Pages

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

Certain Fruits May Lower Type 2 Diabetes Risk

Certain Fruits May Be Linked to a Lower Risk of Type 2 Diabetes

September 16, 2013                    

 Eating Whole Fruits

Story at-a-glance

  • There’s compelling evidence supporting the notion that high-fructose diets are responsible for most chronic disease; insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes and obesity in particular
  • Many fruits are very high in fructose, up to 50X the sugar that most of the fruits our ancestors were exposed to due to consistent hybridization over the past century for sweetness
  • Therefore most fruits are best limited or avoided if you have insulin/leptin resistance as determined by struggling with your weight, or, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease or cancer
  • According to a new study, certain kinds of whole fruits—particularly blueberries, grapes, prunes and apples—may reduce your risk of type 2 diabetes
  • Consumption of fruit juices, on the other hand, was found to have greater risk. Those who drank one or more servings of fruit juice each day had a 21 percent higher risk for type 2 diabetes compared to the others
  • I believe most will benefit from restricting their fructose to 25 grams a day; and as little as 15 grams a day if you’re diabetic or have chronic health issues. This includes fructose from whole fruits

By Dr. Mercola

You’re probably well-familiarized with my controversial stance on fructose. Compelling evidence shows that fructose is, by far, more harmful to your health than other sugars—especially when it’s removed from whole fruits and highly processed and genetically modified, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) found in most processed foods. 
I’ve also, as a general rule, warned you of eating too much fruit, as many fruits can be quite high in fructose.  
This has caused some confusion and consternation among many readers, as fruit has long been promoted as an important part of a healthy diet. That said, there are considerations to take into account when it comes to fruit consumption—some of which are dependent on your individual and specific circumstances. 
I will seek to clarify some of these points here. I believe there’s more than compelling evidence supporting the concept that high-fructose diets are a primary factor that is responsible for most chronic disease; insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes and obesity in those who eat a highly processed food diet..  
I’ve long urged those struggling with these health issues, or who have hypertension, heart disease or cancer, to pay extra-careful attention to the fructose content of whole fruit in addition to other sources of fructose. Now, recent research indicates that some fruits may in fact be protective against type 2 diabetes.  
 

Can You Reduce Your Risk of Type 2 Diabetes with Your Fruit Choices? 

According to a new analysis of three cohort studies, published in the British Medical Journal,1 whole fruits—particularly blueberries, grapes, prunes and apples—may in fact reduce your risk of type 2 diabetes. Conversely, consumption of fruit juices was associated with greater risk. According to senior author Qi Sun, an assistant professor in the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health:2
"While fruits are recommended as a measure for diabetes prevention, previous studies have found mixed results for total fruit consumption. Our findings provide novel evidence suggesting that certain fruits may be especially beneficial for lowering diabetes risk."
The researchers analyzed the dietary records of nearly 190,000 people who had participated in three studies from 1984 to 2008. None of the participants were diagnosed with diabetes, cardiovascular disease or cancer at the outset of the studies.  
They found that those who ate blueberries, grapes and apples at least twice a week were up to 23 percent less likely to develop type 2 diabetes, compared to those who ate these fruits once a month or less.  
I find this quite surprising as, grapes and apples are particularly high in fructose (as you can see in the chart below). It’s unclear why the authors observed this benefit here but it’s likely that the phytonutrients found in the apples and grapes are more than compensate for any potential fructose toxicity.  
Antioxidants and other phytonutrients combat inflammation, which is a hallmark of diabetes and most other chronic disease. Similarly, blueberries, which are much lower in fructose, have in other studies also been found to be of benefit for diabetics primarily due to their high antioxidant content. 
One antioxidant in particular, called quercetin, could potentially help explain some of the results. Apples for example, while high in fructose, contains this flavonoid, which actually blocks some of the fructose metabolism according to expert Dr. Richard Johnson. If you haven't done so yet, I recommend viewing my "What Are Apples Good For?" information page for a listing of even more benefits of apples. 
Red grapes, plums and many different berries, including blueberries. also contain quercetin. I have scheduled an interview with Dr. Johnson, in which we’ll delve into this at greater depth. So keep your eye out for that interview, which should be out before year end, if you want to learn more.  
 

Don’t Be Fooled By Fruit Juices and Smoothies 

In comparison, the featured study found that those who drank one or more servings of fruit juice each day had a 21 percent higher risk for type 2 diabetes compared to the others. This is a really important point, and I’ve often highlighted the potential harm of drinking fruit juices.

You’re simply getting FAR too much fructose, not to mention the rarely mentioned methanol toxicity in any preserved juice. Furthermore, while whole fruits do contain fructose, they’re also rich in fiber, antioxidants, and a vast array of health-promoting phytochemicals.  
Fruit juices, especially not pasteurized, commercially-available fruit juices have virtually none of these phytonutrients. The fiber in the whole fruits also plays a large in protecting you from a rapid and exaggerated rise in blood sugar. The fiber slows the rate at which sugar is absorbed into your bloodstream.

This also applies to fruit smoothies, which are often touted as a convenient strategy to boost your fruit and veggie intake. Unfortunately, they too contain excessive amounts of fructose, and perhaps even added sugars on top of that. As reported by the Guardian:3
“In the UK, Coca-Cola owns Innocent Smoothies while PepsiCo has Tropicana. Launching Tropicana smoothies in 2008, Pepsi's sales pitch was that the drink would help the nation to reach its five a day fruit and vegetable target.

"Smoothies are one of the easiest ways to boost daily fruit intake as each 250ml portion contains the equivalent of two fruit portions," it said at the time.
However, Popkin [professor at the department of nutrition at the University of North Carolina] says the five a day advice needs to change. Drink vegetable juice, he says, but not fruit juice. "Think of eating one orange or two and getting filled," he said. "Now think of drinking a smoothie with six oranges and two hours later it does not affect how much you eat.
The entire literature shows that we feel full from drinking beverages like smoothies but it does not affect our overall food intake, whereas eating an orange does. So pulped-up smoothies do nothing good for us but do give us the same amount of sugar as four to six oranges or a large coke. It is deceiving."  

 

Revisiting Fruit Consumption

I recently interviewed Dr. Brian Clement of the Hippocrates Institute, where they teach raw veganism. Interestingly enough, they also strongly advise most people avoid eating fruits. One of the primary reasons for their stand against fruits is because of the hybridization of fruits, which has made them up to 50 times sweeter than their ancient ancestors. Many fruits have been selectively and purposely bred for increased sweetness, which has also resulted in reduced phytochemical content. This hybridization and subsequent deterioration of healthful nutrition in whole foods was highlighted in a New York Times4 article published earlier this summer.  
The dramatically increased fructose content of otherwise natural and “wholesome” fruits is the primary problem with high fruit consumption, and this is why I’m leery of very high-fruit diets.  
Many of the most beneficial phytonutrients found in fruits actually have a bitter, sour or astringent taste, but to satisfy the palate, farmers have, throughout time, opted to selectively breed the sweetest varieties. Today, the “candification” of food is being taken to a whole new level, and if you’re stuck on the idea that all fruit is good for you, you may end up in a real metabolic pickle... For example, according to a recent report in the Los Angeles Times,5 one fruit breeder has created a type of grape called the Cotton Candy grape, which is absolutely bound to be just as problematic as any other junk food!
“Bite into one of these green globes and the taste triggers the unmistakable sensation of eating a puffy, pink ball of spun sugar,” the article states. “By marrying select traits across thousands of nameless trial grapes, Cain and other breeders have developed patented varieties that pack enough sugar they may as well be Skittles on the vine. That's no accident. "We're competing against candy bars and cookies," said Cain, 62, a former scientist at the US Department of Agriculture who now heads research at privately owned International Fruit Genetics in Bakersfield.” 
In light of these issues, let me restate my recommendations on fruit and fructose consumption as simply as possible:
  1. If you’re insulin- or leptin resistant (are overweight, diabetic, hypertensive, or have high cholesterol), which includes about 80 percent of Americans, then it would be advisable for you to limit your fruit intake. As a general rule, I recommend limiting your fructose intake to a maximum of 15 grams of fructose per day from ALL sources, including whole fruit.
  2. If you are not insulin/leptin resistant, (are normal weight without diabetes, hypertension or high cholesterol) and regularly engage in strenuous physical activity or manual labor, then higher fructose intake is unlikely to cause any health problems. In this case, you can probably eat more fruit without giving it much thought.
  3. However if you are in category two above you might benefit from a further refinement. Fruit will still increase your blood sugar and many experts believe this will increase your protein glycosylation. So my approach is to consume the fruit typically after a workout as your body will use the sugar as fuel rather than raise your blood sugar.
  4. Additionally ,if you’re an endurance athlete, you can probably get away with eating fairly large amounts of fruits, since your body will use most of the glucose during exercise, so it won’t be stored as fat. (That said, I still believe athletes would be well-advised to consider becoming fat adapted rather than relying on quick sugars. This is outside the scope of this article, however, so for more information, please see this previous article).
  5. If you’re still unsure of just how stringent you need to be, get your uric acid levels checked, and use that as a guide. I’ll review this in more detail in the section below.

 

Using Your Uric Acid Level as a Marker for Fructose Toxicity 

I’ve previously interviewed Dr. Richard Johnson about his research into the health dangers of fructose, specifically how fructose causes high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes, revealed in his excellent book, The Sugar Fix. He’s also the chief of the division of kidney disease and hypertension at the University of Colorado. 
Dr. Johnson’s research suggests that your uric acid levels can be effectively used as a marker for fructose toxicity; meaning, an indicator of just how significant of an impact fructose has on your individual body and health. As such, it can help you gauge just how careful you need to be in your food selections.  
According to the latest research in this area, the safest range of uric acid is between 3 and 5.5 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), and there appears to be a steady relationship between uric acid levels and blood pressure and cardiovascular risk, even down to the range of 3 to 4 mg/dl. What this means is that if you have a level of 4 mg/dl for men and 3.5 mg/dl for women, you probably are at a very low risk for fructose toxicity and can be more liberal with the fructose limits given above. The higher your uric acid though, the more you need to limit, or even avoid, fructose until your uric acid level normalizes.  
Using this biochemical marker, I came to realize that I am particularly sensitive to fructose, and that it’s best for me, personally, to keep my fructose consumption as low as possible. This is most likely due to genetics and would explain why most of my paternal relatives have, or have died from, diabetes. That side of the family is probably particularly sensitive to fructose. Dr. Johnson has developed a program to help people optimize their uric acid levels, and the key step in this program is complete elimination of fructose, until your levels are within the ideal range of 3-5.5 mg/dl.

 

Helpful Fructose Chart for Common Fruits

Again, most people will need to limit your fructose to 25 grams of fructose per day from all sources, or less, while endurance athletes could have more. The chart below is excerpted from Dr. Johnson’s book, The Sugar Fix, which contains more details on the fructose content of common foods. His latest book, The Fat Switch, also gives further details on HOW fructose impacts your body, contributing to excess weight and chronic health problems.
Fruit Serving SizeGrams of Fructose
Limes 1 medium 0
Lemons 1 medium 0.6
Cranberries 1 cup 0.7
Passion fruit 1 medium 0.9
Prune 1 medium 1.2
Apricot 1 medium 1.3
Guava 2 medium 2.2
Date (Deglet Noor style) 1 medium 2.6
Cantaloupe 1/8 of med. melon 2.8
Raspberries 1 cup 3.0
Clementine 1 medium 3.4
Kiwifruit 1 medium 3.4
Blackberries 1 cup 3.5
Star fruit 1 medium 3.6
Cherries, sweet 10 3.8
Strawberries 1 cup 3.8
Cherries, sour 1 cup 4.0
Pineapple 1 slice
(3.5" x .75")
4.0
Grapefruit, pink or red 1/2 medium 4.3
Fruit Serving SizeGrams of Fructose
Boysenberries 1 cup 4.6
Tangerine/mandarin orange 1 medium 4.8
Nectarine 1 medium 5.4
Peach 1 medium 5.9
Orange (navel) 1 medium 6.1
Papaya 1/2 medium 6.3
Honeydew 1/8 of med. melon 6.7
Banana 1 medium 7.1
Blueberries 1 cup 7.4
Date (Medjool) 1 medium 7.7
Apple (composite) 1 medium 9.5
Persimmon 1 medium 10.6
Watermelon 1/16 med. melon 11.3
Pear 1 medium 11.8
Raisins 1/4 cup 12.3
Grapes, seedless (green or red) 1 cup 12.4
Mango 1/2 medium 16.2
Apricots, dried 1 cup 16.4
Figs, dried 1 cup 23.0

 

What About Fruit Juices? 

One of the profound highlights revealed in the featured study was the dramatic difference in health outcome between eating whole fruits versus drinking fruit juice. It’s important to realize that fruit juice typically contains very high concentrations of fructose, which will cause your insulin to spike and may counter the benefits of the antioxidants.  
Previous studies have already clearly demonstrated that drinking large amounts of fruit juice dramatically increases your risk of obesity. Children are at particular risk here, since so many children are given juice whenever they’re thirsty instead of plain water. For example, research has revealed that 3- and 4-year-olds who carry extra weight and drink just one to two sweet drinks a day double their risk of becoming seriously overweight just one year later.  
Furthermore, when buying commercial fruit juice, you need to check the label, as the majority of fruit juices contain high fructose corn syrup and artificial flavors in addition to concentrated fruit juice. That said, even freshly squeezed fruit juice can contain about eight full teaspoons of fructose per eight-ounce glass! So, as a general rule, it’s wise for most to severely restrict your consumption of fruit juice, especially if your uric acid is above the ideals recommended. Also, if you suffer from type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease or cancer, you’d be best off avoiding fruit juices altogether until you’ve normalized your uric acid and insulin levels. 

Within Certain Limits, Fruit is OK for Most People 

Going back to the issue of genetic variability, it seems that some people may be able to process fructose more efficiently, and the key to assess this susceptibility to fructose damage lies in evaluating your uric acid levels. I believe this is an ideal way for most people to personalize the recommendations on fructose intake.  
Aside from that, I believe most will benefit from restricting their fructose to 25 grams a day; and as little as 15 grams a day if you’re diabetic or have chronic health issues. This includes fructose from whole fruits. So I’m not advocating fruit avoidance for everyone; I’m simply placing fruit in the category of a fructose-rich food that needs to be included when you’re calculating your fructose intake.  
If you choose low-fructose fruits, such as blueberries, you can eat more of it than if you choose a fruit high in fructose. Other low-fructose fruits include fresh apricots, lemons, limes, passion fruit, plums and raspberries. Also remember that avocado is actually a fruit too. It’s very low in fructose, and high in healthful fat, making it an excellent choice. Endurance athletes and others who engage in strenuous activities and who are neither overweight nor have chronic health issues probably do not need to concern themselves too much with their fruit consumption however.

[+] Sources and References

 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/16/fruit-consumption-diabetes.aspx

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

5 Common Chewing Gum Ingredients That May Cause Cancer

September 14, 2013

 

By Dr. Mercola
You might not pay much attention to the ingredients in chewing gum because, after all, it’s not actually swallowed. But the ingredients, many of which are potentially dangerous, do enter your body, directly through the walls of your mouth. 
As with the toxic ingredients in personal care products like lotion, which are absorbed directly through your skin and into your bloodstream, the ingredients in gum also get absorbed by your body quickly and directly, bypassing the digestive system that would ordinarily help to filter some of the toxins away.  
For these reasons, if you’re a gum chewer, it’s very important to look at what’s in your favorite brand, and as a recent investigation by The Health Wyze Report showed,1 what you find may put a bad taste in your mouth… 

These 5 Common Chewing Gum Ingredients Are Linked to Cancer and More


1. Aspartame
If your gum is sugar-free, there’s a good chance it contains the artificial sweetener aspartame. Aspartame is metabolized inside your body into both wood alcohol (a poison) and formaldehyde (which is a carcinogen used as embalming fluid and is not eliminated from your body through the normal waste filtering done by your liver and kidneys). It's been linked to birth defects, cancers, brain tumors and weight gain.
2. BHT (Butylated Hydroxytoluene)
BHT is so toxic it’s already been banned in many other countries. In the US, it’s often used as a preservative in chewing gum and other processed foods. BHT has been linked to organ system toxicity, including kidney and liver damage, hyperactivity in children and may be carcinogenic.
3. Calcium Casein Peptone (Calcium Phosphate)
Found primarily in Trident gum, it’s thought this ingredient may be used as a whitening agent or texturizer. As a highly processed milk derivative, little is known about its long-term ingestion, although casein was previously linked to baby formula poisonings in China.
4. Gum Base
It’s quite a mystery what “gum base” is actually made out of, but the investigators found it’s usually a blend of elastomers, resins, plasticizers and fillers. Most manufacturers do not reveal more specifics than this. After all, why would they want you to know that you’re potentially chewing on petroleum-derived paraffin wax, polyvinyl acetate (carpenter’s glue) and talc, which is linked to cancer.
5. Titanium Dioxide
Titanium dioxide is often used as a whitening agent in chewing gum, but it’s been linked to autoimmune disorders, asthma, and Crohn’s disease and is potentially carcinogenic. One study found children are highly exposed to titanium dioxide in confections, with chewing gum containing the highest levels.2 

 

Chewing Gum for Weight Loss Is a Myth 

Many people chew a stick of gum as a way to help them curb sugar cravings and eat less. But chewing gum actually has little impact on your motivation to eat, your hunger and how much you end up eating. 
Research has revealed that while those who chewed gum consumed fewer meals, they ate more at the meals they did consume.3 Further, their meals ended up being less nutritious than those eaten by non-gum-chewers. It’s also been shown that people who chewed gum were less likely to eat fruit and instead were more motivated to eat junk food like potato chips and candy. This is likely because the minty flavor in the gum makes fruits and vegetables taste bitter. 
So if you’re thinking that chewing gum is going to help you control your weight, you’re probably being sorely misled. This is even true if you’re chewing sugar-free gum, as consuming artificial sweeteners can cause distortions in your biochemistry that may actually make you gain weight. Studies looking at this issue show very clearly that artificial sweeteners may actually cause greater weight gain than sugar by stimulating your appetite, increasing carbohydrate cravings, and stimulating the secretion of hormones like insulin and leptin that signal the body to increase fat storage.  

 

Chewing Gum May Harm Your Digestion and Your Teeth 

It’s often overlooked that chewing has a very primal purpose. Your body was designed to activate digestion through chewing, and a carefully coordinated neurological reflex activates the production of enzymes when you move your jaw in a chewing motion.  
However, chewing without eating food can be counterproductive. When you chew gum, you send your body physical signals that food is about to enter your body. The enzymes and acids that are activated when you chew gum are therefore released, but without the food they’re intended to digest. This can cause bloating, an overproduction of stomach acid, and can compromise your ability to produce sufficient digestive secretions when you actually do eat food. 
Furthermore, chewing sugar-free gum is often marketed as a tool for dental health, as the sugar alcohol xylitol, which is popular in sugar-free foods and chewing gum, has been found to help fight tooth decay. However, a label of "sugar-free" should not automatically be taken to mean "safe for your teeth." 
Sugar-free gum often contains acidic flavorings and preservatives that may in fact lead to dental erosion4 even if it contains cavity-fighting xylitol. Unlike cavities, dental erosion is a process of incremental decalcification, which, over time, literally dissolves your teeth. I generally recommend avoiding gum chewing, but if you do chew gum, do so only occasionally or right before a meal when the acid and enzyme stimulation may actually be beneficial. I also suggest you look for natural alternatives, such as chewing gum made from the chicle tree. 

 

Coca-Cola Tries to Defend Aspartame Use 

Chewing gum manufacturers who rely on aspartame to make sugar-free products probably love Coca-Cola’s new ad campaign, which attempts to assure consumers that its no- or low-calorie beverages containing the artificial sweetener aspartame are a safe alternative.  
According to the ad, aspartame is a “safe, high-quality alternative to sugar." Clearly they’ve not reviewed the hundreds of studies on this artificial sweetener demonstrating its harmful effects... Center for Science in the Public Interest’s (CSPI) Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson issued the following statement in response to Coca-Cola’s new ad:5
“Aspartame has been found to cause cancer — leukemia, lymphoma, and other tumors—in laboratory animals, and it shouldn’t be in the food supply. We certainly want Coca-Cola to shift its product mix toward lower- and no-calorie drinks, but aspartame’s reputation isn’t worth rehabilitating with this propaganda campaign. The company would be better off phasing out its use of aspartame and accelerating its research into safer, natural sweeteners such as those extracted from the stevia plant.”  
The same could be said to chewing-gum manufacturers, who continue to pass off their sugar-free products as “healthy” and even tools for weight loss. It is my belief that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could sue Coke and the other diet soda manufacturers, and potentially even chewing gum manufacturers as well, for fraudulent advertising, as there are no studies showing that the use of diet sodas or sugar-free gum causes one to lose weight. In fact, diet soda has actually been shown to cause weight gain.6 If anyone in the natural foods industry attempted to do this we would get a warning letter from these agencies in a heartbeat.  
So please, do yourself and your family a huge favor, and don’t allow yourself to get swept up in Coca-Cola’s multi-million dollar ad campaigns, which are based on flawed, inaccurate, misleading, and patently false conventions of thinking about obesity and the role of aspartame. 

 

Tell Coke They're a Joke! 

Obesity is a serious public health problem in the United States, and you are being sorely misled by companies pretending to have a solution that, in reality, only worsens the problem. Chewing gum manufacturers are certainly among them, but soda companies currently have far more reach. I strongly urge you to let the Coca-Cola Company know how you feel by telling them to stop their deceptive marketing of soda products.  
Join me in taking a firm stand against false advertising and let your voice be heard. If you’re on twitter, send a tweet to #CokeCEO to let the Coca-Cola Company know you are not happy with their deceptive advertising. If you’re on Facebook, please share your thoughts with them on their Facebook Page. Please also email the Coca-Cola Company to let them know how you feel!

[-] Sources and References


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/14/chewing-gum-cancer-risk.aspx

Determine Your Stroke Risk Through Your Eyes

Monday, August 26th, 2013               

99388422 The eyes have always been called “the windows to the soul”, but could they be the window to your heart as well? A brand new study published in the Hypertension Journal by the American Heart Association presented some pretty amazing findings: retinal imaging could determine a person’s likelihood of hypertension and stroke. This could change the face of these two leading killers, as they are both diseases with virtually no symptom and can go unnoticed until too late.  The sad reality is that millions of people die from a heart attack, stroke, and other heart problems every year, despite the fact that proper screening and simple lifestyle modifications could help prevent the majority of these deaths.

Your Eyes and High Blood Pressure


According to the study, retinal imaging will allow doctors to capture an image of the retina – a part of the body many scientists consider to be a “status indicator” of what is going on in the brain. If the blood vessels in the retina are damaged by hypertension (known as hypertensive retinopathy) the chances of stroke are much higher.

The study was conducted over the course of 13 years, involving over 2,900 patients suffering from high blood pressure. Photographs were taken of each patient’s retinas, and the images were examined for signs of hypertensive retinopathy. The damage was ranked according to severity: none, mild damage, moderate and severe damage. Over 160 of the patients suffered a stroke during the follow-up period – 15 strokes caused by brain bleeds and 146 caused by blood clots.

After adjusting the data for all of the stroke risk factors – age, race, gender, cholesterol levels, BMI, smoking habits, blood pressure, and blood glucose levels – the results were quite surprising. For those suffering from mild hypertensive retinopathy, their risk of stroke was 35 percent higher than those with no damage, while those with moderate to severe retinopathy had a 137 percent greater chance of a stroke. The study also included patients taking medication to control their blood pressure – patients that seemingly had their heart condition under control. Even in these patients, however, the risk of stroke was 96 percent higher if there was mild retinal damage, while those with moderate or severe damage had 198 percent higher chance of stroke than those with no damage to the retina.

While further research must be conducted in this area, the results of this study could lead to an advanced screening process for stroke risk. It may opens doors for doctors to simply take a snapshot of a person’s retina, and examine the image to determine just how much damage high blood pressure has done to the body. There is a very real chance that doctors can stop heart disease in its tracks – or at least effectively prevent it before it gets out of hand. Early detection is the key to preventing and reversing heart problems, and thanks to this new retinal imaging, detection may soon be possible without invasive tests!

http://www.belmarrahealth.com/heart-health/determine-your-stroke-risk-through-your-eyes/