Too busy to go to bed? Having trouble getting quality sleep once you do? Your health may be at risk.
By Sarah Baldauf, U.S. News & World Report
You may literally have to add it to your to-do list, but scheduling a good night's sleep could be one of the smartest health priorities you set. It's not just daytime drowsiness you risk when shortchanging yourself on your seven to eight hours. Possible health consequences of getting too little or poor sleep can involve the cardiovascular, endocrine, immune and nervous systems. In addition to letting life get in the way of good sleep, between 50 and 70 million Americans suffer from a chronic sleep disorder—insomnia or sleep apnea, say—that affects daily functioning and impinges on health. Consider the research:
1) Less may mean more. For people who sleep under seven hours a night, the fewer zzzz's they get, the more obese they tend to be, according to a 2006 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report. This may relate to the discovery that insufficient sleep appears to tip hunger hormones out of whack. Leptin, which suppresses appetite, is lowered; ghrelin, which stimulates appetite, gets a boost.
2) You're more apt to make bad food choices. A study published in the October 15, 2008 issue of the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine found that people with obstructive sleep apnea or other severely disordered breathing while asleep ate a diet higher in cholesterol, protein, total fat, and total saturated fat. Women were especially affected.
3) Diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance, its precursor, may become more likely. A 2005 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that people getting five or fewer hours of sleep each night were 2.5 times more likely to be diabetic, while those with six hours or fewer were 1.7 times more likely.
4) The ticker is put at risk. A 2003 study found that heart attacks were 45 percent more likely in women who slept for five or fewer hours per night than in those who got more.
5) Blood pressure may increase. Obstructive sleep apnea, for example, has been associated with chronically elevated daytime blood pressure, and the more severe the disorder, the more significant the hypertension, suggests the 2006 IOM report. Obesity plays a role in both disorders, so losing weight can ease associated health risks.
6) Auto accidents rise. As stated in a 2007 report in the New England Journal of Medicine, nearly 20 percent of serious car crash injuries involve a sleepy driver—and that's independent of alcohol use.
7) Balance is off. Older folks who have trouble getting to sleep, who wake up at night, or are drowsy during the day could be 2 to 4.5 times more likely to sustain a fall, found a 2007 study in the Journal of Gerontology.
8) You may be more prone to depression. Adults who chronically operate on fumes report more mental distress, depression, and alcohol use. Adolescents suffer, too: One survey of high school students found similarly high rates of these issues. Middle schoolers, too, report more symptoms of depression and lower self-esteem.
9) Kids may suffer more behavior problems. Research from an April issue of the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that children who are plagued by insomnia, short duration of sleeping, or disordered breathing with obesity, for example, are more likely to have behavioral issues like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
10) Death's doorstep may be nearer. According to three large studies published in the journals Sleep and the Archives of General Psychiatry, people over age 30 who slept five hours or less per night had approximately a 15 percent greater risk of dying—regardless of the cause—over the periods studied, which ranged from six to 14 years.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
So, What’s in that Happy Meal Besides the Cheap Toy?
Written by Beth Bader
Published on February 12th, 2008
Ever wonder what’s really in your fast food meal? Here’s the ingredients list for a Happy Meal that contains nuggets, fries and a Hi-C beverage:
White boneless chicken, water, food starch-modified, salt, chicken flavor (autolyzed yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavoring (botanical source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, rosemary), sodium phosphates, seasoning (canola oil, mono- and diglycerides, natural extractives of rosemary). Battered and breaded with: water, enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour, food starch-modified, salt, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium lactate), spices, wheat starch, whey, corn starch. Prepared in vegetable oil ((may contain one of the following: Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated corn oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness), dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent). Water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose, citric acid, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), potassium benzoate (to protect taste), modified food starch, natural flavors (vegetable source), glycerol ester of wood rosin, yellow 6, brominated vegetable oil, red 40. Potatoes, vegetable oil (partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural beef flavor (wheat and milk derivatives)*, citric acid (preservative), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain color), dimethylpolysiloxane (antifoaming agent)), salt. Prepared in vegetable oil ((may contain one of the following: Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated corn oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness), dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent).
Wow. Amidst the few recognizable food items and the really-bad-for-you hydrogentated oils, what is all that other stuff? Get the answer after the jump.
Those ingredients are food additives. Additives are chemical compounds that are used to enhance or preserve (enhance being a relative term) color, texture, flavor and shelf life of a manufactured food. Some additives are safe, at least as far as the FDA is concerned, in small quantities. However, there are many that just don’t belong in food despite what the FDA says.
In at least one case, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services contradicts the FDA on the safety of an additive.BHA, BUTYLATED HYDROXYANISOLE , and BHT, or BUTYLATED HYDROXYTOLUENE, are both used to prevent oils from going rancid, oils such as those used in frying. BHA is considered to be “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” Testing of BHT is unclear whether or not it may be a carcinogen as well, and residues of this chemical have been found in human fat stores. Despite the Department of Health and Human Services findings, the FDA continues to allow BHA to be used. You can find both of these substances in the sausage patties of a fast food breakfast sandwich.
TBHQ, or TERT-BUTYLHYDROQUINONE is used as an antioxidant for unsaturated vegetable oils and animal fats. It can be used in combination with BHA. It is added to a wide range of foods, with highest limit permitted for frozen fish. It is used to enhance storage life. For industrial use, TBHQ is used as a stabilizer and is added to varnishes, lacquers, resins, and oil field additives.
In high doses,TBHQ led to stomach tumors and damage to DNA for lab animals . Prolonged exposure to TBHQ may cause cancer. While this is for high doses and lab rats, I have trouble with the idea that something you can only handle with protective clothing, per the Material Safety Data Sheet, is going in my food. You can find TBHQ in a wide variety of fast food menu items, especially anything fried or cooked in oil.
YELLOW 6 is the third most common food coloring. Industry-sponsored tests showed that this dye caused tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney in the lab animals. The dye is often contaminated by carcinogens. The FDA reviewed this information and concluded that there is no risk to humans.
PROPYL GALLATE has not been thoroughly tested. Initial studies suggest a linkage with cancer. It is used as a preservative in meats like sausage, vegetable oil, fried potatoes, chicken soup base and even chewing gum.
Here are a few more “ingredients” in your fast food, and other manufactured food products:
Sodium- and tetrasodium pyrophosphate, a “slightly toxic” food additive used as a thickening agent. You can find this in coffee creamer and other foods like marshmallows and some chicken nuggets. Define “slightly toxic?” Is it just slightly bad for you? Or just not even remotely good for you?
Polydimethylsiloxane is used as an “anti-foaming” agent in fried foods. It is thought to be relatively safe. It is also used in the manufacture of items like Silly Putty, silicone grease, breast implants. It can be used to treat head lice.
Sodium hexametaphosphate is used as an additive to promote stability. It is also used in the manufacture of water softening agents and detergents.
Would you like to learn more about food additives? The Center for Science in the Public Interest has a helpful list of the most concerning food additives. Once you’ve read the list, you can find those same ingredients in these fast food menus; menu, menu, menu (click nutrition guide, then ingredient statement).
#
lovejahlive said on February 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
That’s why they taste so good!
#
3
Alli said on February 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Your comment on something that “requires protective clothing” as per the MSDS does not impress me. EVERYTHING requires protective clothing according to the MSDS. Even plain distilled water.
That said, it’s shameful that people think that chicken nuggets and other fast food is acceptable to feed their children. For goodness’ sake, feed them a peanut butter and jelly sandwich! It’s MUCH more nutritious, and CHEAPER, too!
#
4
Kim said on February 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
To Sharon’s comment about the commercial where the kids were trying to pronounce the ingredients- I believe it was a commercial for Breyer’s ice cream, but I wouldn’t swear to it.
I decided to get healthy and lose weight and my whole family got carried along with me- we don’t do fast food anymore. (I’ve lost almost 50 pounds, and so far it’s staying off.) This just reinforces that I made the right choice!
#
5
Jane Hersey said on February 12th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
For more than 30 years the non-profit Feingold Association has been helping parents find food their children enjoy, but minus the nasty additives. See http://www.feingold.org
#
6
Katy said on February 13th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Back when I was a kid in the 1970s, I remember my sister telling me that my beloved McDonalds shake was made of plastic. I guess she wasn’t that far off.
I haven’t eaten at a McDonalds in over 20 years.
#
7
Author photo Beth Bader said on February 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
That’s funny. Katy, perhaps you should send your sister a “Thank you!” Around our house, the last bit of fast food we would eat was Taco Bell, no other ones ever. Then, I read Fast Food Nation, and all the fast food went for good.
#
8
Kendra Holliday said on February 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
OH. MY. GOD. That list is quite the mouthful.
Guess how many times my 7 yr old has had a Happy Meal? Zero.
Yes I’m bragging.
#
9
Author photo Lee Welles said on February 13th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
You can put that to music! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDfxHgwkRTE&feature=related (Ignore the transformers video)
If you want to see the original video with audio done by a fan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9VHA88Fcg&feature=related
Let me know if you end up humming this all day tomorrow!
#
10
Alternative Fuels Now » So, What’s in that Happy Meal Besides the Cheap Toy? said on February 15th, 2008 at 1:01 am
[...] original news source Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
Published on February 12th, 2008
Ever wonder what’s really in your fast food meal? Here’s the ingredients list for a Happy Meal that contains nuggets, fries and a Hi-C beverage:
White boneless chicken, water, food starch-modified, salt, chicken flavor (autolyzed yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavoring (botanical source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, rosemary), sodium phosphates, seasoning (canola oil, mono- and diglycerides, natural extractives of rosemary). Battered and breaded with: water, enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour, food starch-modified, salt, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium lactate), spices, wheat starch, whey, corn starch. Prepared in vegetable oil ((may contain one of the following: Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated corn oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness), dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent). Water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose, citric acid, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), potassium benzoate (to protect taste), modified food starch, natural flavors (vegetable source), glycerol ester of wood rosin, yellow 6, brominated vegetable oil, red 40. Potatoes, vegetable oil (partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural beef flavor (wheat and milk derivatives)*, citric acid (preservative), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain color), dimethylpolysiloxane (antifoaming agent)), salt. Prepared in vegetable oil ((may contain one of the following: Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated corn oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness), dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent).
Wow. Amidst the few recognizable food items and the really-bad-for-you hydrogentated oils, what is all that other stuff? Get the answer after the jump.
Those ingredients are food additives. Additives are chemical compounds that are used to enhance or preserve (enhance being a relative term) color, texture, flavor and shelf life of a manufactured food. Some additives are safe, at least as far as the FDA is concerned, in small quantities. However, there are many that just don’t belong in food despite what the FDA says.
In at least one case, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services contradicts the FDA on the safety of an additive.BHA, BUTYLATED HYDROXYANISOLE , and BHT, or BUTYLATED HYDROXYTOLUENE, are both used to prevent oils from going rancid, oils such as those used in frying. BHA is considered to be “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” Testing of BHT is unclear whether or not it may be a carcinogen as well, and residues of this chemical have been found in human fat stores. Despite the Department of Health and Human Services findings, the FDA continues to allow BHA to be used. You can find both of these substances in the sausage patties of a fast food breakfast sandwich.
TBHQ, or TERT-BUTYLHYDROQUINONE is used as an antioxidant for unsaturated vegetable oils and animal fats. It can be used in combination with BHA. It is added to a wide range of foods, with highest limit permitted for frozen fish. It is used to enhance storage life. For industrial use, TBHQ is used as a stabilizer and is added to varnishes, lacquers, resins, and oil field additives.
In high doses,TBHQ led to stomach tumors and damage to DNA for lab animals . Prolonged exposure to TBHQ may cause cancer. While this is for high doses and lab rats, I have trouble with the idea that something you can only handle with protective clothing, per the Material Safety Data Sheet, is going in my food. You can find TBHQ in a wide variety of fast food menu items, especially anything fried or cooked in oil.
YELLOW 6 is the third most common food coloring. Industry-sponsored tests showed that this dye caused tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney in the lab animals. The dye is often contaminated by carcinogens. The FDA reviewed this information and concluded that there is no risk to humans.
PROPYL GALLATE has not been thoroughly tested. Initial studies suggest a linkage with cancer. It is used as a preservative in meats like sausage, vegetable oil, fried potatoes, chicken soup base and even chewing gum.
Here are a few more “ingredients” in your fast food, and other manufactured food products:
Sodium- and tetrasodium pyrophosphate, a “slightly toxic” food additive used as a thickening agent. You can find this in coffee creamer and other foods like marshmallows and some chicken nuggets. Define “slightly toxic?” Is it just slightly bad for you? Or just not even remotely good for you?
Polydimethylsiloxane is used as an “anti-foaming” agent in fried foods. It is thought to be relatively safe. It is also used in the manufacture of items like Silly Putty, silicone grease, breast implants. It can be used to treat head lice.
Sodium hexametaphosphate is used as an additive to promote stability. It is also used in the manufacture of water softening agents and detergents.
Would you like to learn more about food additives? The Center for Science in the Public Interest has a helpful list of the most concerning food additives. Once you’ve read the list, you can find those same ingredients in these fast food menus; menu, menu, menu (click nutrition guide, then ingredient statement).
#
lovejahlive said on February 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
That’s why they taste so good!
#
3
Alli said on February 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Your comment on something that “requires protective clothing” as per the MSDS does not impress me. EVERYTHING requires protective clothing according to the MSDS. Even plain distilled water.
That said, it’s shameful that people think that chicken nuggets and other fast food is acceptable to feed their children. For goodness’ sake, feed them a peanut butter and jelly sandwich! It’s MUCH more nutritious, and CHEAPER, too!
#
4
Kim said on February 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
To Sharon’s comment about the commercial where the kids were trying to pronounce the ingredients- I believe it was a commercial for Breyer’s ice cream, but I wouldn’t swear to it.
I decided to get healthy and lose weight and my whole family got carried along with me- we don’t do fast food anymore. (I’ve lost almost 50 pounds, and so far it’s staying off.) This just reinforces that I made the right choice!
#
5
Jane Hersey said on February 12th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
For more than 30 years the non-profit Feingold Association has been helping parents find food their children enjoy, but minus the nasty additives. See http://www.feingold.org
#
6
Katy said on February 13th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Back when I was a kid in the 1970s, I remember my sister telling me that my beloved McDonalds shake was made of plastic. I guess she wasn’t that far off.
I haven’t eaten at a McDonalds in over 20 years.
#
7
Author photo Beth Bader said on February 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
That’s funny. Katy, perhaps you should send your sister a “Thank you!” Around our house, the last bit of fast food we would eat was Taco Bell, no other ones ever. Then, I read Fast Food Nation, and all the fast food went for good.
#
8
Kendra Holliday said on February 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
OH. MY. GOD. That list is quite the mouthful.
Guess how many times my 7 yr old has had a Happy Meal? Zero.
Yes I’m bragging.
#
9
Author photo Lee Welles said on February 13th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
You can put that to music! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDfxHgwkRTE&feature=related (Ignore the transformers video)
If you want to see the original video with audio done by a fan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9VHA88Fcg&feature=related
Let me know if you end up humming this all day tomorrow!
#
10
Alternative Fuels Now » So, What’s in that Happy Meal Besides the Cheap Toy? said on February 15th, 2008 at 1:01 am
[...] original news source Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
MSG (a slow poison)
MSG
The food additive MSG (Mono-Sodium Glutamate) is a slow poison. MSG
hides behind 25 or more names, such as Natural Flavoring.' MSG is even in
your favorite coffee from Tim Horton's and Starbucks coffee shops!
I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive
obesity epidemic, and so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research
assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario , Canada , and spent
years working for the government. He made an amazing discovery while
going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow
Poisoning of America .
In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating
obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies.
No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so scientists have to create
them. They make these creatures morbidly obese by injecting them with
MSG when they are first born.
The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats
(and perhaps humans) to become obese. They even have a name for the
fat rodents they create: 'MSG-Treated Rats.'
When I heard this, I was shocked. I went into my kitchen and checked
the cupboards and the refrigerator. MSG was in everything -- the Campbell 's
soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen,
Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen
prepared meals, and Kraft salad dressings, especially the 'healthy low-fat' ones.
The items that didn't have MSG marked on the product label had
something called 'Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein,' which is just another
name for Monosodium Glutamate.
It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our
children everyday are filled with this stuff. MSG is hidden under many
different names in order to fool those who read the ingredient list, so that
they don't catch on. (Other names for MSG are 'Accent, 'Aginomoto,'
'Natural Meat Tenderizer,' etc.)
But it didn't stop there.
When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants
what menu items contained MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore
they didn't use MSG.
But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly
provided, sure enough, MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere.
Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell, every restaurant -- even
the sit-down eateries like TGIF, Chili's, Applebee's, and Denny's -- use MSG
in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender:
MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing. and gravy. No wonder I loved
to eat that coating on the skin -- their secret spice was MSG!
So why is MSG in so many of the foods we eat? Is it a preservative,
or a vitamin?
Not according to my friend John Erb. In his book The Slow Poisoning
of America , he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it
has on the human body.
Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby
group supporting MSG explains that the reason they add it to food is to
make people eat more.
A study of the elderly showed that older people eat more of the foods
that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobbying group says eating
more is a benefit to the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us?
'Betcha can't eat [just] one,' takes on a whole new meaning where MSG
is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight!
MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their
products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes
people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive
substance. Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago,
MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals,
soups, snacks, and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.
The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food.
They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. But how can they claim it's safe
when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these:
'The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of
exercise in obesity.' Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT , Ribeiro IA. Res
Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.
'Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin
release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats.' Guimaraes
RB, Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro. Brain Res Bull.
2002 Aug.
'Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in
spontaneously hypertensive rats: An animal model of multiple risk factors.'
Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima.
Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.
'Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in
suckling period and subsequent development of obesity.' Tanaka K,
Shimada M, Nakao K Kusunoki. Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.
No, the date of that last study was not a typo; it was published in
1978. Both the 'medical research community' and 'food manufacturers' have
known about the side effects of MSG for decades.
Many more of the studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to
diabetes, migraines and headaches, autism, ADHD, and even Alzheimer's.
So what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping this
fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity
epidemic we now see?
Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of
the highest government health officials in Canada .
While he was sitting in the government office, the official told him,
'Sure, I know how bad MSG is. I wouldn't touch the stuff.' But this
top-level government official refuses to tell the public what he knows.
The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing issues
with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry
may hurt their profit margin. The food producers and restaurants have
been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying
the price for it. Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused
by an addictive food additive.
But what can I do about it? I'm just one voice! What can I do to
stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments are insuring
financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us?
This message is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell
you the truth that the corporate-owned politicians and media won't tell you.
The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from
this drug-induced epidemic is to forward this article to everyone.
With any luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation
protecting those who are poisoning us.
The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if
big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle
on nicotine?
If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for
us and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go
to the National Library of Medicine at www.pubmed.com Type in the
words 'MSG Obese' and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.
We the public do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we
do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese, lethargic,
addicted sheep, feeding the food industry's bottom line while waiting for
the heart transplant, the diabetic-induced amputation, blindness, or other
obesity-induced, life-threatening disorders.
With your help we can put an end to this poison. Do your part in
sending this message out by word of mouth, e-mail, or by distribution of
this printout to your friends all over the world and stop this 'Slow
Poisoning of Mankind' by the packaged food industry.
Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, so get the word out.
Association of Monosodium Glutamate Intake With Overweight in Chinese Adults: The INTERMAP Study.
KFC INGREDIENT LIST
TACO BELL® Ingredient Statement
McDonald's USA Ingredients Listing for Popular Menu Items
The food additive MSG (Mono-Sodium Glutamate) is a slow poison. MSG
hides behind 25 or more names, such as Natural Flavoring.' MSG is even in
your favorite coffee from Tim Horton's and Starbucks coffee shops!
I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive
obesity epidemic, and so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research
assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario , Canada , and spent
years working for the government. He made an amazing discovery while
going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow
Poisoning of America .
In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating
obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies.
No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so scientists have to create
them. They make these creatures morbidly obese by injecting them with
MSG when they are first born.
The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats
(and perhaps humans) to become obese. They even have a name for the
fat rodents they create: 'MSG-Treated Rats.'
When I heard this, I was shocked. I went into my kitchen and checked
the cupboards and the refrigerator. MSG was in everything -- the Campbell 's
soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen,
Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen
prepared meals, and Kraft salad dressings, especially the 'healthy low-fat' ones.
The items that didn't have MSG marked on the product label had
something called 'Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein,' which is just another
name for Monosodium Glutamate.
It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our
children everyday are filled with this stuff. MSG is hidden under many
different names in order to fool those who read the ingredient list, so that
they don't catch on. (Other names for MSG are 'Accent, 'Aginomoto,'
'Natural Meat Tenderizer,' etc.)
But it didn't stop there.
When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants
what menu items contained MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore
they didn't use MSG.
But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly
provided, sure enough, MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere.
Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell, every restaurant -- even
the sit-down eateries like TGIF, Chili's, Applebee's, and Denny's -- use MSG
in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender:
MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing. and gravy. No wonder I loved
to eat that coating on the skin -- their secret spice was MSG!
So why is MSG in so many of the foods we eat? Is it a preservative,
or a vitamin?
Not according to my friend John Erb. In his book The Slow Poisoning
of America , he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it
has on the human body.
Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby
group supporting MSG explains that the reason they add it to food is to
make people eat more.
A study of the elderly showed that older people eat more of the foods
that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobbying group says eating
more is a benefit to the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us?
'Betcha can't eat [just] one,' takes on a whole new meaning where MSG
is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight!
MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their
products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes
people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive
substance. Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago,
MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals,
soups, snacks, and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.
The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food.
They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. But how can they claim it's safe
when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these:
'The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of
exercise in obesity.' Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT , Ribeiro IA. Res
Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.
'Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin
release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats.' Guimaraes
RB, Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro. Brain Res Bull.
2002 Aug.
'Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in
spontaneously hypertensive rats: An animal model of multiple risk factors.'
Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima.
Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.
'Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in
suckling period and subsequent development of obesity.' Tanaka K,
Shimada M, Nakao K Kusunoki. Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.
No, the date of that last study was not a typo; it was published in
1978. Both the 'medical research community' and 'food manufacturers' have
known about the side effects of MSG for decades.
Many more of the studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to
diabetes, migraines and headaches, autism, ADHD, and even Alzheimer's.
So what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping this
fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity
epidemic we now see?
Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of
the highest government health officials in Canada .
While he was sitting in the government office, the official told him,
'Sure, I know how bad MSG is. I wouldn't touch the stuff.' But this
top-level government official refuses to tell the public what he knows.
The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing issues
with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry
may hurt their profit margin. The food producers and restaurants have
been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying
the price for it. Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused
by an addictive food additive.
But what can I do about it? I'm just one voice! What can I do to
stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments are insuring
financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us?
This message is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell
you the truth that the corporate-owned politicians and media won't tell you.
The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from
this drug-induced epidemic is to forward this article to everyone.
With any luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation
protecting those who are poisoning us.
The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if
big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle
on nicotine?
If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for
us and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go
to the National Library of Medicine at www.pubmed.com Type in the
words 'MSG Obese' and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.
We the public do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we
do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese, lethargic,
addicted sheep, feeding the food industry's bottom line while waiting for
the heart transplant, the diabetic-induced amputation, blindness, or other
obesity-induced, life-threatening disorders.
With your help we can put an end to this poison. Do your part in
sending this message out by word of mouth, e-mail, or by distribution of
this printout to your friends all over the world and stop this 'Slow
Poisoning of Mankind' by the packaged food industry.
Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, so get the word out.
Association of Monosodium Glutamate Intake With Overweight in Chinese Adults: The INTERMAP Study.
KFC INGREDIENT LIST
TACO BELL® Ingredient Statement
McDonald's USA Ingredients Listing for Popular Menu Items
Sunday, August 3, 2008
The truth about the cell-phone–cancer link
The Cell Tolls for Thee
The truth about the cell-phone–cancer link and what it means for you and your kids
By Julie A. Evans, Best Life
When Vini Khurana, PhD, an Australian (and Mayo Clinic–trained) neurosurgeon, announced that the link between cell-phone use and cancer was irrefutable--the result of his analysis of more than 100 studies--it set off alarm bells around the world. Use a cell phone, he said, and you increase your risk of developing a malignant brain tumor by two to four times. Until recently, the majority of research indicated little or no link between cell phones and cancer (the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society maintain that cell phones pose no threat), but several new long-term studies have cast doubt about their safety. Given that cell phones and PDAs serve as lifelines for so many people--24 percent of 10- and 11-year-olds carry them--it raises urgent questions. To find out what precautions you should take when using your cell phone, we dialed the nation's leading experts.
Do cell phones cause cancer?
Maybe…with extended use. Mobile-phone users are twice as likely to develop malignant, difficult-to-treat brain tumors called gilomas, according to a first-of-its-kind study that analyzed the effects of cell-phone use over 10 years or more and was published last year in the journal Occupational Environmental Medicine. The Bioinitiative Working Group, an international coalition of scientists and public-health experts, recently published a hefty report detailing the link between the nonionizing radiation caused by a cell phone's electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and cancer, DNA damage, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. "The cells in the body react to EMFs in cell phones just like they do to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and chemicals," says Martin Blank, PhD, a professor in bioelectromagnetics at Columbia University and one of the report's authors. The study found that risk from cell-phone use starts at 260 lifetime hours.
Do cell phones emit radiation only when you are talking?
No. "Cell phones give off radiation any time they're turned on so that they can communicate with base stations," says Lou Bloomfield, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Virginia and author of How Everything Works: Making Physics Out of the Ordinary. "The radiation emitted, however, is stronger and more frequent when you're talking or messaging." Also, the greater distance you are from a base station, the more radiation your phone must emit in order to get a signal, which is why your phone feels hot when you have low reception. That heat you feel is radiation. The Bioinitiative study found that adverse effects to DNA can also occur before the phone heats up. To reduce your exposure, make calls only when you have strong reception, hang up before your phone heats up, and store your phone away from your body when it's not in use.
What is a phone's SAR value and why does it matter?
SAR stands for specific absorption rate, and it refers to the rate of radiation exposure from radio frequency and microwaves measured in watts per kilogram of tissue, says Bloomfield. The FCC limit on any cell phone sold in this country is 1.6 watts per kilogram. To find the SAR value for your phone, go to fcc.gov/cgb/sar/. At press time, the phone with the lowest radiation was the LG KG800, at 0.135 w/kg. The highest: Motorola V195s, at 1.6 w/kg. The Apple iPhone is in the middle, at 0.974 w/kg.
What is the range of the radiation?
Exposure to radiation from your cell phone drops off slowly for the first three to four inches from your body, and then it falls dramatically, says Bloomfield. To reduce your exposure, invest in a hands-free headset and limit the amount of time you spend talking on the phone. Khurana recommends using the speaker mode and holding the phone about eight inches away from you. Also, limit your use of Bluetooth devices. While it's true that they emit the least amount of radiation (one study found they can operate as low as 0.001 watts per kilogram), even that can add up fast.
Is it risky to carry a cell phone in your pants pocket?
Maybe. One 2006 study found no link to testicular cancer, but other researchers suspect a link to male infertility. Ashok Agarwal, PhD, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, recently completed a study in which cell phones were set down for one hour in talk mode, next to sperm samples in test tubes. He found that the sperm's motility and viability were significantly reduced, and levels of harmful free radicals increased after exposure. Agarwal suggests storing the phone in your jacket pocket to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation. Pregnant women need to take precautions too, because a recent study found that cell-phone use while pregnant is linked to behavioral problems in children.
Are kids more at risk?
"Yes, since children's nervous systems are still developing, and they have thinner scalps and skulls than adults, they should use cell phones only in emergencies," says Gene Barnett, MD, professor and director of the Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center at the Cleveland Clinic. The association between childhood leukemia and exposure to EMFs like those from cell phones has led the International Agency for Research on Cancer to classify them as a "possible human carcinogen." The medical establishments in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom all recommend severe restrictions on children's cell-phone use, with some experts going so far as to say that children under 16 shouldn't use cell phones at all. Make sure your kids opt for landlines when they're at home, and if you must buy them a cell phone for emergencies, get one with a low SAR number.
What about texting?
It's actually a safer way to communicate, says David O. Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany. Since kids hold phones away from their bodies when texting, they're exposed to less radiation than when they have the phones to their ears. "We are very concerned about teen cell-phone use, fearing that we face an epidemic of brain tumors 10 to 20 years from now, and there are so few who are raising warning flags," says Dr. Carpenter. Make sure your teen keeps his cell phone turned off and stored in his backpack when it isn't in use, which will dramatically reduce exposure.
The truth about the cell-phone–cancer link and what it means for you and your kids
By Julie A. Evans, Best Life
When Vini Khurana, PhD, an Australian (and Mayo Clinic–trained) neurosurgeon, announced that the link between cell-phone use and cancer was irrefutable--the result of his analysis of more than 100 studies--it set off alarm bells around the world. Use a cell phone, he said, and you increase your risk of developing a malignant brain tumor by two to four times. Until recently, the majority of research indicated little or no link between cell phones and cancer (the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society maintain that cell phones pose no threat), but several new long-term studies have cast doubt about their safety. Given that cell phones and PDAs serve as lifelines for so many people--24 percent of 10- and 11-year-olds carry them--it raises urgent questions. To find out what precautions you should take when using your cell phone, we dialed the nation's leading experts.
Do cell phones cause cancer?
Maybe…with extended use. Mobile-phone users are twice as likely to develop malignant, difficult-to-treat brain tumors called gilomas, according to a first-of-its-kind study that analyzed the effects of cell-phone use over 10 years or more and was published last year in the journal Occupational Environmental Medicine. The Bioinitiative Working Group, an international coalition of scientists and public-health experts, recently published a hefty report detailing the link between the nonionizing radiation caused by a cell phone's electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and cancer, DNA damage, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. "The cells in the body react to EMFs in cell phones just like they do to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and chemicals," says Martin Blank, PhD, a professor in bioelectromagnetics at Columbia University and one of the report's authors. The study found that risk from cell-phone use starts at 260 lifetime hours.
Do cell phones emit radiation only when you are talking?
No. "Cell phones give off radiation any time they're turned on so that they can communicate with base stations," says Lou Bloomfield, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Virginia and author of How Everything Works: Making Physics Out of the Ordinary. "The radiation emitted, however, is stronger and more frequent when you're talking or messaging." Also, the greater distance you are from a base station, the more radiation your phone must emit in order to get a signal, which is why your phone feels hot when you have low reception. That heat you feel is radiation. The Bioinitiative study found that adverse effects to DNA can also occur before the phone heats up. To reduce your exposure, make calls only when you have strong reception, hang up before your phone heats up, and store your phone away from your body when it's not in use.
What is a phone's SAR value and why does it matter?
SAR stands for specific absorption rate, and it refers to the rate of radiation exposure from radio frequency and microwaves measured in watts per kilogram of tissue, says Bloomfield. The FCC limit on any cell phone sold in this country is 1.6 watts per kilogram. To find the SAR value for your phone, go to fcc.gov/cgb/sar/. At press time, the phone with the lowest radiation was the LG KG800, at 0.135 w/kg. The highest: Motorola V195s, at 1.6 w/kg. The Apple iPhone is in the middle, at 0.974 w/kg.
What is the range of the radiation?
Exposure to radiation from your cell phone drops off slowly for the first three to four inches from your body, and then it falls dramatically, says Bloomfield. To reduce your exposure, invest in a hands-free headset and limit the amount of time you spend talking on the phone. Khurana recommends using the speaker mode and holding the phone about eight inches away from you. Also, limit your use of Bluetooth devices. While it's true that they emit the least amount of radiation (one study found they can operate as low as 0.001 watts per kilogram), even that can add up fast.
Is it risky to carry a cell phone in your pants pocket?
Maybe. One 2006 study found no link to testicular cancer, but other researchers suspect a link to male infertility. Ashok Agarwal, PhD, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, recently completed a study in which cell phones were set down for one hour in talk mode, next to sperm samples in test tubes. He found that the sperm's motility and viability were significantly reduced, and levels of harmful free radicals increased after exposure. Agarwal suggests storing the phone in your jacket pocket to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation. Pregnant women need to take precautions too, because a recent study found that cell-phone use while pregnant is linked to behavioral problems in children.
Are kids more at risk?
"Yes, since children's nervous systems are still developing, and they have thinner scalps and skulls than adults, they should use cell phones only in emergencies," says Gene Barnett, MD, professor and director of the Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center at the Cleveland Clinic. The association between childhood leukemia and exposure to EMFs like those from cell phones has led the International Agency for Research on Cancer to classify them as a "possible human carcinogen." The medical establishments in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom all recommend severe restrictions on children's cell-phone use, with some experts going so far as to say that children under 16 shouldn't use cell phones at all. Make sure your kids opt for landlines when they're at home, and if you must buy them a cell phone for emergencies, get one with a low SAR number.
What about texting?
It's actually a safer way to communicate, says David O. Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany. Since kids hold phones away from their bodies when texting, they're exposed to less radiation than when they have the phones to their ears. "We are very concerned about teen cell-phone use, fearing that we face an epidemic of brain tumors 10 to 20 years from now, and there are so few who are raising warning flags," says Dr. Carpenter. Make sure your teen keeps his cell phone turned off and stored in his backpack when it isn't in use, which will dramatically reduce exposure.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
7 Tips for Better Sleep
By eDiets Staff
Wednesday, May, 14, 2008
Poor sleep hampers your overall health, including how well you fare in your weight-loss endeavors. From premature aging to a compromised immune system, the side-effects of sleepless nights can add up, says Barbara Harris, author of Shape Your Life: 4 Weeks to a Better Body -- and a Better Life!.
Getting a good night's sleep is high on the list of things you can do to boost your health and fitness levels. Sleep is crucial for optimum immunity, Harris says. When you don't get enough shuteye, your workouts may be less effective and you're more likely to store fat.
But that's not all. Your ability to manage stress throughout the day is also compromised. Studies reveal women frequently turn to food to soothe themselves in times of stress. It's also a fact that many women also eat more to raise their energy level.
In this eDiets exclusive, we offer Harris' seven tips for a good night's snooze.
1. Get regular exposure to daylight, especially in the afternoon. Research shows that night-shift workers can improve daytime sleep by working under bright lights.
2. Prior to bedtime, use dimmer switches or turn off a few lamps to lower the lighting in your home or apartment.
3. Don't allow yourself to nod off on the sofa. When you start feeling drowsy, get up and go to bed.
4. Use your bedroom only for sleep and sex. Don't make it a satellite office, study hall or entertainment center.
5. When you can't sleep, try using imagery and thoughts to relax. Deep-breathing techniques also work.
6. If you haven't dropped off within about 20 minutes, get out of bed and read or engage in some other quiet activity. Go back to bed when you get sleepy.
7. Put the alarm clock out of sight. Clock watching doesn't help you sleep -- it may even keep you awake!
Pro Tips for a Tight, Flat Tummy
By Raphael Calzadilla, BA, CPT, ACE, RTS1
eDiets Chief Fitness Pro
Friday, February, 29, 2008
"Endless abdominal machines, crunch boards, sit-up devices and tortuous torso routines promise flat bellies and chiseled abs. Hardly a one of them works worth a damn, mainly because their makers show little understanding of human anatomy."
-- Dr. Michael Colgan
Renowned Fitness Expert and author of The New Power Program
How does one achieve a tight and flat stomach? Is there a human being on the planet who doesn't want to know the answer to this question? I see articles all the time that discuss abdominal exercises, infomercials that make false promises about a machine that will give you abs to die for and 10,000 other diet aids and gadgets that never tell you the truth.
Want tighter, sexy abs? If you have two minutes, we can show you how!
Click here to watch our easy "Two Minutes to Tight Abs" video!
Having studied human anatomy, nothing disgusts me more than watching one of those dumb ab machine infomercials make promises that their product will give a person a flat stomach. A lying abdominal machine will not give you a flat stomach, a seated abdominal machine will not give you a flat stomach and 1,000 crunches per day will not give you a flat stomach.
I'm here to tell you the truth.
There will be work to do on your part, but I'll provide the basic formula for achieving the look you've always thought was reserved for other people. It doesn't matter if you're 20 or 70. This formula works for everyone.
Here then is my eight-point plan to get tight abs and a flat mid-section:
1. NUTRITION: This is the most important component to achieving a flat stomach.Nothing is more important than food.
First, you'll need to control blood sugar levels in order to lose body fat. This is best accomplished by consuming four to six meals per day. Don't mistake the definition of a meal for a six-course extravaganza. A meal might be an egg white omelet (with vegetables) and oatmeal with some blueberries in it, chicken with one-half cup of rice and a large salad with some oil and vinegar, an apple with a scoop of protein powder or cottage cheese with some fruit.
Get the picture? I'm referring to them as meals, but they're actually feedings. Each of the meals is comprised of protein, a little carbohydrate and a little fat. In some cases, the fat is built into the protein. In other cases, it's added to the meal. For eDiets members, this is already accomplished in your meal plan.
2. RATIOS: It's unlikely that you'll get tight abs and a flat stomach by consuming 80 percent of your calories from carbohydrates. Ratios can vary quite a bit, but consuming more than 55 percent of your calories from carbohydrate will not be optimal for fat loss. Many people do quite well on extremely low carbohydrate plans and others on more moderate plans. As long as you follow the no more than 55 percent of calories from carbohydrate rule, you'll be at a good starting point.
3. TIMING: I realize four to six meals sounds like a lot, but you must keep in mind that the body is always seeking to store body fat. It (the body) doesn't care if you want to lose fat. In fact, your body would prefer to keep fat in order to accomplish its number one goal of keeping you alive in case of a future famine or drought.
Always consider the body from the inside out and not the other way around. In order to control blood sugar, eat every two to three hours throughout the day. When using the most effective nutrient ratios, this helps to control blood sugar (which, in turn, assists in body fat loss).
4. CALORIES: I've received emails from people telling me they do all of the above, but they still can't lose body fat in order to flatten the stomach. In every case, they are still consuming too many calories.It doesn't matter how healthy your nutrition program is if you're eating too much.
It's important that you find maintenance calories first. Maintenance represents the amount of food you consume without any change in your weight. This will take some experimentation and some effort. You'll also need to document your foods: total calories as well as grams of protein, carbohydrates and fats.
Sounds like a lot of work? Yes, it is! However, you only have to do a few weeks of hard work. After that, you'll have your personal formula for success.
5. SLIGHT CALORIC DEFICIT: After you have found maintenance, simply reduce your calories by 200. Our goal is to have you eating as much as possible and still losing fat and retaining muscle. I don't want you eating as little as possible (thereby slowing the metabolism and losing valuable muscle tissue).
The first week, you may lose 4-6 pounds of water. After the first week, you should only lose about 1.5 pounds per week. The goal is to preserve muscle and make your body a metabolic inferno. If you're not losing up to 1.5 pounds per week (it will fluctuate week to week), then reduce calories by another 100. Then, monitor your progress after one week. You'll probably be right on track.
6. CONSISTENCY: You'll need to be on this nutrition program six days a week with one day being somewhat of a cheat day. Unlike many, I'm not a big fan of the "cheat" day. I find that people tend to use it as an excuse to gorge themselves.
So, on Sunday for example, you're allowed to have some pizza, a bit of ice cream, etc. But nothing extreme! When you pig out, blood sugar levels can be elevated for seven hours or more. This will absolutely halt your body fat loss and actually backfire.
7. WEIGHT TRAIN: At this point, you should be aware of the importance of resistance training. Just three to four workout sessions lasting no more than 35 minutes to an hour will do the trick. For every pound of muscle on your body, you'll burn 30-50 additional calories per day.
Part of your program should include abdominal exercises to strengthen and build the abs. That way, when you achieve your low body fat level, your abs will be tight.
By the way, there is one great movement to help pull the stomach inwards; however, I'll cover that in a future abdominal exercise article. I have to give you some reason to come back, right?
8. CARDIOVASCULAR EXERCISE: Perform three to five days per week of moderate cardio exercise for approximately 30-40 minutes. During two of the days, you can exercise at a higher intensity level to accelerate fat loss -- but, only if you reach a sticking point. If you're a beginner, then remember to increase gradually.
Do this consistently, keep adjusting calories SLIGHTLY (with the help of our nutrition support staff and the specific nutrition program you selected from the site) and change your routine every three to four weeks. You will get a flatter stomach!
Is this easy? No, it's not easy. That's why so few people have flat and tight abs. Is it fulfilling when you achieve your goal of a flatter stomach? Definitely! As in most cases in life, the things we want and desire usually take some degree of sacrifice. It doesn't matter if you have 10 pounds to lose or 100 pounds, the formula works. So, how bad do you want it?
A competitive bodybuilder and former Mr. Connecticut, Raphael Calzadilla is a veteran of the health and fitness industry. He specializes in a holistic approach to body transformation, nutrition programs and personal training. He earned his B.A. in Communications from Southern Connecticut State University and is certified as a personal trainer with ACE and APEX. In addition, he successfully completed the RTS1 program based on biomechanics.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Diet reduces heart attacks, strokes
By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer - Tue Apr 15, 3:05 PM PDT
CHICAGO - A large study offers the strongest evidence yet that a diet the government recommends for lowering blood pressure can save people from heart attack and stroke.
Researchers followed more than 88,000 healthy women for almost 25 years. They examined their food choices and looked at how many had heart attacks and strokes. Those who fared best had eating habits similar to those recommended by the government to stop high blood pressure.
The plan, called the DASH diet, favors fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat milk and plant-based protein over meat.
Women with those eating habits were 24 percent less likely to have a heart attack and 18 percent less likely to have a stroke than women with more typical American diets.
Those are meaningful reductions since these diseases are so common. About two in five U.S. women at age 50 will eventually develop cardiovascular disease, which includes heart attacks and strokes. Women in the study were in their mid-30s to late 50s when the research began in 1980.
Previous research has shown this kind of diet can help prevent high blood pressure and cholesterol, which both can lead to heart attacks.
The new study appears in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine.
People might think, "I don't have high blood pressure, so I don't have to follow it," said Simmons College researcher Teresa Fung, the study's lead author. However, the results suggest, she said, that "even healthy people should get on it."
About 15,000 women in the study had diets that closely resembled the low blood pressure diet. They ate about twice as many fruits, vegetables and grains as the estimated 18,000 women whose diets more closely resembled typical American eating habits.
Although the study only followed women, Fung said men would probably get similar benefits from the approach.
The study was limited because it merely tracked the women and their habits for 24 years. That's a less rigorous method than randomly assigning equal groups of women different diets and comparing results. But that would be extremely difficult to do for such a long time.
Given that limitation, Dr. Laura Svetkey, director of Duke University's hypertension center, said the study provides the best evidence yet of important long-term benefits from a low blood pressure diet.
"It's nice to see research that really is aimed at helping people with prevention in a very practical way," Svetkey said. She noted that the DASH diet, which stands for Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, is available free on the National Institutes of Health Web site. The study was funded with NIH grants.
Dr. Nieca Goldberg, medical director of New York University's Women's Heart Program, said many patients would rather take a pill than adjust their eating habits. But, Goldberg said, "I always point out to my patients, if you make these changes in your lives, it could ... keep you off medication" in the long run.
"There has to be a greater emphasis on the way we live our lives," she said.
___
On the Net:
DASH diet: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/hbp/prevent/h_eating/h_e_dash.htm
Archives: http://www.archinternmed.com
CHICAGO - A large study offers the strongest evidence yet that a diet the government recommends for lowering blood pressure can save people from heart attack and stroke.
Researchers followed more than 88,000 healthy women for almost 25 years. They examined their food choices and looked at how many had heart attacks and strokes. Those who fared best had eating habits similar to those recommended by the government to stop high blood pressure.
The plan, called the DASH diet, favors fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat milk and plant-based protein over meat.
Women with those eating habits were 24 percent less likely to have a heart attack and 18 percent less likely to have a stroke than women with more typical American diets.
Those are meaningful reductions since these diseases are so common. About two in five U.S. women at age 50 will eventually develop cardiovascular disease, which includes heart attacks and strokes. Women in the study were in their mid-30s to late 50s when the research began in 1980.
Previous research has shown this kind of diet can help prevent high blood pressure and cholesterol, which both can lead to heart attacks.
The new study appears in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine.
People might think, "I don't have high blood pressure, so I don't have to follow it," said Simmons College researcher Teresa Fung, the study's lead author. However, the results suggest, she said, that "even healthy people should get on it."
About 15,000 women in the study had diets that closely resembled the low blood pressure diet. They ate about twice as many fruits, vegetables and grains as the estimated 18,000 women whose diets more closely resembled typical American eating habits.
Although the study only followed women, Fung said men would probably get similar benefits from the approach.
The study was limited because it merely tracked the women and their habits for 24 years. That's a less rigorous method than randomly assigning equal groups of women different diets and comparing results. But that would be extremely difficult to do for such a long time.
Given that limitation, Dr. Laura Svetkey, director of Duke University's hypertension center, said the study provides the best evidence yet of important long-term benefits from a low blood pressure diet.
"It's nice to see research that really is aimed at helping people with prevention in a very practical way," Svetkey said. She noted that the DASH diet, which stands for Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, is available free on the National Institutes of Health Web site. The study was funded with NIH grants.
Dr. Nieca Goldberg, medical director of New York University's Women's Heart Program, said many patients would rather take a pill than adjust their eating habits. But, Goldberg said, "I always point out to my patients, if you make these changes in your lives, it could ... keep you off medication" in the long run.
"There has to be a greater emphasis on the way we live our lives," she said.
___
On the Net:
DASH diet: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/hbp/prevent/h_eating/h_e_dash.htm
Archives: http://www.archinternmed.com
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Cancer prevention update from Johns Hopkins
Cancer Update from John Hopkins
YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY (TRY THE KEY WORD) AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHN HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY .
Cancer Update from John Hopkins
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime
3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow , gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
9 When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.
CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.
b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened Soya milk cancer cells are being starved.
c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).
e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become purified and leads to more toxic build up.
13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Florescence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily and deep breathing, helps to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.
CANCER UPDATE FROM JOHN HOPKINS HOSPITAL , U S - PLEASE READ
1. No plastic containers in micro.
2. No water bottles in freezer.
3. No plastic wrap in microwave.
Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well. Dioxin chemicals cause cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. Recently, Dr. Ed ward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital , was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This especially applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons.
Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.
HEADLINE: Email Hoax Regarding Cancer
Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center
Office of Public Affairs
March 2007
EMAIL HOAX REGARDING CANCER
An email falsely attributed to Johns Hopkins describing properties of cancer cells and suggesting prevention strategies has begun circulating the Internet. Johns Hopkins did not publish the email, entitled "Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins," nor do we endorse its contents. For more information about cancer, please read the information on our web site or visit the National Cancer Institute's web site at www.cancer.gov.
Another hoax email that has been circulating since 2004 regarding plastic containers, bottles, wrap claiming that heat releases dioxins which cause cancer also was not published by Johns Hopkins. More information.
-JHM-
YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY (TRY THE KEY WORD) AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHN HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY .
Cancer Update from John Hopkins
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime
3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow , gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
9 When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.
CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.
b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened Soya milk cancer cells are being starved.
c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).
e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become purified and leads to more toxic build up.
13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Florescence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily and deep breathing, helps to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.
CANCER UPDATE FROM JOHN HOPKINS HOSPITAL , U S - PLEASE READ
1. No plastic containers in micro.
2. No water bottles in freezer.
3. No plastic wrap in microwave.
Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well. Dioxin chemicals cause cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. Recently, Dr. Ed ward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital , was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This especially applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons.
Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.
HEADLINE: Email Hoax Regarding Cancer
Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center
Office of Public Affairs
March 2007
EMAIL HOAX REGARDING CANCER
An email falsely attributed to Johns Hopkins describing properties of cancer cells and suggesting prevention strategies has begun circulating the Internet. Johns Hopkins did not publish the email, entitled "Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins," nor do we endorse its contents. For more information about cancer, please read the information on our web site or visit the National Cancer Institute's web site at www.cancer.gov.
Another hoax email that has been circulating since 2004 regarding plastic containers, bottles, wrap claiming that heat releases dioxins which cause cancer also was not published by Johns Hopkins. More information.
-JHM-
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Lack Of Deep Sleep May Increase Risk Of Type 2 Diabetes
ScienceDaily (Jan. 2, 2008) — Suppression of slow-wave sleep in healthy young adults significantly decreases their ability to regulate blood-sugar levels and increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, report researchers at the University of Chicago Medical Center.
Deep sleep, also called "slow-wave sleep," is thought to be the most restorative sleep stage, but its significance for physical well-being has not been demonstrated. This study found that after only three nights of selective slow-wave sleep suppression, young healthy subjects became less sensitive to insulin. Although they needed more insulin to dispose of the same amount of glucose, their insulin secretion did not increase to compensate for the reduced sensitivity, resulting in reduced tolerance to glucose and increased risk for type 2 diabetes. The decrease in insulin sensitivity was comparable to that caused by gaining 20 to 30 pounds.
Previous studies have demonstrated that reduced sleep quantity can impair glucose metabolism and appetite regulation resulting in increased risk of obesity and diabetes. This current study provides the first evidence linking poor sleep quality to increased diabetes risk.
"These findings demonstrate a clear role for slow-wave sleep in maintaining normal glucose control," said the study's lead author, Esra Tasali, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center. "A profound decrease in slow-wave sleep had an immediate and significant adverse effect on insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance."
"Since reduced amounts of deep sleep are typical of aging and of common obesity-related sleep disorders, such as obstructive sleep apnea these results suggest that strategies to improve sleep quality, as well as quantity, may help to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes in populations at risk," said Eve Van Cauter, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and senior author of the study.
The researchers studied nine lean, healthy volunteers, five men and four women between the ages of 20 and 31. The subjects spent two consecutive nights in the sleep laboratory, where they went to bed at 11 P.M., slept undisturbed but carefully monitored, and got out of bed 8.5 hours later, at 7:30 A.M.
The same subjects were also studied for three consecutive nights during which they followed identical nighttime routines. During this session, however, when their brain waves indicated that they were drifting into slow-wave sleep they were subtly disturbed by sounds administered through speakers beside the bed.
These sounds were loud enough to disrupt deep sleep but not so loud as to cause a full awakening. This technique enabled the researchers to decrease slow-wave sleep by about 90 percent, shifting the subjects from the onset of deep sleep (stage 3 or 4) to a lighter sleep (stage 2) without altering total sleep time.
"Our system proved quite effective," Tasali said. When asked about the sounds the next morning, study subjects vaguely recalled hearing a noise "three or four times," during the night. Some recalled as many as 10 to 15. On average, however, subjects required about 250-300 interventions each night, fewer the first night but more on subsequent nights as "slow-wave pressure," the body's need for deep sleep, accumulated night after night.
"This decrease in slow-wave sleep resembles the changes in sleep patterns caused by 40 years of aging," Tasali said. Young adults spend 80 to 100 minutes per night in slow-wave sleep, while people over age 60 generally have less than 20 minutes. "In this experiment," she said, "we gave people in their 20s the sleep of those in their 60s."
At the end of each study, the researchers gave intravenous glucose (a sugar solution) to each subject, then took blood samples every few minutes to measure the levels of glucose and insulin, the hormone that controls glucose uptake.
They found that when slow-wave sleep was suppressed for only three nights, young healthy subjects became about 25 percent less sensitive to insulin. As insulin sensitivity decreased, subjects needed more insulin to dispose of the same amount of glucose. But for eight of the nine subjects, insulin secretion did not go up to compensate for reduced effects. The result was a 23 percent increase in blood-glucose levels, comparable to older adults with impaired glucose tolerance.
Those with low baseline levels of slow-wave sleep had the lowest levels after having their sleep patterns disrupted and the greatest decrease in insulin sensitivity.
The alarming rise in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is generally attributed to the epidemic of obesity combined with the aging of the population. "Previous studies from our lab have demonstrated many connections between chronic, partial, sleep deprivation, changes in appetite, metabolic abnormalities, obesity, and diabetes risk," said Van Cauter. "These results solidify those links and add a new wrinkle, the role of poor sleep quality, which is also associated with aging."
"Chronic shallow non-REM sleep, decreased insulin sensitivity and elevated diabetes risk are typical of aging," the authors conclude. "Our findings raise the question of whether age-related changes in sleep quality contribute to the development of these metabolic alterations."
This research was reported in the "Early Edition" of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available online Dec. 31, 2007.
The National Institutes of Health funded this research. Additional authors include Rachel Leproult and David Ehrmann of the University of Chicago Medical Center.
Adapted from materials provided by University of Chicago Medical Center, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Deep sleep, also called "slow-wave sleep," is thought to be the most restorative sleep stage, but its significance for physical well-being has not been demonstrated. This study found that after only three nights of selective slow-wave sleep suppression, young healthy subjects became less sensitive to insulin. Although they needed more insulin to dispose of the same amount of glucose, their insulin secretion did not increase to compensate for the reduced sensitivity, resulting in reduced tolerance to glucose and increased risk for type 2 diabetes. The decrease in insulin sensitivity was comparable to that caused by gaining 20 to 30 pounds.
Previous studies have demonstrated that reduced sleep quantity can impair glucose metabolism and appetite regulation resulting in increased risk of obesity and diabetes. This current study provides the first evidence linking poor sleep quality to increased diabetes risk.
"These findings demonstrate a clear role for slow-wave sleep in maintaining normal glucose control," said the study's lead author, Esra Tasali, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center. "A profound decrease in slow-wave sleep had an immediate and significant adverse effect on insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance."
"Since reduced amounts of deep sleep are typical of aging and of common obesity-related sleep disorders, such as obstructive sleep apnea these results suggest that strategies to improve sleep quality, as well as quantity, may help to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes in populations at risk," said Eve Van Cauter, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and senior author of the study.
The researchers studied nine lean, healthy volunteers, five men and four women between the ages of 20 and 31. The subjects spent two consecutive nights in the sleep laboratory, where they went to bed at 11 P.M., slept undisturbed but carefully monitored, and got out of bed 8.5 hours later, at 7:30 A.M.
The same subjects were also studied for three consecutive nights during which they followed identical nighttime routines. During this session, however, when their brain waves indicated that they were drifting into slow-wave sleep they were subtly disturbed by sounds administered through speakers beside the bed.
These sounds were loud enough to disrupt deep sleep but not so loud as to cause a full awakening. This technique enabled the researchers to decrease slow-wave sleep by about 90 percent, shifting the subjects from the onset of deep sleep (stage 3 or 4) to a lighter sleep (stage 2) without altering total sleep time.
"Our system proved quite effective," Tasali said. When asked about the sounds the next morning, study subjects vaguely recalled hearing a noise "three or four times," during the night. Some recalled as many as 10 to 15. On average, however, subjects required about 250-300 interventions each night, fewer the first night but more on subsequent nights as "slow-wave pressure," the body's need for deep sleep, accumulated night after night.
"This decrease in slow-wave sleep resembles the changes in sleep patterns caused by 40 years of aging," Tasali said. Young adults spend 80 to 100 minutes per night in slow-wave sleep, while people over age 60 generally have less than 20 minutes. "In this experiment," she said, "we gave people in their 20s the sleep of those in their 60s."
At the end of each study, the researchers gave intravenous glucose (a sugar solution) to each subject, then took blood samples every few minutes to measure the levels of glucose and insulin, the hormone that controls glucose uptake.
They found that when slow-wave sleep was suppressed for only three nights, young healthy subjects became about 25 percent less sensitive to insulin. As insulin sensitivity decreased, subjects needed more insulin to dispose of the same amount of glucose. But for eight of the nine subjects, insulin secretion did not go up to compensate for reduced effects. The result was a 23 percent increase in blood-glucose levels, comparable to older adults with impaired glucose tolerance.
Those with low baseline levels of slow-wave sleep had the lowest levels after having their sleep patterns disrupted and the greatest decrease in insulin sensitivity.
The alarming rise in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is generally attributed to the epidemic of obesity combined with the aging of the population. "Previous studies from our lab have demonstrated many connections between chronic, partial, sleep deprivation, changes in appetite, metabolic abnormalities, obesity, and diabetes risk," said Van Cauter. "These results solidify those links and add a new wrinkle, the role of poor sleep quality, which is also associated with aging."
"Chronic shallow non-REM sleep, decreased insulin sensitivity and elevated diabetes risk are typical of aging," the authors conclude. "Our findings raise the question of whether age-related changes in sleep quality contribute to the development of these metabolic alterations."
This research was reported in the "Early Edition" of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available online Dec. 31, 2007.
The National Institutes of Health funded this research. Additional authors include Rachel Leproult and David Ehrmann of the University of Chicago Medical Center.
Adapted from materials provided by University of Chicago Medical Center, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Sleep patterns linked to diabetes risk
Sleeping for less than six hours or for more than nine hours each night is associated with an increased risk of diabetes and impaired blood sugar (glucose) tolerance, researchers report in this week's issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
"There are a lot of people who sleep five or six hours per night who we generally think are not getting enough sleep," lead author Dr Daniel J. Gottlieb told Reuters Health. His group hypothesized that people who do not get enough sleep may be at increased risk of developing diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance.
Gottlieb, of Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues enrolled 1,486 subjects, ages 53 to 93 years, in their study. The subjects completed questionnaires regarding sleep patterns and underwent fasting glucose and glucose tolerance testing.
Diabetes was present in 20.9 percent of subjects and impaired glucose tolerance was present in another 28.2 percent. A usual sleep time of six hours or less was reported by 27.1 percent, including 8.4 percent who reported five hours or less. A total of 8.6 percent said that they slept for nine hours or more.
Compared with subjects who slept for seven to eight hours each night, the risk of diabetes was increased by 2.5-fold in those sleeping five or less hours, 1.66-fold for those sleeping six hours, and 1.79-fold for those sleeping nine or more hours. The corresponding increased risks of developing impaired glucose tolerance were 1.33-, 1.58-, and 1.88-fold. Blood glucose levels were not significantly affected by insomnia.
"These are strong associations suggesting that voluntary sleep restriction may cause impaired glucose regulation," Gottlieb said. "Probably those sleeping nine hours or more per night are doing so because of some underlying condition that may not be diagnosed but that puts them at increased risk of diabetes," he suggested.
The authors also noted that adequate levels of sleep should be tested as a non-drug treatment strategy in patients with diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance.
Sleeping for at least seven hours a night, Gottlieb concluded, "is a good health practice for a variety of reasons, and this is one more reason."
SOURCE: Archives of Internal Medicine, April 25, 2005
Published on this website on Fri, 29 Apr 2005
"There are a lot of people who sleep five or six hours per night who we generally think are not getting enough sleep," lead author Dr Daniel J. Gottlieb told Reuters Health. His group hypothesized that people who do not get enough sleep may be at increased risk of developing diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance.
Gottlieb, of Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues enrolled 1,486 subjects, ages 53 to 93 years, in their study. The subjects completed questionnaires regarding sleep patterns and underwent fasting glucose and glucose tolerance testing.
Diabetes was present in 20.9 percent of subjects and impaired glucose tolerance was present in another 28.2 percent. A usual sleep time of six hours or less was reported by 27.1 percent, including 8.4 percent who reported five hours or less. A total of 8.6 percent said that they slept for nine hours or more.
Compared with subjects who slept for seven to eight hours each night, the risk of diabetes was increased by 2.5-fold in those sleeping five or less hours, 1.66-fold for those sleeping six hours, and 1.79-fold for those sleeping nine or more hours. The corresponding increased risks of developing impaired glucose tolerance were 1.33-, 1.58-, and 1.88-fold. Blood glucose levels were not significantly affected by insomnia.
"These are strong associations suggesting that voluntary sleep restriction may cause impaired glucose regulation," Gottlieb said. "Probably those sleeping nine hours or more per night are doing so because of some underlying condition that may not be diagnosed but that puts them at increased risk of diabetes," he suggested.
The authors also noted that adequate levels of sleep should be tested as a non-drug treatment strategy in patients with diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance.
Sleeping for at least seven hours a night, Gottlieb concluded, "is a good health practice for a variety of reasons, and this is one more reason."
SOURCE: Archives of Internal Medicine, April 25, 2005
Published on this website on Fri, 29 Apr 2005
Monday, February 18, 2008
USDA: Most recalled beef has probably been eaten
(CNN) -- Federal officials are trying to track down the 143 million pounds of beef recalled Sunday, but they say that most of it has probably been eaten.
Keith Williams, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman, said investigators have found no cases of illness related to the recalled meat.
The beef recall came after inspectors said they found "clear violations" of USDA regulations at a California slaughterhouse that has been accused of mistreating cows.
"We do not know how much of this product is out there at this time. We do not feel this product presents a health risk of any significance," said Dick Raymond, the undersecretary of agriculture for food safety. "But the product was produced in noncompliance with our regulations, so therefore we do have to take this action."
Federal officials called the recall by Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing Company the largest beef recall in U.S. history.
Raymond said cattle that had passed pre-slaughter inspections but then lost the ability to walk were slaughtered without being re-examined for chronic illness by an inspector, a practice he said violated federal regulations and had been going on for at least two years. Video » Watch video of cows being abused
In January, the Humane Society of the United States accused Westland/Hallmark of abusing "downed" cattle. The Humane Society released video that showed workers kicking cows, jabbing them near their eyes, ramming them with a forklift and shooting high-pressure water up their noses in an effort to force them to their feet for slaughter.
Don't Miss
* Products affected by recall
* Humane Society of the United States
* Undercover slaughterhouse abuse
The USDA suspended operations at the plant in Chino, California, after the video was released.
California prosecutors on Friday announced animal cruelty charges against two former employees of the plant.
Federal regulations are aimed at preventing the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, popularly known as mad cow disease, and other diseases.
Raymond said the average age of the cattle involved is 5 to 7 years, meaning most of them were probably born long after a 1997 ban on a type of cattle feed suspected to cause the disease. He said the incidence of the disease in U.S. cattle is "extremely rare."
It's important to keep downed cattle out of the food supply because the animals have weaker immune systems and sometimes wallow in feces, raising the risk of contamination, according to The Associated Press.
In a statement issued February 3, Westland Meat President Steve Mendell said that the company was cooperating with the USDA and that the practices depicted in the Humane Society video are "a serious breach of our company's policies and training."
"We have taken swift action regarding the two employees identified on the video and have already implemented aggressive measures to ensure all employees follow our humane handling policies and procedures," Mendell said.
The recall dates back to February 1, 2006, and Raymond said "the great majority" of the meat has probably been eaten.
"A lot of this is fresh, raw product and with ground beef, et cetera, that has a very short shelf life and refrigerator life," he said.
About 37 million pounds of the recalled meat went to school lunch programs and other federal nutrition programs since October 2006, said Ron Vogel of the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service.
Most of the beef was sent to distribution centers in bulk packages. The USDA said it will work with distributors to determine how much meat remains, the AP reported.
The largest U.S. meat recall before Sunday came in 1999, when about 35 million pounds of product possibly contaminated with listeria were ordered off shelves. USDA officials said that was Class I recall, involving a known risk to human health.
advertisement
Sunday's action was a Class II recall, under which authorities say there is "a remote probability" the meat could cause illness.
The amount of beef -- 143 million pounds -- is roughly enough for two hamburgers for each man, woman and child in the United States.
Keith Williams, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman, said investigators have found no cases of illness related to the recalled meat.
The beef recall came after inspectors said they found "clear violations" of USDA regulations at a California slaughterhouse that has been accused of mistreating cows.
"We do not know how much of this product is out there at this time. We do not feel this product presents a health risk of any significance," said Dick Raymond, the undersecretary of agriculture for food safety. "But the product was produced in noncompliance with our regulations, so therefore we do have to take this action."
Federal officials called the recall by Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing Company the largest beef recall in U.S. history.
Raymond said cattle that had passed pre-slaughter inspections but then lost the ability to walk were slaughtered without being re-examined for chronic illness by an inspector, a practice he said violated federal regulations and had been going on for at least two years. Video » Watch video of cows being abused
In January, the Humane Society of the United States accused Westland/Hallmark of abusing "downed" cattle. The Humane Society released video that showed workers kicking cows, jabbing them near their eyes, ramming them with a forklift and shooting high-pressure water up their noses in an effort to force them to their feet for slaughter.
Don't Miss
* Products affected by recall
* Humane Society of the United States
* Undercover slaughterhouse abuse
The USDA suspended operations at the plant in Chino, California, after the video was released.
California prosecutors on Friday announced animal cruelty charges against two former employees of the plant.
Federal regulations are aimed at preventing the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, popularly known as mad cow disease, and other diseases.
Raymond said the average age of the cattle involved is 5 to 7 years, meaning most of them were probably born long after a 1997 ban on a type of cattle feed suspected to cause the disease. He said the incidence of the disease in U.S. cattle is "extremely rare."
It's important to keep downed cattle out of the food supply because the animals have weaker immune systems and sometimes wallow in feces, raising the risk of contamination, according to The Associated Press.
In a statement issued February 3, Westland Meat President Steve Mendell said that the company was cooperating with the USDA and that the practices depicted in the Humane Society video are "a serious breach of our company's policies and training."
"We have taken swift action regarding the two employees identified on the video and have already implemented aggressive measures to ensure all employees follow our humane handling policies and procedures," Mendell said.
The recall dates back to February 1, 2006, and Raymond said "the great majority" of the meat has probably been eaten.
"A lot of this is fresh, raw product and with ground beef, et cetera, that has a very short shelf life and refrigerator life," he said.
About 37 million pounds of the recalled meat went to school lunch programs and other federal nutrition programs since October 2006, said Ron Vogel of the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service.
Most of the beef was sent to distribution centers in bulk packages. The USDA said it will work with distributors to determine how much meat remains, the AP reported.
The largest U.S. meat recall before Sunday came in 1999, when about 35 million pounds of product possibly contaminated with listeria were ordered off shelves. USDA officials said that was Class I recall, involving a known risk to human health.
advertisement
Sunday's action was a Class II recall, under which authorities say there is "a remote probability" the meat could cause illness.
The amount of beef -- 143 million pounds -- is roughly enough for two hamburgers for each man, woman and child in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)