin on Monday, July 5th, 2010 | Comments Off

Even though what causes Type II Diabetes is still going on in debates, and mostly there is a strong feeling that heredity, or genetics, plays a paramount role in its development. However, the lifestyle choices that one makes is also a widely accepted theory. Most often, the consensus tends to be that, although one can be genetically predisposed to Type ii diabetes, it is how one chooses to life his/her life that typically ends up determining if the disease will fully develop. If this is indeed the case, as so many people tend to believe, it means that everyone has some control over whether or not they develop this condition. Read the rest of this entry »

Glucose Meters – Innovative Accessories That could be Obtained Completely Dree

By admin on Sunday, July 4th, 2010 | Comments Off

New and fresh ideas are flowing from the health care community and today it's taking the form of a glucose meter. It is actually the latest medical achievement in the fight against the horrible ailment labeled as diabetes. The meter’s basic design layout allows a diabetic to become his own doctor and improves the life of a person that is struggling with diabetes. Read the rest of this entry »

Is there a cure for Diabetes?

By admin on Monday, June 7th, 2010 | Comments Off

Are Doctors Lying About the Cure for Diabetes? "The People" have had enough apparently! An "insider" disclosed today that the "World of Medicine" is scamming people – and even worse: with the help of "law-makers!" It seems that "money" (as usual) has blinded doctors and medical practitioners to the degree that they are now willingly *suppressing* the accuracy regarding diabetes – its control, management, and even its cure! Read the rest of this entry »

WHAT IS DIABETES? WHY DO WE NEED TO SLASH DOWN OUR SUGAR INTAKE?

By admin on Thursday, August 13th, 2009 | Comments Off

Usually, this is due to hereditary and environmental cause resulting abnormally that leads to high blood sugar levels. This is not a simple disease that can be treated immediately. A disease where pancreas(a part of digestive organ)is unable to secrete enough insulin. Diabetes, a disease that causes the body to metabolize sugar poorly, occurs when either the body attacks the cells producing insulin, the chemical that allows the metabolizing of sugar in the body's cells also known as (Type 1 diabetes) and the body's cells ignore insulin (Type 2 diabetes). They don't have any choice but to quit for the sweets because their health is at risk. They are hook to a medical condition known as diabetes.

TYPES OF DIABETES
The major treatment of this diabetes, even in its earliest stages, is the delivery of artificial insulin by means of injection combined with careful monitoring of blood glucose levels using blood testing monitors. At this point, insulin therapy is necessary to maintain normal or near normal glucose levels. As they enter the second and third trimesters, the more hormones are secreted since they are pregnant, body demands it; this however makes it more difficult for the insulin to help your cells absorb glucose. Extra effort for healthier lifestyle is necessary to fight this condition and win the battle for more productive and happier life. Increase of physical activity, decreasing carbohydrate intake, and losing weight will serve as preliminary treatment. Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes. This helps and assists insulin supplementation that may control further complication. Read the rest of this entry »

Why “Diet” Soda Makes You Fat

By admin on Tuesday, July 21st, 2009 | 1 Comment

Many people see diet soda is an innocuous, harmless beverage that can’t possibly cause any harm to their waistline since it doesn’t have any calories. Think again.

Research published this summer in the medical journal Circulation shows that people who drink more than one soda a day — whether it’s regular or diet — have an almost 50 percent increased risk for metabolic syndrome, which doubles their risk for heart disease and diabetes.

Two years ago, a study at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that there was a 41 percent increase in the risk for being overweight for every single can of diet soda a person consumed daily.

But how can something with no calories increase the risk for obesity and heart disease?

There are several possible ways.

First, my own theory is that the sweet taste works in the brain to create a conditioned response. The body responds as it usually does to normal sugar — with insulin, the fat-storing hormone. Those circuits in the brain are pretty primitive and ancient, and they can’t immediately distinguish chemical fakery. As far as your brain is concerned, sweet means sugar. It’s entirely possible that physiologically, you would respond to aspartame in the same way as you would to table sugar. It’s only a theory, but it makes sense to me.

Second, sugar creates its own cravings. Just as a taste of rum creates an unstoppable craving in an alcoholic, it’s entirely possible that the taste of sweet, even if it’s fake, creates the same cascade of cravings in a carb addict that regular sugar does, leading to overeating and binging and all the rest of the reasons people put on weight.

Third, many people think that by drinking diet beverages they’re "saving" calories. They subconsciously allow themselves to eat more, figuring it’s not doing as much harm since they’re drinking a diet drink. The diet drink gives them subconscious "permission" to eat more.

What’s worse than making you fat, aspartame may be toxic. Aspartame is made primarily from three ingredients: aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol. Methanol, an alcohol, breaks down in the body to formaldehyde, a poison if there ever was one. Apologists for aspartame say that it doesn’t create enough formaldehyde in the body to cause any damage, but I’m not so sure. Exposing children to formaldehyde levels as low as .75 mg daily for several months has been shown to cause gradual toxicity. Plus, diet soda is frequently stored in hot warehouses, causing chemical breakdowns that went undetected in the original safety studies that looked at "ideal" conditions.

Soda is bad news, whether regular or diet. Period.

Note: Dr. Bowden is a nationally known expert on weight loss, nutrition and health. He’s a board certified nutrition specialist with a Master’s degree in psychology. Dr. Bowden is also a life coach, motivational speaker, former personal trainer and author of the award-winning book, Living the Low Carb Life.
[www.jonnybowden.com]

Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Two-Fold Increase in Diabetes

By admin on Saturday, June 27th, 2009 | Comments Off

People who use artificial sweeteners are heavier, more likely to have diabetes, and more likely to be insulin-resistant compared with nonusers. Results show an inverse association between obesity and diabetes, on one side, and daily total caloric, carbohydrate, and fat intake, on the other side, when comparing artificial sweetener users and control subjects.

The association may reflect the increased use of artificial sweeteners by obese and/or diabetic study participants. "This is a cross-section study, so there are limitations — we cannot say that artificial sweetener use causes obesity, we can say it is associated with it," stated first author Kristofer S. Gravenstein, a postbaccalaureate researcher with the Clinical Research Branch at the National Institute of Aging (NIA), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Artificial sweeteners activate sweet taste receptors in enteroendocrine cells, leading to the release of incretin, which is known to contribute to glucose absorption. Recent epidemiologic studies in Circulation (2008;117:754-761) and Obesity (2008;16:1894-1900) showed an association between diet soda consumption and the development of obesity and metabolic syndrome.

This report tested whether participants in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), which began in 1958, differ in anthropometric measures, daily caloric intake, and glucose status, separating them into three different groups: artificial sweetener users, artificial sweetener nonusers, or controls.

A total of 1,257 participants, with a mean age of 64.8 years (range, 21 – 96 years), had data on self-reported 7-day dietary intake, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and anthropometric measures. The major artificial sweetener consumed was aspartame, preferred by 66% of BLSA participants, followed by saccharin (13%), sucralose (1.0%), and combinations of the three (21%).

"In our study, we were actually able to isolate what type of sweetener was used at a certain point in time, as we used food diaries, and not food questionnaires."

"When we first did this analysis, we found that people ate more fat before 1983, which is the year [of] a big increase in artificial sweetener consumption in the American population — it was actually when aspartame was approved and diet Coke was introduced," he explained.

As a result, the study further analyzed data from a subset of participants, starting in 1983. Compared with 550 people who did not use artificial sweeteners, the 443 people who did were younger, heavier, and had a higher body mass index (BMI), yet they did not consume more calories from people who did not use artificial sweeteners. Fat, carbohydrate, protein, and total caloric intake were not different between the two groups (users vs nonusers).

Furthermore, Mr. Gravenstein noted that people who used artificial sweeteners "were less likely to have a normal OGTT, or they were less likely to be diagnosed as having a normal glucose homeostasis."

In terms of glucose status (the impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and/or impaired fasting glucose (IFG)) the data show that artificial sweetener users "were not different than the prediabetics, i.e., they had the same prevalence of prediabetes," he said, adding that "in our population, people who used artificial sweeteners were twice as likely to have diabetes, 8.8% compared to 4.4% for controls."

Analyzing the data further, the investigators focused on a subpopulation, in which fasting insulin values were available from 374 nonusers and 311 artificial sweetener users. The users had a higher fasting glucose levels, higher fasting insulin levels, and a higher measure of insulin resistance, as measured by the homeostasis model assessment, but glycosylated hemoglobin A1c levels were similar between the two groups.

The researchers suggest an alternative hypothesis, that artificial sweeteners modulate the metabolic rate through enteroendocrine cells, therefore contributing to the development of diabetes and/or obesity. However, this hypothesis needs further testing in longitudinal analysis and intervention studies, said the investigators.

"Also, it could be that artificial sweeteners are causing diabetes, or it could be that there is a higher use of them because a lot of physicians actually recommend people to use artificial sweeteners to prevent diabetes" Mr. Gravenstein said. The researchers are planning to address this question with a prospective analysis.

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society: Abstract P2-478. Presented June 11, 2009

Cold and Flu Season: Diabetics Share Natural Remedies

By admin on Friday, May 29th, 2009 | Comments Off

sick with cold and flu is dangerous for diabetics

As the leaves fall and winter weather creeps onto the horizon, the risk for catching a nasty cold or the miserable flu increases. For people with diabetes, catching the flu can be much more than an inconvenience. In fact according to the Centers for Disease control, a diabetic is three times more likely to die from the flu and six times more likely to be hospitalized.

Obviously, all people with diabetes should get a flu shot every year to protect themselves. Most doctors specializing in diabetes also recommend that immediate family members receive a flu shot to limit exposure to the flu virus within the home.

However, as everyone knows, the flu shot is not a guarantee against catching the flu. So diabetics are always looking for ways to increase protection. On one of the social networking sites for people touched by diabetes, members are sharing with each other ideas and natural remedies to help during the cold and flu season.

One member posted an article detailing the protective powers of the common apple. It turns out apples contain quercetin, which is a flavonoid that may stave off the influenza virus when the body is under stress. Other members immediately chimed in to relate that red onions, broccoli, and tea also contain quercetin and can help. One of the positive benefits of this little-known flavonoid is that it can help boost the immune system during times of both physical and psychological stress.

In another part of the site, another member was sharing insights about the benefits of vitamin D. During the winter months, vitamin D – which the body makes from sunlight – is in short supply. The resulting deficiency can often cause a long list of painful maladies, including bone and joint pain, muscle aches, fibromyalgia syndrome, rheumatic disorders, osteoarthritis, and other complaints.

Of course the most basic of all the protective "natural" remedies to protect yourself during the cold and flu season is hand washing. People with diabetes should be extra vigilant in washing their hands regularly with a good anti-bacterial soap and warm water. According to the Mayo Clinic, here are the steps for effective hand washing:

Wet your hands with warm, running water and apply liquid soap or use clean bar soap. Lather well.
Rub your hands vigorously together for at least 15 to 20 seconds.
Scrub all surfaces, including the backs of your hands, wrists, between your fingers and under your fingernails.
Rinse well.
Dry your hands with a clean or disposable towel.
Use a towel to turn off the faucet.

By: Ben Welch
Article Source: http://www.articleinfo.org

How to Choose the Right Pair of Diabetic Socks

By admin on Saturday, May 16th, 2009 | Comments Off

What are Diabetic Socks?

Diabetic socks are socks that are specially designed for diabetics. Diabetic socks provide the best possible safety and comfort to the feet of a diabetic. Diabetic socks help prevent moisture, which can help prevent bacteria infections and odor. Diabetic socks also help prevent blisters and reduces pressure on the feet. Lastly, diabetic socks help improve the blood circulation in the feet and lower legs for diabetics.

What to Look for in Diabetic Socks

1) Choose diabetic socks that are doctor approved. Not all diabetic socks have the features that doctors recommend for the feet of diabetics. With diabetic socks that are recommended by doctors, diabetics can more confident in picking the right pair of diabetic socks.

2) Diabetic socks should have full cushion support on the sole. Full cushion on diabetic socks allows for maximum comfort and helps to minimize the impact on the soles of the diabetic feet. In addition, the cushion on diabetic socks help to prevent infections by minimizing abrasions that come from the feet rubbing against the inside of shoes.

3) Diabetic socks should be made from high quality materials. The best materials used in making diabetic socks are cotton and nylon. Cotton and nylon diabetic socks will help absorb sweat and keep the feet warm. In addition, cotton and nylon diabetic socks will allow for proper air circulation so that the feet can breath, which will help prevent bacteria and odor.

4) Look for loose tops on diabetic socks. The tops on diabetic socks should be loose enough to allow for proper circulation, but not so loose that the diabetic socks fall down. Also make sure that the tops on the diabetic socks are made with a durable and loose nylon to prevent them from stretching out over time.

5) Make sure the diabetic socks fit correctly. Diabetic socks should fit snugly, but not too restrictive. A comfortable fit should ensure proper blood circulation in the feet. Remember that the sizes for diabetic socks are not the same as sizes for shoes.

6) Choose the right diabetic socks length. Ankle diabetic socks or quarter diabetic socks are great for sporting activities such as running. Crew diabetic socks are versatile enough for every day wear or physical activities. Over the calf diabetic socks are great for those that require more support around the calf area and over the calf diabetic socks are also great for the cold weather.

7) Choose the right diabetic socks color. Diabetic socks are available in a variety of colors including black, grey, navy, tan, white and brown. Diabetic socks with lighter colors allow for diabetics to spot open sores quickly since many diabetics do not have sensation in their feet. Diabetics that do not have this particular problem can choose darker color diabetic socks.

Diabetics Socks Prevent Many Foot Complications
Diabetics face a lot of complications particularly in the feet. Every year, millions of diabetics are forced to amputate their feet. Other diabetics suffer from foot injuries such as bacteria infections and ulcers. Other common foot complications include neuropathy, skin changes, and calluses. Therefore, foot care is of extreme importance for people with diabetes. Diabetic socks are the greatest aid for diabetics in preventing foot complications.

By: ED Chan

Article Source: http://www.articleinfo.org

Not Enough Sleep Causes More Eating and Diabetes Risk

By admin on Sunday, May 3rd, 2009 | Comments Off

tired woman needs sleep Studies continue to show that sleep curtailment or decreased sleep quality can disturb neuroendocrine control of appetite, leading to overeating, and can decrease insulin or increase insulin resistance, both steps on the road to Type 2 diabetes

Short sleep, poor sleep: novel risk factors for obesity and for Type 2 diabetes

A specialist in the effect of circadian rhythms on the endocrine system, Dr. Eve Van Cauter, University of Chicago, has conducted several studies in which short-term sleep restriction damaged the body’s ability to regulate eating by lowering levels of leptin, the hormone that tells the body when it has had enough. In the symposium, Dr. Van Cauter describes other recently published studies from her group, one showing that only three days sleep disruption is sufficient to increase insulin resistance in humans (thus causing the body to need higher levels of insulin) and a large epidemiological study showing that short sleep over a five year period causes an increase in systolic blood pressure.

Energy metabolism during chronic sleep deprivation: sleep less, eat more, don’t gain weight, yet show signs of progression toward diabetes

Dr. Michael Koban, Morgan State University, also reported a new study in which sleep restriction in rats led to glucose intolerance, a prediabetic state in which the blood glucose remains higher than normal after glucose challenge. Significantly, this is the first rodent study of sleep deprivation in which there was no association between glucose dysregulation and weight gain.

The researchers believe that extending sleep restriction will produce more pronounced glucose intolerance in which glucose levels do not return to normal levels for a longer period, thus providing more evidence that not sleeping enough could lead to diabetes in humans. The researchers also are looking for mechanisms to explain the change in metabolism related to sleep deprivation and the dissociation between weight gain and glucose dysregulation and insulin resistance.

Stress-related behaviors and hormone changes after prolonged sleep deprivation – and environmental factors that appear to modify them

Dr. Deborah Suchecki, Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo, described how prolonged sleep deprivation activates the neuroendocrine stress response, as measured by increased blood levels of the stress-related hormones adrenaline, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and corticosterone. Earlier studies have shown that sleep restriction in animals can gradually change brain and neuroendocrine systems in ways similar to those seen in stress-related disorders such as depression, while epidemiological studies suggest that sleep restriction may be an important risk factor for cardiovascular and other diseases linked to stress.

CNS changes after chronic sleep deprivation have role in both food intake and metabolism

Dr. Gloria Hoffman, also of Morgan State University, presents studies that explain the role of the central nervous system pathways in stimulating feeding and causing metabolic changes associated with progression to diabetes. Specifically, increased production of the neurotransmitter neuropeptide Y and decreased production of proopiomelanocortiini products in the hypothalamus explain the hyperphagic response.

Although the CNS’s role in regulating metabolic rate is not well understood, she believes that histamine might be involved. Histamine neurons not only affect the maintenance of wakefulness but also are regulators of peripheral metabolism. In sleep deprived rats, elevations in the glucose to insulin ratio were positively correlated with an increase in histamine expression that raises the possibility that a dysregulation of histamine function during impaired sleep might serve to trigger metabolic and other changes leading to diabetes.

The scientists agree that as sleep curtailment becomes more common in industrialized countries it becomes increasingly important to understand how limited or poor quality sleep produces changes that can lead to obesity and diabetes, both epidemic in the developed world. More and more scientists are jumping on board with these lines of investigation, says Dr. Hoffman, and there is an increased demand for information on the part of health professionals and members of the general public, many of whom consider themselves sleep deprived.

On April 22, at the Experimental Biology 2009 meeting in New Orleans, a panel of leading sleep researchers describes recent and new studies in this fast growing field. The session is part of the scientific program of the American Association of Anatomists (AAA).

Just Slightly Reducing Sugar Intake,

By admin on Monday, April 27th, 2009 | Comments Off

family eating healthy

Just Slightly Reducing Sugar Intake, Increasing Fiber Consumption Reduces Type 2 Diabetes Risk for Hispanic Teenagers. Individuals who reduced added sugar intake by the equivalent of 1 can of soda per day or increased fiber intake by the equivalent of a cup of beans showed improvements in key risk factors for Type 2 diabetes, specifically in insulin secretion and visceral fat.

The improvements occurred independent of group assignment and were equally likely to occur in control group participants.

Hispanic teenagers might lessen some risk factors for Type 2 diabetes by slightly reducing their sugar intake and increasing fiber consumption, according to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine and the L.A. County-USC Medical Center. The study, examined the effect of dietary and activity changes on body composition and metabolism.

The study included 54 Hispanic teens who had an average age of 15. They were split into three groups: those who attended one nutrition class a week, those who attended one nutrition and one strength training class per week, and those who received no health-related intervention.

Researchers found that 55% of all participants — even those in the control group who received no health-related intervention — reduced their sugar consumption by 47 grams each day, which accounted for an average 33% decrease in insulin secretion. In addition, the study found that 59% of all participants increased their fiber consumption by an average of five grams per day, resulting in an average of 10% less visceral fat, which is known to increase the risk of diseases such as diabetes.

Researchers said the teenagers in the control group might have changed their diets because they knew the purpose of the study and were more motivated to make changes. They added that because the control group members also changed their diets, "intensive interventions may not be necessary to achieve modification in sugar and fiber intake."

Individuals who reduced added sugar intake by the equivalent of 1 can of soda per day or increased fiber intake by the equivalent of a cup of beans showed improvements in key risk factors for Type 2 diabetes, specifically in insulin secretion and visceral fat. Improvements occurred independent of group assignment and were equally likely to occur in control group participants.

Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 163 No. 4, April 2009
An abstract of the study can be found online.

Artificial Sweeteners: The Controversy Rages On

By admin on Tuesday, March 31st, 2009 | 1 Comment

“In a nutshell, she was being poisoned by the aspartame in the diet soda. . . and literally dying a slow, and miserable death .”1

Comments, case reports and claims like this are sprouting up all over — especially on the web. The above quote comments on aspartame, but other artificial sweeteners come under fire as well.

Just how scary are artificial sweeteners? Are these compounds actually toxins? Have the guardians of our food supply been bought out by big business?

I hope to add a little clarity to the situation as well as tell you ways to safeguard your own well-being.

First, what chemicals are we talking about and why are people eating them?

The main artificial sweeteners used in the US today are saccharin, aspartame and sucralose. They’re sold under the brand names Sweet N’ Low, NutraSweet, and Splenda, respectively. You’re undoubtedly familiar with the competing pink, blue, and yellow packets.

All of these are artificially produced chemicals. Saccharin is derived from coal tar, aspartame from amino acids, and sucralose from substituting chlorine for oxygen on the sucrose molecule.

If you look around on the web, you’ll find horror stories about all these sweeteners.

Commonly, people report physical symptoms they experienced — restless legs, ringing in the ears, nausea, and hives — that went away when they eliminated the sweeteners from their diet. Others claim that these sweeteners cause severe chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis or systemic lupus.

Still others comment on toxic “chemical cousins” of the sweeteners, implying that the same toxicity may apply to the sweetener. For example, sucralose is chemically related to organochlorines, many of which are, in fact, extremely toxic (think dioxin).

On the other hand, the balance of the available science fails to document definite health risks. A well-respected mainstream journal recently published a major review of all available scientific data concerning aspartame and gave it a pass.2

This review concluded: “In summary, there has been extensive investigation of the possibility of neurotoxic effects due to consumption of aspartame. The data from these studies, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect neuronal function, learning or behavior.”

Yet critics continue to claim aspartame causes neurotoxicity.

This review also looked for evidence of other possible toxicities for aspartame. Their bottom line for all of it was:

“Controlled and thorough scientific studies confirm aspartame’s safety and find no credible link between consumption of aspartame at levels found in the human diet and conditions related to the nervous system and behavior, nor any other symptom or illness.”

Similarly, other studies haven’t clearly proved any ill effects from saccharin or sucralose.

What to make of it all?

One thing I know is that medicine and scientific research aren’t perfect. I made recommendations to people 25 years ago that I cringe thinking about now.

I had every good intention — and I certainly hadn’t been bought out. I was giving advice based on the best knowledge available to me then. It was reasonable advice at the time, only it was wrong. Remembering this keeps me from being too dogmatic.

If someone tells me something made him or her sick, I believe them. However, that doesn’t mean the same thing will make everyone sick. Nor does it necessarily mean we should ban the substance.

Every year, people die of an allergic reaction to peanuts. Many others have horrible non-fatal reactions. Despite this fact, no one is calling for a ban on the cultivation or sale of peanuts.

Here’s my take on artificial sweeteners: I recommend avoiding them, or at least minimizing their use. They are man-made chemicals. There’s no need for any of these in our diet. They’re called non-nutritive sweeteners for a reason.

The science hasn’t (as yet) shown any detrimental effect. But who knows if it’s just a matter of time before a problem shows up?

I find the current research somewhat reassuring, but I’m not completely convinced there’s no need for concern. The best we can hope for is that we won’t react badly and that toxicity won’t show up down the road.

Another downside is that by consuming sweetened foods of any sort we develop taste preferences that influence our food choices.

As a country, we definitely eat too much sugar. We have the obesity and the diabetes to prove it. Average annual consumption has gone from 15 lbs in the early 1800’s to over 160 lbs (!) today.

Using artificial sweeteners is just another way to try to feed our sweet tooth. It would be best to retrain our taste buds not to prefer sweet.

This is especially important in children. The foods they eat determine their preferences as an adult. They don’t need artificial sweeteners. They also don’t need all the sugar they’re getting. They do need to develop habits that will serve them well as they grow.

Avoid artificial sweeteners. Also avoid foods that have sugar or high fructose corn syrup among the top ingredients.

Diet sodas are a major source of artificial sweeteners. Switch to unsweetened drinks. Why not water? Unsweetened tea or seltzer, maybe with a squeeze of lemon, are other good choices.

If you must have a sweetener, consider the herb stevia. This South American plant has been used as a sweetener for centuries without reported adverse effects.

There’s no need to panic about artificial sweeteners, but there’s no need to use them either.

References

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgibin/forum.cgi?read=121777
Burdock, G A et al. Aspartame: A Safety Evaluation Based on Current Use Levels, Regulations, and Toxicological and Epidemiological Studies. Critical Reviews in Toxicology; September , 2007.

[Ed. Note: Joseph F. McCaffrey, MD, FACS is a board-certified surgeon with extensive experience in alternative medicine, including certification as a HeartMath Trainer. His areas of expertise include mind-body interaction and cognitive restructuring. Dr. McCaffrey strives to help people attain their optimum level of vitality through attention to all aspects of wellness. For more information, click here.] This article appears courtesy of Early to Rise’s Total Health Breakthroughs which offers alternative health solutions for mind, body and soul.

Poisons in Our Food?

By admin on Monday, March 30th, 2009 | Comments Off

Society has a love-hate relationship with plastic. We sure use a lot of it, but even before an actor whispered “Plastics…” as a word of advice in the movie The Graduate, plastic often meant shoddy, imitation, and uncool.

Ardent environmentalists tend to hate plastic. You know the issues there.

Now there are other concerns about plastics — namely, that they are poisoning our food supply. These concerns stem from the fact that unsavory chemicals in some plastics can leach into food. Canada highlighted the issue by proposing a ban of plastics containing bisphenol-A, a compound with significant toxicity.

Recently, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed even more startling findings about bisphenol-A.¹ In a large population study of individuals between the ages of 18 and 74, it was found that people with higher levels of bisphenol-A in their urine also had higher rates of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

This is especially worrisome because bisphenol-A is found in a plastic called polycarbonate used to make baby bottles. While the study authors were clear that this does not necessarily show a cause and effect relationship, it is well worth noting the risk.

The question of safety regarding polycarbonates raises a larger question — just how safe are all the plastics that we come into regular contact with? Or phrased differently, what are the risks of packaging and serving food and beverages in plastic?

First, we have to realize that not all plastics are the same. Their chemical composition varies, so naturally their risks vary.

Fortunately, a number stamped on the bottom of most plastic containers tells us which plastic the container is made of. That code is your key to evaluating the risk.

Here’s a quick run-down.

Number 1: Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET or PETE).

This is the lightweight, clear plastic commonly used in soda and water bottles. Many consider it a safe choice because it is not prone to leaching chemicals. However, an Italian study has shown some leaching into water that was stored in a PET bottle for over nine months.²

Another problem with PET is that it doesn’t clean well. For this reason, never reuse PET bottles.

Number 2: High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE).

Milk jugs are usually HDPE. This translucent plastic is also used for shopping bags and the bottles that contain many household products such as cleaning supplies and shampoos. It has a low risk of leaching.

Number 3: Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC).

PVC is used to make packaging materials, including some food containers. It is also used for plastic wraps. Softeners added to PVC tend to migrate into food and raise safety concerns.

Number 4: Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE).

This plastic is found in bread bags and squeezable bottles. Fortunately, studies to date have not shown any chemicals leaching from LDPE into food.

Number 5: Polypropylene (PP).

This is the stuff of fishing lines and surgical sutures, as well as syrup bottles and yogurt tubs. It appears to be toxin-free.

Number 6: Polystyrene (PS).

You’ll recognize this as Styrofoam, so widely used in coffee cups and fast food containers. Unfortunately, it can leach styrene compounds into foods. Please don’t reheat your coffee in a microwave if it’s in Styrofoam. Better yet, find an alternative to the Styrofoam cup.

Number 7: Polycarbonate.

This is the clear, rigid, shatterproof plastic used for safety glasses (good) as well as backpacking water bottles and baby bottles (not so good). It contains bisphenol-A, a compound that can interfere with normal hormones and may be related to heart disease and diabetes

So that’s the summary.

Once again, we have a situation where health advocates raise reasonable sounding concerns while the manufacturers claim their products are safe. Canada bans plastics with bisphenol-A while the FDA assures us the available evidence doesn’t support a ban.

What’s a reasonable person to do?

First, let’s acknowledge that plastics are extremely useful compounds. We wouldn’t want to be without them. However, their overuse raises concern for both environmental and health reasons.

While the FDA reports that some chemicals do leach into food from plastics under some conditions, they claim the levels are very low and that current research shows no adverse effects at these levels.

I’m not particularly interested in ingesting these chemicals even if no adverse effect has yet been proven.

I think a reasonable approach is to use plastic selectively. For example, I’m not about to go back to glass shampoo bottles. The combination of a glass bottle, wet, soapy hands, a tile floor, and bare feet just isn’t good. But I do prefer my tomato juice bottled in glass.

Reduce plastic usage overall. Be especially selective about using plastic to hold food or drinks. The chemical levels may be low, but why would you want any if you had a choice?

Evaluate the situations where you use plastic and see if another material might be a better choice.