what internet

ONENESS, On truth connecting us all: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7421476B2

Monday, September 20, 2010

Breakfast for Champions: Natural Health Information

Breakfast for Champions: Natural Health Information

breakfastIt's often said that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. The truth is: not really. In fact, breakfast is no more important than any other meal, or snack for that matter. Everything you eat is important in that it can either advance your health or harm it. Make no mistake, a double cheeseburger with extra special sauce, biggie fires, and a large vegetable-oil-based "shake" is just as important as any breakfast because of the amount of harm it can do you. On the other hand, a large fresh salad (I'm talking about a real salad with tons of fresh ingredients -- not iceberg lettuce, a slice of tomato, and a half cup of bottled Italian dressing) for lunch is also important because of all the antioxidants and water soluble fiber it can provide.

That said, breakfast is indeed important, and truth be told, there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding it.

The conventional wisdom

According to the Mayo Clinic, breakfast "might be the last thing on your morning to-do list, or worse, it might not be on your list at all. But a healthy breakfast refuels your body, jump-starts your day and may even benefit your overall health. So don't skip this meal -- it may be more important than you think." They then go on to talk about the benefits for adults, which center on the fact that when you eat a healthy breakfast, you're more likely to:

  • Eat more vitamins and minerals
  • Eat less fat and cholesterol
  • baby geniusHave better concentration and productivity throughout the morning
  • Control your weight
  • Have lower cholesterol, which may reduce your risk of heart disease

The Mayo Clinic article also mentions that according to the American Dietetic Association, children who eat a healthy breakfast are more likely to:

  • Concentrate better
  • Have better problem-solving skills
  • Have better hand-eye coordination
  • Be more alert
  • Be more creative
  • Miss fewer days of school
  • Be more physically active

This is all good stuff. What's to argue with? In fact, nothing -- that is until we get to their dietary recommendations.

According to the Mayo Clinic, here's what forms the core of a healthy breakfast:

  • Whole grains. Options include whole-grain rolls, bagels, hot or cold whole-grain cereals, low-fat bran muffins, crackers, or Melba toast.
  • Low-fat protein. Options include hard-boiled eggs, peanut butter, lean slices of meat and poultry, or fish, such as water-packed tuna or slices of salmon.
  • Low-fat dairy. Options include skim milk, low-fat yogurt and low-fat cheeses, such as cottage and natural cheeses.
  • Fruits and vegetables. Options include fresh fruits and vegetables or 100 percent juice beverages without added sugar.

Again, what's to complain about? After all, this is "the conventional wisdom" and is repeated by everyone connected with the medical community. Search on "breakfast" at WebMD, and you'll get much the same result -- although they're big on "egg substitutes" as opposed to real eggs.

The problem (or the devil, as the old saying goes) is in the details. With that in mind, let's look at some of those details.

Whole grains

whole-grainIt is amazing how people can pull a one-eighty without batting an eye. For years, the alternative health community touted the advantages of whole grains over refined grains, only to be told "tosh, tosh" by the medical establishment. "Refined grains are perfectly healthy and because they are ‘enriched' are actually even healthier for you than whole grains. Relax. Chill out. Eat cold cereals. Eat pastries. They're an important part of a healthy breakfast."

And then over the years, the evidence began to pile up that whole grains provided benefits that refined grains did not. So without batting an eye, the medical establishment did a one-eighty and began pushing the value of whole grain. So far, no problem there! If you've got something wrong and you learn a better way, it would be stupid not to switch. My problem is that there was no acknowledgement of the switch (as though they never gave you wrong advice in the first place, at great detriment to your health) and there was no acknowledgement that the alternative health community was correct decades before the medical establishment. No tip of the hat. Nothing…just continued dismissal of everything the alternative health community currently stands for, as though they were never right about those things that the medical establishment has now co-opted, such as the use of whole grains. Shame on them!

But that's not the worst part.

The problem is that because the establishment is late to the cause of whole grains, they don't really understand the issue yet. In other words, they get it wrong. They seem to believe that it's simply a question of whole grains versus refined grains. If only!

In truth, there's more to the story of whole grains than meets the eye. When it comes to incorporating grains into your diet, there are a whole slew of other issues that need to be considered, including:

  • The different types of fiber in grains and why those differences matter.
  • How different grains affect body pH.
  • The different amino acid balance in each grain.
  • Why the manner in which whole grains are processed and cooked matters, and why the temperature they're cooked at makes a difference.
  • When whole grain is not actually whole grain.
  • Phytates -- the good and bad.
  • Short chain carbohydrates versus long chain carbohydrates versus ultra-long chain carbohydrates.
  • Highly allergenic versus hypoallergenic grains
  • The other phytochemicals that matter.
  • The differences in how grains are grown and why it matters.
  • Organic versus non-organic.

For more on the complete story behind grains and how to select those that you might want to incorporate into your diet, check out "The Whole Grain and Nothing but the Grain."

Low-fat protein

Although the Mayo Clinic seems to recommend whole eggs in one location on their website, they do not, for the most part, on the rest of their site. More typical is their statement that "if you like eggs but don't want the extra cholesterol, use only the egg whites." In fact, this sentiment is common on most "medically" based sites. The reasoning is simple: "Chicken eggs are high in cholesterol, and a diet high in cholesterol can contribute to high blood cholesterol levels." In truth, the story concerning eggs is far more nuanced than the medical community would have you think, and we'll return to it in a bit. But for now let's quickly take a look at the other "low-fat" proteins they recommend.

Peanut butter is second on the list, but at 16 grams of fat and around 200 calories per two-tablespoon serving, peanut butter is obviously not a low-fat, low-calorie food. As for the low-fat varieties, they tend to be high in sugar. But that's not the biggest problem with peanuts. That happens to be allergic reactions. As it turns out, a number of people have severe allergic reactions to peanut butter, even the smallest traces of it, and even to the point of death. And it's not just allergies. Would-be mothers should avoid peanut butter as regular consumption increases the likelihood of their baby being asthmatic. A better choice all the way around is almond butter.

As for the meat and poultry recommendations, the standard meat and poultries used for breakfast tend to be high fat or highly processed, which presents its own health issues. Eating lean processed meat may reduce your risk of heart disease, but it increases your risk of cancer.

And as for tuna fish, I'm not sure who eats it for breakfast, but if they do on a regular basis, they're going to have a problem with high mercury levels over time if they use any of the standard commercial brands. On the other hand, if your heart is set on tuna, Oregon's Choice actually sells a low-mercury tuna. And if you're going to eat tuna, why would you eat any other kind?

Low-fat dairy

milkAs I've made clear many times, I'm not a great fan of pasteurized, homogenized, commercial cow's milk. Goat's milk is a better choice if you can handle the taste. And if you're going to consume dairy, my strong preference would be for raw, organic -- despite the warnings from the FDA and local health officials. That said, what's with low-fat dairy? When will the medical establishment ever understand that "whole" is better than "refined?" Didn't we just cover this issue concerning grains? But to stay on point, there are two issues to consider when considering whole versus low-fat milk.

First of all, the fat content difference between whole milk and low-fat milk is not as great as you might think. Whole milk contains about 8 grams of fat per glass. Skim milk contains about 5 grams. The difference is a mere 3 grams of fat per breakfast. Given that the RDI for fat each day is 65 grams, 3 grams of fat doesn't really matter very much. And second, the fats in milk are instrumental when it comes to helping your body utilize the protein found in milk.

And then there's the issue of CLA (conjugated linoleic acid), a beneficial fat found in the milk of grass fed cows. Reduce the fat content of milk and you reduce the CLA content. Researchers who conducted animal studies with CLA found that this fatty acid inhibits several types of cancer in mice. In addition, test tube studies indicate that CLA kills human skin cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast-cancer cells. Other research on CLA suggests that it may also help lower cholesterol and prevent atherosclerosis.

So once again, we see that whole is better than processed, or as the old ads used to say, "You can't fool Mother Nature."

Fruits and vegetables

According to the Mayo clinic, options include fresh fruits and vegetables (which are okay with a caveat) or "100 percent juice beverages" (beverages being an interesting choice of words here) without added sugar. So once again, the medical community does not recognize the difference between fresh juices and processed juices. They would equate a box of Juicy Juice with a glass of fresh squeezed carrot juice. Norman Walker must be turning over in his grave.

When it comes to fruits and vegetables, not all are created equal. With fruits, for example, berries are better than bananas -- higher in antioxidants and lower on the glycemic scale. Vegetables, in general, are better than fruits in that they tend to keep the body more alkaline than fruits. And finally, fresh is way better than boxed or bottled. Also, keep in mind that fresh juices start oxidizing within minutes of juicing, so the fresher the better. On the other hand, pasteurized bottled/boxed fruit "beverages" last forever -- unfortunately, at that point they are little more than flavored sugar water. Heat destroys the living enzymes in the juice and damages most of the vitamins and antioxidants.

Eggs

eggsAs I mentioned earlier, the issue of eggs is far more nuanced than, "Whole eggs bad! Egg whites good!" The reasoning, of course, is that, "Chicken eggs are high in cholesterol, and a diet high in cholesterol can contribute to high blood cholesterol levels." But in truth, most studies seem to demonstrate that this simple logic does not apply to eggs. For example, a 2007 study of some 10,000 adults demonstrated no correlation between moderate egg consumption (about 5 eggs per week) and cardiovascular disease or strokes, except for diabetics for whom eggs presented a small increased risk of heart disease. But even there, other factors may be at play, including how the eggs were cooked -- which we'll talk about in a moment. The bottom line when it comes to cholesterol and eggs is that there is a large body of epidemiological research (over 117,000 subjects, in fact) showing that the overall adjusted risk for heart disease is identical whether participants eat no eggs at all, or seven or more per week.

Okay, so even if whole eggs don't increase cholesterol levels, is there any reason to eat egg yolks since they're mostly fat and just pack on the calories. Aren't egg whites still a better choice? And the simple answer is no, egg whites are not a better choice. And yes, you still want to eat egg yolks. Other than the protein found in egg whites, all of the nutrition associated with eggs is in the yolk. Yolks contain large amounts of Omega-3s (especially if the chickens are fed a diet that contains seeds high in Omega-3 oils), and protein (yes, the yolk contains significant amounts of protein), not to mention an abundance of fat soluble vitamins such as A, E, D, and K. A single egg yolk can provide 100% of your RDI for each of those vitamins.

So when it comes to the issue of eating egg whites over whole eggs, don't listen to the Mayo Clinic and WebMD. Whole eggs win hands down.

Cooking eggs

Cooking eggs, on the other hand, does present a problem since heat denatures proteins. However, don't panic yet. Moderate heat over a short time such as when boiling a 2 minute egg does not harm the proteins too much. However, high heat or moderate heat over a longer time is a different story. We're talking about high temperature frying or scrambling eggs until totally dry or using the eggs in a baked dish that cooks at 350 degrees Fahrenheit or higher for 20 minutes or longer. These things will cause heat damage to the proteins and irreversibly change their nutritive values.

High temperatures not only physically and chemically denature the egg protein, but they also destroy almost all the vitamins, especially vitamin E and some of the B vitamins. It also should be noted that heat doesn't just damage protein; it also oxidizes the cholesterol in the egg, which will increase the risk of atherosclerosis. This is the one and only advantage egg whites have over yolks since egg whites contain no fat and are not oxidized by heat.

Allergens in eggs

But all this being said, we still haven't touched on my primary objection to eggs -- allergens. Of all the primary protein sources that people use (dairy, soy, meat, fish, etc.), eggs are among the most likely to produce an allergic response in the body. In fact, egg allergies are the most common trigger of eczema. They can also cause hives, redness and swelling of the skin, and in extreme cases anaphylactic shock. The primary allergens are found in egg whites and include lysozymes (an enzyme closely related to alpha-lactalbumin, a primary allergen in whey products), ovomucoid, ovotransferrin, and ovalbumin. Of these, ovalbumin and ovomucoid are the most common egg allergens. Egg yolks also have several proteins which may be allergens -- vosvetin, apovitillin, and livetin.

The bottom line is that a discussion of eggs for breakfast that centers on cholesterol is missing the point. Cholesterol is not an issue for eggs. Allergies, on the other hand, definitely are. And keep in mind that I'm not necessarily talking about major allergic reactions that can be seen. Those only occur in a small number of adults. We're talking about low-level allergies that cause symptoms like:

  • Gas
  • Bloating
  • Reduced absorption of nutrients
  • Fatigue
  • Low level headaches and body aches
  • Increased mucous production as seen floating in the toilet water, or as evidenced by constant clearing of the throat.

These are the same low level responses seen by those who use dairy as their primary source of protein. And unlike the medical community that believes that allergic responses to egg and dairy protein are rare occurrences outside of childhood, my observation is that these allergies affect almost 100% of the population. The only question is the degree of reaction. Most of the time, the symptoms are very low level and only noticed once you start looking for them. Sometimes dramatic improvements in health and a feeling of well being can be achieved simply by eliminating these allergens from your diet -- even for those who never knew they had a problem. In any case, that's why I favor hypoallergenic proteins that bypass these problems for the most and which we'll talk about next.

What's for breakfast

In the end, what you're looking for when it comes to breakfast is a balanced meal that combines with the other meals that you eat during the day to provide 100% of your nutritional needs (protein, essential fatty acids, fiber, vitamins/minerals, phytochemicals, etc.) by the end of the day. That means you want to consume approximately 33% of your requirements for everything at breakfast. Of these requirements, we've spent a lot of time talking about protein only because that's one of the hardest components to get right. It's either high fat, highly processed, highly allergenic, or just plain deficient. Let's look at some of the typical breakfasts and see how they stack up against our nutritional needs.

  • Ham and eggs (or something similar) does well on the amount of protein, but comes up short for things like fiber, vitamins and minerals, phytochemicals, and the eggs are highly allergenic. Turn that into an omelet with added cheese and it's starting to get dangerous. Add a side of home fries and some buttered toast, and you've now got a killer meal!
  • danish pastryOatmeal is good for fiber, but lacks protein, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals. And if you use cow's milk or soy milk with it, it still comes up short on protein but now you've added an allergenic component. Other hot cereals like Wheatena and Cream of Wheat offer no more positives and have even less soluble fiber.
  • Muffins and blueberry Danish, of course, may taste great but offer little value and, in most cases, many negatives.
  • Food bars are a better alternative in that the negatives are less, but the protein usually comes from soy or whey. Organic Food Bar™, on the other hand, provides an interesting nutritional alternative. Other than being a little heavy in high-glycemic sugars and low in the vitamin/mineral and phytochemical department, they're pretty clean, and I recommend them. But truth be told, they may leave most people who are used to donuts and Egg McMuffins® feeling unsatisfied.
  • Cold cereal. Most commercial cold cereals aren't even worth the ink printed on their box. They're high glycemic, low fiber, low on any nutritional scale, and offer little usable protein. And yes, there are some so called health cereals that use whole grains, but in the end they come up short in almost every category -- just a little less so in terms of fiber and vitamins and minerals. Some manufacturers add a round of synthetic vitamin isolates, which have virtually no nutritive value. I mean how much more would it have cost to use naturally-sourced isolates? And some companies add protein, which marginally increases the protein value of the cereal, but still relies to a large extent on highly allergenic whey or soy. And some add fiber, but come up short everywhere else. And the ones called "Total®" merely take the synthetic vitamin and mineral numbers up to 100%, but come up short everywhere else.

    At some point, this would be a project for me to take on. Design a cold cereal based on hypoallergenic proteins that provide a good sized chunk of your daily protein requirements plus a third of your vitamin/mineral requirements, plus fiber and beneficial fats -- and that tastes good. It would be healthier than eggs, more nutritious than other cereals, and more satisfying than food bars and protein shakes. It would be a great option for breakfast. Someday, maybe!

Shakes

Which brings me to my current breakfast of choice, a well designed shake or smoothie! My protein powder of choice is a combination of rice and pea protein, although hemp protein is certainly another option. These are hypoallergenic and highly usable by the body. And by blending them in the right ratios, it's possible to get a powder that comes close to matching the protein numbers of its more allergenic cousins, whey and egg. Whip that up in a smoothie with a green superfood blend for all of the vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals, and some low-glycemic berries for flavor and high antioxidant values and you've got a breakfast that can keep you going for hours -- not to mention one that works for athletes, seniors, and people looking to lose weight too. When it comes to which powders and superfood blends to use, there are many good ones available -- although I'm certainly partial to my own formulations: Nutribody Protein and Jon Barron's Private Reserve Superfood. But that's just me.

One final note

glass of waterWhen doing a liver detox, we always begin the day with a glass of water to flush the system. In fact, that's not a bad idea to do every day. Upon rising, at least 20 minutes before eating breakfast, drink a glass of water to flush out your system -- no matter what you eat for breakfast. It will effectively flush out everything in your stomach and intestinal tract up to about the large intestine. Virtually all of the water will have been absorbed in the small intestine by the time it reaches the colon. And any that makes it through will merely help to keep your stools soft. Keep in mind that it's important to drink the water at least 20 minutes before you eat anything for breakfast to allow the water time to clear the stomach. You don't want it sitting in the stomach when you eat food, as it will dilute your digestive juices and interfere with digestion. On the other hand, by interfering with digestion, it will aid in weight-loss, but at significant nutritional cost to your body. There are better ways to lose weight.

Posted by at No comments:

U.S. Court Finds Corporations Immune From Liability For Human Rights Abuses « Speak Truth 2 Power

U.S. Court Finds Corporations Immune From Liability For Human Rights Abuses
Posted on September 19, 2010 by Barbara Peterson

Graphic by Tim Barton of Bluegreenearth.com

Fri, 09/17/2010 – 14:33

by Marco Simons

Source: Earth Rights International

“So long as they incorporate (or act in the form of a trust), businesses will now be free to trade in or exploit slaves, employ mercenary armies to do dirty work for despots, perform genocides or operate torture prisons for a despot’s political opponents, or engage in piracy – all without civil liability to victims.”

In the words of Judge Pierre Leval, who disagreed with his colleagues, that is the result of today’s ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which concluded that corporations could not be sued for human rights abuses under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The ATS generally allows suits in federal courts for violations of international law – but, according to the Second Circuit, not if the violation was committed by a corporation.

The decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum marks the first time that any appellate court has rejected corporate liability under international law, and only the second time that any court has done so (the first was in a district court decision issued last week). Numerous courts have found that corporations are subject to the same liability as persons. The Kiobel decision is based on a radical misunderstanding of international law; the International Court of Justice has ruled that international law respects the corporate form, and this would be impossible without allowing corporate liability.

Kiobel was brought as a companion case to ERI’s own case Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell), which settled last year. Both cases involved Shell’s complicity in serious human rights abuses against the Ogoni people in Nigeria, including the executions of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders. The new decision will deny justice not just to these Ogoni families, but also to victims of corporate complicity in the Apartheid regime in South Africa, victims of medical experimentation in Nigeria, and possibly even victims of the September 11th attacks–all cases currently being litigated in the Second Circuit.

It’s possible, however, that this issue could reach the Supreme Court very soon. In the Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, which ERI and other groups have asked the Supreme Court to review, the main issue is the standard for aiding and abetting liability. But Talisman has also raised the question of corporate liability, and the decision in Kiobel might make the Supreme Court more likely to take up this issue. The Supreme Court could decided whether to hear Talisman as early as September 28th. In the meantime, ERI will assist with efforts to challenge the new decision in Kiobel.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Steel gas mains draw regulators’ scrutiny - U.S. news - msnbc.com

Steel gas mains draw regulators’ scrutiny - U.S. news - msnbc.com:

Steel gas mains draw regulators’ scrutiny

Failures of pipes like the one in California blast have triggered action in other states

U.S. natural gas pipeline network
Department of Energy / msnbc.com
This map shows the network of major U.S. natural gas pipelines in 2009
By Alex Johnson Reporter
msnbc.com
updated 9/10/2010 5:02:58 PM ET

Natural gas mains made of steel, like the one that apparently failed in Thursday’s deadly California explosion, are considered especially susceptible to corrosion and leaking, leading regulators in some states to consider replacing them.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which serves the San Francisco Bay Area, said Friday that it had isolated a damaged section of a 30-inch steel pipeline in San Bruno after the blast, which killed at least four people, injured 52 others, destroyed 38 homes and set off a fire that charred 15 acres.

  1. An msnbc.com-NBC News report

    Alex Johnson is a reporter for msnbc.com. Bill Dedman of msnbc.com and Roger Gray of NBC station KETK of Tyler, Texas, contributed to this report.

In general, gas pipelines are safer than ever: “Distribution incidents” like leaks, fires and explosions have declined sharply since 1970, when many utilities began switching over to plastic pipes, which are less vulnerable to corrosion, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Deaths in such incidents have declined in turn, from 246 in the 1970s to 120 in the 2000s.

But while the majority of natural gas pipes are plastic, about 60 percent of the nation’s 475,000 miles of larger gas mains — those wider than 16 inches in diameter — are steel, according to the Natural Gas Supply Association. That’s because steel pipes can better withstand the pressurization used to move gas efficiently through large pipes.

  1. More U.S. news
    1. U.S.: 3,500 unused Gulf wells must be plugged

      Updated 65 minutes ago Energy companies in the Gulf of Mexico will have to permanently plug nearly 3,500 nonproducing wells and dismantle about 650 unused platforms, the Obama administration says. Full story

    2. Final 'kill' of BP well planned by Sunday
    3. Updated 63 minutes ago One for the establishment — Ayotte wins N.H. GOP nod
    4. When the war comes home
    5. Updated 16 minutes ago PG&E had OK to fix pipe near blast; work not done
    6. Were you in the Peace Corps? Share your photos

That strength doesn’t necessarily translate to safety — federal figures show that steel pipes are implicated in more natural gas incidents than those made of plastic materials.

Through Aug. 11 — the last date for which data are available — the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration recorded 57 such incidents this year, 21 of them involving steel pipes and 11 of them plastic pipes. Most of the other incidents also involved metal pipes, usually aluminum or cast iron.

If you own a gas grill, you probably already deal with the main vulnerabilities of steel pipes. Steel corrodes, and because it’s rigid, it can crack under stress. As older steel gas mains have started giving way, explosions — some of them deadly — have led regulators in several states to reconsider whether they’re the best option.

Atmos Energy Corp., the second-largest natural gas distributor in the country, with operations in 12 states, agreed last month to replace 100,000 of the most vulnerable steel pipelines in its North Texas territories by late 2012. The agreement follows years of investigations by Dallas TV station WFAA into explosions involving steel pipes or steel couplings, like one in January, when leaking gas exploded in a home in Irving, killing the owner and seriously injuring his wife.

U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Pipeline Safety / msnbc.com

All told, regulators have identified at least six major explosions since 2006 involving Atmos steel pipelines in Texas, prompting the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates natural gas pipelines, to study the feasibility of replacing all 525,000 steel service lines across the state.

“Experience has revealed that [steel] is the most prone to leak, so it all needs to come out,” said Geoffrey Gay, a lawyer representing several Texas towns in negotiations with Atmos and the Railroad Commission. “Obviously, my clients are always worried about the health and safety of their citizens.”

Regulators in other states are also starting to crack down.

In Washington, Puget Sound Energy Corp. has until the end of the year to replace about 9,000 older steel natural gas lines in the western part of the state. The deadline was set as part of a settlement with regulators after an investigation of an explosion that killed a 68-year-old woman at her home in Bellevue, a suburb of Seattle, in 2004.

And in Arizona, regulators include a notice in monthly bills sent by Southwest Gas Corp., which serves nearly 2 million natural gas customers in the state and in California and Nevada. The notice warns that “buried steel gas lines are subject to the effects of corrosion if they are not maintained, which could result in leakage,” and says it’s the customer’s responsibility to monitor the lines “to identify these potential problems before they become hazardous.”

It’s not yet known whether the steel composition of the pipe was a factor in Thursday’s blast, but PG&E said it would “take accountability” if it was at fault. The National Transportation Safety Board sent a four-member team to investigate.

Follow Alex Johnson on Facebook | Follow Alex Johnson on Twitter

© 2010 msnbc.com Reprints
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Why aspartame is FAR Worse than High Fructose Corn Syrup

It’s been nearly 20 years since the artificial sweetener aspartame gained FDA approval, but the debate about its safety, or lack thereof, has continued on unabated. Today, aspartame can be found in more than 6,000 products, including food products not specifically aimed at diabetics or dieters.

Might you be overdosing on this neurotoxic sweetener?

Sources:

Sweet Misery Video Transcript (PDF)
Aspartame Studies
Free Sample Chapter from Sweet Deception

The first video above -- which contains highlights of Cori Brackett’s documentary film Sweet Misery -- is an excellent summary of the problems with aspartame. You can also obtain the entire DVD if you’re intrigued by these clips. I believe Sweet Misery is one of the best documentaries out there on this topic.

In this follow-up article, I will discuss recent findings that link aspartame to increased risk of premature birth; it’s potential carcinogenic effects; and the ironic ‘side effect’ of it promoting rather than combating weight gain – which of course is one of its primary objectives as a sugar substitute.

If you missed the first half of this discussion, you can read it here.

As I mentioned in that article, the lack of toxicity data should not be construed as proof that aspartame is safe. On the contrary! Aspartame appears to have been approved WITHOUT such data, which makes the issue of its inherent safety for human consumption all the more questionable.

Today, the sheer prevalence of this chemical sweetener in our food supply has re-ignited the issue of aspartame’s safety, despite the fact that the FDA approved it nearly 20 years ago, and has continuously refuted new studies suggesting their original approval was ignorant at best.

It was a decision heavily influenced by political wrangling and alleged scientific fraud that has put people’s health at risk ever since.

In the Source links above, you will find a link to a page on my website dedicated to documenting studies pertaining to health problems associated with aspartame.

You will also find a link to a free sample chapter from my book Sweet Deception for more information about aspartame and the health concerns associated with its use.

Before I delve into the evidence stacked against aspartame as a dieter’s best friend, and recent research that strongly questions its safety for pregnant women, I’d like to quickly address the issue of individual susceptibility to harm.

Although there are tens of thousands of FDA adverse reaction reports and countless more personal accounts of harm, many staunch aspartame users claim they’ve been using it for years and, well… they’re not dead yet, so how bad can it be?

Some People are Naturally More Prone to Formaldehyde Poisoning

An interesting tidbit that can help explain why some people experience ill effects from aspartame quite rapidly, whereas others can ingest aspartame for some time without noticing any ill effects, is that you may have more or less of a particular enzyme that breaks down alcohols that could otherwise be toxic.

Woodrow C. Monte, PhD, a retired professor of food science, explains this in his 2009 article Methanol: A chemical Trojan Horse as the root of the Inscrutable U[i].

Aspartame contains about 10 percent methanol by weight, also known as wood alcohol, which is broken down into formaldehyde, and then formic acid, in your body.

The only human enzyme capable of metabolizing methanol to formaldehyde is an enzyme called Class I alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH I).

Formaldehyde, in turn, damages your body by “attacking proteins and embalming them” – a simple layman’s description of what happens, courtesy of PBD.org.

According to PBD.org, “small amounts of methanol can cause blindness, as the sensitive proteins in the retina are attacked…” And visual disturbance, including retinal detachment, is one of the reported side effects of aspartame consumption.

Now, Dr. Monte offers a clue as to why methanol may harm some more than others:

“Variability in sensitivity to exogenous methanol consumption may be accounted for in part by the presence of aldehyde dehydrogenase sufficient to reduce the toxic effect of formaldehyde production in tissue through its conversion to the much less toxic formic acid.”

In a nutshell, this is one of the ways in which your individual constitution may render you more or less vulnerable to the detrimental effects of aspartame.

That said, I am convinced that most of those who claim to be able to consume aspartame on a regular basis without ill effect, are still likely accruing damage in their bodies that will ultimately affect their long-term health.

It’s worth keeping in mind that most toxins that are harmful to your health are not going to harm you instantly. The reality is that few health hazards do. As with many other toxins and harmful chemicals, aspartame may be acutely toxic to some, while others can consume it without experiencing any immediate side effects.

However, there’s no guarantee it won’t lead to health problems later on, and it’s certainly not evidence of aspartame’s safety for the population at large – especially when you take into account the tens of thousands of people who HAVE experienced both acute and long-term side effects.

Please remember that just like other artificial sweeteners, there are no long-term safety studies in humans that support its use as they were never required by the FDA.

In addition, as I’ll discuss below, if you consume aspartame while pregnant, you may unwittingly expose your unborn child to completely unnecessary health risks, even if you feel that aspartame is not affecting you in a negative way.

Why Aspartame is NOT a Dieters Best Friend

Low-calorie artificial sweeteners were originally marketed primarily to diabetics and dieters, but now you find them in a variety of processed foodstuffs and snacks that are not specifically aimed at this target market.

But do these zero- or low-calorie products really help you lose weight and/or keep it off?

Well, the research and the epidemiologic data suggest the opposite is true, and that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame tend to lead to weight gain. As I’ve often said, there’s more to weight gain or weigh loss than mere calorie intake.

One reason for aspartame’s potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame -- are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage. Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism.

So although you’re not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels.

Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.

Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant to it, just as your body can become resistant to insulin, and once that happens, your body can no longer “hear” the hormonal messages instructing your body to stop eating, burn fat, and maintain good sensitivity to sweet tastes in your taste buds.

What happens then?

You remain hungry; you crave sweets, and your body stores more fat.

Leptin-resistance also causes an increase in visceral fat, sending you on a vicious cycle of hunger, fat storage and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and more.

Artificial Sweeteners Actually INCREASE Weight Gain

Most people use artificial sweeteners to lose weight. The amazing irony is that nearly all the studies that have carefully analyzed their effectiveness show that those who use artificial sweeteners actually gain more weight than those that drink regular sodas.

Common sense would also strongly suggest that they don’t work, because while their use has exploded in the last three decades, that increase closely parallels the obesity epidemic which continues to worsen, not improve, despite the use of these artificial sweeteners.

This connection between sweet taste alone and increased hunger can be found in the medical literature going back at least two decades. These two studies, for example, dating back to the late 80’s and early 90’s, both showed this link between artificial sweeteners and increased hunger:

  • Physiology & Behavior, 1988[ii] – In this study, they determined that intense (no- or low-calorie) sweeteners can produce significant changes in appetite. Of the three sweeteners tested, aspartame produced the most pronounced effects.
  • Physiology & Behavior 1990[iii] – Here, they again evaluated whether or not the mere taste of “sweet” increases hunger, by having human subjects chew gum for 15 minutes containing various levels of aspartame (0.05%, 0.3%, 0.5%, or 1.0%).

    Interestingly, although those who chewed artificially sweetened gum reported increased hunger compared to the control group who were given nothing or unsweetened gum base to chew, the increase did not directly correlate with the aspartame concentration in the gum.

    Women experienced the greatest increase in hunger after chewing gum containing 0.3 percent aspartame (the second lowest concentration amount), while men were the hungriest after chewing on gum containing 0.5 percent aspartame. The authors stated: “The highest aspartame concentrations had a time-dependent, biphasic effect on appetite, producing a transient decrease followed by a sustained increase in hunger ratings. Thus, the concentration of the sweetener, the sex of the subject, and the time after chewing, were all important determinants of whether "sweetness" increased hunger.

While no explanations for these findings were given at that time, researchers are now starting to be able to further explain why and how this happens.

As I explained above, phenylalanine and aspartic acid can stimulate the release of insulin and leptin, which are both involved in the mechanism of satiety.

Additionally, large doses of phenylalanine can lower important neurotransmitters like sero­tonin[iv], which also influences satiety. Decreased serotonin levels reduce feelings of satiety, which can then lead to over-eating or binge eating.

In a study of high-intensity artificial sweeteners performed on college students, there was no evidence that artificial sweetener use was associated with a decrease in their overall sugar intake either.

These results indicate that eating arti­ficial sweeteners simply perpetuates a craving for sweets, and overall sugar consumption is not reduced—leading to further problems controlling your weight.[v]

In 2005, data gathered from the 25-year long San Antonio Heart Study also showed that drinking diet soft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain – far more so than regular soda.[vi]

According to Sharon Fowler, M.P.H:

“On average, for each diet soft drink our participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese.”

This finding supports a 2004 study at Purdue University, which found that rats fed artificially sweetened liquids ate more high-calorie food than rats fed high-caloric sweetened liquids.[vii]

The researchers believe the experience of drinking artificially sweetened liquids disrupted the animals' natural ability to compensate for the calories in the food.

A more recent review, published in June 2010 in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, delves into the neurobiology of sugar cravings and summarizes the epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effect of artificial sweeteners on weight.[viii]

The author states:

“Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain.

… Preload experiments generally have found that sweet taste, whether delivered by sugar or artificial sweeteners, enhanced human appetite. Aspartame-sweetened water, but not aspartame capsule, increased subjective appetite rating in normal weight adult males…

Unlike glucose or sucrose, which decreased the energy intake at the test meal, artificial sweetener preloads either had no effect or increased subsequent energy intake. Those findings suggest that the calorie contained in natural sweeteners may trigger a response to keep the overall energy consumption constant.

... Increasing evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners do not activate the food reward pathways in the same fashion as natural sweeteners… Natural and artificial sweeteners also activate the gustatory branch differently.

… Lastly, artificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence.

… Unsweetening the world’s diet may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic.”

That last statement is probably the most accurate conclusion there is. Americans in particular are addicted to the flavor sweet, which appears to trigger a complex set of biological systems, pathways, and mechanisms that in the end leads to excess weight gain whether that flavor comes loaded with calories or not.

In the end, the research tells us that artificial sweeteners are nothing more than a pipe dream when it comes to being a dieter’s aid, because contrary to what the marketing campaigns claim, low- or no-calorie artificial sweeteners are more likely to help you pack on the pounds than shed them.

Aspartame and Premature Birth

One of the most recent studies published on the health effects of aspartame could be likened to the Ajinomoto Titanic hitting the iceberg…

A Danish study published in June, which included more than 59,000 Danish women, found that daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery by as much as 78 percent.[ix]

According to a recent article in the British MailOnline, some British public health experts are now advising pregnant women to avoid aspartame-containing foods and beverages to protect their unborn child, as preterm delivery exposes the baby to a number of health risks -- and staggering health care costs.

In the US, neonatal intensive care for an infant born prematurely, meaning before the 37th week of pregnancy, can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000.

The researchers found that pregnant women who drank an average of just one diet soda per day increased their risk of going into labor before the 37th week by 38 percent.

Four or more diet sodas a day increased the risk of premature birth by 78 percent.

Meanwhile, no link was found between sugar-sweetened beverages and preterm delivery.

As usual, the researchers call for more studies to confirm these results, and I for one hope those studies are done so that, eventually, we may see a reversal in the recommendations by our health organizations, especially where expectant mothers are concerned.

Does Aspartame Cause Cancer?

The FDA, the media, and nearly all medical “experts” will tell you that it doesn’t, citing evidence such as the 2006 U.S. National Cancer Institute “study,” which involved more than 560,000 people between the ages of 50 to 69.[x]

What they fail to tell you is that this was NOT a controlled study.

In fact, it shouldn’t even be called a study, because actual studies are controlled.

It was a SURVEY, based on food and beverage consumption surveys filled out between 1995 and ’96.

Based on these self-reported rough estimates of what the participants ate and drank, the researchers calculated the amount of aspartame participants had consumed, and compared it with subsequent cancer rates in the five years following.

However, aside from being a mere survey, which in no way can determine cause, there are two glaring factors that make it very difficult to give it any credence whatsoever:

  1. In 1995 there were far fewer food products and beverages that contained aspartame, so consumption was likely FAR lower back then compared to today, and
  2. How many people – especially back then – actually read labels to determine whether or not something contained aspartame? After all, the old food surveys the researchers used were NOT specifically collected to ascertain aspartame consumption.

Some people sneer at animal studies, but there are reasons for using animals in lieu of humans in controlled studies. First of all, in many cases using humans would simply be unethical, but the human lifespan is also so long that a controlled study would be extremely impractical.

This is a major reason for using rats, as their lifespan is far shorter.

Many researchers will euthanize the animals after a set time, but others, such as Dr. Soffritti with The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation has performed two controlled aspartame safety study on rats, so far, in which the rats are observed over the course of their natural lifetime.

What did he find?

The first study found that after being fed the human equivalent of four to five bottles of diet soda a day, the rats developed high rates of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers.

At the highest dose level, 25 percent of the female rats developed lymphomas-leukemias compared with just 8.7 percent of the controls.

His findings, which raised a firestorm of controversy and denial across the world, were published in the Environmental Health Perspectives in 2006.[xi]

The researchers determined that the carcinogenic effect of aspartame was as low as 400 parts per million (ppm), concluding that:

“The results of this mega-experiment indicate that APM [aspartame] is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake.

On the basis of these results, a reevaluation of the present guidelines on the use and consumption of APM is urgent and cannot be delayed.”

A very important fact to consider here is that the Ramanizzi Foundation is an independent, non-profit institution that has been dedicated to cancer prevention for more than 35 years.

Not surprisingly, the results drew massive criticism from the industry. But the Ramanizzi Foundation refused to back down. Laleva.org reported the Foundation's rebuttal[xii]:

“… Prior long-term carcinogenesis studies on aspartame (4 total) were conducted over 20 years ago by the producers of the artificial sweetener using a small number of animals per sex per group. The results of these studies provided the basis for the current opinion regarding the non-carcinogenicity of aspartame.

In responding to the AFC panel comments, Soffritti noted that “what the panel considers shortcomings of the study are instead distinctive and positive characteristics of our research protocol, research which has provided the scientific basis for changes in international regulations numerous times over the last 30 years.”

For instance, the European Ramazzini Foundation conducts what are known as lifespan mega-experiments, meaning that large groups of rodents are allowed to live out their natural lifespan and are examined for histopathological changes upon spontaneous death. This model is in contrast with most laboratories where rodents are sacrificed at 110 weeks of age (representing about 2/3 of the lifespan).

The Ramazzini study design closely mirrors the human condition in which persons may be exposed to agents in the industrial and general environments from embryonic life until natural death. “Since 80% of cancer is diagnosed in humans over the age of 55, it is of paramount importance to observe how an agent affects laboratory animals in the last third of their lives”, notes Soffritti.”

But the story doesn’t end there.

Two years later, in 2007, the Ramanizzi Foundation published a follow-up study -- again flagging the link between cancer and aspartame.

This time, their research highlighted the troubling discovery that when the exposure begins in the womb, aspartame’s carcinogenic effect is further increased.[xiii]

But the evidence still didn’t gain any traction.

FoodNavigator.com reported that FDA spokesman Michael Herndon told Reuters: "At this time, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."[xiv]

Stonewalling at its finest…

This is why you must become an informed consumer. The FDA simply refuses to address and properly investigate this potential health threat for you.

Have You Experienced a Bad Aspartame Reaction? Report it!

Did you know that only a fraction of all adverse reactions are ever reported? When it comes to side effects from drugs and vaccines, a mere 1 to 4 percent of all adverse events are reported, which leads me to think that adverse reactions from other FDA-regulated products, such as aspartame, is likely even lower.

This is a problem that only you as the consumer can have an impact upon.

In order to truly alert the FDA to a problem with a product they’ve approved, they must be notified – by as many people who experience a problem as possible. So I urge you, if you experience side effects from aspartame, report it to the FDA.

Please go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number listed for your state, and report your adverse reaction.

There’s no telling just how many reports they might need before considering taking another look at the safety of aspartame or reconsidering their stance on the findings from more recent studies, but the only way to press them is by reporting any and all adverse effects.

References
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Alkaline Water According to Dr. Mercola

Alkaline Water According to Dr. Mercola: "If You Fall for This 'Water Fad' - You Could Do Some Major Damage
Posted By Dr. Mercola | September 11 2010 | 43,025 views

Clean, pure water is a cornerstone of good health. Your body is mostly water, so the ongoing intake of water is essential to your every function.

It’s common knowledge that most water sources are now polluted, but there is tremendous confusion about what kind of drinking water is the most health promoting, and what kind of home water treatment produces the best drinking water.

Today, too many people are choosing soda instead of pure water as their primary beverage and the health of an entire culture is at risk.

The number one source of calories in the U.S. comes from high fructose corn syrup primarily in the form of soda. Americans drink an average of one gallon of soda each week, and this excessive fructose consumption is a driving force behind obesity and chronic degenerative disease in this country.

The most practical and economical strategy to combat obesity and chronic disease is to replace all sodas and other sweet beverages with pure water.

The trouble is, most public water supplies are loaded with hazardous contaminants, such as disinfection byproducts, fluoride, and pharmaceutical drugs, to name just a few.

Nevertheless, you DO need to make water your beverage of choice if you want to be healthy—but it should be purified water.

But beyond water filtration, there’s also the issue of pH—alkaline versus acidic water. There are quite a few astonishing health claims being made about alkaline water, but are they true?

Most of them are not.

The theory behind alkaline water is, in a nutshell, that alkaline (ionized) water is a powerful antioxidant with surplus electrons that can “mop up” the dangerous free radicals you have coursing through your veins. Marketers claim alkaline water can correct excess acidity in your tissues, which can then prevent or reverse cancer, arthritis, and other degenerative diseases.[i]

Above is my interview with Houston Tomasz on this topic. He’s a ten-year veteran in the water filtration industry and this article expands on some of the items that we discuss in our interview. The segment is part of a much longer interview that we will air in future issues. Additionally, I have interviewed two other experts on this topic and they both agree that ionizers that produce alkaline water are not your best choice.

“Snake Oil on Tap”

When I posted a comment on my Facebook page, announcing I was interviewing Houston, I asked for questions and the most popular question by far was whether or not to drink alkaline water.

Many alkaline water enthusiasts are convinced its powers are unparalleled and will vehemently defend it. I am also certain that many will post vigorous objections to my position, and that is their choice. It is also my choice and responsibility to provide information on a system that many people are relying on to provide health benefits that I feel are unjustified.

It is my impression that the scientific justification for these water systems is absent and these consumers have merely fallen under the spell of a skilled marketer who selectively misused pseudoscientific information, and twisted it around to scare them into buying their product.

There are a plethora of testimonials and so-called scientific studies on the Internet claiming alkaline water will cure your every ill. Many consumers, struggling to make sense of the scientific jargon, eventually throw up their hands in frustration.

In truth, there are very, very few legitimate scientific studies about the effects of alkaline water on human health.

The reality is, most of the circulating information is distributed by clever marketers, with very little scientific validity to back up their claims.

Complicating matters is the fact that most water ionizers and alkalizers are being marketed by multi-level marketing (MLM) companies with less than stellar ethics. They sell you a very expensive machine, for which you get a good discount if you sign up as a rep, and once you’re part of the MLM, you can’t very well change your mind about its benefits (especially if you’re going to sell the units)—even if you realize that the alkaline water is no longer “working” for you.

I have been personally approached many times and encouraged to sell these systems and there would have been large revenue streams had I chosen to do so, but I would never promote anything that I would never use personally, and I can assure you that I would never use alkaline water as a regular source of water.

Please understand I have no ax to grind here, and I am not selling any competing products. The sole purpose of this report is as a public health message to warn people that alkaline water is not all it is hyped up to be.

I have no doubts that many people do notice improvements in their health when they initially start drinking alkaline water, but I believe there are other reasons for this, and I am convinced that this is not a healthful strategy in the long run, so it is my strong recommendation to avoid alkaline water ionizers.

Some people experience an initial “high” when they start drinking alkaline water. This can easily be attributed to detoxification, and the fact that they are likely just becoming better hydrated.

Detoxification is about the only benefit of this type of water, and this benefit is limited to very SHORT TERM USE (no more than a week or two).

I will elaborate on what is known about alkaline water, but first you’ll need a basic understanding of the properties of water and a few definitions.

Types of Water Available to You

As I will review in a future interview with Houston, there are many reasons why you want to avoid drinking tap water, or as Daniel Vitalis, a raw water enthusiast, refers to it: “tap liquid.” He believes calling what flows from your unfiltered tap “water” is being overly generous, and I would have to agree.

In terms of types of water, here are some basic definitions to keep in mind:

  • Purified water: Water that is physically processed to remove impurities (e.g., distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis, carbon filtration, etc.)

  • Distilled water: Water that is boiled and evaporated away from its dissolved minerals, and then the vapor is condensed.

  • Bottled Water. This water is typically from a spring or has gone through reverse osmosis before it is bottled. However, some brands are simply bottled tap water that may or may not have gone through any additional filtering.

  • Ionized water or alkaline water: Water that has been separated into alkaline and acid fractions using electrolysis, which takes advantage of the naturally occurring electric charges found in the magnesium and calcium ions; in the drinking water industry, ionized water refers to alkaline water, which has a pH greater than 7.

  • Deionized or demineralized water: Water in which the mineral ions (salts such as sodium, calcium, iron, copper, chloride and bromide) have been removed by exposing it to electrically charged resins that attract and bind to the salts.

  • Hard and soft water: Hard water is any water containing an appreciable quantity of dissolved minerals; soft water is treated water in which the only cation (positively charged ion) is sodium.

Understanding PH

The concept of the acidity or alkalinity of your body—or of water—is based on the pH scale. So it’s necessary to have a basic understanding of what pH is.

PH is simply a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions. In fact, the acronym “pH” is short for “potential of hydrogen.” The higher a liquid’s pH, the fewer free hydrogen ions it has; the lower its pH, the more free hydrogen ions it has. One pH unit reflects a tenfold change in ion concentration—for example, there are ten times as many hydrogen ions available at a pH of 7 than at a pH of 8 [ii].

pH scale

The pH scale goes from 0 to 14, and a pH of 7 is neutral.

Anything with a pH below 7 is considered acidic, with battery acid being the most extreme example, around 1. Anything with a pH above 7 is alkaline (or basic), with lye at the top of the scale, around 13. [iii]

Natural water on our planet ranges in pH from 6.5 to 9.0, depending on surrounding soil and vegetation, seasonal variations and weather, and even time of day responses to sunlight. Human activities further influence the pH of our water, from the barrage of toxic industrial pollutants.

According to an educational website called “Water on the Web”2:

“Pollutants in water can cause it to have higher algal and plant growth, as a result of increased temperature or excess nutrients, causing pH levels to rise. Although these small changes in pH are not likely to have a direct impact on aquatic life, they greatly influence the availability and solubility of all chemical forms in the lake and may aggravate nutrient problems.

For example, a change in pH may increase the solubility of phosphorus, making it more available for plant growth and resulting in a greater long-term demand for dissolved oxygen.”

Most aquatic animals and plants have adapted to life in water with a very specific pH, and will die from even slight changes. A pH below 4 or above 10 will kill most fish, and very few animals can tolerate waters with a pH below 3 or above 11 [iv].

With living systems being so sensitive to changes in pH, it should comes as no surprise that YOU, as another living organism on this planet, would be sensitive to your water’s pH as well.

Guidelines for the pH of Your Drinking Water

So, what are the recommendations for optimal drinking water pH?

The WHO has published a nearly-600 page document called “Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.” [v]

In this voluminous tome, you would expect to find everything you’d ever want to know about your drinking water, right?

Well, everything EXCEPT a pH recommendation—there are no health-based guidelines for pH!

They state that pH usually has “no direct impact on consumers,” yet they also write pH is one of the “most important operational water quality parameters.”

They do recommend your water pH be in the range of 6.5 to 8.0 so as not to corrode your pipes—and they’re NOT talking about your body’s plumbing:

“Alkalinity and calcium management also contribute to the stability of water and control its aggressiveness to pipe and appliance. Failure to minimize corrosion can result in the contamination of drinking water and in adverse effects on its taste and appearance. Failure to minimize corrosion can result in the contamination of drinking water and in adverse effects on its taste and appearance.”

It appears that the WHO is more concerned about the pipes in your house than the pipes in your body.

Most likely the optimal pH of the water you were designed to drink is somewhere between 6.5 and 7.5.

Alkalinity Research I: Flora and Fauna

Although the research is clear that alkaline water has detrimental effects on plants and animals, there are not many studies with humans.

A review of the literature turns up a variety of anecdotal evidence about the importance of ph to various living organisms, however, and as you might expect, optimal pH varies, depending on the organism.

The scientific literature indicates pH is important for nutrition and vitality. For example:

If you are a gardener, you can view a helpful illustration of the environmental effects of pH in your own garden. If your pH is low, your hydrangea produces pink flowers, but if your pH is high, you’ll get blue flowers.

But what about us bipeds?

Alkalinity Research II: Humans

There has been a great deal of debate about battling cancer by making your body alkaline. This has become a focus of interest as cancer rates have skyrocketed (along with many other chronic, debilitating diseases), while our bodies have become more acidic from our processed-food diets.

The scientific research about the benefits of alkalinity is by no means conclusive.

PH appears to have a major influence on cell mitochondria:

There are some scientific studies that really argue against alkalinity, at least with respect to preventing or treating cancer.

Consider the research by Robert Gilles, who has studied tumor formation and acidity.[xii] According to Gilles, tumors, by their very nature, make themselves acidic—even in an alkaline cellular structure. In other words, they make their own acidity.

Scientists who are in the process of developing prototypes for potential new anticancer agents that selectively kill tumor cells by interfering with the regulation of intracellular pH, have found that alkaline treatments do NOT have the desired effect—but strongly acidic treatments do.[xiii]

Talk about fighting fire with fire—they are fighting acid-loving cancer cells with acid!

LESS alkalinity inside a cancer cell seems to be what you want, not more.

So, all of those ionizer salesmen promising alkaline water will lower your cancer risk are completely clueless when it comes to what the scientific research actually shows.

Even more interesting is a 2005 study by the National Cancer Institute, which revisits the use of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) to treat cancer. They found that, in pharmacologic doses administered intravenously, ascorbic acid successfully killed cancer cells without harming normal cells.[xiv] This is yet another example of cancer cells being vulnerable to acidity, as opposed to alkalinity.

It’s clear that the relationship between alkalinity and cancer has been grossly oversimplified by those jumping to premature conclusions—and of course by those trying to profit off your fear.

The bottom line is that alkaline water isn’t cancer’s magic bullet.

Balance is Key

As is true with many things, in the end it’s a matter of balance.

Water that is too acidic or too alkaline can be detrimental to human health and lead to nutritional disequilibrium. This was demonstrated in a Swedish well water study [xv], which found both pH extremes to be problematic.

Your body simply was not designed to drink highly alkaline water all the time.

So I believe it’s best to be VERY careful when it comes to something as foundational as the water you drink on a daily basis. If you get it wrong, you could really cause yourself some major damage.

It makes sense that you are designed to drink water that occurs naturally, which excludes alkaline water with pH levels of 8 and above.

And if you drink alkaline water all the time, you’re going to raise the alkalinity of your stomach, which will buffer your stomach’s acidity and impair your ability to digest food as low stomach acid is one of the most common causes of ulcers. This can open the door for parasites in your small intestine, and your protein digestion may suffer. It also means you’ll get less minerals and nutrients over time—in fact, some of these health effects can already be seen in hard-core alkaline water drinkers.

Alkalinity is also potentially a problem because it is antibacterial, so it could potentially disrupt the balance of your body’s beneficial bacteria.[xvi]

Living Water

What you want is pure water—water that is clean, balanced, and healthful, neither too alkaline nor too acidic. Ideally, the pH of your water should be close to 7, which is neutral.

Somewhere between 6 to 8 is likely fine.

And some of the most healthful waters in the world—that emerging from mountain springs—are actually acidic in the range of 6.5. and would absolutely be my preference if it were readily available.

If this is something that interests you there is a web site, FindaSpring.com where you can find springs in your local area.

That is “living water,” which is living in the same way that raw food is “living food.”

One reason I am such an advocate for eating plenty of fresh, organic raw food is for its biophotons. Biophotons are the smallest units of light, which are stored in and used by all biological organisms—including you. Vital energy finds its way into your cells from the biodynamic foods you eat.

In the same way that raw foods are alive with biophoton energy, natural water is “alive” in a similar way.

If you really want to alkalinize your body it would seem wise to encourage it with the highest quality water possible which is obtained from vegetable juice. Green vegetable juices will help your body normalize your body’s pH naturally.

If this is new to you and you are interested in more information you can review my juicing manual for free.

I cannot think of “living water” without thinking of the visionary work of Dr. Masaru Emoto, the Japanese researcher who experimented with the crystal forms of water. What he discovered is that different forms of energy influence water’s ability to organize into beautiful crystal forms.[xvii]

He demonstrated that water crystallization depends on the natural health of the water. He found that water from natural springs, healing water sources, etc., formed beautiful and complex crystalline geometries—like snowflakes. Water that had been distilled or polluted lost its inner order, and its ability to crystallize was profoundly disturbed.

You wouldn’t want to eat dead food... so why would you want to drink dead water?

Water Ionizers are NOT Filters!

It is really important to understand that the ionization process in no way, shape, or form purifies your water. Many of them have additional carbon-based filtration systems added, as reverse osmosis or distilled water will not allow the ionizer to produce alkaline water.

If for whatever reason the information I am presenting here does not convince you to avoid using ionizers, then you will need to carefully analyze the water filter that is being used.

This article only addresses ionizers and alkaline water. In the near future I will post a comprehensive review of water filters as it is complex issue that is beyond the scope of this article.

Is Your Water Filter Certified?

In order to ensure your water is pure, you should use a high quality water filter in your home and workplace. You can narrow down the choices by making sure the product you choose is certified by a reputable independent water certification agency.

Two of the best, most stringent certifications are NSF and ANSI, who write the standards. If a water purifier is certified by NSF or ANSI, the product claims have been verified, the system is structurally sound, and the literature and labeling is not misleading. Look for the NSF seal.

Three other less rigorous certifications are Pace Analytical, Underwriters Laboratories, and The Water Quality Association (WQA).

There is no national regulation of water products—states have their own regulations, which vary greatly state by state.

The EPA has published a chart listing their limits for every type of water contaminant, including microorganisms, disinfectants and disinfectant byproducts, organic and inorganic chemicals, and radionuclides, viewable here.

Please beware that some companies may mislead you by listing their UL certification, but this certification is good for the electrical components only, and has no bearing on water quality whatsoever.

Optimizing Your Body’s PH: Back to Basics

The typical American diet is loaded with sugar and processed foods, which throws off your body’s ability to optimize your pH. Although your body has mechanisms to buffer your pH, many of you are likely living in a state of low-grade acidosis from eating too many low-quality processed, devitalized food..

Our ancestors had no problems with pH because they ate a pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer diet, rich in plant foods and high quality meats, and devoid of grains.

You can optimize your body’s pH by eating like your ancestor’s did—a diet rich in raw, organic, whole foods—and this will help your body achieve homeostasis.

Remember, there is no one-size-fits-all nutrition plan that works for everyone, which is why Nutritional Typing is so helpful. Determining your nutritional type will help you narrow down the foods that are best for YOUR body’s individual chemistry.

A diet that makes one person “acidic” may make another person “alkaline,” so there is no one single universal food list for perfect pH.

For example, protein types can “over-alkalize” their systems by consuming too many dark green vegetables, which can worsen rather than improve their health, in spite of the many beneficial phytonutrients in leafy greens. (I am very familiar with this mistake as it’s one I made prior to understanding nutritional typing!)

I want you to be aware of just how important it is to understand your body at a deeper level. Your body is a complex, multi-faceted biochemical system that is unlikely to respond well to shot-in-the-dark treatments, like alkaline water.

References


Related Links:

Is Bottled Water Really Pure
This Common Beverage Can Spike Brain Damage, Obesity, and Cancer Risk
Careful With Your Water Filters
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)