Air Pollution Triggers Millions of Cases of Diabetes Each Year

(Dr. Mercola) Air pollution has been named the “largest environmental cause of disease and premature death in the world today” by a collaboration of more than 40 researchers looking at data from 130 countries.1 The problem is insidious and travels without respect for borders. Air pollution created in Asia affects people living on the California coast.

Fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) is the most studied type of air pollution and refers to dust, dirt, soot, smoke or other particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. These particles of air pollution are so fine they may enter your system through your lung tissue and trigger chronic inflammation, which in turn increases your risk of health conditions.2

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 92 percent of the world’s population is breathing polluted air3 and nearly 7 million deaths are attributed to air pollution each year.4 Overall, a toxic environment is responsible for at least 25 percent of all deaths reported worldwide, and air pollution is the greatest contributor.

The idea that air pollution is a source of toxic exposure often leading to ill-health should come as no surprise. In a previous study,5 American researchers found exposure to as little as one or two months of air pollution may be enough to increase your risk of diabetes, especially if you are already obese. In a recent global study,6 a new link has been made between air pollution and Type 2 diabetes.

Related: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

Air Pollution May Be Responsible for Damage Leading to Type 2 Diabetes

According to the American Diabetes Association,7 30.3 million Americans, or 9.4 percent of the population, had diabetes in 2015. Type 2 diabetes is the more common form of the condition, accounting for nearly 99 percent of cases8 and is the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2015, 4.1 million Americans over 18 were diagnosed with prediabetes, a condition in which blood glucose levels are higher than normal but not high enough for a diagnosis of diabetes.

Individuals with prediabetes have an increased risk for developing Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke.9 Previous studies10,11,12,13 have looked at links between outdoor air pollution and the emergence of Type 2 diabetes, but the featured study is a first attempt to quantify the connection.

Researchers tracked 1.7 million U.S. Veterans14 for almost a decade in order to assess risk, using data from other global studies evaluating diabetes risk, along with air quality data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NASA.

The researchers then created an equation to analyze the connection between exposure to air pollution and the risk of diabetes globally. The study, published by The Lancet Planetary Health, concluded that air pollution was responsible for 3.2 million newly diagnosed cases around the world in 2016 alone. Assistant professor of medicine at Washington University and author of the study, Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, commented on the overall effects of breathing air pollutants, saying:15

“We tell people all the time, if you eat bad stuff, it affects your health. You are what you eat, you are what you drink and, really, you are what you breathe. What you breathe really, really affects your health.”

This was one of the largest and most unique studies of its kind. In all, 14 percent of newly diagnosed cases of Type 2 diabetes could be attributed to air pollution in 2016.16 The study also estimated 8.2 million years of healthy life were lost globally in 2016 due to air pollution-induced diabetes.

The pollutants tracked and examined in the study were PM 2.5, 30 times smaller than a human hair. The study makes a strong case that the current EPA limits on air pollution are set too high. The threshold on particulate matter deemed safe by the EPA is 12 ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter of air) and the study found the risk of diabetes started at 2.4 ug/m3.

During the study, 21 percent exposed to between 5 ug/m3 and 10 ug/m3 of particulate matter, developed diabetes. At the current “safe” level established by the EPA, 24 percent develop diabetes.

Related: What Causes Chronic Inflammation, and How To Stop It For Good

Rule Creates Loophole to Evade Improvements in Water and Air Quality

While this and other studies have demonstrated a significant detrimental effect on the health of U.S. citizens from air pollution, a rule proposed by the Trump Administration17 suggests all studies used by the EPA to determine water and air regulations must make their underlying data publicly available. Unfortunately, studies like the featured study and others are based on confidentially held health data. This greatly undermines the potential for regulations to improve air quality.

In the face of this and other data, the Trump administration18 is seeking to boost the nation’s manufacturing sector by creating industry-friendly air quality regulations, which environmentalists warn will damage the health of U.S. citizens.

In one directive, he proposed the EPA work with states whose metro areas are failing to obtain clean air standards, by helping them submit plans to show how the city will confront the problem — a review process that can take years. This represents a clear effort on the part of the administration to assist manufacturers, which the president made clear in his accompanying statement:19

“These actions are intended to ensure that EPA carries out its core missions of protecting the environment and improving air quality in accord with statutory requirements, while reducing unnecessary impediments to new manufacturing and business expansion essential for a growing economy.”

Pollution Contributes to Obesity

The journey started nearly 60 years ago when an environmental disaster in southwestern Pennsylvania forever changed the way America thought about industrial pollution.20 In 1948 the people of Donora, Pennsylvania, awoke to a thick blanket of smog that darkened the valley for five days before lifting when a storm swept through. By this time, one-third of the population had become ill, 20 people were dead and another 50 died in the following months.21

It was later learned cold air had trapped a mixture of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and metal dust over the valley, recorded as the worst air pollution disaster in U.S. history. It was this disaster that prompted the federal government to begin regulating industrial pollution.

Previous studies have looked at respiratory conditions and cardiovascular disease associated with inhaling air pollutants but more recent studies have found compelling evidence suggesting air qualitycan also contribute to weight gain and obesity. In one study22 examining over 3,000 children in California, researchers found an association between traffic density and higher levels of body mass index (BMI) by the age of 18.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

Another study23 analyzed BMI in children exposed to traffic-related air pollution over a five-year period, during which those exposed to the most pollution, compared to those exposed to the least, had a 14 percent larger increase in their BMI. Another from Harvard Medical School looked at whether adults living in areas with constant exposure to traffic were more likely to be overweight, and found more fat tissue in those who lived 60 meters (197 feet) from a busy road than those who lived 440 meters (1,443 feet) away.24

The relationship has also been found in animal studies. Chinese researchers25 compared two groups of pregnant rats, one raised in a filtered air-scrubbed room and the other breathing outdoor air from Beijing. The animals were fed the same diet, but those living in Beijing air were heavier at the end of their pregnancy as were their offspring. Autopsy findings found the rats exposed to pollutants had higher levels of inflammation, which may have contributed to weight gain and metabolic disruption.

An EPA study found mice exposed to ozone pollution developed glucose intolerance, a precursor to diabetes.26,27 In a study evaluating the physiological response in 314 overweight or obese children in Los Angeles, children who lived in neighborhoods with the highest concentration of nitrogen dioxide and particulates were found to have the greatest decline in insulin sensitivity.28

Multiple Molecules Make Up Air Pollution

Multiple types of molecules make up the fine particulate matter your body is able to absorb through lung tissue. Top pollutants include:

Ammonia Carbon monoxide
Fine particulates Lead
Nitrogen oxides Sulfur dioxide
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Ozone

While car emissions contribute one source of air pollutions, another significant source is released into the atmosphere from synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizers at rates higher than previously believed.29 California has some of the strictest car emission standards in the U.S., but is continued to be plagued by nitrogen oxide pollution.

Scientists have known soil microbes convert nitrogen-based fertilizers to nitrogen oxides and then release them into the air. However, it was assumed the amount of gas would increase linearly, or at 1 percent of the amount of fertilizer used. These predictions turned out to be conservative,30 as emissions were measured at up to 5 percent of the fertilizer used, explaining some of the increased rates of nitrogen oxides emitted in large agricultural areas.

Unfortunately, when nitrogen oxides and VOCs combine on a sunny day, it increases the amount of ozone at ground level. VOCs are emitted by cars, power plants, refineries and chemical plants. Ozone in the upper atmosphere, called stratospheric ozone, provides a protective shield against the ultraviolet rays of the sun.31 This beneficial ozone has been partially destroyed by man-made chemicals.

However, ground level ozone, tropospheric ozone, is not admitted directly into the air but created through a chemical reaction and is a harmful pollutant. This bad ozone is the main ingredient in smog and has a higher likelihood of reaching unhealthy levels on hot sunny days, as sunlight triggers the chemical reaction between nitrogen oxides and VOCs.32 “Nitrogen oxides” is a catch-all term used to designate nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide, both of which react with oxygen and sunlight to produce ozone in the lower atmosphere.

Nanoparticles Responsible for Vascular Damage

In a study published in Environmental Pollution,33 researchers found silica nanoparticles have the ability to trigger mitochondrial dysfunction in endothelial cells by entering the mitochondria, causing swelling and increasing the intracellular level of reactive oxygen species. This eventually results in the collapse of the mitochondrial membrane and impairment in ATP synthesis.34

Silica nanoparticles were found to trigger endothelial toxicity using mitochondria as the target, which may in part explain some of the cardiovascular dysfunction triggered by PM 2.5 air pollution. Silica nanoparticles are used35 as an additive in rubber and plastics, to strengthen concrete and as a platform for biomedical applications, such as drug delivery. In other words, drugs bound to silica nanoparticles may create endothelial damage as you take prescribed medications.

However, nano-particulate damage is not new information.36 A study published by the American Chemical Society found evidence of how particles inhaled may affect your blood vessels and heart muscle.37 Air pollution has shortened the lives of nearly 40,000 people in the U.K.,38 which is often attributed to the part it plays in worsening or triggering heart and lung disease. Using humans and several mouse models, the researchers studied the effect of inhaled gold nanoparticles.

Within 24 hours after inhalation, particles were detected in the blood and urine of the participants and appeared to have an affinity for accumulating in damaged or inflamed areas of the vascular system,39suggesting nanoparticles have the ability to access the bloodstream from your lungs and reach susceptible areas of your cardiovascular system.

In some participants, the nanoparticles were still detectable in the urine three months after testing, leading researchers to theorize air pollutant nanoparticles may have the potential to make a similar journey in your body.

Researchers then asked participants scheduled for removal of damaged blood vessels to inhale gold nanoparticles.40 Following surgery the researchers analyzed the plaques and found an accumulation of nanoparticles from the prior 24 hours. Although some criticized the design of the study, it is clear air pollution damages heart and lung tissue. Coauthor of the study, Dr. Nicholas Mills, commented on the results saying:41

“We have always suspected that nanoparticles in the air that we breathe in could escape from the lungs and enter the body, but until now there was no proof. These findings are of wide importance for human health, and we must now focus our attention on reducing emissions and exposure to airborne nanoparticles.”

Mind Your Indoor Air Quality as Well

Your risk of breathing polluted air does not end when you go indoors. Indoor air pollution is also associated with a remarkable number of conditions, including worsening asthma, poor sleep, high blood pressure and reduced cognitive function. Primary sources are the materials used to construct your home and everything in it, including your furniture, as well as chemical products you bring into the home for cleaning or DIY projects.

Modern buildings are also airtight for energy efficiency purposes, and need to be properly ventilated to prevent the buildup of indoor pollution. One way to reduce your exposure to damaging outdoor air pollution is to keep your indoor air as clean as possible and stay indoors when pollution levels are high. For a list of strategies you may consider to improve your indoor air quality and protect your health see my previous article, “Reduce Indoor Air Pollution.”

Ingredient In Cow’s Milk Primary Causal Trigger Of Type 1 Diabetes

(Natural Blaze By Maria Andrade) An ingredient in cow’s milk has now been identified as a type 1 diabetes trigger in those with genetic risk factors, but researchers say they have been frustrated in efforts to make the findings available to the wider public.

The United States is the world’s largest producer of pasteurized cow milk, but oddly enough it is also one of the world’s smallest consumers. The dairy industry thus has a vested interest in eliminating all raw milk suppliers from the market place to enforce and increase per capita consumption of pasteurized milk which is lagging behind most of the world.

Pasteurized milk is perhaps one of the most nutritionally deficient beverages misappropriately labeled as a “perfect food.” Raw milk enthusiasts have known for a very long time that unpasteurized milk is the ONLY milk worthy of consumption.

Related: Turmeric and Diabetes

Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamins C, B12 and B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer.

Seven researchers assessed 71 studies on population epidemiology, animal trials, in vitro laboratory experiments, biochemistry and pharmacology.

Their paper on the findings, originally published in the Journal of Nutrition & Diabetes, said the A1 beta-casein in cow’s milk is a primary causal trigger of the disease.

However, so far there have been no clinical trials on the subject.

Two of the seven researchers, the University of Auckland’s Professor Boyd Swinburn and Lincoln University’s Professor Keith Woodford, explained: “People who are genetically susceptible to developing type 1 diabetes would need to be identified at birth, and half of them randomly allocated to a diet free of A1 beta-casein for many years.”

Related: Foods That Contribute to Diabetes

The Chinese Connection

The paper revealed that the sudden growth in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in China is correlated with the country’s threefold increase in dairy consumption per capita (from 6kg in 1992 to 18kg in 2006, with substantial increases thereafter).

In Shanghai alone, new type 1 diabetes cases among children aged 15 and below increased 14.2% annually between 1997 and 2011. Further south, in Zhejiang, the annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes cases was 12% among adolescents aged 19 and below.

More worryingly, children below five saw the greatest increase in such cases, at an annual rate of 33.61%. Young children’s dependence on milk consumption could explain the higher prevalence of type 1 diabetes among those below the age of five.

The paper stated: “Accordingly, the ecological epidemiological data, although not proving causation, provide powerful evidence that A1 beta-casein is a causal factor in the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes.”

Related: Natural Diabetes Cure

Factors and Challenges

The researchers also wrote that though the A1 beta-casein may be a cause of type 1 diabetes in consumers, “there are also likely to be many influencing factors involved in responses to dietary triggers, permissive gut factors and progression towards type 1 diabetes, such as short duration (of) / no breastfeeding, Caesarean delivery rates, and magnitude of exposure to vitamin D.”

They suggested that while it would be possible to change all dairy herds to produce milk without the A1 beta-casein, the process would take 10 years.

The alternative, they said, would be for consumers to opt for goat’s and sheep’s milk instead.

On his WordPress site, Woodford revealed that he and Swinburn had intended to make the paper free for public perusal, but in order to do that, they had to find a sponsor to pay a one-time fee to make the article free of charge.

Commercial Gain

The a2 Milk Company stepped in and paid the US$3,500 required to make the paper free-access. Unlike most cow’s milk brands, the company produces A2 milk free of the A1 beta-casein.

Swinburn and Woodford also wanted online portal The Conversation – an online publisher, sponsored collectively by universities – to publish an abbreviated version of the paper for a wider public audience, but they were turned down.

Related: Diabetes, Endocrine Functions of the Pancreas, and Natural Healing

Best Paleo Cookbook for Beginners (Ad)

The editors told them: “The main reason is the involvement of the a2 Milk Company, for editorial support in this particular paper, but also more directly in funding-related research projects, and the perception that the company would stand to gain commercially.”

Woodford wrote that one of the paper’s authors was a former a2 Milk Company employee, but said none of the authors were paid to write the paper.

He added that despite its financial involvement, the a2 Milk Company did not get to read the paper until it had been published, and therefore, “had no corporate influence over the content or editorial processes”.

This post originally appeared at Prevent Disease

DISCLAIMER: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

New Study Shows Artificial Sweeteners Lead to Diabetes

Artificial sweeteners are displayed, on Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2014, in New York. Artificial sweeteners may set the stage for diabetes in some people by hampering the way their bodies handle sugar, according to results of a study released Wednesday by the journal Nature. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

(Dr. Mercola)

The American Diabetes Association states foods and drinks that use artificial sweeteners are an option that “may help curb your cravings for something sweet” if you have diabetes. They’re among a number of public health organizations spreading the deceptive and incorrect message that artificial sweeteners make a sensible alternative to sugar for diabetics even as the research continues to accumulate to the contrary.

In a small, preliminary study presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Lisbon, Portugal, researchers at the University of Adelaide in Australia revealed that artificial sweeteners impair the body’s response to glucose, reducing control of blood sugar levels.1,2 The study involved 27 healthy participants who were given either capsules of the artificial sweeteners sucralose (brand name Splenda) and acesulfame K in an amount equivalent to consuming 1.5 liters of diet drinks a day or a placebo.

It took just two weeks for the artificial sweetener group to show adverse effects to their blood sugar levels, including a reduction in numbers of the gut peptide GLP-1, which limits the rise in blood sugar after eating. Lead study author Richard Young, associate professor at the University of Adelaide, said in a news release, “This highlights the potential for exaggerated post-meal glucose levels in high habitual NAS [noncaloric artificial sweeteners] users, which could predispose them to developing Type 2 diabetes.”3

Related: Healthy Alternative Sugars & More

Science Increasingly Suggests Artificial Sweeteners Contribute to Glucose Intolerance, Diabetes

Critics of the University of Adelaide study suggested it was too small and “impossible from the data available” to conclude that the observed changes would lead to diabetes.4 However, it’s not the first study to suggest such a link. For instance, drinking aspartame-sweetened diet soda daily increased the risk of Type 2 diabetes by 67 percent (regardless of whether the participants gained weight or not) and the risk of metabolic syndrome 36 percent in one study.5

Artificial sweeteners may increase your risk of weight gain, obesity, metabolic syndrome and other related problems like Type 2 diabetes by inducing “metabolic derangements,” according to a report published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism.6 Research published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism also found aspartame intake is associated with greater glucose intolerance in people with obesity.7

Glucose intolerance is a condition in which your body loses its ability to cope with high amounts of sugar, and it’s a well-known precursor to Type 2 diabetes. It also plays a role in obesity, because the excess sugar in your blood ends up being stored in your fat cells. This means obese individuals who use aspartame may have higher blood sugar levels, which in turn will raise insulin levels, leading to related weight gain, inflammation and an increased risk of diabetes.

Artificial Sweetener in Four Cans of Diet Soda Daily May Increase Fat Production, Inflammation

As far as sucralose goes, in April 2017 research presented at ENDO 2017, the Endocrine Society’s 99th annual meeting in Orlando, Florida, also found that this artificial sweetener promotes metabolic dysfunction that may promote the accumulation of fat.8

Sucralose was tested on stem cells taken from human fat tissue, which revealed that a dose similar to what would be found in the blood of someone who drinks four cans of diet soda a day increased the expression of genes linked to fat production and inflammation, as well as increased fat droplets on cells.9

Related: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

The study’s lead author, Dr. Sabyasachi Sen, associate professor of medicine and endocrinology at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., noted in a press release, “From our study, we believe low-calorie sweeteners promote additional fat formation by allowing more glucose to enter the cells, and promotes inflammation, which may be more detrimental in obese individuals.”10

The fact that the artificial sweetener was associated with increased glucose uptake in the cells was particularly concerning, as it could have detrimental effects for people with elevated blood sugar levels, like those with diabetes or prediabetes.11

Consuming Artificial Sweeteners Alters Gut Flora, Exacerbating Metabolic Disease

It’s a little-known fact that artificial sweeteners have been shown to induce glucose intolerance by altering gut microbiota.12 Research led by Eran Elinav of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, first showed that mice fed artificial sweeteners developed glucose intolerance after 11 weeks. They then revealed that altering the animals’ gut bacteria influenced their glucose response.

Related: Candida, Gut Flora, Allergies, and Disease

Specifically, when they transplanted feces from glucose-intolerant mice consuming saccharin to mice with sterile intestines, the latter group developed glucose intolerance, “indicating that saccharin was causing the microbiome to become unhealthy,” Scientific American reported.13 Perhaps the most revealing part of the experiments came when the researchers tested artificial sweeteners on people. Scientific American continued:14

“[Elinav’s] team recruited seven lean and healthy volunteers, who did not normally use artificial sweeteners, for a small prospective study. The recruits consumed the maximum acceptable daily dose of artificial sweeteners for a week. Four became glucose intolerant, and their gut microbiomes shifted towards a balance already known to be associated with susceptibility to metabolic diseases.”

Splenda has also been found to reduce the amount of beneficial bacteria in rat intestines by 50 percent15 and depending on which ones are affected it could certainly affect your diabetes risk. Studies have found that the microbial composition in diabetics differ from nondiabetics.16

In particular, diabetics tend to have fewer firmicutes and more plentiful amounts of bacteroidetes and proteobacteria compared to nondiabetics. A positive correlation for the ratios of bacteroidetes to firmicutes and reduced glucose tolerance has also been found.

A researcher in Amsterdam, Dr. Max Nieuwdorp, has published a number of studies looking at changes in the microbiome that are characteristic of Type 2 diabetes.17 In one trial, he was able to reverse Type 2 diabetes in all of the 250 study participants by doing fecal transplantations on them. Remarkable as it may sound, by changing the makeup of the gut bacteria, the diabetes was resolved, so it’s not a stretch to think that the opposite could also hold true.

Diet Drinks May Trigger a Greater Metabolic Response Than Sugary Drinks

Part of the problem with artificial sweeteners is that the sweet taste they provide (in many cases even hundreds of times sweeter-tasting than sugar) does not match up with the energy (or calories) the food provides.

Your body, however, is designed to relate the two, and a recent study by Yale University School of Medicine researchers revealed that the mismatch that occurs when consuming artificially sweetened foods and beverages leads to disruptions to metabolism.18,19 In a Yale University press release, senior author and psychiatry professor Dana Small said:20

“The assumption that more calories trigger greater metabolic and brain response is wrong. Calories are only half of the equation; sweet taste perception is the other half … Our bodies evolved to efficiently use the energy sources available in nature. Our modern food environment is characterized by energy sources our bodies have never seen before.”

The study found that an artificially sweetened, lower-calorie drink that tastes sweet can trigger a greater metabolic response than a drink with a higher number of calories.21 Your body uses the drink’s sweetness to help determine how it should be metabolized. When sweetness matches up with the calories, your brain’s reward circuits are duly satisfied. However, when the sweet taste is not followed by the expected calories, your brain doesn’t get the same satisfying message.22

This may explain why diet foods and drinks have been linked to increased appetite and cravings, as well as an increased risk of diabetes and other metabolic diseases.23,24 When you eat something sweet, your brain releases dopamine, which activates your brain’s reward center. The appetite-regulating hormone leptin is also released, which eventually informs your brain that you are “full” once a certain amount of calories have been ingested.

However, when you consume something that tastes sweet but doesn’t contain any calories, your brain’s pleasure pathway still gets activated by the sweet taste, but there’s nothing to deactivate it, since the calories never arrive. Artificial sweeteners basically trick your body into thinking that it’s going to receive sugar (calories), but when the sugar doesn’t come, your body continues to signal that it needs more, which results in carb cravings.

Yale Cardiologist — and Ex-Diet Soda Fiend — Speaks Out Against Them

Dr. Harlan Krumholz is a cardiologist at Yale University School of Medicine who openly states, “I used to pound down diet drinks.”25 Like so many Americans, he believed the low-calorie, sugar-free drinks to be a guilt-free source of caffeine that helped him keep his weight down. Now he feels betrayed, and he’s speaking out against them. Krumholz cited a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) — the gold standard of research — which found:26

“Evidence from RCTs does not clearly support the intended benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management, and observational data suggest that routine intake of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with increased BMI [body mass index] and cardiometabolic risk.”

He also mentioned other concerning studies, like one that found artificial sweeteners activate different areas in the brain than regular sugar,27 which could ultimately influence feelings of hunger and reward pathways.

Another, conducted by his Yale University colleagues, found artificial sweeteners “are not physiologically inert compounds” and may “impact energy balance and metabolic function, including actions on oral and extra-oral sweet taste receptors, and effects on metabolic hormone secretion, cognitive processes (e.g., reward learning, memory, and taste perception), and gut microbiota.”28 Krumholz wrote in The Wall Street Journal that he’s stopped his daily diet drinks and is removing them from the rest of his diet as well.

It is reasonable to ask why these substances were not evaluated as drugs in the first place,” he says. “Millions of people are exposed to them every day, and yet their long-term effect is uncertain. Could they be actually causing the health problems they were intended to prevent? I don’t know the answer at this point, but it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the manufacturers to show benefit and demonstrate safety through clinical trials …

If, in the end, we discover that large-scale consumption of diet drinks and foods helped fuel the obesity epidemic, it would be more than ironic. It would be tragic.”29

Are You Ready to Ditch ‘Diet’ Foods From Your Diet?

I would not recommend waiting for public health agencies to catch up to the science and change their stance on artificial sweeteners before making changes to your diet. If you’re currently an artificial sweetener fanatic, or even if you consume them in moderation, ditching them from your diet is a smart move for your health. Be aware that they’re found not only in diet sodas but also in many low-calorie and reduced-calorie foods, from yogurt and ice cream to bread and salad dressing.

Stevia is an acceptable replacement, but I also suggest curbing your sweet cravings by eating fermented vegetables or drinking water with lemon or lime juice added — the sour taste helps reduce cravings, as does organic black coffee.30,31 To learn more, my book “Sweet Deception” has the details about why artificial sweeteners are so hazardous for your health as well as common artificial sweetener-related side effects to watch out for.

Depression Doubles the Risk of Death From Coronary Artery Disease, Finds Research

(Independent) Depression appears to double the chance of dying in any given year for patients with coronary artery disease, according to a new study.

 The researchers said such mental distress was a “stronger risk factor” than age, having had a heart attack, or diabetes.
Related: Lower Cholesterol and prevent Heart Disease Without Drugs
The effect was seen if the person was depressed before or after diagnosis of the disease.

Dr. Heidi May, a cardiovascular epidemiologist at Intermountain Medical Centre Heart Institute in Salt Lake City, said: No matter how long or how short it was, patients were found to have twice the risk of dying compared to those who didn’t have a follow-up diagnosis of depression.

Depression was the strongest risk factor for dying, compared to any other risk factors we evaluated. That included age, heart failure, diabetes, high blood pressure, kidney failure, or having a heart attack or stroke.

We’ve completed several depression-related studies and been looking at this connection for many years.

The data just keeps building on itself, showing that if you have heart disease and depression and it’s not appropriately treated in a timely fashion, it’s not a good thing for your long-term wellbeing.”

Of more than 2,600 patients who became clinically depressed about 27 per cent did so within a year of being diagnosed with the disease. The figure was 37 per cent after five years.

And while depression seems to make the condition worse, being diagnosed is also a reason why some patients become depressed.

The reason why the chance of dying increased was not revealed by the study, but Dr. May said it was possible patients were not following their treatment plans as closely as people in good mental health. She said,

We know people with depression tend to be less compliant with medication on average and probably in general aren’t following healthier diets or exercise regimens.

They tend to do a poorer job of doing things that are prescribed than people without depression. That certainly doesn’t mean you’re depressed so you’re going to be less compliant, but in general, they tend to follow those behaviours.”

 She added that depression can also cause physiological changes to the body, which could also be a factor.
Related: Natural Approaches to Combat Depression

Dr. May urged the medical community to take depression seriously when treating coronary artery disease.

Patients who have depression need to be treated to improve not only their long-term risks but their quality of life.”

Nearly Half the Children Born in the Last Decade are at Risk of Diabetes

(NaturalNews – PF Louis) According to News Daily, a CDC study has determined that two out five people born between 2000 and 2011 are expected to develop diabetes type 2.

This rate is double what it was two decades ago for men, and it’s a 50 percent increase for women. Currently, 29 million people suffer from mostly diabetes type 2, which is acquired over time largely through too much sugar and refined carbohydrate consumption accelerated by lack of exercise

Obesity, which is often an early entry into diabetes, has soared over the last couple of decades as well. What’s changed the most over the last few decades? The amount of added processed sugars in fast foods, processed foods and beverages that have supplanted real food.

The food processing industry and their paid media shills in print, radio and TV advertising are guilty of foisting bad health and disease on the population. You could call these activities crimes against humanity.

Many of them are victims of their own crimes, with refined sugars and high-fructose corn syrup added not only to obvious sweets but also to many other not-so-sweet processed foods as well.

The processed food industry’s dealing with sugar addictions

Some experts claim sugar is addictive as cocaine. So putting more and more in sodas and sweets is conducive for repeat business. And why not add sugar surreptitiously into just about any processed food worthy of attracting repeat customers?

Processed salt is added to sodas to make sure more sugar could be placed into those beverages, making them more addictive. It’s not only obvious sweets like candies, cakes, donuts and sodas that contain large amounts of added sugars.

Other processed foods like breads, fast food French fries, bagels and soups contain added sugars to keep you coming back for more. And those low- or non-fat dairy yogurts and dairy products use added sugar and chemical thickeners to imitate the taste and sensation of the fat that’s been taken out.

The medical myth that fats make you fat was a boon to processed food manufacturers who came up with sugar solutions, just as they have with non-gluten packaged foods now. False evils are replaced with real ones. Healthy fats, even saturated fats, don’t make you fat. But added sugars sure do.

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has replaced cane sugars in most sodas and other beverages as well as many other food products. HFCS is sweeter per volume than sugar and is cheaper too. Good for the profit margin. But it’s even worse for one’s health than sugar. HFCS became the new sugar for many products, especially beverages, in the 1970s.

Since then, it has increased exponentially to become the sugar of choice in most sodas and other beverages. By the way, it can also be called “corn syrup” on those labels. Too many have caught on to how bad HFCS is, so that industry is doing what they can to conceal it from consumers and sneak it into their guts to cause a plethora of problems.

The fructose in fruit is not problematic because of fruit’s fiber and other compounds that compensate the fructose, ensuring a metabolic transition that doesn’t harm the liver. Normal processed cane or beet sugar (sucrose) is one part glucose and one part fructose.

So there is some metabolic damage from sucrose with the fructose part, while the glucose is readily metabolized for that energy rush that sugar addicts enjoy. Some sucrose does get stored as fat throughout the body to be used as energy later. But later doesn’t come, as long as one keeps eating processed foods, and the fat remains.

But high-fructose corn syrup is extremely concentrated fructose that goes straight to the liver instead of the gut from where sucrose sugars are taken into the bloodstream to create usable energy. The liver doesn’t know exactly what to do with those sudden surges of fructose, so it gets stored as fat, which can lead to fatty liver disease and eventually cirrhosis and possibly cancer.

HFCS also has less impact on hunger sensations than sucrose, which goes through the digestive tract to create energy and allow a sensation of satisfaction. This way, HFCS leads to eating or drinking more than one can tolerate, raising one’s serum triglyceride levels and making one susceptible to cardiovascular disease.

The process of manufacturing HFCS produces toxins and leaves residues of mercury. The for-profit medical monopoly and Big Pharma should be grateful to the processed food industry for the increased business that it sends them.

Sources for this article include:
http://newsdaily.com
http://www.lef.org
http://www.naturalhealth365.com
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com
http://www.cnn.com
http://science.naturalnews.com
http://science.naturalnews.com