How Ecosystems Function

Throughout centuries of farming, animal grazing and deforestation, the earth’s natural resources have been exhausted. Deserts are encroaching into previous lush areas and water is becoming alarmingly scarce.

Our soil is depleting 13% faster than it can be replaced, and we’ve lost 75% of the world’s crop varieties in just the last hundred years. Over a billion people in the world have no access to safe drinking water, while 80% of the world’s fresh water supply is used for agriculture.

Even from space, the visual scale of the destruction is both disheartening and sobering. Add to this travesty the fact that the world’s population is expanding bya billion people every 12 years.

On a photographic assignment of the 640,000-square-kilometer Loess Plateau in North-Central China in 1995, cameraman John Liu witnessed the ravaging effects of man’s ignorance and greed. But he was amazed to discover that the mindful, purposeful efforts of local Chinese residents had rehabilitated a stark desert area the size of the Netherlands into a lush, green oasis.

He wondered if similarly devastated landscapes had once been vistas of lush, thriving vegetation that include waterfalls, rainforests and fertile valleys – before several thousand years of exploitation had stripped the land of every natural resource.

The epiphany Liu experienced spawned his provocative film, Hope in a Changing Climate, which he posted on the Internet. You could say the results have gone viral …

‘What Happens When Humans Don’t Understand How Ecosystems Function?’

As Liu witnessed the negative trend being reversed around the Loess Plateau, he discovered that not only can damaged ecosystems be rehabilitated, and that similar remediation can restore other parts of the world, but that the pathway for accomplishing it is fairly simple.

But the first order of business is to understand how it happened in the first place. It often begins with several thousand years of relentless grazing of domestic animals on mountainous slopes until there’s nothing left but barren ground.

Rains that may have restored the land erode, carrying fertile topsoil down the hillsides, effectively removing any chance for new growth to emerge. On the Loess Plateau, millions of tons of powder-fine silt were swept down into the Yellow River, not only obstructing its flow, but causing massive flooding and the river’s new name: China’s Sorrow.

On his travels, Liu noticed the same scenario of cumulatively encroaching desert land where it had once been fertile.

“The lands are exhausted. They allow hundred of thousands of sheep and goats to walk across here, and any green thing that sticks up its head is food, and they’re just walking around here getting everything. Well, you can’t let them do that any more. They’ll have to stop… that’s what’s destroyed this area. If that doesn’t stop, you won’t be able to fix this.”

 

Greening the Desert – Can This Be Replicated in Other Parts of the World?

This same trend in Jordan prompted the government to take action. Working with civil engineers and scientists, Liu sectioned off areas to allow the land to rest for three years. In an amazingly short time, grass began to appear. A plant species last recorded in the 1800s and thought to be extinct emerged on its own.

“Grasses develop perennial root systems that spread, encouraging microbial communities living and growing in this microclimate that’s created,” Liu explained. “Then you won’t have direct sunlight hitting, and UV radiation sterilizing this microbiological habitat. Then, everything will change – you’ll have a cumulative situation where there’s always vegetation, organic matter and biodiversity.

“You can see the relationship between hydrology and vegetation and biological life. That’s the basis of the air and the natural water system. It’s how the atmosphere and the hydrological cycle were created and how they were constantly renewed. …If we emulate those and don’t disturb them, we can live in the Garden of Eden.”

Eden Restored: Strategy-Inspired Green Resurgence

Centuries of vitality-sapping farming in Ethiopia have destroyed nearly every inch of vegetation, leaving wide swaths of bone-dry desert. Heavy flooding has etched deep gullies into the land, sweeping topsoil downward and away with nothing to halt its progress. With not even a drop left for farmers to water their crops, their animals or themselves, the ensuing drought and famine has been catastrophic.

But in just 6 years, villagers have planted indigenous trees and vegetation, transforming the severely eroded terrain. Rainfall now absorbs into the ground, feeding a clear stream that flows year-round, aided by the cover of dense vegetation. This has saved the region from desert-induced annihilation and instilled hope for a future of continued sustainability.

A thousand miles north in Abraha Asfaha, another miraculous resurgence has taken place. Where five years previous, heat and wind had induced drought, a government program instigated relocation for local villagers, who were given permission to set aside and remediate the land as the Chinese had. Now, villagers find water at the bottom of their wells, in spite of poor rainfall.

“In the ravines they built small dams which are now fed by underground springs… Rain that fell weeks ago slowly seeps through the subsoil, replenishing the supply of water. ‘The land has become fertile again,’ the village chief reports. ‘There have been enormous improvements. Our fruit trees were shriveled up, but now they’re growing again. There’s even a larger number of species. Those are really positive results. We now have food security. Our children can go to school. We have a better life. We no longer need to ask the government for support, thanks to the changes that were implemented.'”

‘People aren’t thinking about this ecological function. They’re ignoring science…’

Studies focusing on the relationship between the soil, moisture and organic matter helped scientists, ecologists and engineers form strategies to produce other success stories, such as one in Rwanda, where over-farmed hillsides caused serious erosion. In a desperate gamble to grow more food, poor farmers drained the protected Regazi Wetlands. But not only did this damage the wetland’s fragile ecosystem and wildlife, as it began drying out, it impacted power stations downriver, including the hydroelectric power system in Rwanda’s capital city Kagali three hours south. The Rwandan government was forced to rent diesel power generators to remedy the situation.

In bringing back the wetlands, as well as restoring fertility to the villagers’ lands, those responsible for its demise were solicited to help. Today, carbon-free electricity is replacing the diesel generators, stabilizing electricity prices throughout the region. Rwandan President Paul Kagame:

“We had to take a careful look at what had been happening to damage it, this system, and how to reverse that with human action. And it’s important to understand how human actions can destroy, or reverse what has been destroyed (to) even protect our environment.”

Identifying the Goal: Is It Temporary Production or Ongoing Sustenance?

Liu contends that our source of wealth is a functional ecosystem, not the products derived from them.

“It’s impossible for the derivative to be more valuable than the source. … And yet, in our economy now, as it stands, the products and services have monetary values, but the source – the functional ecosystems – (have) zero. This cannot be true. It’s false! We’ve created a global economic institution based on a theory of flawed logic. Carry that flaw in logic from generation to generation, we compound the mistake. “We’ve only just begun to understand the real value of natural capital. Surely investing in the restoration of damaged environments is a cost-effective way of solving many of the problems we face today.”

But farmers the world over sometimes need convincing. The problem, Liu says, is that they usually believe “production” is the goal, when the crucial, pressing need is sustainability so that the entire planet can be functional. In 1995, Jordanian farmers scoffed at the suggestion that trees be planted in order to build a more sustainable agricultural platform. It was confusing at first, but the premise held that investing in the program would come to fruition, literally, in their own foreseeable future, with the promise of ongoing agricultural enrichment for upcoming generations.

It meant the area’s farming-and-grazing status quo had to stop temporarily, but homesteaders were financially compensated. As villagers headed up the mountains with shovels, their new objective was to create a “hat” of trees at the top, terraces to form a “belt” and “shoes” – the foundation of a constructed dam at the bottom. Hills and gullies were designated as protected “ecological zones.” And it worked.

Permaculture: The Art of Working With – Not Against – Nature

Geoff Lawton introduced the permaculture concept in Australia, where rebuilding functional ecosystems from the ground up restores them to their fullest potential. It can create an agricultural heartland even in the desert in as little as three-and-a-half years, and being fully self-sufficient year-round, cycling its own nutrients without the need for irrigation or artificial fertilizer.

“Permaculture is the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems (to) have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people — providing their food, energy, shelter, and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way.”1

Lawton says there’s potential for abundance even in arid climates like Jordan’s Petra, now a stark shell of what was once thriving, known as “the land of milk and honey.” With its “ecological range of diversity and abundance, there’s potential for water flow, regional climate and microclimate moderation, completely different hydrology and the potential for well-designed productivity, (can lead) to permanence in human culture.”

Without restoration, the cycle of poverty continues to be passed down from generation to generation. When the trend is reversed, quality of life is improved, followed by improved diet, healthcare and educational opportunities.

Nature: NOT an ‘Enemy’ To Be Conquered or Manipulated…

In just the last ten years, 100 million tons of herbicides have been dumped onto our crops, polluting waterways and the soil where our food grows. A genetically engineered crop called “golden rice” has tainted the entire food industry throughout Asia, thanks to a sizable investment of cash from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which socked $20 billion into the enterprise.

Slash and burn agriculture, such as what’s done in Bolivia to make room for farming, involves burning ‘biomass’ – forests full of trees and fauna – for short-term monetary gain. But the most valuable commodity is being destroyed in the process destroying the most valuable thing in their system – the ability to help create biomass in other areas. It could create multiple industries in both areas and be mutually beneficial for everyone. Massive soy-growing plantations in Brazil are so dependent on the promise of economic wealth that local farmers are murdered and their lands confiscated, all to increase multi-nationally-owned soybean operations that decimated nearly 3 million acres of rainforest in just one year.2

Small- and Large-Scale Sustainability Practices – for Your Family, Community and the Globe

The life-giving effects of sustainability practices can be seen on several large scales now, but the principles are only as deep and complex as the soil. Compost feeds not just the plants, but the soil – or more specifically the soil organisms – is where 50 million genuses of bacteria and 50 million genuses of fungi thrive under the right conditions. According to Liu:

“Farmers in the Loess Plateau have continued to prosper, and the soil has been accumulating organic material from plants and animals. This holds the moisture and contains carbon… Living soils like this retain on average three times more carbon than the foliage above the ground. If we were to restore the vast area of the planet where we humans have degraded the soils, just think what an impact it would have in taking carbon out of the atmosphere.”

The entire Chinese continent has benefited from the lessons learned on the Loess Plateau. You can see it in the marketplaces, Liu says. Incomes have risen three-fold. We can make it happen here, as well.

The Ecosystem Isn’t Just Broken Over There… Look In Your Own Back Yard!

The tendency most of us have in so-called “developed” countries is to think those images of widespread ecological damage is far, far away and doesn’t involve us. But it does! Worse than simple farmers destroying the landscape through ignorance and tradition, the stripping and poisoning of our own natural resources is being done not unwittingy, but intentionally; not for the good of whole continents in the foreseeable future but for the financial profit of a few, now.

Perhaps you can’t do anything about that, and remedying those situations must be left to others. But you can make a difference now for yourself, for your family and community that might have residual effects.

  • Growing your own vegetables is a growing concept for thousands of Americans. It can help you save money, involve everyone in the family and help create a store that can last through the winter.
  • Organic gardening isn’t something extra you do – in fact it’s quite the opposite. It’s what you don’t do that makes the difference: no chemicals, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides on your plate! When you take control of what you eat, you’ll naturally enjoy better health, ensure and protecting future generations.
  • Composting is another way to make what you already have work for you in the future. Save those scraps, from egg shells to coffee filters, and use them to feed your vegetable garden.

When shopping for food, be informed regarding where that food was produced. A guide to help you can be found by clickinghere!

If you take advantage of the farm-fresh sustainability that’s becoming more prevalent as people take control of what they’re consuming, you’ll realize many benefits. First, you’ll know where the foods you and your family eat comes from, ensure optimal nutrition, and protect the health of future generations

by  Dr Mercola

Accidents: Flying Physicians

While forever warning their patients to shun unnecessary risks, doctors seem to jettison their own advice as soon as they take up flying. In 1964-65, reports the Federal Aviation Agency, 30 U.S. physician pilots died in crashes; in ten cases, the doctors’ families died with them. As a result, flying doctors had a fatal-accident rate four times as high as the average for all other private pilots.

Major causes of the high death rate, report Dr. Stanley Mohler, a specialist in aviation medicine, and Psychologist Sheldon Freud, were “risk-taking attitudes and judgments.” The two researchers were impressed by “the tendency…

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836176,00.html#ixzz2QLuzXpNi

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

Avoid Knee Surgery

Physical therapy as good as surgery for torn knee cartilage, arthritis, study finds

Physical therapy can be just as good for repairing a torn meniscus in the knee and at far less cost and risk, the most rigorous study to compare these treatments concludes.

Photograph by: Nick Brancaccio , The Windsor Star

You might not want to rush into knee surgery. Physical therapy can be just as good for a common injury and at far less cost and risk, the most rigorous study to compare these treatments concludes.

Therapy didn’t always help and some people wound up having surgery for the problem, called a torn meniscus. But those who stuck with therapy had improved as much six months and one year later as those who were given arthroscopic surgery right away, researchers found.

“Both are very good choices. It would be quite reasonable to try physical therapy first because the chances are quite good that you’ll do quite well,” said one study leader, Dr. Jeffrey Katz, a joint specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

He was to discuss the study Tuesday at an American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons conference in Chicago. Results were published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

A meniscus is one of the crescent-shaped cartilage discs that cushion the knee. About one-third of people over 50 have a tear in one, and arthritis makes this more likely. Usually the tear doesn’t cause symptoms but it can be painful.

When that happens, it’s tough to tell if the pain is from the tear or the arthritis — or whether surgery is needed or will help. Nearly half a million knee surgeries for a torn meniscus are done each year in the U.S.

The new federally funded study compared surgery with a less drastic option. Researchers at seven major universities and orthopedic surgery centres around the U.S. assigned 351 people with arthritis and meniscus tears to get either surgery or physical therapy. The therapy was nine sessions on average plus exercises to do at home, which experts say is key to success.

After six months, both groups had similar rates of functional improvement. Pain scores also were similar.

Thirty per cent of patients assigned to physical therapy wound up having surgery before the six months was up, often because they felt therapy wasn’t helping them. Yet they ended up the same as those who got surgery right away, as well as the rest of the physical therapy group who stuck with it and avoided having an operation.

“There are patients who would like to get better in a ‘fix me’ approach” and surgery may be best for them, said Elena Losina, another study leader from Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

However, an Australian preventive medicine expert contends that the study’s results should change practice. Therapy “is a reasonable first strategy, with surgery reserved for the minority who don’t have improvement,” Rachelle Buchbinder of Monash University in Melbourne wrote in a commentary in the medical journal.

As it is now, “millions of people are being exposed to potential risks associated with a treatment that may or may not offer specific benefit, and the costs are substantial,” she wrote.

Surgery costs about $5,000, compared with $1,000 to $2,000 for a typical course of physical therapy, Katz said.

One study participant — Bob O’Keefe, 68, of suburban Boston — was glad to avoid surgery for his meniscus injury three years ago.

“I felt better within two weeks” on physical therapy, he said. “My knee is virtually normal today” and he still does the recommended exercises several times a week.

Robert Dvorkin had both treatments for injuries on each knee several years apart. Dvorkin, 56, director of operations at the Coalition for the Homeless in New York City, had surgery followed by physical therapy for a tear in his right knee and said it was months before he felt no pain.

Then several years ago he hurt his left knee while exercising. “I had been doing some stretching and doing some push-ups and I just felt it go ‘pop.'” he recalls. “I was limping, it was extremely painful.”

An imaging test showed a less severe tear and a different surgeon recommended physical therapy. Dvorkin said it worked like a charm — he avoided surgery and recovered faster than from his first injury. The treatment involved two to three hour-long sessions a week, including strengthening exercises, balancing and massage. He said the sessions weren’t that painful and his knee felt better after each one.

“Within a month I was healed,” Dvorkin said. “I was completely back to normal.”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Health/Empowered-Health/Physical+therapy+good+surgery+torn+knee+cartilage/8121498/story.html#ixzz2OAVF5PnJ

A Cure For Cancer? Eating A Plant-Based Diet

KATHY FRESTON
I have been working closely recently with a few extraordinary nutritional researchers, and I find that the information they have compiled is quite eye opening. Interestingly, what these highly esteemed doctors are saying is just beginning to be understood and accepted, perhaps because what they are saying does not conveniently fit in with or support the multi-billion dollar food industries that profit from our “not knowing”. One thing is for sure: we are getting sicker and more obese than our health care system can handle, and the conventional methods of dealing with disease often have harmful side effects and are ineffective for some patients.

As it is now, one out of every two of us will get cancer or heart disease and die from it – an ugly and painful death as anyone who has witnessed it can attest. And starting in the year 2000, one out of every three children who are born after that year will develop diabetes–a disease that for most sufferers (those with Type 2 diabetes) is largely preventable with lifestyle changes. This is a rapidly emerging crisis, the seriousness of which I’m not sure we have yet recognized. The good news is, the means to prevent and heal disease seems to be right in front of us; it’s in our food. Quite frankly, our food choices can either kill us – which mounting studies say that they are, or they can lift us right out of the disease process and into soaring health.

In the next few months, I will share a series of interviews I’ve conducted with the preeminent doctors and nutritional researchers in the fields of their respective expertise. And here it is straight out: they are all saying the same thing in different ways and through multiple and varying studies: animal protein seems to greatly contribute to diseases of nearly every type; and a plant-based diet is not only good for our health, but it’s also curative of the very serious diseases we face .
Cancer

On the subject of cancer, I’ve asked Dr. T. Colin Campbell, Professor Emeritus of Cornell University and author of the groundbreaking The China Study to explain how cancer happens and what we can do to prevent and reverse it. Dr. Campbell’s work is regarded by many as the definitive epidemiological examination of the relationship between diet and disease. He has received more than 70 grant years of peer-reviewed research funding, much of which was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and he has authored more than 300 research papers. He grew up on a dairy farm believing in the great health value of animal protein in the American diet and set out in his career to investigate how to produce more and better animal protein. Troublesome to his preconceived hypothesis of the goodness of dairy, Dr. Campbell kept running up against results that consistently proved an emerging and comprehensive truth: that animal protein is disastrous to human health.

Through a variety of experimental study designs, epidemiological evidence, along with observation of real life conditions which had rational biological explanation, Dr. Campbell has made a direct and powerful correlation between cancer (and other diseases and illnesses) and animal protein. Following is a conversation I had with him so that I could better understand the association.
KF: What happens in the body when cancer develops? What is the actual process?

TCC: Cancer generally develops over a long period of time, divided into 3 stages, initiation, promotion and progression.

Initiation occurs when chemicals or other agents attack the genes of normal cells to produce genetically modified cells capable of eventually causing cancer. The body generally repairs most such damage but if the cell reproduces itself before it is repaired, its new (daughter) cell retains this genetic damage. This process may occur within minutes and, to some extent, is thought to be occurring most of the time in most of our tissues.

Promotion occurs when the initiated cells continue to replicate themselves and grow into cell masses that eventually will be diagnosed. This is a long growth phase occurring over months or years and is known to be reversible.

Progression occurs when the growing cancer masses invade neighboring tissues and/or break away from the tissue of origin (metastasis) and travel to distant tissues when they are capable of growing independently at which point they are considered to be malignant.

KF: Why do some people get cancer, and other don’t? What percentage is genetic, and what percentage has to do with diet?

TCC: Although the initiated cells are not considered to be reversible, the cells growing through the promotion stage are usually considered to be reversible, a very exciting concept. This is the stage that especially responds to nutritional factors. For example, the nutrients from animal based foods, especially the protein, promote the development of the cancer whereas the nutrients from plant-based foods, especially the antioxidants, reverse the promotion stage. This is a very promising observation because cancer proceeds forward or backward as a function of the balance of promoting and anti-promoting factors found in the diet, thus consuming anti-promoting plant-based foods tend to keep the cancer from going forward, perhaps even reversing the promotion. The difference between individuals is almost entirely related to their diet and lifestyle practices.

Although all cancer and other diseases begin with genes, this is not the reason whether or not the disease actually appears. If people do the right thing during the promotion stage, perhaps even during the progression stage, cancer will not appear and if it does, might even be resolved. Most estimates suggest that not more than 2-3 percent of cancers are due entirely to genes; almost all the rest is due to diet and lifestyle factors. Consuming plant based foods offers the best hope of avoiding cancer, perhaps even reversing cancer once it is diagnosed. Believing that cancer is attributed to genes is a fatalistic idea but believing that cancer can be controlled by nutrition is a far more hopeful idea.
KF: You said that initially something attacks the genes, chemicals or other agents; like what?

TCC: Cancer, like every other biological event–good or bad–begins with genes. In the case of cancer, gene(s) that give rise to cancer either may be present when we are born or, during our lifetimes, normal genes may be converted into cancer genes by certain highly reactive chemicals (i.e., carcinogens).

Consider ‘cancer genes’ as seeds that grow into tumor masses only if they are ‘fed’. The ‘feeding’ comes from wrongful nutrition. It’s like growing a lawn. We plant seeds but they don’t grow into grass (or weeds) unless they are provided water, sunlight and nutrients. So it is with cancer. In reality, we are planting seeds all of our lifetime although some may be present at birth, not only for cancer but also for other events as well. But this mostly does not matter unless we ‘nourish’ their growth.

The chemicals that create these cancer genes are called ‘carcinogens’. Most carcinogens of years past have been those that attack normal genes to give cancer genes. These are initiating carcinogens, or initiators. But more recently, carcinogens also may be those that promote cancer growth. They are promoting carcinogens, or promoters.

Our work showed that casein is the most relevant cancer promoter ever discovered.

Aside from chemicals initiating or promoting cancer, other agents such as cosmic rays (energetic particles) from the sun or from the outer reaches of space may impact our genes to cause them to change (i.e., mutate) so that they could give rise to cancer ‘seeds’. The most important point to consider is that we cannot do much about preventing initiation but we can do a lot about preventing promotion. The initiating idea is fatalistic and outside of our control but the promotion idea is hopeful because we can change our exposure to promoting agents and reverse the cancer process, thus is within our control.

KF: What exactly is so bad about animal protein?

TCC: I don’t choose the word “exactly” because it suggests something very specific. Rather, casein causes a broad spectrum of adverse effects.

Among other fundamental effects, it makes the body more acidic, alters the mix of hormones and modifies important enzyme activities, each of which can cause a broad array of more specific effects. One of these effects is its ability to promote cancer growth (by operating on key enzyme systems, by increasing hormone growth factors and by modifying the tissue acidity). Another is its ability to increase blood cholesterol (by modifying enzyme activities) and to enhance atherogenesis, which is the early stage of cardiovascular disease.

And finally, although these are casein-specific effects, it should be noted that other animal-based proteins are likely to have the same effect as casein.
KF: Ok, so I am clear that it’s wise to avoid casein, which is intrinsic in dairy (milk and cheese), but how is other animal protein, such as chicken, steak, or pork, implicated in the cause and growth of cancer?

TCC: I would first say that casein is not just “intrinsic” but IS THE MAIN PROTEIN OF COW MILK, REPRESENTING ABOUT 87% OF THE MILK PROTEIN.

The biochemical systems which underlie the adverse effects of casein are also common to other animal-based proteins. Also, the amino acid composition of casein, which is the characteristic primarily responsible for its property, is similar to most other animal-based proteins. They all have what we call high ‘biological value’, in comparison, for example, with plant-based proteins, which is why animal protein promotes cancer growth and plant protein doesn’t.
KF: Isn’t anything in moderation ok, as long as we don’t overdo it?

TCC: I rather like the expression told by my friend, Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., MD, the Cleveland Clinic surgeon who reversed heart disease and who says, “Moderation kills!” I prefer to go the whole way, not because we have fool-proof evidence showing that 100% is better than, say, 95% for every single person for every single condition but that it is easier to avoid straying off on an excursion that too often becomes a slippery slope back to our old ways. Moreover, going the whole way allows us to adapt to new unrealized tastes and to rid ourselves of some old addictions. And finally, moderation often means very different things for different people.

KF: Are you saying that if one changes their diet from animal based protein to plant-based protein that the disease process of cancer can be halted and reversed?

TCC: Yes, this is what our experimental research shows. I also have become aware of many anecdotal claims by people who have said that their switch to a plant-based diet stopped even reversed (cured?) their disease. One study on melanoma has been published in the peer-reviewed literature that shows convincing evidence that cancer progression is substantially halted with this diet.
KF: How long does it take to see changes?

TCC: It is not clear because carefully designed research in humans has not been done. However, we demonstrated and published findings showing that experimental progression of disease is at least suspended, even reversed, when tumors are clearly present.
KF: Consider a person who has been eating poorly his whole life; is there still hope that a dietary change can make a big difference? Or is everything already in motion?

TCC: Yes, a variety of evidence shows that cancers and non-cancers alike can be stopped even after consuming a poor diet earlier in life. This effect is equivalent to treatment, a very exciting concept.
KF: This is sounding like it’s a cure for cancer; is that the case?

TCC: Yes. The problem in this area of medicine is that traditional doctors are so focused on the use of targeted therapies (chemo, surgery, radiation) that they refuse to even acknowledge the use of therapies like nutrition and are loathe to even want to do proper research in this area. So, in spite of the considerable evidence–theoretical and practical–to support a beneficial nutritional effect, every effort will be made to discredit it. It’s a self-serving motive.

KF: What else do you recommend one does to avoid, stop, or reverse cancer?

TCC: A good diet, when coupled with other health promoting activities like exercise, adequate fresh air and sunlight, good water and sleep, will be more beneficial. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
For help on how to lean into a plant based diet, check out my blog post here; and for recipes click here.

For more information about diet and cancer, visit tcolincampbell.org.

Red Wine Compound Activates Gene Needed for Healthy Cells

By Ryan Flinn – Mar 7, 2013 3:00 PM AT

Karen Bleier/AFP via Getty Images
Cabernet Sauvignon grapes on the vine in Amissville, Virginia.

Harvard scientists said they have settled a debate over whether a compound found in red wine activates a gene that keeps cells healthy.

Researchers repeated a 10-year old study using a new method to validate earlier findings that resveratrol turns on a gene that recharges mitochondria, tiny structures that produce fuel for cells. By revving up mitochondria, the agent may protect against aging-related diseases, said David Sinclair, a Harvard Medical School genetics professor and the study’s senior author.

Sinclair’s earlier research was disputed in studies in 2009 and 2010 saying that resveratrol only activated the gene, a sirtuin called SIRT1, in experiments that used a synthetic fluorescent chemical to track activity. Since these chemicals aren’t found in cells or nature,other studies said the effect would only work in lab tests and not in humans. The new study, published today in the journal Science, got rid of the chemical.

“Controversy is a difficult thing to deal with, and I hope this paper gives some clarity to the field,” Sinclair said in a telephone interview.

The Harvard group set out to see if the effect was an artifact of the synthetic chemicals or was something that occurred naturally as well. They swapped out the fluorescent chemicals for a group of naturally occurring amino acids, including tryptophan, and found resveratrol did activate SIRT1.

Resveratrol Drugs

Sinclair’s earlier work led to the formation of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals which focuses on developing drugs from resveratrol. GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK) acquired the company in 2008 for $720 million. A little more than two years later, Glaxo shelved development of the lead compound from that acquisition, SRT501, when the medicine didn’t appear to work well enough in cancer patients and worsened kidney damage.

Resveratrol is currently being tested in at least two dozen clinical trials to gauge its effects on human health. It’s also packaged as a natural supplement, with $34 million in U.S. sales last year, according to the Nutrition Business Journal.

Further doubt was cast on resveratrol’s abilities after a prominent researcher and promoter of the compound, Dipak Das, who was the director of the University of Connecticut Health Center’s cardiovascular research center, was found to have fabricated and falsified data in numerous studies.

Overall, not enough evidence currently exists to recommend the compound for the prevention of lifestyle diseases, such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease, the 2nd International Science Conference on Resveratrol and Health, held in December at the University of Leicester, England, concluded. Still, its effects in animals shouldn’t be dismissed, Ole Vang, chairman of the conference’s scientific committee, said in an e-mail.

“Several markers for various cancers, coronary heart disease as well as diabetes are clearly reduced in experimental animals by resveratrol,” Vang wrote. “So it does have a promising effect in these models, but we can’t translate this promising effect directly to humans.”

More research is needed to test whether patients can benefit from these studies, he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan Flinn in San Francisco at rflinn@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reg Gale at rgale5@bloomberg.net