The Real Truth About the Top 12 Health Myths

The Real Truth About the Top 12 Health Myths:

CNN has published a list of the “truth about twelve “health myths”. Among the myths this article busts? “If you cross your eyes, they’ll stay that way.” “Eat the crust of your bread because it’s full of antioxidants,” and, “to get rid of hiccups, have someone startle you.”
Seriously?
There is massive amount of medical misinformation circulating right now, which is causing an epidemic of chronic disease, unprecedented in human history, and their big concern is whether or not if you cross your eyes, they’ll stay that way?
CNN is beyond clueless.
The primary purpose of their article is entertainment, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the top health myths. With articles such as this one, CNN is part of the problem of perpetuating misinformation and leading you astray with nonsense.
Below I will review 12 REAL health myths that CNN didn’t bother to mention, even though these are the cause of a lot of unnecessary suffering and premature death.

Sources:

CNN August 31, 2010

With all the medical misinformation we’re currently exposed to on a daily basis, it’s disappointing to see CNN waste time and space on yet another entertainment-style fluff piece, discussing “health myths” that have no real bearing on your health whatsoever.
Because, believe me, there is no shortage of real health myths that can, and do, have a massive impact on tens of thousands if not millions of people.
Here is my list of the top 12 health myths, none of which CNN bothered to mention:

1: Cardio is One of the Best Types of Exercise

In recent years, researchers have begun to realize that conventional cardio, such as jogging, is not all it’s been cracked up to be, and that you can actually improve your health and increase fat burning by making slight modifications to your cardio routine.
The problem is that traditional cardio only works on the slow twitch muscle fibers in your red muscle, completely ignoring your white muscle super-fast twitch fibers.
“Peak 8” refers to peak exercises done once or twice a week, in which you raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, followed by a 90-second recovery period.
To perform these properly you will want to get very close to, if not exceed, your maximum heart rate by the last interval. Your maximum heart rate is calculated as 220 minus your age. You will need a heart rate monitor to measure this as it is nearly impossible to accurately measure your heart rate manually when it is above 150.
Researchers have found that interval cardio produces a unique metabolic response that is in large part responsible for its superior benefits. Intermittent sprinting produces high levels of chemical compounds called catecholamines, which allow more fat to be burned from under your skin and within your muscles. The resulting increase in fat oxidation is thought to drive the increased weight loss.
It is also the only type of exercise that will increase growth hormone levels. This becomes especially important after the age of 30, when growth hormones steadily decline. It is much safer and far less expensive to have your body make growth hormone naturally though Peak 8 type exercises than inject it like many athletes do to the tune of $1500 per month.

2: Vaccines are Safe and Effective and Prevent Disease

I completely understand that for many this issue is not debatable as they believe that vaccines are one of the greatest gifts to public health in the history of civilization.
If you believe that, then let me encourage you to open your mind and explore other views held by many well respected physicians, scientists, clinicians and pro-vaccine safety educators.
You might want to review the article Read This Before Vaccinating for Anything, to help you start your exploration process.
When it comes to vaccines, there are three primary questions that need to be considered.

• First, is the vaccine in question safe?
• Secondly, does it effectively prevent disease?
• And third, which vaccines can safely and effectively be given together or in close succession?

Unfortunately, these issues have not been sufficiently studied for most vaccines, and those vaccines that have been studied frequently show that they are either unsafe or ineffective, or both!
Pro-vaccine-safety educators have long been saying that vaccines can over-stimulate your child’s immune system, sometimes causing the very disease it’s designed to protect against, or worse. And, when several vaccines are administered together, or in close succession, their interaction may completely overwhelm your child’s developing immune system.
This is one of the primary problems with vaccines in general – their detrimental impact on your body’s primary, natural defense against ALL disease.
Now consider that if your child is vaccinated according to the CDC's recommended schedule, by the time your child starts kindergarten he or she will have received 48 doses of 14 vaccines. Of these, 36 doses will be given during the first 18 months of life – a time when your child’s body and brain is undergoing massive development!
Public health officials have NEVER proven that it is indeed safe to inject this volume of vaccines into infants. What's more, they cannot explain why, concurrent with an increasing number of vaccinations, there has been an explosion of neurological and immune system disorders in American children.
This issue covers so much ground, it’s impossible to even try to summarize the many hazards and the lack of efficiency data for all the vaccines currently being given, in this article.
For more information please visit our vaccine section at http://vaccines.mercola.com/

3: Fluoride in Your Water Lowers Your Risk of Cavities

The theory behind the introduction of fluoride in your water supply initially seems beneficial – to reduce the incidence of dental caries in children. However, the health dangers of fluoride are so numerous; they far outweigh any benefit to your teeth, and that’s IF water fluoridation actually did what its claimed to do.
Today, even promoters of fluoridation concede that the major benefits are only from topical applications; fluoride works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside of your body, so why swallow it?
Statistics tell us that water fluoridation is ineffective for preventing caries. There is practically no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, and no difference between states that have a high- or low percentage of their water fluoridated.
Meanwhile, fluoride can cause significant harm, from dental fluorosis to thyroid damage to reduced IQ... and much more.
I’ve joined forces with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) to help end water fluoridation poisoning in Canada and the United States.
For more about the dangers of fluoride, and information about how to get involved in this campaign, please see this recent article, which also includes an excellent interview with Dr. Paul Connett, who created FAN and is one of the foremost experts on this topic.

4: GMOs Crops are Safe, Well Tested and Economically Beneficial

GMOs may be the greatest health disaster in the American diet. Within 9 years of their introduction in 1996, multiple chronic illnesses jumped from 7 percent to 13 percent of the population, food allergies doubled in less time, and many other ailments have exponentially increased with the introduction of GM foods.
Millions may already be suffering health problems caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their diet. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has already urged doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients, citing studies that show how GMOs cause disorders such as vital organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system problems, accelerated aging, infertility, and dysfunctional regulation of insulin and cholesterol.
But not only are GM foods a health disaster, they also pose a significant environmental threat, and industry promises of financial benefits have turned out to be false as well.
For a quick introduction, I recommend reading the article 10 Reasons to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods, which delves into everything from the health problems associated with eating GM foods to the evidence against GM crops as a sustainable, economically and environmentally viable alternative to traditional farming.

5: Sun Causes Skin Cancer

There are many misconceptions about melanoma – the most dangerous type of skin cancer that accounts for more than 75 percent of skin cancer deaths. But despite all the bad press linking sun exposure to skin cancer, there’s almost no evidence at all to support that stance. There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Over the years, several studies have already confirmed that appropriate sun exposure actually helps prevent skin cancer. In fact, melanoma occurrence has been found to decrease with greater sun exposure, and can be increased by sunscreens.
In my interview with vitamin D expert Dr. Robert Heaney, he explains how the conventional recommendations are in fact causing the very health problem they claim to prevent.
How does sunlight prevent, rather than cause, skin cancer?
In short, it’s the vitamin D formed in your skin from exposure to sunlight that provides this built in cancer protection.
The vitamin D goes directly to genes in your skin that help prevent the types of abnormalities that ultraviolet light causes. Unfortunately, if you follow the conventional recommendation to avoid sun exposure or always use sunscreen, your skin will not make any vitamin D, leaving you without this built-in cancer protection.
Statistics confirm the truth of these findings, as melanoma rates have increased right along with sun avoidance and increased use of sunscreens. If avoiding the sun actually was the answer, then melanoma rates should have decreased exponentially over the past couple of decades...
Instead, sun avoidance and the excessive use of sun screen are actually the two primary reasons for the rise in melanoma.

6: Saturated Fat Causes Heart Disease

As recently as 2002, the "expert" Food & Nutrition Board issued the following misguided statement, which epitomizes this myth:

"Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol have no known beneficial role in preventing chronic disease and are not required at any level in the diet."

This dangerous recommendation, which arose from an unproven hypothesis from the mid-1950s, has been harming your health and that of your loved ones for about 40 years now.
The truth is, saturated fats from animal and vegetable sources provide the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone-like substances, without which your body cannot function optimally.
They also act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Dietary fats are also needed for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, for mineral absorption, and for a host of other biological processes.
In fact, saturated is the preferred fuel for your heart!
For more information about saturated fats and the essential role they play in maintaining your health, please read my previous article The Truth About Saturated Fat.

7: Artificial Sweeteners are Safe, Well Tested and Help Promote Weight Loss

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 who consume caloric sweeteners.
In 2005, data gathered from the 25-year long San Antonio Heart Study showed that drinking diet soft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain – far more so than regular soda. On average, each diet soft drink the participants consumed per day increased their risk of becoming overweight by 65 percent within the next seven to eight years, and made them 41 percent more likely to become obese.
The reasons for this ironic reality are still being investigated, but there are several potential causes, including:

• Sweet taste alone appears to increase hunger, regardless of caloric content.
• Artificial sweeteners appear to simply perpetuate a craving for sweets, and overall sugar consumption is therefore not reduced—leading to further problems controlling your weight.
• Artificial sweeteners may disrupt your body’s natural ability to “count calories,” as evidenced in studies such as this 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.

In the end, the research tells us that artificial sweeteners are NOT a dieter’s best friend, 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.
There are also a large number of health dangers associated with artificial sweeteners and aspartame in particular. I’ve started compiling a growing list of studies pertaining to health problems associated with aspartame, which you can find here. If you’re still on the fence, I highly recommend reviewing these studies for yourself so that you can make an educated decision.
For more information on aspartame, the worst artificial sweetener, please see my aspartame video.

8: Soy is a Health Food

The meteoric rise of soy as a “health food” is a perfect example of how a brilliant marketing strategy can fool millions. But make no mistake about it, unfermented soy products are NOT healthful additions to your diet.
If you find this recommendation startling then I would encourage you to review my Why Soy Can Damage Your Health, which contains links to dozens of articles on the topic, and a video I recently did.
On the contrary, thousands of studies have linked unfermented soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, immune-system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders and infertility—even cancer and heart disease.
Not only that, but more than 90 percent of American soy crops are genetically modified, which carries its own set of health risks.
Here is a sampling of the detrimental health effects that have been linked to soy consumption:

• Breast cancer
• Brain damage
• Infant abnormalities
• Thyroid disorders
• Kidney stones
• Immune system impairment
• Severe, potentially fatal food allergies
• Impaired fertility
• Danger during pregnancy and nursing

I am not opposed to all soy, however. Organic and, most importantly, properly fermented soy does have great health benefits. Examples of such healthful fermented soy products include tempeh, miso and natto.

9: Whole Grains are Good for Everyone

The use of whole-grains is an easy subject to get confused on especially for those who have a passion for nutrition, as for the longest time we were told the fiber in whole grains is highly beneficial.
Unfortunately ALL grains, including whole-grain and organic varieties, can elevate your insulin levels, which can increase your risk of disease.
It has been my experience that more than 85 percent of Americans have trouble controlling their insulin levels -- especially those who have the following conditions:

• Overweight
• Diabetes
• High blood pressure
• High cholesterol
• Protein metabolic types

In addition, sub-clinical gluten intolerance is far more common than you might think, which can also wreak havoc with your health.
As a general rule, I strongly recommend eliminating grains as well as sugars from your diet, especially if you have any of the above conditions that are related to insulin resistance. The higher your insulin levels and the more prominent your signs of insulin overload are, the more ambitious your grain elimination needs to be.
If you are one of the fortunate ones without insulin resistance and of normal body weight, then grains are fine, especially whole grains. It is wise to continue to monitor your grain consumption and your health as life is dynamic and constantly changing. What might be fine when you are 25 or 30 could become a major problem at 40 when your growth hormone and level of exercise is different.

10: All Plant Based Supplements are as Good as Animal Supplements

The primary example here is that of omega-3’s. It’s very important to realize that not all omega-3 fats are the same, and that the type and source of your omega-3 will make a big difference in the health benefits it provides.
There are three types of omega-3 fats:

• DHA (Docosahexaenoic Acid)
• EPA (Eicosapentaenoic Acid)
• ALA (Alpha-Linolenic Acid)

Many people do not realize that most of the well-known health benefits associated with omega-3 fats – such as mental health, stronger bones and heart health -- are linked to the animal-based omega-3 fats (EPA and DHA), not the plant-based omega-3 fat (ALA).
ALA, which is the type of omega-3 found in flaxseed and nuts, is converted into EPA and DHA in your body, but only at a very low ratio.
So even if you eat large amounts of ALA, your body can only convert a relatively small amount into EPA and DHA, and only when sufficient enzymes are present.
This does not mean plant-based omega-3 fats are intrinsically harmful or that they should be avoided, only that you ideally want to include an animal-based form as well. Personally, I regularly include omega-3 (ALA) plant-based foods, like flax and hemp, in my diet, but these are always combined with animal-based omega-3 fats.
But in order to reap its most important health benefits, your omega-3 needs to be from an animal source. For more information on this topic, please read through my previous article, Are You Getting the Right Type of Omega-3 Fats?

11: Milk Does Your Body Good

Can milk do your body good?
Yes, if it’s RAW.
Unfortunately, this myth insists that conventional pasteurized milk has health benefits, which is far from true. Conventional health agencies also refuse to address the real dangers of the growth hormones and antibiotics found in conventional milk.
Please understand that I do not recommend drinking pasteurized milk of any kind, including organic, because once milk has been pasteurized its physical structure is changed in a way that can actually cause allergies and immune problems.
Important enzymes like lactase are destroyed, which causes many people to not be able to digest milk. Additionally, vitamins (such as A, C, B6 and B12) are diminished and fragile milk proteins are radically transformed from health nurturing to unnatural amino acid configurations that can actually worsen your health.
The eradication of beneficial bacteria through the pasteurization process also ends up promoting pathogens rather than protecting you from them.
The healthy alternative to pasteurized milk is raw milk, which is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidophilus, vitamins and enzymes, and it is, in my estimation, one of the finest sources of calcium available.
For more details please watch the interview I did with Mark McAfee, who is the owner of Organic Pastures, the largest organic dairy in the US.

12: Low-Fat Diets are Healthy

The low-fat myth may have done more harm to the health of millions than any other dietary recommendation. Again, just as the recommendations to avoid sunshine has increased melanoma rates, the low-fat craze led to increased consumption of trans-fats, which we now know increases your risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
To end the confusion, it’s very important to realize that eating fat will not make you fat!
The primary cause of excess weight and all the chronic diseases associated with it, is actually the consumption of too much sugar -- especially fructose, but also all sorts of grains, which rapidly convert to sugar in your body.
If only the low-fat craze had been a low-sugar craze... then we wouldn’t have nearly as much chronic disease as we have today.
For an explanation of why and how a low-fat diet can create the very health problems it’s claimed to prevent, please see this previous article.

Final Thoughts

As you can see, there’s no shortage of health myths out there, and it only seems to be getting worse... The 12 myths reviewed above are but a sampling, because there are still many more.
If you want to review a number of additional health topics that are fraught with misinformation, please see the three-part series listed below in Related Articles.
As opposed to the nonsense offered in the CNN article above, these health topics are all essential to get “right” if you want to protect your health, and the health of your loved ones.

Related Links:

From Deceptive Boardrooms to Closed-Minded Thinking... How The Fatally Flawed Medical System Killed More Americans with Just One Drug than the Entire Vietnam War, Part 1 of 4

From Deceptive Boardrooms to Closed-Mind Thinking, How The Fatally Flawed Medical System Killed More Americans with Just One Drug than the Entire Vietnam War, Part 2 of 4

From Deceptive Boardrooms to Closed-Mind Thinking, How The Fatally Flawed Medical System Killed More Americans with Just One Drug than the Entire Vietnam War, Part 3 of 4

Expert Pediatrician Exposes Vaccine Myths

Breakfast for Champions: Natural Health Information

Breakfast for Champions: Natural Health Information

Breakfast for Champions

It'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
• Have 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

It 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

As 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

As 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!
• Oatmeal 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

When 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.

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.

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

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

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 37^th 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 37^th 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

---

• [i] Woodrow C. Monte PhD, “Methanol: A chemical Trojan Horse as the root of the Inscrutable U”, Medical Hypotheses, November 6, 2009 (10.1016/j.mehy.2009.09.059)
• [ii] Peter J. Rogers, Jo-Anne Carlyle, Andrew J. Hill and John E. Blundell, “Uncoupling sweet taste and calories: Comparison of the effects of glucose and three intense sweeteners on hunger and food intake”, Physiology & Behavior 1988; 43(5): 547-552
• [iii] Tordoff MG, Alleva AM., “Oral stimulation with aspartame increases hunger”, Physiology & Behavior March 1990; 47(3):555-9
• [iv] H. L. Wang, V. H. Harwalkar and H. A. Waisman, “Effect of dietary phenylalanine and tryptophan on brain serotonin”, Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics April 1962; 97(1): 181-184
• [v] Chen, L. N., Parham, E. S., “College Students’ Use of High-Intensity Sweeteners Is Not Consistently Associated with Sugar Consumption”, J Am Diet Assoc. 91(1991): 686–90
• [vi] UT Health Center San Antonio Press Release, “New analysis suggests ‘diet soda paradox’ – less sugar, more weight”, June 14, 2005 · Volume: XXXVIII · Issue: 24
• [vii] Davidson TL, Swithers SE., “A Pavlovian approach to the problem of obesity”, Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. July 2004;28(7):933-5.
• [viii] Qing Yang, “Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings”, Yale J Biol Med. June 2010; 83(2): 101–108.
• [ix] Halldorsson TI, Strøm M, Petersen SB, Olsen SF., “Intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks and risk of preterm delivery: a prospective cohort study of 59,334 Danish pregnant women”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition June 30, 2010 [Epub ahead of print]
• [x] National Cancer Institute, “Aspartame and Cancer fact sheet”
• [xi] Morando Soffritti, Fiorella Belpoggi, Davide Degli Esposti, Luca Lambertini, Eva Tibaldi, Anna Rigano, “First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats,” Environmental Health Perspectives March 2006;114(3):379-85
• 
  
• [xii] “EUROPEAN RAMAZZINI FOUNDATION STANDS BEHIND ASPARTAME STUDY RESULTS, ANNOUNCES ONGOING RESEARCH ON ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS”, Laleva.org, May 5, 2006,
• [xiii] Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Tibaldi E, Esposti DD, Lauriola M., “Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases cancer effects in rats”, Environmental Health Perspectives September 2007; 115(9):1293-7
• [xiv] Stephen Daniells, “New study reignites aspartame cancer concerns”, FoodNavigator.com, June 26, 2007,