PUBLISHED: 23:02 BST, 30 July 2018 | UPDATED: 12:28 BST, 31 July 2018
Your morning bowl of cornflakes may be sending your blood sugar into the stratosphere, new research suggests.
Everyone's blood glucose levels ebb and flow throughout the day based on our activity levels, they kind and quantity of calories we consume, metabolism and much more.
People who have diabetes or prediabetic are most classically defined by their bodies' struggle to regulate glucose.
But a new Stanford University study has revealed that even most people who would otherwise be considered 'healthy' have significant glucose spikes throughout the day - especially if their first meal is cornflakes and milk.
+1
A spoonful of high blood sugar: Stanford University tests of continuous blood sugar monitors revealed high spikes in glucose levels after 'healthy' people eat cornflakes with milk
The discovery was an unexpected result of the institution's tests of new constant glucose monitoring devices.
With older glucose monitors, doctors have typically recommended that people with type one diabetes test their blood any where from four to 10 times a day. Those with type two most commonly measure their levels after each meal and once before bed.
But continuous monitors, typically consisting of a tiny implant just beneath the skin that transmits to a phone or watch, give a comprehensive view of glucose fluctuations, rather than a series of snapshots.
'Soon, you're going to see a lot more of them, they're going to be incredibly widespread,' much like fitness trackers such as the Apple Watch or Fitbit, senior study author Dr Michael Snyder told Daily Mail Online.
As he and his team followed a group of study participants - some 'healthy,' others prediabetic and others diabetic - for four years, they saw something surprising.
'Lots of 'normal' people spiked very high, as high as diabetics,' said Dr Snyder.
'There are a lot of people running around with spiking glucose levels who have no idea that these spikes have been associated with cardiovascular disease and things like that.'
Based on the treasure trove of information that Dr Snyder and his team gathered from the glucose monitors on their 57 subject, they categorized people into three self-explanatory groups: high spikers, medium spikers and low spikers.
WHAT ARE THE FIVE NEW TYPES OF DIABETES?
For decades the disease has been considered to be two different forms - type one, an autoimmune disease in which people stop producing insulin, and type two, in which the body becomes resistant to insulin.
But now a major project in Sweden and Finland has found type two diabetes should actually be categorised as four different diseases.
The researchers, led by experts at Lund University, said the findings should prompt a ‘paradigm shift’ in the way people treat diabetes.
Cluster 1. Severe Autoimmune Diabetes - which until now has been known as ‘type one’ diabetes - is an autoimmune disease in which people stop producing insulin. Usually strikes in childhood but can emerge in adults. Requires insulin injections for life.
Cluster 2. Severe Insulin-Deficient Diabetes - young people often misdiagnosed as having type one, but whose immune systems are fine. Actually a variant of type two diabetes, but often of a healthy weight. High blood sugar, low insulin production and moderate insulin resistance.
Cluster 3. Severe Insulin-Resistant Diabetes - is predominantly linked to obesity and severe insulin resistance.
Cluster 4. Mild Obesity-Related Diabetes - includes obese patients, but is less serious and includes people who fall ill at a relatively young age.
Cluster 5. Mild Age-Related Diabetesis the largest group, with 40 per cent of all patients, and consists mostly of elderly patients.
These spikes occurred after people at all kinds of foods, and it seems that not everyone experiences the same extremity of spike with the same foods.l
Of course, most people with diabetes or who were prediabetic - meaning have somewhat elevated blood glucose in general and are already somewhat insulin resistant - fit into the 'high spiker' category.
But so did many people who previously thought they were in the normal range.
Earlier this year, Swedish researchers described five types (or 'clusters' as they called the groups) of type two diabetes.
Dr Snyder thinks that his research suggests we need more granular divisions still in order to properly diagnose and treat people as individuals.
'That's just the tip of the iceberg,' he said.
'We think there are many more. Their number is five, and I think that's going to expand as we try to really pick people apart for what's wrong with them glucose-wise.'
Doing so could help to really fine tune treatment and dietary plans to optimize glucose levels for everyone - not just those who have been traditionally considered diabetic.
But good starting place for us all might be to cut the cereal out of our morning routine, the Stanford study, published in Plos, suggests.
Dr Snyder's team separated out a subgroup of 30 participants and put them on a controlled diet. For their research purposes, the most important meal of the day was breakfast (when the 'tank is on empty,' and the leftovers of the last meal are most likely to have already been metabolized).
The participants alternately ate a protein bar, a peanut butter sandwich or cornflakes with milk.
Surprisingly, it was the cornflakes and milk that sent most people's blood sugar through the roof. In fact, 80 percent of people experienced high spikes after eating the seemingly simple breakfast.
Dr Snyder aims to figure out what distinguishes high spikers from low ones, and how extensive the health benefits of keeping glucose spikes to a minimum are.
But for now there is at least one quite clear take away from the study: 'The data are right in front of you, 80 percent of people are spikers, so can’t say I’d run around endorsing eating cornfalkes with milk. I'm not sure that would be in anyone's best interest,' Dr Snyder said.
Breakfast biscuits are not as healthy as they appear, warn experts
'Healthy' breakfast biscuits contain more sugar than a bowl of Kellogg's Coco Pops, according to new research.
The breakfast snacks are marketed as a ‘great start to your day’ and ‘energy for the whole morning.’
But a survey of 39 products sold in high street supermarkets found almost half have the same or more sugars than a standard 30 gram serving of Kellogg's Coco Pops, which contains three teaspoons of sugar.
All brands had at least a teaspoon of sugar, and some had as many four, a study by Action on Sugar found.
Sadly, we could not recommend any of the products we examined which are laden with excess sugar.Jennifer Rosborough, Action on Sugar
Nearly four in ten had a red warning colour on the front of pack nutrition labelling for high sugar content, with not one featuring green for low.
The worst for packing sugar were from German discounter Lidl with its Sondey Envitas Breakfast Biscuits Chocolate & Hazelnut Flavour and Sondey Envitas Breakfast Biscuit Chocolate top with around four teaspoons of sugar in each biscuit.
The next were BelVita's Breakfast Yogurt Crunch Creamy Live Yogurt Cocoa Biscuits and Breakfast Cocoa with Choc Chip made by US giant Mondelz International.
Sondey breakfast biscuits
Some of the sugars will be naturally occurring from the milk and dried fruit in the biscuits but others will have been added by the manufacturers.
Nutritionist Kawther Hashem, of Action on Sugar, said: "Just because a product contains added vitamins and is promoted as a healthy option doesn't necessarily make it the best option for breakfast on-the- go.
"Breakfast is the most important meal of the day; choose it wisely and don't be misled into buying products that are convenient but not entirely healthy.
"We recommend you make informed food switches such as choosing wholegrain breakfast cereals low in salt and sugar.
"Add fresh fruit to increase its nutritional value.
"If we really want the health of the nation to improve the food industry needs to produce and promote healthier breakfast options that are lower in sugar and higher in fibre with accurate front of pack nutrition labelling."
The breakfast biscuit market is now worth nearly £80 million a year.
Data was collected by visiting Aldi, ASDA, Co-operative, Lidl, Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, Tesco, Sainsbury's and Waitrose using the FoodSwitch app to collect nutritional information.
Thirty six of the biscuits (92 per cent) had more sugar than a 30g bowl of Nestle Toffee Crisp Cereal which contains two teaspoons, or seven grams of sugar.
And 32 (82 per cent) had more than the same portion of Honey Monster Puffs Cereal which has 8.7g of sugar.
The report also criticised BelVita only showing the nutritional value of one biscuit even though each packet contains two to four, which most people assume is one serving.
It follows a report from Euromonitor which found Britons consume more than twice as much sugar in a day as the global average.
Action on Sugar is calling on the government to urgently set regulated targets for food manufacturers when it comes to reformulation with enforcement of consistent colour coded front of pack labelling.
On average each person in the UK eats 71.7g of sugar a day in packaged foods and this needs to be drastically reduced.
Action On Sugar campaign manager Jennifer Rosborough added: "It is important breakfast substitutes offer the healthiest alternative, rather than a worse option.
"Sadly, we could not recommend any of the products we examined which are laden with excess sugar.
"While some sugar in breakfast biscuits is naturally occurring due to ingredients such as fruit, many contain sugar that has been added by the manufacturer.
"We now want the Government to tackle this issue head on by making sure all manufacturers use colour coded nutrition labelling, encouraging reductions in sugar, fat and salt and ensuring manufacturers promote their products responsibly."
Ten out of 24 breakfast foods tested were found to contain detectable levels of glyphosate
This included oatmeal, bagels, coffee creamer, organic bread and even organic, cage-free, antibiotic-free eggs
The results suggest Americans are consuming glyphosate, a probable carcinogen, daily
May 03, 2016
By Dr. Mercola
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, is the most used agricultural chemical in history.
In 2014, farmers sprayed enough glyphosate to apply 0.8 pounds of the chemical toevery acre of cultivated cropland in the U.S. and nearly 0.5 a pound of glyphosate to all cropland worldwide.1
Yet, mysteriously, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Residue Program, which is tasked with monitoring pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply, does not test for glyphosate residues.
As more health risks emerge — in March 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined glyphosate is a "probable carcinogen" — more people are starting to wonder just how much glyphosate is in our food.
The signs so far are not reassuring. Glyphosate has been detected in blood, breastmilk and urine samples.
Further, U.S. women had maximum glyphosate levels that were more than eight times higher than levels found in urine of Europeans, according to laboratory testing commissioned by the organizations Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse.2
The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) recently conducted its own research to determine if glyphosate is found in commonly consumed breakfast foods and their tests revealed the worst — that "our food system has been saturated with glyphosate, reaching even into some organic products."3
Glyphosate Found in Common Breakfast Foods
Ten out of 24 breakfast foods tested in ANH's analysis had detectable levels of glyphosate. This included oatmeal, bagels, coffee creamer, organic bread and even organic, cage-free, antibiotic-free eggs.
The majority of the glyphosate was found at levels below the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed allowable daily intake (ADI), but this is a dubious measure of safety. As ANH noted, the EPA's ADI for glyphosate is nearly six times higher than the EU's and fails to take into account:
Recent evidence of carcinogenicity
Toxicity of adjuvants in glyphosate formulations
The very wide distribution of glyphosate in food and water
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in February 2016 that it would begin testing foods, such as corn and soybeans, for glyphosate, which may help to quantify just how much glyphosate Americans are consuming.
But keep in mind that current allowable limits may be set far too high to protect your health, so unless that's revised as well, you may be lulled into a false sense of security if the tests come back "within allowable limits."
Americans Are Likely Consuming Glyphosate on a Daily Basis
The ANH analysis results suggest that Americans are consuming glyphosate, a probable carcinogen, daily. Further, the tests did not take into account analogs of glyphosate, such as N-Acetylglyphosate, which is used by Dupont in their herbicide formulations used for GE crops.
If these analogs are present in food along with glyphosate, the end result would be "a greater bioaccumulation of glyphosate in our bodies and consequential increased chance of biological disruption and disease," ANH noted.
Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director of ANH-USA, further told The Huffington Post:4
"The fact that it [glyphosate] is showing up in foods like eggs and coffee creamer, which don't directly contact the herbicide, shows that it's being passed on by animals who ingest it in their feed …
This is contrary to everything that regulators and industry scientists have been telling the public."
While glyphosate was long said to be harmless and environmentally safe, accumulating research suggests the chemical does not break down rapidly in the environment, as its manufacturer claims, and instead might be accumulating (both in the environment and in people, potentially leading to cancer and other chronic disease).
Many Crops Are Desiccated With Glyphosate Just Days Before Harvest
ANH's analysis found the highest levels of glyphosate in non-genetically engineered (GE) crops including bagels, bread and wheat cereal. This, they noted, is likely the result of the common practice of using glyphosate as a desiccant shortly before harvest.
In northern, colder regions farmers of wheat and barley must wait for their crops to dry out prior to harvest. Rather than wait an additional two weeks or so for this to happen naturally, farmers realized they could spray the plants with glyphosate, killing the crop and accelerating their drying (a process known as desiccating).
Desiccating wheat with glyphosate is particularly common in years with wet weather and has been increasing in North Dakota and Upper Midwestern states in the U.S., as well as in areas of Canada and Scotland (where the process first began).
What this means is that even non-GE foods are likely to be contaminated with glyphosate, and possibly even more so because they're being sprayed just weeks prior to being made into your cereal, bread, cookies and the like.
Along with wheat and oats, other crops that are commonly desiccated with glyphosate include:
Lentils
Peas
Non-GMO soybeans
Corn
Flax
Rye and Buckwheat
Triticale
Canola
Millet
Sugar beets
Potatoes
Sunflowers
No one is keeping track of how many crops are being desiccated with glyphosate; those in the industry have described it as a 'don't ask, don't tell policy.'
Monsanto Products Have Been Poisoning People and the Environment for Decades
Monsanto (and Monsanto-related entities) is now facing at least 700 lawsuits on behalf of people who claim their exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which Monsanto manufactured until the 1970s, caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.5 As they have done with glyphosate, the company claimed the PCBs it produced were safe and "singularly free of difficulties," yet the U.S. government banned PCBs in 1976 due to their carcinogenic potential.6
Prior to this, many internal documents have revealed that Monsanto did know of their toxicity. This includes a 1955 announcement that workers should no longer eat lunch in the Aroclor [PCB] department because "chlorinated biphenyls were quite toxic materials by ingestion or inhalation."7
The U.S. Navy also rejected Monsanto's PCBs for use in submarines after their own toxicity tests showed all rabbits died after skin application of the chemical and inhalation resulted in "definite liver damage."8 In 2002, Monsanto was eventually found guilty of decades of "outrageous acts of pollution" in the town of Anniston, Alabama, where it dumped PCBs into the local river and secretly buried the toxic chemical in a landfill.9
U.S. Cities Sue Monsanto
Internal documents revealed Monsanto had full knowledge of the severity of the pollution problem it caused for at least three decades and decided to ignore it. San Diego has sued Monsanto for polluting the Coronado Bay with PCBs,10 and Seattle also filed a lawsuit against the company for PCB pollution.
Seattle wants Monsanto to pay to help clean up pollution it caused in the Duwamish River and also wants to hold Monsanto responsible for making the river's fish too contaminated to eat. The city alleges that Monsanto knew all along that PCBs were toxic but continued to market them anyway.
In addition to Seattle and San Diego, San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley, California and Spokane, Washington have also filed lawsuits against Monsanto for continuing to produce and promote PCBs despite knowing their hazards.11
'Monsanto Clause' Lets Monsanto Off the Hook for Environmental Destruction
Congress is in the process of updating the Toxic Substances Control Act, a 40-year-old piece of legislation in serious need of overhaul. Once reformed, the Act will determine how the chemical industry is regulated, including which chemicals are allowed and who can sue over any related problems.
That latter part is important, especially when faced with the type of devastation caused by chemicals like PCBs. But the House of Representatives has slipped in a clause that many are calling a "gift" to chemical giant Monsanto; the paragraph shields the company from legal liability related to PCBs.
Monsanto produced almost all PCBs sold in the U.S. — all 1.25 billion pounds of them.12 If the clause is allowed to remain in the Toxic Substances Control Act, PCB lawsuits against Monsanto by state and local governments and individuals would be blocked. States would also be blocked from passing PCB regulations.
As reported by The New York Times, Monsanto insists it did not ask for the clause to be added, and the House denies it is a "gift."13 But the clause benefits only one company.
Now city officials and lawyers involved in suing Monsanto to recover cleanup costs associated with PCBs or receive compensation for related health problems are protesting the "Monsanto Clause." Pete Holmes, the city attorney for Seattle, told The New York Times:14
"Call me a dreamer, but I wish for a Congress that would help cities with their homeless crises instead of protecting multinational corporations that poison our environment."
Monsanto Doesn't Want You to Know What's in Your Food
Monsanto has spent millions to defeat GMO labeling initiatives, so you won't know which foods contain their genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
In 2013, the company donated nearly $5 million to the anti-labeling campaign in Washington State, and in 2012 they donated more than $7 million to help defeat California's Proposition 37. Together with the food and industrial agriculture industries, biotechnology companies like Monsanto spent more than $101 million on lobbying to avert GMO labeling and preempt state rights, and that was in 2015 alone.15
They may feel defeat is near, as such lobbying efforts have risen sharply. For instance, these industries spent $66 million on such lobbying efforts in 2014 and just over $25 million in 2013.16 The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), whose 300-plus members include Monsanto, Coca-Cola, and General Mills, is among those pushing a Congressional bill called the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014."
The bill, dubbed the "DARK" (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act, would preempt all states from passing GMO labeling laws. It would also bar states from enacting laws that make it illegal for food companies to misrepresent their products by labeling GE ingredients as "natural." Last but not least, the DARK Act would also limit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) power to force food companies to disclose GE ingredients.
They are trying to HIDE the presence of genetically engineered ingredients and are pulling out ALL the stops to do so. Now it's known that toxic glyphosate exists even in non-GE food, making it even harder, if not impossible, to avoid this company's pervasive toxic products.
What You Need to Know About GMOs
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or genetically “engineered” (GE) foods, are live organisms whose genetic components have been artificially manipulated in a laboratory setting through creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and even viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry. They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe not. For years, I've stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be. The FDA cleared the way for GE (Genetically Engineered) Atlantic salmon to be farmed for human consumption. Thanks to added language in the federal spending bill, the product will require special labeling so at least consumers will have the ability to identify the GE salmon in stores. However, it's imperative ALL GE foods be labeled, which is currently still being denied.
The FDA is threatening the existence of our food supply. We have to start taking action now. I urge you to share this article with friends and family. If we act together, we can make a difference and put an end to the absurdity.
QR Codes Are NOT an Adequate Substitute for Package Labels
The biotech industry is trying to push the QR code as an answer for consumer concerns about GE foods. QR stands for Quick Response, and the code can be scanned and read by smart phones and other QR readers.
The code brings you to a product website that provides further details about the product. The video below shows you why this is not an ideal solution. There’s nothing forcing companies to declare GMOs on their website. On the contrary, GE foods are allowed to be promoted as “natural,” which further adds to the confusion.
These so-called "Smart Labels" hardly improve access to information. Instead, by making finding the truth time-consuming and cumbersome, food makers can be assured that most Americans will remain ignorant about the presence of GMOs in their products.
Besides, everyone has a right to know what's in the food. You shouldn't have to own a smartphone to obtain this information.
Vermont's mandatory labeling law is scheduled to go into effect July 1. Now, Monsanto is going with the only strategy it has left to block it — a Senate version of H.R.1599, also referred to as the DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan) introduced the bill, which would preempt Vermont's GMO labeling law, and replace state mandatory labeling laws with a federal voluntary labeling plan.
Fortunately, on March 16, the Senate rejected the bill, falling far short of the 60 votes it needed in its favor to pass. This is great news, but though the DARK Act was defeated, it's not over yet.
Roberts said he would still work to find another way to preempt the law, and majority leader Mitch McConnell changed his vote from YES to NO for procedural reasons. This allows him to bring up the bill again later if a compromise is created, and the creation of such a compromise is certainly already underway.
Vermont's law is set to take effect on July 1. It's imperative you take action now by contacting your senators. Ask them to oppose any compromise that would block or delay Vermont's labeling law. It's critical that we flood Senators' phone lines — it's now or never for GMO labeling.
Non-GMO Food Resources by Country
If you are searching for non-GMO foods, here is a list of trusted sites you can visit.
