The 7-minute exercise plan for diabetes prevention
Exercise is overrated. I'm always reading more proof that says you don't need to run a marathon to receive the benefits of a little exercise. Like this British study that claims you can control or prevent diabetes with as little as seven minutes of exercise… per week.
The study's leader, University of Edinburgh biologist James Timmons, says that you can get the same benefits from minimal amounts of exercise as you can from workouts that last for hours. "This is such a brief amount of exercise you can do it without breaking a sweat," Timmons said.
In the study, out-of-shape men in their 20s were asked to ride an exercise bike four times each day – in 30 second bursts of pedaling – two days a week. After just two weeks, the all of the men were 23 percent more effective at processing insulin.
I've warned you many times about the potential dangers of over-rigorous exercise, so this minimalist approach appeals to me – and it should to you, too! Like I always say, skip the gym membership and just go for a walk.
Always providing your brain with vigorous exercise,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
The Normal A1C Level
You want to control your diabetes as much as possible. You wouldn't be reading
this if you didn't.
So you regularly check your A1C level. This is the best measurement of our blood
glucose control that we have now. It tells us what percentage of our hemoglobin
-- the protein in our red blood cells that carry oxygen -- has glucose sticking to it.
The less glucose that remains in our bloodstream rather than going to work in the cells
that need it the better we feel now and the better our health will continue to be.
As we are able to control our diabetes better and better, the reasonable goal is
to bring our A1C levels down to normal -- the A1C level that people who don't have
diabetes have. But before we can even set that goal, we have to know what the target is.
The trouble with setting that target is that different experts tell us that
quite different A1C levels are "normal." They tell us that different levels are
normal -- but I have never heard of actual studies of normal A1C levels among
people without diabetes -- until now.
The major laboratories that test our levels often say that the normal range is
4.0 to 6.0.
They base that range on an old standard chemistry text, Tietz Fundamentals of
Clinical Chemistry.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial or DCCT, one of the two largest and
most
important studies of people with diabetes, said that 6.0 was a normal level. But
the
other key study, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study or UKPDS, which
compared conventional and intensive therapy in more than 5,000 newly diagnosed
people with type 2 diabetes, said that 6.2 is the normal level.
Those levels, while unsubstantiated, are close. But they comes along one of my
heroes,
Dr. Richard K. Bernstein, the author of the key text of very low-carb eating for
people
with diabetes, Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution. Dr. Bernstein himself
developed
type 1 diabetes in 1946 at the age of 12.
"For my patients...a truly normal HgbA1C ranges from 4.2 percent to 4.6
percent," he
writes on page 54 of the third edition of that book. "Mine is consistently 4.5
percent."
Then in his July 30, 2008, telecast he reiterated that as far as he has been
able to
determine, a normal A1C is 4.2 to 4.6.
What Dr. Bernstein says is normal is so at odds with the other experts that at
least a
year ago I determined to find scientific proof of what a normal A1C level
actually is. It
turned out to be a lot more difficult to find than I ever imagined.
My personal quest for a normal A1C level and that of my favorite Certified
Diabetes
Educator drove that search.
When I learned in 1994 that I had diabetes and that my A1C level was 14.4, I was
gradually able to bring it way down. Lately I have been doing everything I can
think of to
try to get my A1C down to normal. But in 2008 my level in nine separate A1C
tests
always ranged from 5.2 to 5.6. That's far from normal, according to Dr.
Bernstein.
My favorite Certified Diabetes Educator is also doing everything she can to get
a normal
A1C level. And she doesn't even have diabetes -- which she double-checked by
taking
a glucose tolerance test -- but her most recent A1C was 5.4.
What could we be doing that is so wrong? Each of us is thin, eat a very healthy
diet, exercise a lot, take care of our teeth and gums, which is a major source
of infection. Could we have other infections or stresses that prevent us from
getting our A1C levels down to "normal"?
It turns out that my favorite Certified Diabetes Educator and I have normal A1C
levels after all. I learned this just yesterday when I finally tracked down
actual research determining what normal levels are.
A friend suggested that I contact the people who run the standardization program
for A1C testing. This organization affiliated with the University of Missouri is
the NGSP. Those initial used to stand for the National Glycohemoglobin
Standardization Program. But now that the NGSP is international, they changed
the name.
So I called Curt Rohlfing, the NGSP data manager and technical writer/research
analyst at the University of Missouri. And finally hit pay dirt in my quest for
learning what a normal A1C is.
Curt told me that every three or four years his lab at the university studies a
group of people who don't have diabetes to scientifically determine what a
normal A1C level is. The results from one study to the next are always close,
Curt told me. In their most recent study they tested 29 people who lived nearby
in central Missouri.
I asked how they knew if the people they tested didn't have diabetes. "Because
we did fasting glucose tests on them, they had no prior history of diabetes, and
none of them were obese," Curt replied.
So what were their levels? They ranged from 4.5 to 6, Curt replied. That's at
plus or minus 3 standard deviations.
I am certainly no statistician. But Curt tells me that it includes about 99
percent of the values.
The range is narrower -- 4.7 to 5.7 -- at plus or minus 2 standard deviations.
This includes about 95 percent of the values.
"The upper limit is the more important one," Curt explained further. "The lower
limit doesn't convey as much meaning."
They also see "a little skew toward the high end of the range, a bit of tailing
at the high side," Curt continued. In fact, levels below 4.5 are "quite
unusual," and usually are only when people have anemia or other abnormalities of
the red blood cells.
Remember these are the ranges obtained by the people who set the standards for
A1C tests. Sadly, however, not every laboratory or home test kit meets those
standards. Maybe the lab that Dr. Bernstein uses doesn't. Does yours? Curt
suggests that you ask your doctor if the lab running the test uses a method that
is certified by the NGSP.
The first conclusion of the research for me is that we need to shoot for a
normal A1C level of no more than 6.0 instead of trying what may be impossible, a
level of 4.2 to 4.6.
However, an A1C level of 6.0 can cause people who take insulin injections or one
of the
sulfonylureas to go hypo. That's why the American Diabetes Associations sets the
goal
conservatively at 7.0.
Still, a lower A1C level among people who take those medications is possible
without hypos. Dr. Bernstein has amply shown that both in his own life and that
of thousands of his patients.
And certainly, for those of us who don't take insulin injections or one of the
sulfonylureas we can set our goal even lower.
That's because we have to understand the different between normal and optimal.
For example, two-thirds of all American adults are overweight. Thus it has
become normal in our culture to be overweight. Likewise, the average American
gets little exercise, and that is also normal. We know that being a chubby couch
potato isn't optimal.
"I'm going to aim to be in the lower end of the normal A1C range," my favorite
CDE tells me, "because that is what I believe is optimal for human health." And
now that I know my A1C is in the normal range I am still going to do my best to
bring it down as much as possible. Are you?
Monday, March 9, 2009
Most edible oils contain harmful trans fat, study shows
Most edible oils contain harmful trans fat, study shows
New Delhi (IANS): How healthy is the oil you are consuming? A new study has found that despite tall claims by manufacturers, most of the edible oils available in the market are full of trans fat that could lead to heart disease.
A study conduced by an NGO, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), tested 30 samples of branded oils - vanaspati, vegetable oil, ghee and butter - widely available in the market. It found that all of them have several times higher percentage of trans fat than required.
Trans fat is a kind of unsaturated fat produced when hydrogen is added to the vegetable
oil to increase its shelf life.
"Trans fats are deadly for health, especially for the heart, as they reduce the good cholesterol. They can increase the risk of infertility in women and cause diseases like cancer and diabetes. Some of the countries in the world have regulated the use of trans fats in oils," said CSE director Sunita Narain.
The tests found that in all vanaspati brands, trans fat levels were five to 12 times higher than the world's only standard for trans fat, set in Denmark, at two percent of total oil.
"The study found that if all oils are compared against Denmark standard, then no edible oil in the market could claim to be healthy," said Narain.
According to her, while food regulators in India have accepted trans fat as a serious health concern, they are delaying setting the standard for trans fat in oils.
"In 2004, the health ministry's oil and fats sub-committee began a discussion on a standard for trans fat. In Jan 2008, it forwarded its recommendations to the Central Committee for Food for standards but no decision has been taken yet," said Chander Bhushan, head of the team that carried out the study.
Instead of standards, in Septemeber 2008, the health ministry issued a notification for labelling of trans fat on oil and food.
"Oil companies easily get away by giving composition in a range, which actually consumers do not even know. It is like playing with the health of citizens. We want the government to immediately set some standards for trans fat in oil and food products," Narain said.
The study found that vanaspati has the highest amount of trans fat followed by vegetable oil. The least amount of trans fat was found in ghee and butter.
Source: The Hindu
New Delhi (IANS): How healthy is the oil you are consuming? A new study has found that despite tall claims by manufacturers, most of the edible oils available in the market are full of trans fat that could lead to heart disease.
A study conduced by an NGO, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), tested 30 samples of branded oils - vanaspati, vegetable oil, ghee and butter - widely available in the market. It found that all of them have several times higher percentage of trans fat than required.
Trans fat is a kind of unsaturated fat produced when hydrogen is added to the vegetable
oil to increase its shelf life.
"Trans fats are deadly for health, especially for the heart, as they reduce the good cholesterol. They can increase the risk of infertility in women and cause diseases like cancer and diabetes. Some of the countries in the world have regulated the use of trans fats in oils," said CSE director Sunita Narain.
The tests found that in all vanaspati brands, trans fat levels were five to 12 times higher than the world's only standard for trans fat, set in Denmark, at two percent of total oil.
"The study found that if all oils are compared against Denmark standard, then no edible oil in the market could claim to be healthy," said Narain.
According to her, while food regulators in India have accepted trans fat as a serious health concern, they are delaying setting the standard for trans fat in oils.
"In 2004, the health ministry's oil and fats sub-committee began a discussion on a standard for trans fat. In Jan 2008, it forwarded its recommendations to the Central Committee for Food for standards but no decision has been taken yet," said Chander Bhushan, head of the team that carried out the study.
Instead of standards, in Septemeber 2008, the health ministry issued a notification for labelling of trans fat on oil and food.
"Oil companies easily get away by giving composition in a range, which actually consumers do not even know. It is like playing with the health of citizens. We want the government to immediately set some standards for trans fat in oil and food products," Narain said.
The study found that vanaspati has the highest amount of trans fat followed by vegetable oil. The least amount of trans fat was found in ghee and butter.
Source: The Hindu
Diabetes And Low Testosterone
Diabetes And Low Testosterone
The Two Go Hand In Hand, With Possibly Serious Consequences
Dec. 1, 2004
Diabetes
Symptoms, treatments, and how to prevent it.
(WebMD) A third of men with type 2 diabetes have low testosterone levels, a new study suggests.
Testosterone helps men reduce body fat and improves the way their bodies handle insulin. So low testosterone levels may have serious consequences for men with diabetes, suggests Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, of State University of New York at Buffalo.
"We are describing a new complication of type 2 diabetes. We are saying that the largest group of people who have [low testosterone] are diabetics," Dhindsa tells WebMD. "It means your pituitary gland, which controls all the other hormones in your body, is not working very well. We are talking about one-third of men with diabetes being at risk of high fat mass, low muscle mass, low bone density, depression, and erectile dysfunction."
Total Testosterone Vs. Free Testosterone
Previous studies have found that men with diabetes are more likely to have low testosterone than are men without diabetes, notes Glenn R. Cunningham, MD, professor of molecular and cellular biology and vice chairman for research at Baylor College of Medicine.
"People have looked at testosterone levels in diabetics a lot. A number of studies show a fairly significant percentage of diabetics have low testosterone," Cunningham tells WebMD.
But most of these studies, Dhindsa says, relied on measures of total testosterone. Total testosterone levels depend on the amount of a testosterone-binding substance in the blood (sex hormone binding globulin, or SHBG). Since men with diabetes have low SHBG levels, it was hard to know what these earlier findings meant.
Dhindsa and colleagues, however, used much more sophisticated tests that measure free testosterone in the blood of 103 men with type 2 diabetes.
"That gives more validity to this study than to some of the others," Cunningham says. "They did find somewhat higher prevalence of low testosterone than previously reported."
Low Testosterone In Diabetes: More Than Obesity
A man's testosterone levels drop as he ages. If he's obese, his testosterone levels drop even more. Diabetes accentuates these effects.
Indeed, the older and more obese men in the Dhindsa study did tend to have low testosterone levels. But many of the younger, leaner men had low testosterone, too.
The researchers found nothing wrong with the men's testes. Instead, they found evidence that the men's pituitary glands weren't making enough luteinizing hormone. That's the hormone that tells the testes to make testosterone.
Why is this a problem? Low testosterone levels are, of course, linked to erectile dysfunction. Low testosterone is linked to higher fat mass, particularly abdominal fat, which is particularly dangerous for people with diabetes because of its risk for heart disease. Low testosterone is also linked to low bone density, low lean muscle mass, depression, mood disorders, and cognitive problems. And low testosterone is linked to insulin resistance.
Advice To Men With Diabetes: Get Testosterone Test
Cunningham advises men with diabetes to get a testosterone test — free testosterone, not total testosterone — if they have any symptoms of sexual dysfunction.
Dhindsa advises men with diabetes not to wait for symptoms, but to get a testosterone test as part of their basic medical care.
"We are screening all diabetic men for low testosterone because the symptoms are very nonspecific," he says. "Anyone can have erectile dysfunction or a mood problem. And most diabetes patients with low testosterone do not have any symptoms. They are surprised to find they have low testosterone."
Testosterone replacement therapy is available. Will it help people with diabetes? That remains to be seen. Dhindsa and colleagues are giving the treatment to men with diabetes and low testosterone, but it's too soon to tell whether it's the right thing to do.
"The data are not sufficient to recommend testosterone replacement for men with diabetes," Cunningham says. "One of the things that could be important is when you treat a man with male sex hormone, it increases lean body mass and causes some decrease in fat mass. There is some issue whether testosterone might improve diabetic men's insulin sensitivity. The studies we have are not definitive."
Sources: Dhindsa, S. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, November 2004; vol 89: pp 5462-5468. Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, assistant professor of medicine, State University of New York, Buffalo. Glenn R. Cunningham, MD, professor of molecular and cellular biology and vice chairman for research, Baylor College of Medicine; associate chief of staff, Research Service, VA Medical Center, Houston.
By Daniel J. DeNoon
Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD
© 2004, WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.
The Two Go Hand In Hand, With Possibly Serious Consequences
Dec. 1, 2004
Diabetes
Symptoms, treatments, and how to prevent it.
(WebMD) A third of men with type 2 diabetes have low testosterone levels, a new study suggests.
Testosterone helps men reduce body fat and improves the way their bodies handle insulin. So low testosterone levels may have serious consequences for men with diabetes, suggests Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, of State University of New York at Buffalo.
"We are describing a new complication of type 2 diabetes. We are saying that the largest group of people who have [low testosterone] are diabetics," Dhindsa tells WebMD. "It means your pituitary gland, which controls all the other hormones in your body, is not working very well. We are talking about one-third of men with diabetes being at risk of high fat mass, low muscle mass, low bone density, depression, and erectile dysfunction."
Total Testosterone Vs. Free Testosterone
Previous studies have found that men with diabetes are more likely to have low testosterone than are men without diabetes, notes Glenn R. Cunningham, MD, professor of molecular and cellular biology and vice chairman for research at Baylor College of Medicine.
"People have looked at testosterone levels in diabetics a lot. A number of studies show a fairly significant percentage of diabetics have low testosterone," Cunningham tells WebMD.
But most of these studies, Dhindsa says, relied on measures of total testosterone. Total testosterone levels depend on the amount of a testosterone-binding substance in the blood (sex hormone binding globulin, or SHBG). Since men with diabetes have low SHBG levels, it was hard to know what these earlier findings meant.
Dhindsa and colleagues, however, used much more sophisticated tests that measure free testosterone in the blood of 103 men with type 2 diabetes.
"That gives more validity to this study than to some of the others," Cunningham says. "They did find somewhat higher prevalence of low testosterone than previously reported."
Low Testosterone In Diabetes: More Than Obesity
A man's testosterone levels drop as he ages. If he's obese, his testosterone levels drop even more. Diabetes accentuates these effects.
Indeed, the older and more obese men in the Dhindsa study did tend to have low testosterone levels. But many of the younger, leaner men had low testosterone, too.
The researchers found nothing wrong with the men's testes. Instead, they found evidence that the men's pituitary glands weren't making enough luteinizing hormone. That's the hormone that tells the testes to make testosterone.
Why is this a problem? Low testosterone levels are, of course, linked to erectile dysfunction. Low testosterone is linked to higher fat mass, particularly abdominal fat, which is particularly dangerous for people with diabetes because of its risk for heart disease. Low testosterone is also linked to low bone density, low lean muscle mass, depression, mood disorders, and cognitive problems. And low testosterone is linked to insulin resistance.
Advice To Men With Diabetes: Get Testosterone Test
Cunningham advises men with diabetes to get a testosterone test — free testosterone, not total testosterone — if they have any symptoms of sexual dysfunction.
Dhindsa advises men with diabetes not to wait for symptoms, but to get a testosterone test as part of their basic medical care.
"We are screening all diabetic men for low testosterone because the symptoms are very nonspecific," he says. "Anyone can have erectile dysfunction or a mood problem. And most diabetes patients with low testosterone do not have any symptoms. They are surprised to find they have low testosterone."
Testosterone replacement therapy is available. Will it help people with diabetes? That remains to be seen. Dhindsa and colleagues are giving the treatment to men with diabetes and low testosterone, but it's too soon to tell whether it's the right thing to do.
"The data are not sufficient to recommend testosterone replacement for men with diabetes," Cunningham says. "One of the things that could be important is when you treat a man with male sex hormone, it increases lean body mass and causes some decrease in fat mass. There is some issue whether testosterone might improve diabetic men's insulin sensitivity. The studies we have are not definitive."
Sources: Dhindsa, S. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, November 2004; vol 89: pp 5462-5468. Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, assistant professor of medicine, State University of New York, Buffalo. Glenn R. Cunningham, MD, professor of molecular and cellular biology and vice chairman for research, Baylor College of Medicine; associate chief of staff, Research Service, VA Medical Center, Houston.
By Daniel J. DeNoon
Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD
© 2004, WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.
REAL Health Breakthroughs
REAL Health Breakthroughs
From William Campbell Douglass II,M.D.
Visit us at www.DouglassReport.com Learn more about William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
The Great Cholesterol Myth Busted!
The controversy has been raging for years about the importance (or lack of importance) of cholesterol in the diet. Radicals like me have been saying all along that the more cholesterol you eat the better. Back in the 70s when the cardiologists were telling their patients to limit eggs to one a week, I was telling my patients to eat 10 a day if they liked
Over the last 50 years, the "high cholesterol/heart disease" theory has been disproved many times over, but mainstream medicine still pretends not to know it. In fact, in 2004 the Journal of the American College of Nutrition printed a study by Dr. David R. Pendergast of the State University of New York that proves my point perfectly. Dr. Pendergast and his colleagues placed 11 healthy adults on a very low-fat diet with only 19 percent of calories பிரோம் fat—something only a dedicated carrot cruncher could tolerate. The volunteers' good cholesterol, HDL, dropped significantly. Then Pendergast had them switch to a high-fat plan. After three weeks on this diet, which provided 50 percent of calories from fat, participants' HDL levels went up considerably. And, by the way, the high-fat diet did not raise LDL (bad) cholesterol beyond the levels participants had on their regular diets.
"While saturated fat is blamed for raising 'bad' LDL cholesterol levels, Pendergast said, it may in fact be the combination of lots of fat and too many calories that makes for unhealthy cholesterol profiles."
Saturated fat does NOT raise cholesterol levels. That was proven 80 years ago by the famous arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who lived on whale and seal blubber for a year and came out of it wiser but no fatter. In fact, he was in great shape. One of the greatest nutritionists of the century, George Mann, M.D., the co-director of the Framingham Heart Study, said, "The diet-heart idea [the notion that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease] is the greatest scientific deception of our times. This idea has been repeatedly
shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of pride, profit and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be exploited by scientists, fund-raising enterprises, food companies and even governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the greatest health scam of the century."
The REAL scoop on heart disease
So if the problem isn't saturated fat and cholesterol, what is it? It's an amino acid called homocysteine. Normally, homocysteine is used to build and maintain tissues. Your body forms homocysteine when you eat food containing an amino acid called methionine, which is present in all animal and vegetable protein. But too much in your bloodstream literally shreds your arteries from the inside out, allowing fat and cholesterol to stick...eventually leading to total blockage, followed by a heart attack or stroke. Thirty years of intensive research has revealed that excess homocysteine disables a mechanism in your arterial cells called contact inhibition, which regulates the growth of the smooth muscle cells just below the inner wall of the artery.
As a result, the smooth muscle cells multiply out of control. This creates a bulge that pushes other cells apart and protrudes into the artery. This is what makes arteriosclerosis possible: The inner wall becomes uneven and rough, then the build up of plaque begins…and the rest, as they say, is scientific.
Studies published in many prominent medical journals have linked elevated homocysteine levels with cardiac problems.
An article in the June 1996 issue of Medical Tribune News stated the
following: "High levels of homocysteine, a substance involved in protein production, are associated with artery thickening, a precursor to both stroke and heart disease." A team of cardiologists in Norway conducted a study in which they followed 587 heart patients for five years. The results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that 24 percent of the patients with high levels of homocysteine in their blood were dead within five years. The five-year mortality rate among the patients with normal homocysteine levels was only 3 percent. A 1992 Harvard study of 15,000 physicians showed that those physicians with the highest 5 percent of homocysteine readings had a threefold-plus increase in heart-attack risk (JAMA, vol. 268, pp. 877-81)
Homocysteine also interferes with your blood vessels' natural ability to relax and makes your blood stickier. The good news is that there's a simple secret to controlling homocysteine overload: Your body requires a steady supply of three particular "helper nutrients" to process, convert, and excrete excess homocysteine.
The three Bs for better vascular health
Vitamins B6 and B12 and folic acid (which is also a B vitamin) are the keys to maintaining normal homocysteine levels. These three nutrients play a crucial role in converting the potential villain homocysteine into cystathione and methionine, which are harmless and occur naturally. Folic acid is the most important of these B vitamins in attacking and neutralizing homocysteine.
There are now numerous studies reported in peer-reviewed international medical and research journals that demonstrate the benefits of folic acid in combating high homocysteine levels. The best sources of folic acid are animal protein, animal fat, and dairy products. The leader in folate nutrition—by far—is liver. A small serving of beef liver—3 oz., for instance—contains 174
micrograms of folic acid. When is the last time a nutritionist or doctor advised you to eat some variety of liver a least once a week? Probably never. Chicken liver is the tastiest and, with the proper sauce, is an outstanding dish. BUT, don't overcook it. It should be a little red or at least pink. But even with a healthy diet containing plenty of folate-rich animal food, you should still டேக் a supplement just to be absolutely certain you're getting enough of this nutrient. Take at least 800 micrograms a day. Keep in mind that doses up to 5,000 micrograms—and more—are safe and will do you even more good. I take 5,000 to 15,000 micrograms a day.
You should consider supplementing with vitamins B6 and B12 as well. These two nutrients are often destroyed by heating, dehydration, and other types of food processing, and our soil is depleted of much of its nutrient value, so it's virtually impossible to get enough B6 and B12 to normalize homocysteine levels from food sources alone. I suggest at least 25 milligrams of B6, and ௫௦௦ micrograms of B12 daily.
For more about cholesterol and hundreds of other real health topics, go to Dr. Douglass' website at www.DouglassReport.com .
Visit us at www.DouglassReport.com Learn more about William Campbell Douglass II,M.D.
©Copyright 2007 The Douglass Report 819 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21201. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced பி
any means or for any reason without the consent of the publisher.
This information is provided as information only and may not be construed as medical advice or instruction. No action should be taken based solely
on the contents of this publication. Readers should consult appropriate health professionals on any matter relating to their health and well-being. த Theinformation and opinions provided in this publication are believed to be accurate and sound, based on the best judgment available to the authors, but
readers who fail to consult appropriate health authorities assume the risk of any injuries. The publisher is not responsible for errors or omissions.
From William Campbell Douglass II,M.D.
Visit us at www.DouglassReport.com
The Great Cholesterol Myth Busted!
The controversy has been raging for years about the importance (or lack of importance) of cholesterol in the diet. Radicals like me have been saying all along that the more cholesterol you eat the better. Back in the 70s when the cardiologists were telling their patients to limit eggs to one a week, I was telling my patients to eat 10 a day if they liked
Over the last 50 years, the "high cholesterol/heart disease" theory has been disproved many times over, but mainstream medicine still pretends not to know it. In fact, in 2004 the Journal of the American College of Nutrition printed a study by Dr. David R. Pendergast of the State University of New York that proves my point perfectly. Dr. Pendergast and his colleagues placed 11 healthy adults on a very low-fat diet with only 19 percent of calories பிரோம் fat—something only a dedicated carrot cruncher could tolerate. The volunteers' good cholesterol, HDL, dropped significantly. Then Pendergast had them switch to a high-fat plan. After three weeks on this diet, which provided 50 percent of calories from fat, participants' HDL levels went up considerably. And, by the way, the high-fat diet did not raise LDL (bad) cholesterol beyond the levels participants had on their regular diets.
"While saturated fat is blamed for raising 'bad' LDL cholesterol levels, Pendergast said, it may in fact be the combination of lots of fat and too many calories that makes for unhealthy cholesterol profiles."
Saturated fat does NOT raise cholesterol levels. That was proven 80 years ago by the famous arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who lived on whale and seal blubber for a year and came out of it wiser but no fatter. In fact, he was in great shape. One of the greatest nutritionists of the century, George Mann, M.D., the co-director of the Framingham Heart Study, said, "The diet-heart idea [the notion that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease] is the greatest scientific deception of our times. This idea has been repeatedly
shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of pride, profit and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be exploited by scientists, fund-raising enterprises, food companies and even governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the greatest health scam of the century."
The REAL scoop on heart disease
So if the problem isn't saturated fat and cholesterol, what is it? It's an amino acid called homocysteine. Normally, homocysteine is used to build and maintain tissues. Your body forms homocysteine when you eat food containing an amino acid called methionine, which is present in all animal and vegetable protein. But too much in your bloodstream literally shreds your arteries from the inside out, allowing fat and cholesterol to stick...eventually leading to total blockage, followed by a heart attack or stroke. Thirty years of intensive research has revealed that excess homocysteine disables a mechanism in your arterial cells called contact inhibition, which regulates the growth of the smooth muscle cells just below the inner wall of the artery.
As a result, the smooth muscle cells multiply out of control. This creates a bulge that pushes other cells apart and protrudes into the artery. This is what makes arteriosclerosis possible: The inner wall becomes uneven and rough, then the build up of plaque begins…and the rest, as they say, is scientific.
Studies published in many prominent medical journals have linked elevated homocysteine levels with cardiac problems.
An article in the June 1996 issue of Medical Tribune News stated the
following: "High levels of homocysteine, a substance involved in protein production, are associated with artery thickening, a precursor to both stroke and heart disease." A team of cardiologists in Norway conducted a study in which they followed 587 heart patients for five years. The results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that 24 percent of the patients with high levels of homocysteine in their blood were dead within five years. The five-year mortality rate among the patients with normal homocysteine levels was only 3 percent. A 1992 Harvard study of 15,000 physicians showed that those physicians with the highest 5 percent of homocysteine readings had a threefold-plus increase in heart-attack risk (JAMA, vol. 268, pp. 877-81)
Homocysteine also interferes with your blood vessels' natural ability to relax and makes your blood stickier. The good news is that there's a simple secret to controlling homocysteine overload: Your body requires a steady supply of three particular "helper nutrients" to process, convert, and excrete excess homocysteine.
The three Bs for better vascular health
Vitamins B6 and B12 and folic acid (which is also a B vitamin) are the keys to maintaining normal homocysteine levels. These three nutrients play a crucial role in converting the potential villain homocysteine into cystathione and methionine, which are harmless and occur naturally. Folic acid is the most important of these B vitamins in attacking and neutralizing homocysteine.
There are now numerous studies reported in peer-reviewed international medical and research journals that demonstrate the benefits of folic acid in combating high homocysteine levels. The best sources of folic acid are animal protein, animal fat, and dairy products. The leader in folate nutrition—by far—is liver. A small serving of beef liver—3 oz., for instance—contains 174
micrograms of folic acid. When is the last time a nutritionist or doctor advised you to eat some variety of liver a least once a week? Probably never. Chicken liver is the tastiest and, with the proper sauce, is an outstanding dish. BUT, don't overcook it. It should be a little red or at least pink. But even with a healthy diet containing plenty of folate-rich animal food, you should still டேக் a supplement just to be absolutely certain you're getting enough of this nutrient. Take at least 800 micrograms a day. Keep in mind that doses up to 5,000 micrograms—and more—are safe and will do you even more good. I take 5,000 to 15,000 micrograms a day.
You should consider supplementing with vitamins B6 and B12 as well. These two nutrients are often destroyed by heating, dehydration, and other types of food processing, and our soil is depleted of much of its nutrient value, so it's virtually impossible to get enough B6 and B12 to normalize homocysteine levels from food sources alone. I suggest at least 25 milligrams of B6, and ௫௦௦ micrograms of B12 daily.
For more about cholesterol and hundreds of other real health topics, go to Dr. Douglass' website at www.DouglassReport.com
Visit us at www.DouglassReport.com
©Copyright 2007 The Douglass Report 819 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21201. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced பி
any means or for any reason without the consent of the publisher.
This information is provided as information only and may not be construed as medical advice or instruction. No action should be taken based solely
on the contents of this publication. Readers should consult appropriate health professionals on any matter relating to their health and well-being. த Theinformation and opinions provided in this publication are believed to be accurate and sound, based on the best judgment available to the authors, but
readers who fail to consult appropriate health authorities assume the risk of any injuries. The publisher is not responsible for errors or omissions.
The Danger of Too Many Tests By Dr. Ranit Mishori
The Danger of Too Many Tests By Dr. Ranit Mishori
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_07-06-2008/3Too_Many_Tests
If you’re like most Americans, your health bills are soaring. One reason is the “diagnostic imaging” industry, which includes X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs—the tests that let doctors “see” our bones, blood vessels, nerves, muscles, and organs. According to the American College of Radiology, imaging is one of the fastest-growing services in medicine, with costs reaching approximately $100 billion annually.
The detail revealed by these tests can be astounding, the information lifesaving. But are we overdoing it? Are all those tests really necessary? And is harm potentially being done?
Some researchers worry about overexposure to radiation. While noting that many lives are saved by imaging, Dr. David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City, estimates that “1% to 2% more cases of cancer may result from the increased use of imaging in the future.” Of special concern: Some 5 million CT scans are performed annually on children, who are 10 times more sensitive to radiation than adults.
Further, imaging may result in “false-positive” results (finding a problem that does not in fact exist) or “incidental findings” (seeing an abnormality that may be clinically harmless), notes Dr. Stephen Baker, chair of the Department of Radiology at the UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School. Both results often lead to even more imaging and risky invasive procedures, including surgery.
Not every ache and pain calls for a scan or an X-ray. It’s best to know where and how imaging tends to be overused.
CT Scans
Computed Tomography (CT) scans, also known as CAT scans, are the “doughnut holes” patients can find themselves in. CT scans are particularly good for looking at organs, bone, soft tissue, and blood vessels. However, their radiation levels can be quite high—“typically the equivalent of about 100 conventional X-rays,” says Dr. Brenner. CTs are routinely ordered for headaches, heart imaging, and full-body scans, but there are reasons to question their use for each.
Headaches. CT scans are requested for many of the 45 million patients who suffer from headaches to rule out their greatest fear: a brain tumor.
Numerous studies suggest, however, that this is overkill. Most headaches are not indicators of something serious—a tumor or brain bleed. Furthermore, these more-serious problems almost always are accompanied by other, visible symptoms, such as seizures and neurological impairment. For example, Sen.Ted Kennedy’s recent brain tumor diagnosis involved clear seizure activity. In the absence of such red flags, a scan probably is not worth the risk of increased radiation exposure. This view has been endorsed by a panel of experts, including the American Academy of Neurology.
Heart imaging. Coronary CT angiography is a relatively new procedure that gives a detailed view of the heart and the arteries that supply it with blood. It allows doctors to see calcium deposits and blocked arteries without inserting tubes or needles. This test has become quite popular, but it also raises concerns because of the frequency of false-positive and false-negative results. Furthermore, in addition to radiation exposure, there is the risk from the contrast dye used, which can lead to allergic reactions and kidney damage.
At present, there are no clear guidelines for when a coronary CT is clinically appropriate. It appears that the test can benefit those who have symptoms that suggest heart disease or who are at high risk for heart disease. But healthy individuals should not rush to request this test.
Full-body scans. CT scans of the entire body—a virtual physical, where every inch of your body is scrutinized from the inside—have been marketed in recent years to perfectly healthy individuals. But experts—including those at the American Cancer Society, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and American College of Radiology—agree that these scans are not a good idea for healthy people without any symptoms. The scans often find irregularities that are entirely harmless but nevertheless lead to many expensive, unneeded, and invasive procedures.
X-rays
This classic imaging tool is useful for looking at bones and the chest.
Chest X-rays. Doctors often order chest X-rays for routine evaluation before surgery. While it certainly makes sense to do so in certain cases—for those whose surgery involves the heart or lungs, for example—there is increasing evidence that general testing is not advantageous. A recent extensive review in the United Kingdom found that chest X-rays may lead to false-positive results and expose patients to unnecessary radiation.
Back pain. Despite the discomfort associated with lower back pain, the vast majority of patients (90%) recover within 6-8 weeks, and most do not need X-rays, MRIs, or CT scans of their lower back. Imaging should be reserved for those cases where a serious underlying condition is suspected.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides excellent views of the soft tissues of the body, so it is very useful in brain and cancer imaging. Unlike CTs or X-rays, MRIs do not emit radiation—they use a magnetic field to create images—but they are much more expensive than simple X-rays.
Achy knees. These days, MRIs frequently are ordered for patients with knee pain due to arthritis, because they provide a detailed view of the knees, bones, cartilage, and ligaments. But MRIs may not be necessary to diagnose a common condition such as osteoarthritis. A study presented this year at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ annual meeting suggested that, in most cases, X-rays are sufficient to determine who needs knee-replacement surgery. The cost difference translates into millions of dollars: MRIs are billed anywhere from $1200 to $2500 per session, whereas knee X-ray billing falls under $200.
Why Is My Doctor Ordering It?
There are several reasons behind the trend of excessive imaging. Together with your doctor, you, the patient, can play a part in finding the right balance for their use.
Short appointment times. With less time available to spend with patients, some doctors may order images as a shortcut—a way to get quick answers.
Malpractice fears. Excessive litigation forces doctors to practice defensive medicine. Even if there is little chance of a serious disease or condition, a physician may order a test to reduce the risk of being sued later for missing something important.
Where the money is. A growing number of physicians own diagnostic facilities or equipment. Some may have an incentive to order tests, because the fee goes to their own bottom line.
Patient expectations. Many patients want what they consider “the best”—sophisticated technologies like CT scans or MRIs—and doctors are quick to comply even if they don’t really see the need.
Patient reassurance. Sometimes, all evidence aside, it is easier to lower a patient’s anxiety by pointing to an actual CT image and saying, “See, there is no tumor there.” In some cases, a picture may be worth 1000 words (or dollars).
Do You Really Need It?
Learn about the various tests and what each is best for. Then talk with your doctor about the risks involved, such as radiation and false-positive results. Ask:
• Why is a specific imaging test necessary?
• How certain are you about the diagnosis without the scan? A medical history and physical may be enough for a diagnosis and treatment plan.
• How will test results affect treatment decisions?
• Does another, safer test exist that would give me the same information?
Be sure to request a copy (a CD-ROM or a written report) of any CT scan or other imaging study you have done. That will save you the trouble (and radiation) of having the same exam twice if you go to another hospital, move to another town, or change doctors.
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_07-06-2008/3Too_Many_Tests
If you’re like most Americans, your health bills are soaring. One reason is the “diagnostic imaging” industry, which includes X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs—the tests that let doctors “see” our bones, blood vessels, nerves, muscles, and organs. According to the American College of Radiology, imaging is one of the fastest-growing services in medicine, with costs reaching approximately $100 billion annually.
The detail revealed by these tests can be astounding, the information lifesaving. But are we overdoing it? Are all those tests really necessary? And is harm potentially being done?
Some researchers worry about overexposure to radiation. While noting that many lives are saved by imaging, Dr. David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City, estimates that “1% to 2% more cases of cancer may result from the increased use of imaging in the future.” Of special concern: Some 5 million CT scans are performed annually on children, who are 10 times more sensitive to radiation than adults.
Further, imaging may result in “false-positive” results (finding a problem that does not in fact exist) or “incidental findings” (seeing an abnormality that may be clinically harmless), notes Dr. Stephen Baker, chair of the Department of Radiology at the UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School. Both results often lead to even more imaging and risky invasive procedures, including surgery.
Not every ache and pain calls for a scan or an X-ray. It’s best to know where and how imaging tends to be overused.
CT Scans
Computed Tomography (CT) scans, also known as CAT scans, are the “doughnut holes” patients can find themselves in. CT scans are particularly good for looking at organs, bone, soft tissue, and blood vessels. However, their radiation levels can be quite high—“typically the equivalent of about 100 conventional X-rays,” says Dr. Brenner. CTs are routinely ordered for headaches, heart imaging, and full-body scans, but there are reasons to question their use for each.
Headaches. CT scans are requested for many of the 45 million patients who suffer from headaches to rule out their greatest fear: a brain tumor.
Numerous studies suggest, however, that this is overkill. Most headaches are not indicators of something serious—a tumor or brain bleed. Furthermore, these more-serious problems almost always are accompanied by other, visible symptoms, such as seizures and neurological impairment. For example, Sen.Ted Kennedy’s recent brain tumor diagnosis involved clear seizure activity. In the absence of such red flags, a scan probably is not worth the risk of increased radiation exposure. This view has been endorsed by a panel of experts, including the American Academy of Neurology.
Heart imaging. Coronary CT angiography is a relatively new procedure that gives a detailed view of the heart and the arteries that supply it with blood. It allows doctors to see calcium deposits and blocked arteries without inserting tubes or needles. This test has become quite popular, but it also raises concerns because of the frequency of false-positive and false-negative results. Furthermore, in addition to radiation exposure, there is the risk from the contrast dye used, which can lead to allergic reactions and kidney damage.
At present, there are no clear guidelines for when a coronary CT is clinically appropriate. It appears that the test can benefit those who have symptoms that suggest heart disease or who are at high risk for heart disease. But healthy individuals should not rush to request this test.
Full-body scans. CT scans of the entire body—a virtual physical, where every inch of your body is scrutinized from the inside—have been marketed in recent years to perfectly healthy individuals. But experts—including those at the American Cancer Society, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and American College of Radiology—agree that these scans are not a good idea for healthy people without any symptoms. The scans often find irregularities that are entirely harmless but nevertheless lead to many expensive, unneeded, and invasive procedures.
X-rays
This classic imaging tool is useful for looking at bones and the chest.
Chest X-rays. Doctors often order chest X-rays for routine evaluation before surgery. While it certainly makes sense to do so in certain cases—for those whose surgery involves the heart or lungs, for example—there is increasing evidence that general testing is not advantageous. A recent extensive review in the United Kingdom found that chest X-rays may lead to false-positive results and expose patients to unnecessary radiation.
Back pain. Despite the discomfort associated with lower back pain, the vast majority of patients (90%) recover within 6-8 weeks, and most do not need X-rays, MRIs, or CT scans of their lower back. Imaging should be reserved for those cases where a serious underlying condition is suspected.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides excellent views of the soft tissues of the body, so it is very useful in brain and cancer imaging. Unlike CTs or X-rays, MRIs do not emit radiation—they use a magnetic field to create images—but they are much more expensive than simple X-rays.
Achy knees. These days, MRIs frequently are ordered for patients with knee pain due to arthritis, because they provide a detailed view of the knees, bones, cartilage, and ligaments. But MRIs may not be necessary to diagnose a common condition such as osteoarthritis. A study presented this year at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ annual meeting suggested that, in most cases, X-rays are sufficient to determine who needs knee-replacement surgery. The cost difference translates into millions of dollars: MRIs are billed anywhere from $1200 to $2500 per session, whereas knee X-ray billing falls under $200.
Why Is My Doctor Ordering It?
There are several reasons behind the trend of excessive imaging. Together with your doctor, you, the patient, can play a part in finding the right balance for their use.
Short appointment times. With less time available to spend with patients, some doctors may order images as a shortcut—a way to get quick answers.
Malpractice fears. Excessive litigation forces doctors to practice defensive medicine. Even if there is little chance of a serious disease or condition, a physician may order a test to reduce the risk of being sued later for missing something important.
Where the money is. A growing number of physicians own diagnostic facilities or equipment. Some may have an incentive to order tests, because the fee goes to their own bottom line.
Patient expectations. Many patients want what they consider “the best”—sophisticated technologies like CT scans or MRIs—and doctors are quick to comply even if they don’t really see the need.
Patient reassurance. Sometimes, all evidence aside, it is easier to lower a patient’s anxiety by pointing to an actual CT image and saying, “See, there is no tumor there.” In some cases, a picture may be worth 1000 words (or dollars).
Do You Really Need It?
Learn about the various tests and what each is best for. Then talk with your doctor about the risks involved, such as radiation and false-positive results. Ask:
• Why is a specific imaging test necessary?
• How certain are you about the diagnosis without the scan? A medical history and physical may be enough for a diagnosis and treatment plan.
• How will test results affect treatment decisions?
• Does another, safer test exist that would give me the same information?
Be sure to request a copy (a CD-ROM or a written report) of any CT scan or other imaging study you have done. That will save you the trouble (and radiation) of having the same exam twice if you go to another hospital, move to another town, or change doctors.
Green tea 'prevents heart disease
Green tea 'prevents heart disease'
London (PTI): Tea time? Go for the green, for a study has revealed that sipping a cup of the beverage everyday could help prevent heart disease.
Green tea is already popular worldwide because of its immensely powerful health benefits. Now a Greek team has found that a cup of the bru daily helps in expanding arteries, which in turn improves blood flow thereby keeping the heart healthy.
According to researchers, the flavonoids in green tea relax the cells, called the endothelium, which is a thin layer on the inside of the blood vessels, that smooths the flow of blood allowing a more efficient circulation.
"Tea consumption has been associated with reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in several studies. Green tea is consumed less in the Western world than black tea, but it could be more beneficial because of the way it seems to improve endothelial function.
"In this same context, recent studies have also shown potent anticarcinogenic effects of green tea attributed to its antioxidant properties," lead researcher Nikolaos Alexopoulos was quoted by the British media as saying.
In their study, the researchers at Athens Medical School tested a small group of volunteers who consumed green tea, 125 mg of caffeine and 450 ml of hot water on three separate occasions.
The team measured the diameter of the brachial artery in each participant 30, 90 and 120 minutes after they consumed each beverage. Dilation of the artery peaked at an increase of 3.9 per cent at the 30-minute test time.
They found that the caffeine and hot water did not have the same effect on the brachial artery that the green tea did -- in fact, drinking six grams of the drink caused the participants' brachial arteries (in the upper arm) to expand by almost four per cent.
"These findings have important clinical implications," Dr Alexopoulos said.
The findings of the study have been published in the latest edition of the 'European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation'.
London (PTI): Tea time? Go for the green, for a study has revealed that sipping a cup of the beverage everyday could help prevent heart disease.
Green tea is already popular worldwide because of its immensely powerful health benefits. Now a Greek team has found that a cup of the bru daily helps in expanding arteries, which in turn improves blood flow thereby keeping the heart healthy.
According to researchers, the flavonoids in green tea relax the cells, called the endothelium, which is a thin layer on the inside of the blood vessels, that smooths the flow of blood allowing a more efficient circulation.
"Tea consumption has been associated with reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in several studies. Green tea is consumed less in the Western world than black tea, but it could be more beneficial because of the way it seems to improve endothelial function.
"In this same context, recent studies have also shown potent anticarcinogenic effects of green tea attributed to its antioxidant properties," lead researcher Nikolaos Alexopoulos was quoted by the British media as saying.
In their study, the researchers at Athens Medical School tested a small group of volunteers who consumed green tea, 125 mg of caffeine and 450 ml of hot water on three separate occasions.
The team measured the diameter of the brachial artery in each participant 30, 90 and 120 minutes after they consumed each beverage. Dilation of the artery peaked at an increase of 3.9 per cent at the 30-minute test time.
They found that the caffeine and hot water did not have the same effect on the brachial artery that the green tea did -- in fact, drinking six grams of the drink caused the participants' brachial arteries (in the upper arm) to expand by almost four per cent.
"These findings have important clinical implications," Dr Alexopoulos said.
The findings of the study have been published in the latest edition of the 'European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation'.
Watch out for the wrong kind of sugar
Watch out for the wrong kind of sugar
We know about good and bad fats. Now suspicion is growing that not all sugars are created equal either. Overweight adults who consume large amounts of fructose have been found to experience alarming changes in body fat and insulin sensitivity that do not occur after eating glucose.
Pure fructose is found in fresh fruit, fruit juice and preserves. But much of it sneaks into our diets though high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in soft drinks - which gets broken down into 55 per cent fructose and 45 per cent glucose in the body - or via sucrose (ordinary sugar), which is broken down into the same two sugars.
Fears that fructose and HFCS are fuelling the obesity epidemic and triggering insulin resistance and diabetes have been circulating for years (New Scientist, 1 September 2001, p 26), but there have been few direct investigations in humans.
So Peter Havel at the University of California, Davis, persuaded 33 overweight and obese adults to go on a diet that was 30 per cent fat, 55 per cent complex carbohydrates and 15 per cent protein for two weeks. For a further 10 weeks, they switched to a diet in which 25 per cent of their energy came from either fructose or glucose.
In those given fructose there was an increase in the amount of intra-abdominal fat, which wraps around internal organs, causes a pot belly and has been linked to an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This did not happen with the group who consumed glucose instead, even though both gained an average 1.5 kilograms in weight.
Those who consumed fructose also had raised levels of fatty triglycerides, which get deposited as intra-abdominal fat, and cholesterol. Their insulin sensitivity also fell by 20 per cent. Glucose appeared to have no effect on these measures. Havel presented the results at a meeting of the Endocrine Society in San Francisco last week.
Because Havel's test looked only at pure fructose, not HFCS or sucrose, it is not yet clear whether these substances are to blame for obesity and diabetes. "The question is, what is the amount of HFCS or normal sugar you need to consume to get these effects?" says Havel, who is planning a long-term study to find out. But he says it's not too soon for people with metabolic syndrome - the blend of conditions including belly fat and insulin resistance that raise the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease - to avoid drinking too many fructose-containing beverages.
PepsiCo, which sponsored Havel's research, disagrees. "This is a very interesting and important study," says a spokeswoman. "But it does not reflect a real-world situation nor is it applicable to PepsiCo since pure fructose is not an ingredient in any of our food and beverage products."
In a separate study, Havel's team compared the immediate effects of consuming a meal in which 25 per cent of the energy came from one of HFCS, sucrose, fructose or glucose. Blood triglyceride levels were all elevated to a similar level 24 hours after consuming fructose, sucrose or HFCS, but not glucose (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol 87, p 1194), suggesting that all three substances may have similar, negative health impacts. Longer-term studies are needed to confirm whether the triglycerides produced by sucrose or HFCS have similar effects to fructose on abdominal fat and insulin resistance.
"It adds to what we have known for a long time," says Francine Kaufman at the Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles. "It's probably not a good idea to consume too much sugar."
We know about good and bad fats. Now suspicion is growing that not all sugars are created equal either. Overweight adults who consume large amounts of fructose have been found to experience alarming changes in body fat and insulin sensitivity that do not occur after eating glucose.
Pure fructose is found in fresh fruit, fruit juice and preserves. But much of it sneaks into our diets though high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in soft drinks - which gets broken down into 55 per cent fructose and 45 per cent glucose in the body - or via sucrose (ordinary sugar), which is broken down into the same two sugars.
Fears that fructose and HFCS are fuelling the obesity epidemic and triggering insulin resistance and diabetes have been circulating for years (New Scientist, 1 September 2001, p 26), but there have been few direct investigations in humans.
So Peter Havel at the University of California, Davis, persuaded 33 overweight and obese adults to go on a diet that was 30 per cent fat, 55 per cent complex carbohydrates and 15 per cent protein for two weeks. For a further 10 weeks, they switched to a diet in which 25 per cent of their energy came from either fructose or glucose.
In those given fructose there was an increase in the amount of intra-abdominal fat, which wraps around internal organs, causes a pot belly and has been linked to an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This did not happen with the group who consumed glucose instead, even though both gained an average 1.5 kilograms in weight.
Those who consumed fructose also had raised levels of fatty triglycerides, which get deposited as intra-abdominal fat, and cholesterol. Their insulin sensitivity also fell by 20 per cent. Glucose appeared to have no effect on these measures. Havel presented the results at a meeting of the Endocrine Society in San Francisco last week.
Because Havel's test looked only at pure fructose, not HFCS or sucrose, it is not yet clear whether these substances are to blame for obesity and diabetes. "The question is, what is the amount of HFCS or normal sugar you need to consume to get these effects?" says Havel, who is planning a long-term study to find out. But he says it's not too soon for people with metabolic syndrome - the blend of conditions including belly fat and insulin resistance that raise the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease - to avoid drinking too many fructose-containing beverages.
PepsiCo, which sponsored Havel's research, disagrees. "This is a very interesting and important study," says a spokeswoman. "But it does not reflect a real-world situation nor is it applicable to PepsiCo since pure fructose is not an ingredient in any of our food and beverage products."
In a separate study, Havel's team compared the immediate effects of consuming a meal in which 25 per cent of the energy came from one of HFCS, sucrose, fructose or glucose. Blood triglyceride levels were all elevated to a similar level 24 hours after consuming fructose, sucrose or HFCS, but not glucose (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol 87, p 1194), suggesting that all three substances may have similar, negative health impacts. Longer-term studies are needed to confirm whether the triglycerides produced by sucrose or HFCS have similar effects to fructose on abdominal fat and insulin resistance.
"It adds to what we have known for a long time," says Francine Kaufman at the Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles. "It's probably not a good idea to consume too much sugar."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)