Category: Health

Related to health issues

Nutritional Research Specialist and Educator,

Dr. James J. (Jay) Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN

Dr. Jay Kenney
Pritikin Longevity Center + Spa
  • PhD, Nutrition, Rutgers University
  • Board Certified, Human Nutrition Sciences, American Board of Nutrition
  • Fellow, American College of Nutrition
  • Physiology Department, Assistant Professor, UCLA
  • Biology Department, Assistant Professor, Lehigh University
  • Board Member, National Council Against Health Fraud

For more than three decades, Dr. Kenney has traveled throughout the U.S., speaking at conferences for doctors, dietitians, and other health professionals on the relationship between diet and disease, and exposing the unscientific claims of many fad diets. He has published articles for scientific journals, including the Journal of Nutrition and the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, as well as popular magazines, such as Self and Shape. He has been interviewed on many TV and radio media, most recently Frontline and CNN News, and provides continuing professional education courses for dietitians, nutritionists and other health professionals.

His passion for helping people cut through the confusion and understand the real truth about diets make his lectures at Pritikin both inspiring and eye opening. He also walks his talk. “Today, I enjoy eating Pritikin foods as much as I did my steak-and-ice-cream diet of 35 years ago. Best of all, I’m in better health today, in my 60s, than I was in my 30s. Before starting Pritikin, my blood pressure was 150/100; my cholesterol was over 300. Today, my blood pressure is generally below 110/70, my cholesterol is 180, and my HDL ‘good’ cholesterol is 80. Plus, I eat a lot of great-tasting, satisfying food and never go hungry. I weigh 157 pounds at 6’3″. That’s 40 pounds less than my weight in college. America would not have an epidemic of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease if we could get everyone on the Pritikin Program.”

Google+

Calcium Supplements Can Cause Heart Attacks

 

By    |   Posted on May 29, 2012

 

 

570x299 Calcium Supplements Can Cause Heart AttacksCalcium supplements are thought to be good for the bones, but a new study warns they might be bad for the heart.

A report released Friday in the journal Heart found an alarming result: taking a calcium supplement to prevent bone loss puts people at a significantly greater risk for heart attacks. The 24,000 participants in the study, all between the ages of 35 and 64 and taking calcium supplements regularly, were found to be a whopping 86 percent more likely to have a heart attack than those who did not take supplements.

According to the study, “Calcium supplements have been widely embraced by doctors and the public on the grounds that they are a natural and therefore safe way of preventing osteoporatic fractures. We should return to seeing calcium as an important component of a balanced diet.”

Dr. Matt Lederman, featured in Forks Over Knives, advises, “There are often unintended consequences when taking nutrients in isolation. The research to date shows that the amount of calcium found in a whole-food plant-based diet is adequate – and that more isn’t necessarily better.”

The authors of the study noted that excessive calcium, a common side effect of taking calcium supplements, is where the harm may begin.

Says Lederman, “For good bone health, the most important factors are eating a healthy plant-based diet, getting an adequate amount of sunshine, and doing strength-oriented exercise.”

What to and what not to eat!

Eat This Food:

Eat Whole Plant Based food such as vegetables, fruit and grains. Some examples: potato dishes, sweet potato, carrots, turnip, cabbage, parsnip, beets,  corn, green and yellow beans, onion, lettuce, spinach,kale, daikon, tomato, garlic, apples, pears, oranges, bananas, berries of all type , black beans, chickpeas, kidney beans, pinto beans, oats, navy beans, barley, quinoa, couscous, chia and flax seed, whole wheat pastas, whole wheat bread, pancakes, waffles, porridge and more.

Once you realize how restrictive eating a meat and dairy centric diet is compared to the extensive dishes that can be made from whole foods, you will never look back. Dairy is just liquid meat. The problem is getting away from a salt, fat and sugar, meat and dairy based diet. Considering that the former will promote poor health and chronic disease, it should be easy. However it is not that simple, your tastes will have to change and that takes time.

Try it for 90 days, you will become healthier and happier. You will feel and look great. You will also lose weight.

Do Not Eat This Food:

Meats, poultry, fish, eggs (both whites and yolks), and all dairy products (regular and non-fat), including milk, yogurt, cheese, ice cream, cream, sour cream, and butter.

Also avoid margarine, salad dressings, cooking oils and foods, such as potato chips, french fries, onion rings and donuts.

Avoid orange juice and all concentrated juices, they are little better than sugar water.

Avoid all foods that are GM, (genetically modified) as the effects could be very detrimental to your health.

Avoid all trans fats, check the label. Trans fats are fats that are normally liquid at room temperature but become solid by combining them with hydrogen. (hydrogenated)

Avoid energy bars which contain excessive amounts of sugar and chemicals.

Avoid soft drinks and sodas which again have excessive amounts of sugar and artificial sweeteners (aspertain etc). One can of soda has 220 calories of sugar alone which is 8 tsp per soda.

Avoid canned soup as it is usually loaded with MSG and sodium, which is very unhealthy. Check the label; the sodium should be = to or less than the calories per serving. Some soups have 10 times the sodium level.

Avoid all refined and processed food as the nutrition has been removed, and salt, fat and sugar have been added. Even worse the sugar is usually fructose sugar. White bread, cookies, crackers and cakes are examples of processed food.

Supplements are not food. Do not eat them as they are expensive and may do more harm than good. The only supplement that you might need if you are 100% vegan is B12.

MEAL SUGGESTIONS

BREAKFAST—Often breakfast can be similar to the one you are accustomed to with a few simple modifications.

Hot cereals: oatmeal, cream of wheat, creamy rice cereal, porridge with fruit and soy or almond milk. Almond beverage is a good milk substitute.

High-fiber cold cereals: wheat or oat bran cereals with non-fat soy or rice milk and berries, peaches, or bananas

Melons, such as cantaloupe and honeydew, or any other fruit

Whole grain toast topped with cinnamon or jam (no butter or margarine)

Bagels (no cream cheese) topped with apple butter or hummus

Oven-roasted “home fries” plain or smothered with roasted mushrooms, peppers, and onions

LUNCH—whether you dine in or out at lunchtime, there are lots of healthy and delicious options to choose from. Here are some ideas to get you started.

Salads

Garden salad with lemon juice, fat-free dressing, or soy or teriyaki sauce

Legume-based salads: three-bean, chickpea, lentil, or black bean and corn salads

Grain-based salads: noodle, couscous, bulgur, or rice salads

Soups

Vegetable-based soups: potato-leek, carrot-ginger, mixed vegetable, or mushroom-barley and quinoa.

Legume-based soups: black bean, vegetarian chili, spinach lentil, minestrone, or split pea with quinoa.

Instant or prepared soups (as long as they are low-fat and free of animal products) are good.

Sandwiches/Wraps

CLT: cucumber, lettuce, and tomato sandwich with Dijon mustard or hummus

Hummus sandwich tucked into whole wheat pita with grated carrots, sprouts, and cucumbers

Sandwich made with fat-free meat alternatives such as barbeque seitan or veggie pepperoni slices with your favorite sandwich veggies

Black bean dip, peppers, tomatoes, and lettuce wrapped in a whole-wheat tortilla

Italian eggplant sub: baked eggplant slices, pizza sauce, and mushrooms on a multi-grain sub roll

Black bean and sweet potato burrito with corn and tomatoes

DINNER—Emphasize vegetables and grains in all your meals. The evening meal is a good place to try new items. You might start with a bean, rice or other grain, or potato dish and add a couple of vegetables.

Starches:

Grains: Use generous amounts of grains.

pasta

brown rice

boxed rice dishes (e.g., pilaf, curried rice, etc.)

couscous

Potatoes: Enjoy them baked or mashed and topped with steamed vegetables, salsa, ketchup, Dijon mustard, black pepper, or black beans.

Breads: Whole-grain is preferred. Avoid sweet breads that contain oil, eggs, or milk.

Vegetables:

Try any vegetables you like.

Greens (broccoli, spinach, kale, Swiss chard) topped with lemon

Carrots

Corn (note: corn is technically a grain, but works as a vegetable)

Legumes:

Pinto beans, vegetarian refried beans, baked beans, black beans, garbanzos, kidney beans

Main Dishes:

Pasta marinara: Choose commercial brands that are free of cheese and are low in fat.

Beans and rice: Try black beans with salsa, vegetarian baked beans, or fat-free refried beans.

Soft tacos: Prepare this dish with whole-wheat flour tortilla, beans, lettuce, tomato, and salsa.

Chili: Vegetarian boxed versions are fine.

Veggie lasagna: Made with low-fat tofu to replace the ricotta, layered with grilled veggies.

Rice pilaf, Spanish rice, or packaged rice dinners: Try packaged rice dishes and omit butter.

Steamed rice and stir-fried vegetables: This meal can be seasoned with soy sauce. Be sure to use a non-stick pan.

Fat-free vegetarian burgers: Make your own lentil burgers or try soy-based commercial brands.

Fajitas: Lightly sauté sliced bell peppers, onions, and eggplant in a non-stick pan, with fajita seasonings.

Desserts:

Fresh fruit

Fat-free chocolate or fruit sorbet

Popsicles

Baked apples

SNACKS

Bagels (plain or flavored; no cheese, butter, or margarine)

Fruit, carrots, or celery sticks

Vegetarian soup cups (split pea, lentil, etc.)

Toast with jam (no butter or margarine)

Baked tortilla chips with salsa or bean dip

GENERAL TIPS

TRYING NEW FOODS AND NEW TASTES:

Explore new recipes, new books, new products.

Fat-free meat substitutes can ease the transition.

Be strict with yourself. This is easier than teasing yourself with small amounts of the foods you are trying to leave behind.

Focus on the short term. Three weeks is a short time.

Frozen vegetables are fine.

Canned beans and vegetables are okay for convenience.

Use a non-stick pan.

“Sauté” vegetables in water or vegetable broth.

Steam vegetables.

When you can’t avoid oil, use a cooking spray instead of poured oils.

Use non-fat, non-dairy coffee creamers.

Read package labels to check grams of fat per serving. It is best to choose products that have less than 2 grams of fat per serving.

80% OF THE TIME BE GOOD, 20% OF THE TIME BE MODERATE, 5% BE BAD.

INCLUDE SOME FISH AS LONG AS IT WAS CAUGHT WILD. DO NOT EAT FARMED SALMON. FARMED MUSSELS ARE GREAT. IF YOU CAN ONLY DO ONE THING THAT ONE THING SHOULD BE THE AVOIDANCE OF ALL DAIRY PRODUCTS.

Salmon Confidential

Salmon Confidential—How a Canadian Government Cover-Up Threatens Your Health, and the Entire Ecosystem

April 13, 2013 | 297,731 views | + Add to Favorites
The Video   

By Dr. Mercola

Many environmental experts have warned about the unsustainability of fish farms for a decade now, and we have documented those objections in many previous articles. Unfortunately nothing has yet been done to improve the system.

As usual, government agencies and environmental organizations around the world turned a blind eye to what was predicted to become an absolute disaster, and now the ramifications can be seen across the globe, including in British Columbia, Canada.

Salmon Confidential is a fascinating documentary that draws back the curtain to reveal how the Canadian government is covering up the cause behind British Columbia’s rapidly dwindling wild salmon population. A summary of the film reads:1

“When biologist Alexandra Morton discovers BC’s wild salmon are testing positive for dangerous European salmon viruses associated with salmon farming worldwide, a chain of events is set off by government to suppress the findings.

Tracking viruses, Morton moves from courtrooms, into British Columbia’s most remote rivers, Vancouver grocery stores and sushi restaurants.

The film documents Morton’s journey as she attempts to overcome government and industry roadblocks thrown in her path and works to bring critical information to the public in time to save BC’s wild salmon.”

If you think watching a documentary about wild fish sounds boring, this film may well change your mind. It provides sobering insight into the inner workings of government agencies, and includes rare footage of the bureaucrats tasked with food and environmental safety.

It reveals how the very agency tasked with protecting wild salmon is actuallyworking to protect the commercial aquaculture industry, to devastating effect.

Once you understand just how important wild salmon are to the entire ecosystem, you realize that what’s going on here goes far beyond just protecting a fish species. Without these salmon, the entire ecosystem will eventually fail, and in case you’ve temporarily forgotten, you are part of this system, whether you’re a Canadian or not…

‘Keystone’ Species Missing in Action by the Millions

As explained in the film, a “keystone” species is a species of animal that is essential to the functioning of the ecosystem. It’s a species that other animals cannot survive without. In British Columbia (BC), pacific salmon are a keystone species. They fill hundreds of streams and rivers, feeding hundreds of species, including humans. Alas, since the early 1990’s, salmon numbers have rapidly dwindled, coinciding with the introduction of aqua farms raising farmed salmon.

Each year, millions of wild salmon go missing, and many are found to have died before spawning. They can be found littering the shores of rivers and streams in BC in large numbers.

Biologist Alex Morton has followed and studied the unusual decline in salmon stocks for nearly 30 years. She noticed that as commercial fish farms moved into the area, they had a detrimental impact on wild fish. The most obvious was a dramatic rise in parasitic sea lice in juvenile salmon, which naturally do not carry the lice. But that was just the beginning.

Fish farms breed pathogens that can spread like wildfire and contaminate any wild fish swimming past. Norway has recognized this problem, and does not permit fish farms to be located in rivers or streams populated by valuable native species. In British Columbia, no such restrictions exist.

On the contrary, not only has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) never taken the spread of disease into account when approving salmon farms in sensitive areas such as the Fraser River, the agency is actually covering up the fact that fish farms are the cause of dwindling salmon stocks.

Wild Salmon Declines Traced Back to Salmon Farms

The film discusses the fate of Dr. Kristy Miller, head of molecular genetics at DFO, who, using DNA profiling, discovered that the fish that die before spawning have a number of DNA switched on that healthy fish do not. In a nutshell, the wild salmon are dying from leukemia, retroviruses, brain tumors, and immune system decay…

Salmon leukemia virus raged through fish farms in the area in the early 1990’s when the farms were first introduced. A retrovirus, salmon leukemia virus attacks the salmon’s immune system, so it dies of something else, much like the process of AIDS. At the time, it was discovered that virtually all the BC Chinook salmon farms were infected. They also discovered that the virus killed 100 percent of the wild sockeye salmon exposed to it. Yet nothing was done…

Instead, as soon as Dr. Miller traced the problem to fish farms, she became ostracized, and effectively put under gag order. When her findings were published in the distinguished journal Science in 2011, the DFO did not allow her to speak to the press, despite the fact that her findings were hailed as some of the most significant salmon research of the decade.

Two years earlier, in 2009, the Fraser River experienced the worst salmon run in recorded history. Some 10 million fish went missing, leaving traditional people living along the river without catch. In response to the public outcry, the Canadian government created the Commission of Inquiry Into the Decline of Salmon in the Fraser River, also known as the Cohen Commission. The inquiry cost $26 million dollars and spanned across 150 days of hearings. Theories presented for the mysterious disappearance of the salmon included overfishing, sharks, water temperature, pollution, even predatory giant squid!

It wasn’t until the very end that attention was finally turned to the most logical source: salmon farms.

Dr. Ian Fleming testified about Norway’s discovery that fish farms are a source of pathogenic disease that can decimate native fish, and therefore does not permit salmon farms in certain areas frequented by wild salmon. British Columbia, in contrast, has approved at least 10 farms in one of the narrowest channels that wild sockeye salmon migrate through, and disease risk was not considered when approving any of them.

Lethal Salmon Virus Found in Every Region with Installed Salmon Farms

Dr. Rick Rutledge, professor and fisheries statistician at Simon Fraser University worried about river inlet sockeye, which were also dwindling in numbers just like Fraser River sockeye. He discovered that the river inlet sockeye were infected with Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus (ISA), also known as salmon influenza. This highly lethal and much-feared virus has proliferated in every region across the globe where Atlantic salmon farms have been installed.

First detected in Norway in 1984, infection spread to other countries via egg imports. In Chile, ISA wiped out 70 percent of the country’s salmon industry, at a cost of $2 billion. But Chile has no native salmon to decimate. British Columbia does… And contrary to Chile, the wild salmon of BC are absolutely critical to the ecosystem and residents of the area. The locals don’t just make money off these fish; it’s a main staple of their diet.

According to Morton, at least 11 species of fish in the Fraser River have been found to be infected with European-strain ISA, yet the Canadian food inspection agency has aggressively refuted the findings, and even attacked the credibility of two of the most preeminent experts on ISA testing, who testified that positive results were found to the Cohen Commission.

In fact, everyone who has spoken up about these salmon viruses, which can be traced back to salmon farms, has been shut down in some way or another. And by muzzling scientists like Dr. Miller, the Canadian government has effectively put the entire BC ecosystem at grave risk, just to protect commercial fish farming and international trade. In so doing, they’re also allowing potentially contaminated farm-raised salmon to be sold, exported, and consumed.

You May Be Buying Salmon Infected with Dangerous Fish Viruses

Morton tested farmed salmon purchased in various stores and sushi restaurants around British Columbia, and samples tested positive for at least three different salmon viruses, including:

  1. Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus (ISA)
  2. Salmon alphaviruses
  3. Piscine reovirus, which gives salmon a heart attack and prevents them from swimming upriver

The problem with this, aside from the unknown effects on human health from eating salmon with lethal fish viruses, is that viruses are preserved by cold, and fish are always kept frozen for freshness. Then, when you wash the fish, the viruses get flushed down the drain and depending on your sewer system, could be introduced into local watersheds. The environmental impact of this viral contamination is hitherto unknown, but it’s unlikely to be completely harmless.

“This is why it must become public,” Morton says. She insists that consumers, stores and trading partners must become aware of this problem, and be the ones to insist on proper testing and remedial action. It’s not just about protecting certain species of fish, it’s about the health of the ecosystem as a whole; it’s about human health and food safety as well.

How can you tell whether a salmon is wild or farm raised? As explained by Morton, the flesh of wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. It’s also very lean, so the fat marks, those white stripes you see in the meat, are very thin. If the fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is farmed.

Farmed Fish Pose a Number of Health Hazards to Your Health

Farm raised fish of all species can spell disaster for your health in a number of ways. It’s important to understand that ALL farm-raised fish – not just salmon — are fed a concoction of vitamins, antibiotics, and depending on the fish, synthetic pigments, to make up for the lack of natural flesh coloration due to the altered diet. Without it, the flesh of caged salmon, for example, would be an unappetizing, pale gray. The fish are also fed pesticides, along with compounds such as toxic copper sulfate, which is frequently used to keep nets free of algae.

Not only do you ingest these drugs and chemicals when you eat the fish, but these toxins also build up in sea-floor sediments. In this way, industrial fish farming raises many of the same environmental concerns about chemicals and pollutants that are associated with feedlot cattle and factory chicken farms. In addition, fish waste and uneaten feed further litter the sea floor beneath these farms, generating bacteria that consume oxygen vital to shellfish and other bottom-dwelling sea creatures.

Studies have also consistently found levels of PCBs, dioxins, toxaphene and dieldrin, as well as mercury, to be higher in farm-raised fish than wild fish. This fact alone would be cause to reconsider consuming farmed fish!

Wild caught fish have already reached such toxic levels, it’s risky to recommend eating them with a clear conscience. For example, according to a US Geological Survey study, mercury contamination was detected in EVERY fish sampled in nearly 300 streams across the United States. More than a quarter of these fish contained mercury at levels exceeding the EPA criterion for the protection of human health. So, when you consider the fact that factory farmed fish typically are even MORE toxic than wild-caught fish and also contain an assortment of antibiotics and pesticides, avoiding them becomes a no-brainer – at least if you’re concerned about your health.

To learn more about the differences between farmed salmon and wild salmon, specifically, please see my interview withRandy Hartnell, founder-president of Vital Choice Wild Seafood and Organics. I’m a huge fan of their wild sockeye salmon, and beside a fish dinner at a restaurant here or there, Vital Choice salmon is about the only type of fish I eat.

 

Buying Local Increases Food Safety and Food Security

Morton recommends buying local foods and wild fish. I couldn’t agree more. As mentioned in the film, disease in farm animals is one of the biggest sources of epidemics in humans. Therefore, the health of food animals cannot be treated as some sort of idealistic notion relegated to tree-huggers and animal-welfare crusaders.

Fish farms are the aquatic version of a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO), and just like their land-based cattle- and chicken farms, aquatic CAFO’s are a breeding ground for disease and toxic waste, and produce food animals of inferior quality. Due to the dramatically increased disease risk—a natural side effect of crowding—these animals are further contaminated with drugs, and in the case of salmon, synthetic astaxanthin, which is made from petrochemicals that are not approved for human consumption.

Wild salmon are dying from diseases cultivated and spread by salmon farms. Where is the sense in this? And instead of selling wholesome, nutritionally-superior wild salmon, Canada is selling inferior and potentially diseased salmon raised in fish farms. Who benefits, and who loses?

The industry will tell you the world needs inexpensive food, and inevitably, they insist that such foods can only be created using the latest technology and artificial means. The latest example of this craziness is the creation of what amounts to a vegetarian fish diet designed for carnivorous fish.2 Instead of fishmeal, the protein in this feed comes from bacteria, yeast or algae instead. This way, fish farms will not need to use valuable wild fish to feed farmed fish, and this, they claim, will help alleviate world hunger… Never mind the fact that by altering a fish’s diet in such a drastic way, you’re undoubtedly altering its nutritional content as well.

So at what cost should we clamor for cheap foods? At the expense of our environment and, potentially, the very lives of our descendants? We cannot be so blindly arrogant as to think that we can survive as a species if we allow the ecosystem to fall apart.

The ramifications of our large-scale, mass-producing, chemical-dependent food system are incredibly vast, which is why I urge you to become more curious about your food. Where, and how was it raised, grown, or manufactured? These things do matter; for your health, and the health and future of our planet.

Like Morton, I am also very concerned about our vanishing freedoms and increasing “corpotocracy,” where citizens are ruled by multi-national corporations with just one goal in mind: Maximizing Profit. A glaring example of this loss of freedom was Bill 37—the inappropriately named “Animal Health Act” which, had Canada made it into law, would have made it a crime to report farm animal disease to the public. Under this bill, informants would face a $75,000 fine and two years in prison simply for naming the location of a disease outbreak. Fortunately, the Act was dropped, but could potentially be revived sometime in the future…

Daikon, a promising anti-cancer vegetable

RIRDC Project No DAQ-342A, June 2007,  Dr Tim O’Hare Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries,

Queensland Horticulture Institute, Gatton Research Station

 

Objectives

Identify daikon and radish varieties with highest anti-cancer activity, following on from DAQ-307A which identified daikon and radish sprouts as having extremely high anti-cancer potential. Provide labelling advice in relation to the strongest possible claims that can be made.

 

Current Progress (June 2007)

Daikon and radish were analysed at the seed and sprouted-seed stage to identify cultivars high in the anti-cancer glucosinolate, glucoraphenin. Of the cultivars tested, ‘Cherry Belle’ and ‘Black Spanish’ maintained highest levels of glucoraphenin. Levels were highest in seed, and decreased with increasing sprout age. Decline in concentration was largely due to dilution associated with cell expansion, and partly due to other mechanisms. Differences in the latter appear to have impact on anti-cancer potential.

 

Analysis of mature daikon and radish tissue (roots and shoots) indicated that the principal glucosinolate in roots of all cultivars was glucodehydroerucin, which is estimated to have one tenth the potency of glucoraphenin, the principal glucosinolate found in seeds and young sprouts. By contrast, the principal glucosinolates present in mature shoots were glucoraphanin and glucoraphenin, both potent anti-cancer agents. Shoots were estimated to have approximately 20 times the anti-cancer potential of roots.

 

A scientific paper was presented at the International Horticultural Congress in Seoul (Korea) in August 2006 entitled: “Glucosinolate Composition and Anti-Cancer Potential of Daikon and Radish sprouts”. A poster presentation was made at the 6th Annual Health and Medical Research Conference of Queensland

(November, 2006).

What is the Rice Diet Program?

The Rice Diet Program - The original rice diet since 1939
Questions? Call 919.383.7276

Since 1939, the world-famous Rice Diet has specialized in the prevention, treatment and reversal of obesity, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure, and kidney disease. Learn More.

Located in Durham NC, the Rice Diet is a lifestyle program that provides a safe and supportive environment to inspire profound changes, leading to lifelong health. The Rice Diet Program involves more than simply eating three healthy meals per day at the “Rice House.”

Patients are carefully monitored daily by a caring staff of medical professionals. Progressive classes and workshops taught by medical staff, registered dietitians, therapists, exercise physiologists, certified stress management instructors and other health care professionals are designed to equip you with the knowledge and skills needed to make lasting lifestyle changes.

On completion of the program, resources are available for participants to continue with a healthy lifestyle and to maintain the improved health gained while attending our Durham program.

Truth Behind Sugar Substitutes

Originally published on Thursday, March 21st, 2013
HEALTHY EATING by  for Bel Marra Health

The team a147245564t Lean on Life recently sent us an interesting article on Sugar Substitutes.

Lean on Life is a team of committed health, nutrition and fitness experts with a website that combines the skill set of several doctors, nutritionists, fitness trainers, health coaches, chefs and passionate foodies. They aim help you look and feel your best by sharing invaluable health, fitness and weight loss secrets all in one place!

Trying to avoid sugar? There are a host of other options – both natural sweeteners and artificial sweeteners – each with its vocal proponents and detractors. We’ve rounded up a top ten list to help you thresh out which sugar substitutes are safe for your health, and which ones may have health effects that are questionable.

10 Safe & Suspicious Alternative Sweeteners

Aspartame: SUSPICIOUS

Aspartame has been used as an artificial sweetener for around 30 years, and the medical community is still split between those who think it’s safe for health and those who find it potentially dangerous. It is the primary artificial sweetener in diet sodas and found in Equal brand sweetener. Amidst wide-scale scientific controversy, conspiracy theories and financial conflicts of interest, aspartame has emerged from the health wars as one of the most vigorously tested food additive to date, deemed safe for health by over one hundred different regulatory agencies from around the world. However, studies continue to find negative side effects from this artificial sweetener found in so many commercial drinks and products; it’s wise to monitor your intake of aspartame and be sure you aren’t overdoing this non-nutritive sweetener.

Sucralose: SUSPICIOUS

Sucralose is derived from sugar, but contains no calories and is 600 times sweeter, so you can use significantly less of it. Many people think that it is a natural sweetener, as it is originally derived from sugar. But turning sugar into sucralose requires replacing part of the sugar molecule with chlorine. This renders it lower in calories, but also creates a structure reminiscent of numerous pesticides. Sucralose is the artificial sweetener found in Splenda, and there is less evidence against it than other sweeteners. But it is too new to know potential long-term health effects.

Saccharin: SAFE

One of the earliest artificial sweeteners, saccharin was deemed unsafe for many years, and carried a health warning label that it caused cancer in lab animals. Now, however, after further testing, the label has been removed: human bodies did not demonstrate the same health effects seen in lab rats. Saccharin is frequently known for the metallic after-taste it leaves. If the taste doesn’t bother you,nor the thought of tumorous lab mice, current studies render this artificial sweetener to be safe for human consumption.

Stevia (Truvia): SAFE

Stevia is a calorie-free natural sweetener that comes from a plant in the Chysanthemum family. Some find it to have a bad aftertaste in food, but for many, it is the sweetener they’ve been waiting for. Common Stevia usage in Japan dates back over 30 years, lending credence to its safety for health. It’s also been used as a natural sweetener in its native South America for centuries, in various forms. Because of its naturally concentrated sweetness, only the smallest proportion is needed to replace sugar in recipes. It may require some experimenting with different forms (liquid or powder) and brands to find one whose taste suits you, but the general consensus is that this natural sweetener is safe for your health.

Honey: SAFE

Many people mistakenly think that honey is better for you than sugar; but when it comes to calories, they are actually pretty equal. However, honey is sweeter, so you don’t have to use as much. It’s also less processed compared to sugar, whose high processing needs carry environmental concerns and strip away any natural nutritional content that it originally contained. Some people prefer local raw honey for its trace nutrients and potential anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal and wound healing health benefits. When using this natural sweetener as a sugar substitute in baking, keep in mind that it’s important to use less and to reduce other liquids.

Molasses: SAFE

Like honey, molasses is a natural sweetener that works well as a baking and cooking substitute, but requires tinkering with the recipe since it has a different sweetness and consistency. It can contain many minerals; a rule of thumb is the darker the molasses, the better for health and the more nutrient dense it is—but it will also have a stronger “molasses” flavor to it. It contains more calories than sugar, but because it’s sweeter it can be used in smaller quantities.

Dates: SAFE

Date paste is easy to make at home (soak dates and then throw them into a blender), or can be purchases pre-prepared at many stores. The result is a vaguely caramel-flavored sweetener, exchangeable for agave, honey, or other liquids. Closer to its original, raw form, date paste is a natural sweetener that retains its fiber and nutritional content, making it a health ful alternative to refined sugar. Date sugar, which is dehydrated and ground dates, can be substituted for both brown and white sugar. It is less sweet than sugar, but healthier overall, and carries none of the potential side effects of the artificial sweeteners.

Neotame: SUSPICIOUS

A relatively new artificial sweetener, Neotame is thousands of times sweeter than table sugar. It’s manufactured by the same company as aspartame, and isn’t available direct to consumers yet. But it’s already being used as an additive in some foods, and no labelling is required. Critics of Neotame claim that it is actually more toxic than aspartame, and that the studies have been flawed. Given its relationship to aspartame and the controversy already brewing, it’s another artificial sweetener who’s health effects are still questionable and should be avoided thus far. If you know where it’s hiding that is.

Acesulfame K: SUSPICIOUS

This no-calorie, no-aftertaste artificial sweetener seems like an ideal solution, but it needs to undergo more testing. It’s currently approved by the FDA for general purposes; however, some experts worry that it may be a potential carcinogen, and all seem to agree that it’s best to stick to small doses. Since it’s so new to the market, it’s wise to be wary until more health research is undergone and side effects are studied more thoroughly.

Agave Syrup: SUSPICIOUS

Agave liquid and powder are the latest sweetener crazes, trying to jump on the natural sweetener bandwagon along with Stevia. However, agave syrup and other derived sweeteners are often highly refined and processed products, and their production is unregulated. While some variants are organic, most are made from the root of the plant instead of the traditional stem, and are heavily processed. Due to the lack of consistency in production, and without a clear label deeming the product raw, organic and sourced from the stem, there is no guarantee that agave has any more health benefits than other sweeteners.

Visit Lean on Life to learn more about improving your life today!

 

Control your blood pressure for good health

 

The leading cause of preventable death isn’t tobacco or drug use. Neither is it bad diet or lack of exercise. It’s high blood pressure, also called hypertension. And it is implicated in many of the cerebral strokes, heart attacks and other cardiovascular diseases that account for about one-third of all deaths.

Worldwide, one out of every three adults has high blood pressure, which kills 9.4 million people each year. If we don’t act, high blood pressure will kill 1 billion during this century.

The World Health Organization is taking action. It is raising awareness by making high blood pressure the theme of the 65th World Health Day on April 7. And it is urging everyone to change their lifestyles to help control high blood pressure.

Eat food low in salt and fat. Exercise. Avoid tobacco and second-hand smoke. Don’t consume so much alcohol that it begins to harm your health. And maintain a healthy body weight. Also, see your physician and faithfully take the medicines he/she may prescribe to treat high blood pressure.

Policymakers can help by raising taxes on tobacco and alcohol, by banning tobacco marketing and indoor smoking, and by warning people about tobacco’s harms. They can work with food companies to reduce the salt and fat content in processed food and encourage consumption of fruits and vegetables. And they can design neighbourhoods and public transit systems that encourage people to walk and bicycle.

High blood pressure is often called a silent killer because most people don’t know they have it until their physicians check them for it. In fact, most people with high blood pressure have no obvious symptoms.

If you think that high blood pressure is just for old people, think again. Many young people have it. And although it is usually associated with men, many women have it as well. In the 37 countries and regions of the WHO Western Pacific Region, one out of every three women older than 24 has it, and it is implicated in 10 percent of women’s deaths during or soon after pregnancy.

WHO is best known for its eradication of smallpox in the 1970s and for its heroic efforts against other infectious diseases such as polio, measles, tuberculosis and HIV.

However, WHO is increasingly pitted against non-communicable diseases – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases – that account for 63 percent of deaths worldwide.

Recently, WHO and its member states committed themselves to reducing premature deaths from these diseases by 25 percent by 2025. I’m confident that we’ll succeed, but only if we get high blood pressure under control.

Everybody needs to be part of the solution. Governments have especially important roles to play. But it all starts with individuals and families.

On this World Health Day, and every day, know and control your blood pressure.

The author is the World Health Organization regional director for the Western Pacific in Manila

Sugary Drinks

 

soda-cans-small 

Sugary Drinks or Diet Drinks: What’s the Best Choice?

 

Table of Contents

Introduction

Soft drinks are the beverage of choice for millions of Americans. Some drink them morning, noon, night, and in between. They’re tasty, available everywhere, and inexpensive. They’re also a prime source of extra calories that can contribute to weight gain. Once thought of as innocent refreshment, soft drinks are also coming under scrutiny for their contributions to the development of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic conditions. Diet soft drinks, made with artificial sweeteners, may not be the best alternatives to regular soft drinks.

 

 

The term “soft drink” covers a lot of ground. It refers to any beverage with added sugar or other sweetener, and includes soda, fruit punch, lemonade and other “ades,” sweetened powdered drinks, and sports and energy drinks. In this section of The Nutrition Source, we focus on non-alcoholic sweetened drinks.

Drunk every now and then, these beverages wouldn’t raise an eyebrow among most nutrition experts, any more than does the occasional candy bar or bowl of ice cream. But few people see them as treats. Instead, we drink rivers of the stuff.

According to figures from the beverage industry, soft drink makers produce a staggering 10.4 billion gallons of sugary soda pop each year. (1) That’s enough to serve every American a 12-ounce can every day, 365 days a year.

The average can of sugar-sweetened soda or fruit punch provides about 150 calories, almost all of them from sugar, usually high-fructose corn syrup. That’s the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of table sugar (sucrose). If you were to drink just one can of a sugar-sweetened soft drink every day, and not cut back on calories elsewhere, you could gain up to 15 pounds in a year.

Soft Drinks and Weight

Soda BottlesHistorians may someday call the period between the early 1980s and 2009 the fattening of America. Between 1985 and now, the proportion of Americans who are overweight or obese has ballooned from 45 percent in the mid-1960s to 66 percent today. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has an online slide show that shows the spread of obesity in the U.S.) There’s no single cause for this increase; instead, there are many contributors. One of them is almost certainly our penchant for quenching our thirst with beverages other than water.

Once upon a time, humans got almost all of their calories from what nature put into food. That changed with the advent of cheap sugar, and then cheaper high-fructose corn syrup. High-fructose corn syrup has been fingered as one of the villains in the obesity epidemic, (2) but in fact, table sugar and corn sweeteners likely have the same physiological impact on blood sugar, insulin, and metabolism. Sugar added to food now accounts for nearly 16 percent of the average American’s daily intake. Sweetened soft drinks make up nearly half of that. (3)

 

 

Dozens of studies have explored possible links between soft drinks and weight. It isn’t an easy task, for several reasons (read Sorting Out Studies on Soft Drinks and Weight to learn why). Despite these research challenges, studies consistently show that increased consumption of soft drinks is associated with increased energy intake. In a meta-analysis of 30 studies in this area, 10 of 12 cross-sectional studies, five of five longitudinal studies, and four of four long-term experimental studies showed this positive association. (3) A different meta-analysis of 88 studies showed that the effect appeared to be stronger in women, studies focusing on sugar-sweetened soft drinks, and studies not funded by the food industry. (4) Studies in children and adults have also shown that cutting back on sugary drinks can lead to weight loss. (5, 6)

On the surface, it makes sense that the more ounces of sugar-rich soft drink a person has each day, the more calories he or she takes in. Yet that runs counter to what happens with solid foods. People tend to compensate for a bigger than usual meal or for a snack by taking in fewer calories later. That’s how weight stays stable. This compensation doesn’t seem to happen with soft drinks. No one knows for sure why this happens, but there are several possibilities:

  • Fluids may not be as satiating as solid foods. That means they don’t provide the same feeling of fullness or satisfaction that solid foods do, which might prompt you to keep eating.
  • The body doesn’t seem to “register” fluid calories as carefully as it does those from solid food. This would mean they are added on top of calories from the rest of the diet. (7)
  • It is possible that sweet-tasting soft drinks—regardless of whether they are sweetened with sugar or a calorie-free sugar substitute—might stimulate the appetite for other sweet, high-carbohydrate foods.

How Much is too much added sugar?

Some sources of carbohydrate are healthier than others, and sugar added to foods and drinks falls into the less-healthy group—no matter whether it’s table sugar or brown sugar, honey or high-fructose corn syrup, or any other type of added sugar. A good goal is keeping added sugars from all sources to under 10 percent of your daily calories. But remember—your body doesn’t need to get any carbohydrate from added sugar. That’s why the Healthy Eating Pyramid says sugary drinks and sweets should be used sparingly, if at all.Learn how to find added sugar on a food label.

Soft Drinks and Diabetes

Gulping the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar over the course of a few minutes gives the body’s blood sugar controls a run for their money. Most people handle a blast of blood sugar just fine. Over time, though, a diet rich in easily digested carbohydrates may lead to type 2 diabetes (once called non-insulin-dependent diabetes and adult-onset diabetes).

 

 

Strong evidence indicates that sugar-sweetened soft drinks contribute to the development of this potentially disabling disease. The Nurses’ Health Study explored this connection by following the health of more than 90,000 women for eight years. The nurses who said they had one or more servings a day of a sugar-sweetened soft drink or fruit punch were twice as likely to have developed type 2 diabetes during the study than those who rarely had these beverages. (8)

How sugary drinks contribute to the risk type 2 diabetes.

A similar increase in risk of diabetes with increasing soft drink and fruit drink consumption was seen recently in the Black Women’s Health Study, an ongoing long-term study of nearly 60,000 African-American women from all parts of the United States. (9) Interestingly, the increased risk with soft drinks was tightly linked to increased weight.

In the Framingham Heart Study, men and women who had one or more soft drinks a day were 25 percent more likely to have developed trouble managing blood sugar and nearly 50 percent more likely to have developed metabolic syndrome. This is a constellation of factors—high blood pressure; high insulin levels; excess weight, especially around the abdomen; high levels of triglycerides; and low levels of HDL (good) cholesterol—that is one step short of full blown diabetes and boosts the odds of developing heart disease. (10)

Soft Drinks and Heart Disease

Obesity and diabetes are both strong risk factors for heart disease, the number one killer of men and women in the U.S. Given that drinking sugary beverages increases the risk of both obesity and diabetes, it is a natural question to ask whether drinking sugary beverages increases the risk of heart disease, too.

 

 

The answer from the first long-term study to ask that question is a resounding yes: The Nurses’ Health Study, which tracked the health of nearly 90,000 women over two decades, found that women who drank more than two servings of sugary beverage each day had a 40 percent higher risk of heart attacks or death from heart disease than women who rarely drank sugary beverages. (11)

Of course, people who drink a lot of sugary drinks often tend to weigh more—and eat less healthfully—than people who don’t drink sugary drinks, and the volunteers in the Nurses’ Health Study were no exception. But researchers accounted for differences in diet quality, energy intake, and weight among the study volunteers. They found that having an otherwise healthy diet, or being at a healthy weight, only slightly diminished the risk associated with drinking sugary beverages.

This suggests that weighing too much, or simply eating too many calories, may only partly explain the relationship between sugary drinks and heart disease. The adverse effects of the high glycemic load from these beverages on blood glucose, cholesterol fractions, and inflammatory factors probably also contribute to the higher risk of heart disease. The glycemic load is a way to classify foods that takes into account both the amount and the quality of the carbohydrates that they contain. Foods that are high in rapidly digested carbohydrate—a can of sugary soda pop, a handful of jelly beans, a plateful of pasta—have a high glycemic load. Eating a diet rich in high-glycemic-load foods may, over time, lead to type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other conditions. Learn more about the glycemic load and health.

Soft Drinks and Bones

ColaThere’s also some concern about the impact of soft drinks on building bone and keeping it strong and healthy. There is an inverse pattern between soft drinks and milk—when one goes up, the other goes down. (4) Trading milk for soft drinks isn’t a good swap. Milk is a good source of calcium and protein, and also provides vitamin D, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, and other micronutrients (of course you can drink too much milk, too; see Calcium and Milk: What’s Best for Your Bones and Health, for more information). Soft drinks are generally devoid of calcium and other healthful nutrients. And just adding vitamins and minerals to sugar water does not make a healthy drink. Getting enough calcium is extremely important during childhood and adolescence, when bones are being built. Yet soft drinks are actively marketed to these age groups, and they are key consumers of sugar-sweetened beverages.

Cola-type beverages may pose a special challenge to healthy bones. Colas contain high levels of phosphate. On the surface, this sounds like a good thing, because bone needs both calcium and phosphate. But getting much more phosphate than calcium can have a deleterious effect on bone. (3)

What About Diet Soft Drinks? Artificial Sweeteners and Weight Control

Using artificial sweeteners in soft drinks instead of sugar or high-fructose corn syrup seems like it would sidestep any problems with weight or diabetes. Artificial sweeteners deliver zero carbohydrates, fat, and protein, so they can’t directly influence calorie intake or blood sugar. Over the short term, switching from sugar-sweetened soft drinks to diet drinks cuts calories and leads to weight loss. Long-term use, though, may be a different story.

 

 

To date, the FDA has approved the use of five artificial sweeteners. Gram for gram, each one is far sweeter than sugar. (12) They include:

  • aspartame (Equal®, NutraSweet®, others), 180 times sweeter than sugar
  • acesulfame-K (Sunett®, Sweet One®), 200 times sweeter than sugar
  • saccharin (Sweet’N Low®, Necta Sweet®, others), 300 times sweeter than sugar
  • sucralose (Splenda®), 600 times sweeter than sugar
  • neotame (no brand names), 7,000 to 13,000 times sweeter than sugar

One natural low-cal sweetener, stevia, has not yet been evaluated by the FDA. Stevia is a non-caloric sweetener made from the leaves of a shrub that grows in South and Central America. Its manufacturers say that it is safe; while the FDA has not done its own safety evaluation, it has not objected to these safety findings, (13) paving the way for stevia’s incorporation into foods and drinks. Stevia is about 300 times sweeter than sugar. Early reports that stevia might cause cancer had made the FDA demand more information from manufacturers about its safety. A number of major soft drink companies have begun launching stevia-sweetened beverages, sometimes combining stevia with erythritol, a sugar alcohol. There are no long-term studies of the health effects of stevia, however, so drinkers beware.

Erythritol and xylitol are sugar alcohols, a class of compounds that have been used for decades to sweeten chewing gum, candy, fruit spreads, toothpaste, cough syrup, and other products. Newer, cheaper ways to make sugar alcohols from corn, wood, and other plant materials, along with their sugar-like taste, are fueling their use in a growing array of foods.

Some long-term studies show that regular consumption of artificially sweetened beverages reduces the intake of calories and promotes weight loss or maintenance. Others show no effect, while some show weight gain. (12)

One worry about artificial sweeteners is that they uncouple sweetness and energy. Until recently, sweet taste meant sugar, and thus energy. The human brain responds to sweetness with signals to, at first, eat more and then with signals to slow down and stop eating. By providing a sweet taste without any calories, artificial sweeteners could confuse these intricate feedback loops that involve the brain, stomach, nerves, and hormones. If this happens, it could throw off the body’s ability to accurately gauge how many calories are being taken in.

Studies in rats support this idea. Purdue University researchers have shown that rats eating food sweetened with saccharin took in more calories and gained more weight than rats fed sugar-sweetened food. (14) A long-term study of nearly 3,700 residents of San Antonio, Texas, showed that those who averaged three or more artificially sweetened beverages a day were more likely to have gained weight over an eight-year period than those who didn’t drink artificially sweetened beverages. (15) Although this finding is suggestive, keep in mind that it doesn’t prove that artificially sweetened soft drinks caused the weight gain.

 

 

Imaging studies support the idea that sugar and artificial sweeteners affect the brain in different ways. Some parts of the brain become activated when we experience a “food reward.” At the University of California-San Diego, researchers performed functional MRI scans as volunteers took small sips of water sweetened with sugar or sucralose. Sugar activated regions of the brain involved in food rewards, while sucralose didn’t. (16) So it is possible, the authors say, that sucralose “may not fully satisfy a desire for natural caloric sweet ingestion.” More research is needed to tease out the implications of these findings for weight control.

Although the scientific findings are mixed and not conclusive, there is worrisome evidence that regular use of artificial sweeteners may promote weight gain. Because of these mixed findings about artificial sweeteners, drinking diet soda may not be the best replacement for drinking sugary soda.

The Bottom Line: Skip Sugary Drinks and Go Easy on Diet Drinks

Bottle CapsSo what’s the best choice for your health? For adults and children, the evidence is strong that cutting back on sugary drinks—or eliminating them altogether—may help with weight control and will almost surely lower the risk of diabetes. There’s emerging evidence that sugary drinks increase the risk of heart disease. The evidence is less clear-cut for artificially sweetened drinks. For adults trying to wean themselves from sugary soda, diet soda may be the beverage equivalent of a nicotine patch: something to be used in small amounts, for a short time, just until you kick the habit. For children, the long-term effects of consuming artificially-sweetened beverages are unknown, so it’s best for kids to avoid them.

Healthier drinking is not just an individual problem. Beverage makers have flooded the market with drinks that offer gobs of sugar, or an unpronounceable list of artificial sweeteners. What’s sorely lacking in the beverage marketplace is a middle ground—a drink for people who want just a little bit of sweetness, but don’t want too much sugar, and want to shy away from artificial sweeteners or stevia because of health concerns.

There are very few beverages on the market that have no more than 1 gram of sugar per ounce, without any other type of sweetener—sweet enough to please the palate but, at 50 calories per 12-ounce can, not so hard on the waistline, as long as they are drunk in moderation. That’s why researchers at Harvard School of Public Health have suggested that beverage manufacturers introduce more of these lightly sweetened drinks to the market, to help Americans retrain their palates away from sweet drinks.

Even these lightly sweetened beverages don’t get a green light—they should be occasional treats, rather than your daily source of hydration. The Nutrition Source has created a handy guide to the calories andteaspoons of sugar in popular beverages. You can also find ideas for what to drink instead of sugary drinks, as well as a guide to the best beverages for health, based on advice from an independent panel of experts. (17)

References

1. BeverageDigest. Beverage Digest Fact Book 2008: Statistical Yearbook of Non-AlcoholicBeverages. Bedford Hills, New York, 2008.

2. FulgoniV, 3rd. High-fructose corn syrup: everything you wanted to know, but wereafraid to ask.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2008; 88:1715S.

3. Malik VS,Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: asystematic review. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2006; 84:274-288.

4. VartanianLR, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Effects of soft drink consumption on nutritionand health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Public Health. 2007;97:667-675.

5. Chen L, Appel LJ, Loria C, Lin PH, Champagne CM, Elmer PJ, Ard JD, Mitchell D, Batch BC, Svetkey LP, Caballero B.etal. Reduction in consumption ofsugar-sweetened beverages is associated with weight loss: the PREMIER trial.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2009; 89:1-8.

6. Ebbeling CB,Feldman HA, Osganian SK, Chomitz VR, Ellenbogen SJ, Ludwig DS.Effects of decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption on body weight inadolescents: a randomized, controlled pilot study. Pediatrics. 2006; 117:673-80.

7. DiMeglioDP, Mattes RD. Liquid versus solid carbohydrate: effects on food intake andbody weight.International Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorders. 2000; 24:794-800.

8. Schulze MB, Manson JE, Ludwig DS, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, andincidence of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2004;292:927-934.

9. PalmerJR, Boggs DA, Krishnan S, Hu FB, Singer M, Rosenberg L. Sugar-sweetenedbeverages and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in African American women.Archives of Internal Medicine. 2008; 168:1487-1492.

10. Dhingra R, Sullivan L, Jacques PF, Wang TJ, Fox CS, Meigs JB, D’Agostino RB, Gaziano JM, Vasan RS. Soft drink consumption and risk of developingcardiometabolic risk factors and the metabolic syndrome in middle-aged adultsin the community. Circulation. 2007; 116:480-488.

11. Fung TT,Malik V, Rexrode KM, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sweetened beverageconsumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2009;89:1037-1042.

12. BellisleF, Drewnowski A. Intense sweeteners, energy intake and the control of bodyweight. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2007; 61:691-700.

13. Food andDrug Administration. Agency Response Letter GRAS Notice No. GRN 000253, 2008.Accessed March 25, 2009.

14. SwithersSE, Davidson TL. A role for sweet taste: calorie predictive relations in energyregulation by rats. Behavioral Neuroscience. 2008; 122:161-173.

15. Fowler SP,Williams K, Resendez RG, Hunt KJ, Hazuda HP, Stern MP. Fueling the obesityepidemic? Artificially sweetened beverage use and long-term weight gain.Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008; 16:1894-1900.

16. Frank GK,Oberndorfer TA, Simmons AN, et al. Sucrose activates human taste pathwaysdifferently from artificial sweetener. Neuroimage. 2008; 39:1559-1569.

17. Popkin BM,Armstrong LE, Bray GM, Caballero B, Frei B, Willett WC. A new proposed guidancesystem for beverage consumption in the United States. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2006;83:529-542.

Terms of Use

The aim of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Source is to provide timely information on diet and nutrition for clinicians, allied health professionals, and the public. The contents of this Web site are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this Web site. The information does not mention brand names, nor does it endorse any particular products.

Popular drug tied to risk of kidney trouble

 

 High-strength statins for cholesterol the most widely prescribed pharmaceutical in the world
BY CHARLIE FIDELMAN, POSTMEDIA NEWS MARCH 20, 2013 1:06 AM

Statins are so widely prescribed as to be called the Aspirin of the 21st century, but their benefits are not universal – new evidence suggests that the cholesterol-lowering medication can lead to kidney damage.

A study examining the health records of two million patients in Canada, the United States and Britain found that people taking a high-strength version of the drug face a small but increased risk of acute kidney injury compared with those taking a weaker version.

Patients who started high-strength statins were 34 per cent more likely to be hospitalized for acute kidney injury than those who started low-potency statins in the first 120 days of treatment, the study found.

Conducted by the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies, the study published in the latest issue of British Medical Journal suggests doctors and patients should re-evaluate whether the risk of treatment at high doses is worth the benefits.

The consequences of rapid loss of kidney function can be profound and long-lasting, experts say.

About one-third of patients in the study were on higher doses of the cholesterol-cutting drugs, which were defined as rosuvastatin (Crestor), atorvastatin (Lipitor) and simvastatin (Zocor), taken, respectively, at 10, 20 and 40 milligrams or higher.

About one in 500 patients had to be hospitalized within two years of starting low-strength statins. Those in therapy on the higher-strength medication were at a 15 per cent greater relative risk of kidney injury.

The results throw doubt on the common practice of using higher doses of drugs to cut cholesterol levels lower and lower, said lead investigator Colin Dormuth, assistant professor of anesthesiology, pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia.

But the key word is “relative” risk, Dormuth said, adding that for patients the absolute risk is small.

“We’re talking about a small effect, but it’s still important information for prescribers to have when they are making their treatment choices,” Dormuth explained.

The higher-dose medications, including Lipitor and Crestor, have become the world’s most widely prescribed drugs with some researchers arguing anyone over 50 should be taking them.

For heart and stroke patients with high cholesterol, statins are considered life-saving drugs, and are often prescribed for people with no history of heart disease. But in younger patients, in women and in those without heart disease, the benefits are small, studies have found.

An estimated 30.3 million prescriptions for the drugs were filled in Canada two years ago, according to IMS Brogan, a prescription-drug tracking firm.

In January, Health Canada updated the labelling for statins, warning users they may be at a small increased risk of developing diabetes, particularly in people with pre-existing risk factors such as high blood-sugar levels and obesity. Other unintended effects linked to statins include degenerative muscle disease called myopathy, liver dysfunction and cataracts.

A commentary that appears along with the study suggests that statins have proven value in the general population when it comes to preventing cardiovascular disease, especially with patients who have had heart attacks, but doctors should prescribe weaker cholesterol-lowering drugs whenever possible to minimize kidney damage.

This is the inaugural study published by the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies, established in 2011 by Health Canada with a $17.5-million grant over five years and a mandate to evaluate the risks and benefits of drugs on the market in Canada.

Thanks to the initiative, the network obtained data on millions of patients, said Samy Suissa, who heads the network out of the Lady Davis Institute at the Montreal Jewish General Hospital where he is director of clinical epidemiology.

“We’re very proud to be a part of this.”

Observational studies are limited in scope compared to controlled, randomized trials so there may be other factors to explain the risk of kidney failure, said Suissa.

“However, the method we used is really a state-of-the-art method, which accounts for hundreds of factors in the clinical files of patients that allows, essentially, to eliminate this possibility. We’re very confident of the results,” he said.

The network has other studies in the pipeline, including one looking at anti-psychotic drugs that may cause diabetes.

Six statin drugs and their generics are currently marketed in Canada: atorvastatin (sold under the brand name Lipitor); lovastatin (Mevacor); rosuvastatin (Crestor); simvastatin (Zocor); pravastatin (Pravachol); and fluvastatin (Lescol).

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun