Disinformation » Diet

Sugar Should Be Regulated As A Toxin

majestic — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:18:41 +0000

Personally I’d prefer to see the likes of aspartame, saccharin, sucralose and the other artificial sweeteners outlawed (not to mention the ubiquitous High-Fructose Corn Syrup) … From Live Science via Yahoo News:

A spoonful of sugar might make the medicine go down. But it also makes blood pressure and cholesterol go up, along with your risk for liver failure, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases.

Although the commentary might seem straight out of the Journal of Ideas That Will Never Fly, the researchers cite numerous studies and statistics to make their case that added sugar — or, more specifically, sucrose, an even mix of glucose and fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and in table sugar made from sugar cane and sugar beets — has been as detrimental to society as alcohol and tobacco…

[continues at Live Science via Yahoo News]

Fried Food Not A Cause Of Heart Disease

majestic — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:30:53 +0000

The Telegraph’s Stephen Adams reports on a new study belittling the “myth” that regularly eating fried foods causes heart attacks:

They say there is mounting research that it is the type of oil used, and whether or not it has been used before, that really matters.

The latest study, published in the British Medical Journal, found no association between the frequency of fried food consumption in Spain – where olive and sunflower oils are mostly used – and the incidence of serious heart disease.

However, the British Heart Foundation warned Britons not to “reach for the frying pan” yet, pointing out that the Mediterranean diet as a whole was healthier than ours.

Spanish researchers followed more than 40,000 people, two-thirds of whom were women, from the mid 1990s to 2004.

At the outset they asked them how often they ate fried foods, either at home or while out. They then looked to see whether eating fried foods regularly increased the likelihood of falling ill from having coronary heart disease, such as a heart attack or angina requiring surgery.

Dividing participants into four groups, from lowest fried food intake to highest, they found no significant difference in heart disease.

There were 606 incidents linked to heart disease in total, but they were split relatively evenly between the four groups.

The authors concluded: “In a Mediterranean country where olive and sunflower oils are the most commonly used fats for frying, and where large amounts of fried foods are consumed both at and away from home, no association was observed between fried food consumption and the risk of coronary heart disease or death.”…

[continues in the Telegraph]

The Fake Sugar Rush

majestic — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:12:22 +0000

Can ingesting so many sugar wannabes be a good thing? Remember that saccharin and aspartame were once touted as safe and calorie free before they were found to be totally toxic. Anne Marie Chaker reports for the Wall Street Journal:

At the Whole Foods Market in Silver Spring, Md., the self-serve coffee counter offers four types of milk and nearly every imaginable alternative to granulated sugar. There’s unrefined sugar, evaporated cane juice, agave nectar—and a no-calorie sugar substitute called Truvia.

The green packets are tucked behind the cash register; if you want it, you have to ask. That’s because they have a way of disappearing. “People take a lot more than they need,” says Liz Burkhart, a Whole Foods spokeswoman.

Truvia’s maker, agricultural giant Cargill Inc., of Minneapolis, is aware that consumers often stock up on Truvia packets at coffee bars and in restaurants. Zanna McFerson, vice president and business director for Cargill Health and Nutrition, says Cargill is developing a dispenser that would limit the number of packets a consumer can take at once.

One reason Truvia is so appealing is its position as a “natural” alternative to aspartame, saccharin and other chemically derived sugar substitutes. Fans say they think Truvia’s taste and texture are closer to sugar than those of older entries. It’s true that Truvia pours out of the packet in convincing crystal-like granules, not in a powder. And when sprinkled on top of foods such as cereal, Truvia crunches.

Some detractors, though, complain of a Truvia aftertaste, especially when it is used in coffee. And many customers blanch at the price. A 40-count box of Truvia packets retails for $4.29 at the Giant Foods supermarket in Silver Spring, compared with $2.99 for a 50-count box of Splenda.

Few consumer products have been a greater marketing challenge than no-calorie sweeteners. Companies have devoted teams of scientists to trying to develop better-tasting sugar-substitutes. “I don’t think anyone’s cracked the code,” says Allen Adamson, managing director of the New York office of brand-consulting firm Landor Associates. Consumers resist, whether complaining about taste or worrying about safety.

Taste “used to be the only thing [marketers] had to worry about,” Mr. Adamson says. “Does it taste good? Is there an aftertaste?” Now, he says, “the new challenge is to alleviate the lingering concerns . . . . Did they really test it on enough rats over a long enough period of time?”…

[continues in the Wall Street Journal]

Norway’s Low-Carb, High-Fat Diet Fad Has Caused a Butter Shortage

bluemana — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:00:35 +0000

Nick Carbone writes in TIME:

Denmark is trying to wean its people off butter by imposing a hefty “fat tax,” but their neighbors across the Skagerrak in Norway can’t get enough of the golden goodness. A diet fad in the Scandinavian country has depleted the nation’s supply of butter. While we’d use the term “diet” lightly, the newest craze is a low-carb, high-fat feeding frenzy that has put a strain on Norway’s butter supply.

“Sales all of a sudden just soared,” Lars Galtung, head of communications at TINE, the country’s biggest farmer-owned cooperative, told Reuters. “Twenty percent in October then thirty percent in November.” The fat fad coupled with a summer that saw a major reduction in milk production spells empty supermarket dairy fridges. This year’s wet summer ruined animal feed, reducing cows’ outputs to 25 million liters less than last year. As a result, this year’s hot Christmas item isn’t the iPad or an Angry Birds game; it’s much more primitive: butter …

Going To A Public Farm School

Jin_TheNinja — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:31:10 +0000

Are schoolyard farms the best way to counteract the increasingly industrial food provided by school lunches? Via Denver’s ABC affiliate:

DENVER — Just eight months ago, a one-acre plot at the Denver Green School was an unused athletic field, but now that land has come to life with food-bearing vegetation.

“We have harvested over 3,000 pounds of produce from this ground. Lots of salad greens and root vegetables, tomatoes, eggplant, peppers,” said Megan Caley, the programs and outreach coordinator for Sprout City Farms.

Each week during harvest season, the farm produces 150 pounds of fresh, organic fruits and vegetables that end up in the school’s cafeteria.

“Kids are eating healthier,” said Frank Coyne, lead partner at the Denver Green School. “They are excited to eat the tomatoes on the salad bar, they are excited to eat the cucumbers.”

How The Food Industry Eats Your Kid’s Lunch

majestic — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:07:35 +0000

Lucy Komisar, who contributed the essay “Dirty Money and Global Banking Secrecy” to the disinformation anthology Everything You Know Is Wrong, contributes a major op-ed to this Sunday’s New York Times:

An increasingly cozy alliance between companies that manufacture processed foods and companies that serve the meals is making students — a captive market — fat and sick while pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. At a time of fiscal austerity, these companies are seducing school administrators with promises to cut costs through privatization. Parents who want healthier meals, meanwhile, are outgunned.

Each day, 32 million children in the United States get lunch at schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program, which uses agricultural surplus to feed children. About 21 million of these students eat free or reduced-price meals, a number that has surged since the recession. The program, which also provides breakfast, costs $13.3 billion a year.

Sadly, it is being mismanaged and exploited. About a quarter of the school nutrition program has been privatized, much of it outsourced to food service management giants like Aramark, based in Philadelphia; Sodexo, based in France; and the Chartwells division of the Compass Group, based in Britain. They work in tandem with food manufacturers like the chicken producers Tyson and Pilgrim’s, all of which profit when good food is turned to bad.

Here’s one way it works. The Agriculture Department pays about $1 billion a year for commodities like fresh apples and sweet potatoes, chickens and turkeys. Schools get the food free; some cook it on site, but more and more pay processors to turn these healthy ingredients into fried chicken nuggets, fruit pastries, pizza and the like. Some $445 million worth of commodities are sent for processing each year, a nearly 50 percent increase since 2006…

[continues in the New York Times]

A Simple Cure For Heart Disease

David Irving — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:57:17 +0000

David Irving

[disinfo ed.'s note: the following is an excerpt from The Protein Myth: Significantly reducing the Risk of Cancer, Heart Disease, Stoke and Diabetes while Saving the Animals and the Planet courtesy of John Hunt Publishing.]

Current research suggests that death from cardiovascular disease is on the decline. However, the incidence of people who get heart disease remains the same, and risk factors may be increasing.¹ (Cardiovascular disease includes stroke, high blood pressure, heart failure, and other conditions like arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, cardiomyopathy, and peripheral arterial disease.) Discoveries that isolate the cause of heart disease and offer cures like the remarkable breakthroughs made by Dr. Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr. and Dr. Dean Ornish should, consequently, excite cardiologists. Yet in spite of the proved effectiveness of these new treatment options, most mainstream cardiologists and cardiovascular treatment facilities have ignored them.

Dr. Esselstyn began a twelve year cardiac disease arrest and reversal trial in 1985. Five years into the study he published his first findings and the complete report seven years later. Dr. Dean Ornish began his first clinical trial in 1986, issued his first report a year later, and then in 1990 published the results of his study in a widely acclaimed book, Dr. Dean Ornish‘s Program for Reversing Heart Disease.²

Both trials showed conclusively that heart disease can be prevented and reversed though a low-fat, plant-based diet.³ Prior to these trials the field of cardiology considered coronary heart disease to be irreversible.

Dr. Ornish’s plan calls for a diet of no meats and no added fats with an emphasis on whole grain foods, vegetables, fruits, and beans. It permits the consumption of egg whites and nonfat dairy products. Ornish combines his diet with exercise, stress management, and group support. With this plan he was able to reverse severe coronary artery disease without statins or other drugs.⁴ Praise for Ornish’s work, however, is often accompanied by negative criticisms on how difficult the plan is to follow or some other comment that casts it in a less than favorable light. The Mayo Clinic Heart Book, for example, offers a generally favorable review, but comments that “many people find that the program…requires substantial lifestyle changes.”⁵

Dr. Esseltsyn’s program, described in his book Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease, calls for avoiding oils, meat, fish, fowl and dairy products.⁶ His trial involved 18 patients who in the eight years prior to the trial had experienced 49 coronary events such as “angina, bypass surgery, heart attacks, strokes and angioplasty.” After 12 years on Dr. Esselstyn‘s program, these 18 patients experienced only one coronary event, and that particular patient had dropped out of the program for two years. After he came back and resumed Esselstyn’s plant-based diet he had no further cardiovascular disease occurrences.

The medical establishment does not react to heart disease arrest and reversal programs like those Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. Ornish have set up with great enthusiasm. Dr. Campbell, for example, recalls the kind of responses he witnessed from his colleagues steeped in surgical and drug treatment procedures when the evidence began accumulating that nutrition could prevent cardiovascular events from occurring.

I remember when my superiors were only reluctantly accepting the evidence of nutrition being able to prevent heart disease, for example, but vehemently denying its ability to reverse such a disease when already advanced. But the evidence can no longer be ignored.

Those in science or medicine who shut their minds to such an idea are being more than stubborn; they are being irresponsible.⁷

Dr. Esselstyn practiced at the Cleveland Clinic, called by some the “best medical center for cardiac care” in the country, if not the world. Patients fly there from all across the globe for advanced heart disease treatment. It was during Dr. Esselstyn’s work there that he conducted the trial described above.⁸

Besides winning an Olympic gold medal in rowing and a Bronze Star for military service in Vietnam, Esselstyn was President of the Staff at the Cleveland Clinic, member of the Board of Governors, chairman of the Breast Cancer Task Force, and head of the Section of Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery. He was also the president of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons, author of over 100 professional scientific articles, and he was included on a list of the best doctors in America in 1994 – 1995.⁹

After he had completed his trial with the eighteen coronary patients and after his retirement in the year 2000, Esselstyn proposed to the Cleveland Clinic that he set up an arrest and reversal dietary cardiac program like the one he had done, as an option to be offered to every patient in the clinic suffering from heart disease.¹⁰ The program cost little and presented no risk for patients. The Clinic rehired him as a consultant in 2009 to direct the Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Reversal Program at the Cleveland Wellness Institute.

Many people at the Clinic were excited about Dr. Esselstyn’s work. Staff members and trustees of the Clinic who had developed coronary disease themselves were approaching him for treatment.¹¹

Esselstyn notes that work is presently being done with “stem cells to try to make new blood vessels grow.”¹² He asks if it would not just be easier to prevent the disease in the first place.¹³

Campbell concurs. “We, the public, turn to doctors and hospitals in times of great need,” he says. “For them to provide care that is knowingly less than optimal, that doesn’t protect our health, doesn’t heal our disease and costs us tens of thousands of dollars is morally inexcusable.”¹⁴

It is worthwhile noting that in contrast to heart disease arrest and reversal programs, in 1996 a team of surgical specialists from the Cleveland Clinic flew to Brazil to investigate a new

operation that an unknown surgeon, Dr. Randas Batista, had developed to treat heart failure by strengthening the heart muscle. It involved removing a wedge-shaped piece of tissue from the left ventricle, the main chamber of the heart. Batista had 400 patients under his care and claimed the operation was hugely successful.¹⁵

After consulting with Dr. Batista, the surgical team returned to the Cleveland Clinic and tried out this procedure for themselves on 62 patients, all of whom gave their consent. But the operation turned out to be a dismal failure. Within three years more than a third of the patients had died, and only a quarter were free of heart disease.¹⁶

When surgery was involved, the Cleveland Clinic flew a team of experts to Brazil which subsequently operated on 62 patients in an experimental procedure that was highly dangerous, involved intense pain, cost enormous fees, failed to provide perceived benefits for three-quarters of those operated on, and ultimately proved fatal for more than a third of the participants.

The bias favoring surgery and drugs over treatment by means of nutrition could hardly be more apparent. If the patients who were operated on unsuccessfully with the Brazilian procedure could go back and do it over again — especially those who died — can any rational person doubt that they would choose heart disease arrest and reversal treatment over the one offered by the Cleveland Clinic, the best cardiovascular clinic in the world? Cutting open patients’ chests and splicing in new blood vessels to bypass clogged arteries costs $13 billion a year. One half of all bypass procedures clog up again within 10 years. One third of all angioplasty procedures clog again within four to six months. In contrast, the patients who participated in Dr. Esselstyn‘s program were still disease free two decades after they had finished the program, and never experienced one spasm of pain.¹⁷

It costs considerably less per year, obviously, to undertake a low-fat, plant-based diet as the sole treatment for cardiovascular disease. But while that is great for the bank accounts of patients, it is also a part of the problem. Medical facilities are not anxious to forego their cut of that $13 billion a year heart bypass industry which open heart surgery provides.

Cutting open someone’s chest, it goes without saying, is a surgically complicated, serious, and painful procedure. As Dr. David Eddy, a professor of health policy at Duke University noted, “a coronary artery bypass may change the life expectancy of a 60 year-old man with triple vessel disease, but it will also change his joy of life for several weeks after the operation, the degree and severity of chest pain, his ability to walk and make love, his relationship with his son, the physical appearance of his chest and his pocketbook. Pain, disability, anxiety, family relations, and any number of other outcomes are all important consequences of a procedure.”¹⁸

Patients should not have to endure this kind of sufferingwithout at least being informed that other possibilities exist.

As for Dr. Esselstyn, his goal remains untarnished. He has glimpsed the possibilities and he forges ahead as do all pioneers when faced with mainstream status quo rejection.

I have an ambitious goal: to annihilate heart disease — to abolish it once and for all. Your arteries at the age of ninety ought to work as efficiently as they did when you were nine….We have shown that [this] number one killer in Western civilization can be abolished, through consumption of a plant-based diet. But we can do much more. If the public adopted this approach to preventing disease, if, by the millions, Americans abandoned their toxic diets and learned a truly healthy approach to eating, we could largely limit all those diseases of nutritional extravagance — strokes, hypertension, obesity, osteoporosis,and adult-onset diabetes. Meanwhile, we would see a marked reduction in cancers of the breast, prostate, colon, rectum, uterus, and ovaries. Medicine could relinquish its primary focus on pills and procedures. Prevention, not desperate intervention, would become the order of the day.¹⁹

Most medical facilities ignore the work of Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. Ornish in favor of more traditional approaches. At the Los Angeles Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Dr. John Young, director of comparative medicine and chairman of Americans for Medical Progress, a pro-animal testing organization, and his staff work on research projects that include vivisecting pigs in the study of cardiovascular disease. He makes the same pitch all animal researchers make when they want public sympathy and support: the research is exciting; we’re right on the verge of a cure; it’s just around the corner.

In an interview on PBS early in 2009, Young showed off a magnificent, lean and muscular, black-and-cream-colored pig confined in a small holding pen and said: “The cardiovascular system of a pig is almost identical to that of a human being, okay? The coronary arteries, the heart muscle — virtually identical, so pigs are a favorite model for cardiovascular disease.”²⁰

It seems a terrible waste that Dr. Young and the staff of the Los Angeles Cedars-Sinai Medical Center work on experimental heart disease operations that take away the lives of beautiful pigs, like the one Dr. Young displayed, when the exemplary trials completed by Dr. Esseltsyn and Dr. Ornish have scientifically demonstrated that heart disease can be prevented, arrested, and reversed through diet. Undoubtedly, to Dr. Young and others involved in heart surgery, like those at the Cleveland Clinic who participated in the Brazil experiment, heart disease arrest and reversal treatment, no matter how successful, does not meet their standards. We should take a closer look, then, at why, from the standpoint of logic, heart disease arrest and reversal therapy is far superior to drug and surgical procedures.

For a person standing with his/her arm extended into a furnace, the best way to prevent that person’s arm from being burned to a crisp is to have him/her remove it from the furnace. Healing can then begin. That is essentially what the Esselstyn/Ornish treatment does. Since animal protein is the underlying cause of heart disease (and stroke) because it puts saturated fat and cholesterol into the digestive system leading to atherosclerosis and high blood pressure, the best way to halt the progression of the disease and to begin reversing its effects is to stop the cause, which is the consumption of animal protein. It should be apparent that neither Dr. Young nor any researcher at the Cleveland Clinic is likely to surpass this simple method of saving someone from “burning their arm to a crisp.” Remove their arm and the burning stops. Reduce the cholesterol count to 150 mg/dL or below and the heart disease stops. Then start the healing, which includes complete rest from the original cause.

Apparently, though, this is not a satisfactory method for Dr. Young and mainstream medical practitioners more attracted to complexity. In general they seem intent on finding some way in which a person can remain with his/her arm in the oven without burning it, or, in the case of heart disease, can continue consuming animal protein with the accompanying high cholesterol it produces. To many people, that is a farfetched dream that after decades of failure no longer deserves public tax funding, nor should innocent animals be forced to sacrifice their lives to try to achieve a goal that is essentially unethical. It is unethical because 1) it is just plain egotistical arrogance to insist that human beings should be able to put poisons (animal protein) into their bodies and get away with it just because they have a craving for the poisons, and 2) a treatment has now been developed by Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. Ornish to treat heart disease so that research to find other treatments that scientists like Dr. Young continue to work on are not necessary, especially when they involve operating on and killing innocent animals.

In comparing his method of cardiovascular treatment to conventional medicine, Dr. Esselstyn described it this way. “All the interventional procedures carry considerable risk of morbidity, including new heart attacks, strokes, infections, and for some, an inevitable loss of cognition… And the benefits of intervention erode with the passage of time; eventually, you have to have another angioplasty, another bypass procedure, another stent… Mine carries none.”²¹

Heart disease has been the number one killer in America for 100 years. Every day nearly 3,000 Americans will have heart attacks and 2400 will die of heart disease.²²,²³ It costs 30 billion dollars a year for heart disease for drugs to control cholesterol, blood pressure and other risk factors. Patients pay $46,000 for bypass operations in which one out of every 50 patients will die of complications. Angioplasty is a simpler procedure but also expensive, and one in about every sixteen angioplasty patients will experience “abrupt vessel closure“ which can lead to death, heart attack, or an emergency bypass.²⁴ Angioplasty patients cannot feel very secure walking around knowing that at any second they may become one of those 1 in 16 who experience “abrupt vessel closure.” Similarly, it cannot be very reassuring for bypass patients lying on the operating table just before going under knowing that they could be among those 1 in 50 who willdie of complications from the operation.

All of this can be prevented. But champions of animal esearch and surgery and drugs would rather continue in the direction of painful open heart surgery in needless bypass operations causing patients unwarranted suffering. According to long-term studies, bypass patients do not even have fewerheart attacks than those who do not have surgery.²⁵

The clinical trials conducted by Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. Ornish have proved incontrovertibly that cardiovascular disease can be arrested and reversed through nutrition. Ornish has even widened his research to include prostate cancer and has shown that prostate tumors can also be arrested and reduced through a nutrition program.²⁶But even though the success of Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. Ornish has by now been widely reported, few hospitals and medical centers have made an effort to include nutrition arrest and reversal treatments in their cardiac programs. The Ornish program has, fortunately, been picked up by a few hospitals and with great enthusiasm in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, including Stamford Hospital in Connecticut, which is affiliated with the New York Presbyterian Health System, a teaching affiliate of no less than the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, one of the top medical schools in the country.

If more hospitals were to start using cardiovascular arrest and reversal programs it would be possible to begin reducing expensive surgical, radiological, and chemotherapeutic treatments for cardiovascular disease. However, this is just not a priority for heart surgeons and animal researchers who are content with the high salaries and peer prestige they receive for their work. They also get enormous grants in public funding plus quid pro quo employment security for bringing in huge sums of money for the facilities that employ them through patient fees and federally funded tax grants, of which their employers get from 50% to 75%. A further obstacle to the success of arrest and reversal therapy for heart disease are the drug and medical corporations responsible for producing the expensive drugs and equipment for surgical procedures and pre- and postoperative care. Continuing the status quo can only benefit these companies.

Simply put, the healthcare establishment does not want to seriously consider the preponderance of evidence that shows beyond all sustainable doubt that heart disease can be arrested and reversed through nutritional procedures.

Today we are privileged to live in a world of technological advance. Modern science is a marvel to behold. Scientists have developed complex prosthetic body substitutes that respond to electrical activity in the muscles through computer sensors.²⁷ They are working on ways in which our own bodies might regenerate blood vessels. Research is being conducted for avoiding the risk of defects in childbirth. Exploration has begun on how to clone cells to create organs and even body parts.

In the field of cancer research, scientists are now trying to develop drugs to choke off the blood supply to tumors, thereby killing them. They are investigating many compounds including green tea and thalidomide, the drug responsible for the horrendous birth defects in the late 1950s and early 1960s. They also see promise in a drug derived from the bark of the African bush willow tree that Zulu witch doctors have used for centuries as a medicine and to apply as a poison to the tips of their arrows.²⁸ Yet when it comes to recognizing that heart disease could be almost totally eliminated through nutrition so that it is nearly nonexistent as a threat to human life, scientists and surgeons married to surgery and drugs plug their ears and do not want to hear one word.

Footnotes

1. American Heart Association, “Cardiovascular disease death rates decline, but risk factors still exact heavy toll,”

(12/1/2007), http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml? identifier=3052670 2. Esselstyn, pp. 89 – 91.

2. Dean Ornish, M.D., Eat More, Weigh Less, (New York: Harper Perennial, 1994).

3. Ibid., see Chapter 5.

4. Gersh, p. 190.

5. Ibid.

6. Campbell, p. 126

7. Ibid., p. 23.

8 . Ibid., pp. 125, 323.

9. Ibid., pp. 338 – 341.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid., pp. 339, 340.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Richard Horton, Health Wars: On the Global Front Lines of Modern Medicine, (New York: The New York Review of Books , 2003), p. 436.

16. Ibid.

17. Esselstyn, p. 55.

18. Jerome Groopman, How Doctors Think, (New York: First Mariner Books, 2007), p. 155.

19. Esselstyn, pp. 11, 108.

20. PBS interview of Dr. John Young, “Animal Testing Ethics,” Religious & Ethics Newsweekly, (August 15, 2008), Episode no. 1150, contains interview transcription and video, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1150/cover.html

21. Esselstyn, p. 4.

22. American Heart Association, “AHA Statistical Update, Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2009 Update,” p. e22, http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191261

23. Campbell, pp. 111 – 123.

24. Ibid., p. 124.

25. Ibid.

26. Annieappleseed Project, “Dean Ornish, Nutrition and Prostate Cancer,” from Dr. Gregor Newsletter, (Fall 2005),

http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/deanornutpro.html See also Washington Post, Rob Stein, “Study Shows Diet,

Exercise, and Reduced Stress Slow Prostate Cancer,” (August 11, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/

content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001882.html

27. Robert Winston and Lori Oliwenstein, Superhuman, (New

York: Dorling Kindersly, 2000).

28. Ibid., p. 165.

David Irving is a vegan and an animal rights activist. His writings on various animal rights issues have appeared on Cyrano’s Journal, Thomas Paine’s Corner, All-Creatures.org, Press Action, Radical Noesis, Dandelion Salad, The Animals Voice, and other blogs and journals.

An accomplished musician, he is a composer and has played French horn with ensembles like the Marlboro and Cabrillo music festivals and the San Francisco Ballet and the San Francisco Opera. He was a member of the 7th Army Symphony, the Graz Opera and Philharmonic Orchestra (Austria), and the Oakland Symphony. David attended the New England Conservatory of Music, the Vienna Academy of Music, and graduated Magna Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia University from which he also earned an M.A. in music composition. His compositions are performed in the United States and Europe.

He has lived in Boston, Vienna and Graz (Austria), San Francisco, and New York City. He presently makes his home in the upper Catskill Mountain region of New York where he attends to and is attended by his three cats, Lewie-Lew, Goldie Boy, and Loonie. David has a twin brother, Darrel, who is a classical guitarist and an editor and author of several books. They were born in Kankakee, Illinois and grew up in Bluffton, Indiana.

The High Price Of Cheap Food

majestic — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:28:31 +0000

Mark Bittman asks and answers the question “Is junk food really cheaper?” in the New York Times:

The “fact” that junk food is cheaper than real food has become a reflexive part of how we explain why so many Americans are overweight, particularly those with lower incomes. I frequently read confident statements like, “when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli …” or “it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.”

This is just plain wrong. In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food: a typical order for a family of four — for example, two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas — costs, at the McDonald’s a hundred steps from where I write, about $28. (Judicious ordering of “Happy Meals” can reduce that to about $23 — and you get a few apple slices in addition to the fries!)

In general, despite extensive government subsidies, hyperprocessed food remains more expensive than food cooked at home. You can serve a roasted chicken with vegetables along with a simple salad and milk for about $14, and feed four or even six people. If that’s too much money, substitute a meal of rice and canned beans with bacon, green peppers and onions; it’s easily enough for four people and costs about $9. (Omitting the bacon, using dried beans, which are also lower in sodium, or substituting carrots for the peppers reduces the price further, of course.)

Another argument runs that junk food is cheaper when measured by the calorie, and that this makes fast food essential for the poor because they need cheap calories. But given that half of the people in this country (and a higher percentage of poor people) consume too many calories rather than too few, measuring food’s value by the calorie makes as much sense as measuring a drink’s value by its alcohol content. (Why not drink 95 percent neutral grain spirit, the cheapest way to get drunk?)

Besides, that argument, even if we all needed to gain weight, is not always true. A meal of real food cooked at home can easily contain more calories, most of them of the “healthy” variety. (Olive oil accounts for many of the calories in the roast chicken meal, for example.)In comparing prices of real food and junk food, I used supermarket ingredients, not the pricier organic or local food that many people would consider ideal. But food choices are not black and white; the alternative to fast food is not necessarily organic food, any more than the alternative to soda is Bordeaux.

The alternative to soda is water, and the alternative to junk food is not grass-fed beef and greens from a trendy farmers’ market, but anything other than junk food: rice, grains, pasta, beans, fresh vegetables, canned vegetables, frozen vegetables, meat, fish, poultry, dairy products, bread, peanut butter, a thousand other things cooked at home — in almost every case a far superior alternative…

[continues in the New York Times]

Marijuana Munchies Won’t Make You Fat

majestic — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:34:28 +0000

Three hash cakes made with hashish from different Amsterdam coffee shops.

Thanks to some fearless French researchers, we now know that you have nothing to fear from an attack of the munchies, reports Reuters:

Anybody who’s smoked marijuana knows about “the munchies,” that desire to eat everything within reach. But a study from France has found that, surprisingly, pot smokers are actually less likely than non-smokers to pack on weight.

Using data covering more than 50,000 U.S. adults, researchers headed by Yann Le Strat, a psychiatrist at the Louis-Mourier Hospital in Colombes, France, found that roughly 14 percent to 17 percent of the people reporting that they smoked pot at least three days per week were obese.

That compared with a 22 to 25 percent obesity rate among people who said they had not used pot in the past 12 months.

“Initially, we thought we made a mistake,” said Le Strat, adding that he and co-author Bernard Le Foll checked the results several times to make sure they were correct.

“This is only a preliminary result. It doesn’t mean that marijuana does actually help you lose weight, but perhaps there is a component that does.”…

[continues at Reuters]

Kids’ Weight Loss Book Sparks Protests

Pelliciari — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:01:33 +0000

It seems everyday there’s a new statistic about which country is fighting obesity, how school lunches and fast food restaurants are offering “healthy” options, and other stories about reducing the weight problem of current and future generations. But a new book about a fourteen years old girl going on a diet has sparked controversy. Discovery News reports:

An upcoming children’s book with the seemingly noninflammatory title “Maggie Goes on a Diet” is causing a firestorm of protest.

According to the book’s description on Amazon.com, “This inspiring story is about a 14-year-old who goes on a diet and is transformed from being overweight and insecure to a normal sized teen who becomes the school soccer star. Through time, exercise and hard work, Maggie becomes more and more confident and develops a positive self-image.”

You’d think that with one-third of American kids overweight or obese, and children experiencing unprecedented weight-related health problems including diabetes, a book about a girl losing weight and gaining self-esteem would be welcomed. Guess again.

Critics and reviewers are blasting the book, which has not been released and which almost no one (including myself or the experts quoted here) have fully read. It’s being called horrible, irresponsible, and dangerous.

[Continues at Discovery News]

Dieting Forces Brain To Eat Itself

majestic — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:27:27 +0000

It’s pretty much common sense that starvation diets are bad for you, but when your brain starts eating itself you know it’s time to stop! Nick Collins reports for the Telegraph:

Like other parts of the body, brain cells begin to eat themselves as a last-ditch source of energy to ward off starvation, a study found.

The body responds by producing fatty acids, which turn up the hunger signal in the brain and increase our impulse to eat.

Researchers from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University in New York said the findings could lead to new scientifically proven weight loss treatments.

Tests on mice found that stopping the brain cells from eating themselves – a process known as autophagy – prevented levels of hunger from rising in response to starvation.

The chemical change in their brains caused the mice to become lighter and slimmer after a period of fasting, the researchers reported in the journal Cell Metabolism.

Dr Rajat Singh, who led the study, said: “A pathway that is really important for every cell to turn over components in a kind of housekeeping process is also required to regulate appetite.

“Treatments aimed at the pathway might make you less hungry and burn more fat, a good way to maintain energy balance in a world where calories are cheap and plentiful.”…

[continues in the Telegraph]

Vegan Is The New Viagra!

majestic — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:34:54 +0000

In the hot new doc promoting a plant-based diet, Forks Over Knives, Dr. Terry Mason calls erectile disfunction “the canary in the coalmine” for cardiovascular problems. This promo clip goes quite a bit farther than that … the vegan diet has never sounded so compelling!

Chill Out Drinks Are The New Cool Beverage

majestic — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:18:03 +0000

Eunju Lie reports on the new trend in beverages for Reuters:

Sales of “relaxation drinks” with names like Vacation in a Bottle, Dream Water and Just Chill, while small, are growing. “There is clear potential for further growth in the coming years,” said Cecilia Martinez, market analyst at UK-based beverage research group Zenith International.

Relaxation drinks help the body chill out by relieving muscle tension and reducing levels of cortisone, the main stress hormone, according to a report that Martinez wrote about the drinks earlier this year.

The drinks, which evolved in Japan as far back as 2005, contain no alcohol but some have melatonin, a hormone that can cause drowsiness. The biggest relaxation brands include Innovative Beverage Group’s Drank, Purple Stuff and Jones GABA.

Another called Slow Cow is up and coming…

[continues at Reuters]

America Just Keeps Getting Fatter

majestic — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:16:18 +0000

Melissa Healy reports on a comprehensive state-by-state report titled ‘F as in Fat,’ for the Los Angeles Times:

America continues to get fatter, according to a comprehensive new report on the nation’s weight crisis. Statistics for 2008-2010 show that 16 states are experiencing steep increases in adult obesity, and none has seen a notable downturn in the last four years.

Meanwhile, cases of Type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure that health experts have long warned would result from the nation’s broadening girth and sedentary ways are becoming increasingly widespread, according to the report, titled “F as in Fat,” released Thursday.

Even Coloradans, long the nation’s slimmest citizens, are gaining excess pounds. With an obese population of 19.8% — it is the only state with an adult obesity rate below 20% — Colorado remains the caboose on the nation’s huffing, puffing train to fat land.

But in just the last four years, the ranks of the obese even in Colorado have grown 0.7%. Colorado’s hypertension rates have risen significantly as well, to 21.2% of adults.

The report, prepared by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Trust for America’s Health, is their sixth annual state-by-state accounting of obesity.

In the last 15 years, the report said, adult obesity rates have doubled or nearly doubled in 17 states. Two decades ago, not a single state had an obesity rate above 15%. Now all states do.

“When you look at it year by year, the changes are incremental,” said Jeffrey Levi, executive director of the Trust for America’s Health. But if you back up a generation and look at the slow but steady climb of Americans’ weight, he said, “you see how we got into this problem.”…

[continues in the Los Angeles Times]

One Quarter Of American Teens Drink Soda Every Day

majestic — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 01:23:04 +0000

For those of you wondering why America’s greatest threat is obesity, this is at least part of the answer, although the CDC is spinning it as good news. From AP via Yahoo News:

A new study shows one in four high school students drink soda every day — a sign fewer teens are downing the sugary drinks… That’s less than in the past. In the 1990s and early 2000s, more than three-quarters of teens were having a sugary drink each day, according to earlier research.

The CDC reported the figures Thursday, based on a national survey last year of more than 11,000 high school students. They appear in one of the federal agency’s publications, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Consumption of sugary drinks is considered a big public health problem, and has been linked to the U.S. explosion in childhood obesity. One study of Massachusetts schoolchildren found that for each additional sweet drink per day, the odds of obesity increased 60 percent.

As a result, many schools have stopped selling soda or artificial juice to students.

Indeed, CDC data suggests that the proportion of teens who drink soda each day dropped from 29 percent in 2009 to 24 percent in 2010, at least partly as a result.

“It looks like total consumption is going down,” said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

But the results of the new CDC study are still a bit depressing, said Brownell, who has advocated for higher taxes on sodas.

“These beverages are the kinds of things that should be consumed once in a while as treat — not every day,” he said. “That’s a lot of calories.”

[continues at AP via Yahoo News]

Only In America: Purchase A Giant Pepsi To Raise Money For Diabetes Research

JacobSloan — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:10:49 +0000

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation has confirmed that this is a real promotion occurring now at KFCs across the country. Gulp down a “mega jug” of Pepsi — that’s a half gallon containing 56 spoonfuls of sugar — and one whole dollar will go towards finding a cure for the terrible disease that the drink will give you. Via Grist:

I honestly didn’t believe this one was for real at first. No way even KFC, purveyors of a sandwich that uses fried meat as a delivery mechanism for fried meat, would seriously market a soda size called the “mega jug.” And even if they did, they’d never have the chutzpah to donate “mega jug” dollars to juvenile diabetes research.

Sadly, I had totally underestimated KFC’s capacity for irony. The mega jug is a half gallon of soda, and this is a real local promotion. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation defends it thus: “JDRF supports research for type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease that results when the immune system attacks the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, therefore requiring a child or adult with the disease to depend on insulin treatment for the rest of their lives. It is a common misconception that type 1 diabetes is caused by obesity or eating too much junk food or sweets.”

Do Students Eat Like Prisoners?

JacobSloan — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:58:15 +0000

Good Magazine looks at the similarity between prison meals and children’s school cafeteria food — both rich in starch-y/milk-y goodness, and costing around $2.65 per day to provide. It should also be pointed out that both children and prisoners are daily confined to small spaces and given little opportunity to burn off these massive calorie counts. I suppose school is intended to be practice for where the kids will eventually end up?

Does A Low-Salt Diet Really Feed A Healthy Heart?

Pelliciari — Wed, 04 May 2011 22:31:16 +0000

Has your doctor always told you that a low sodium diet will help keep your heart healthy? You may have to take that advice with a grain of salt. Gina Kolata at The New York Times reports:

A new study found that low-salt diets increase the risk of death from heart attacks and strokes and do not prevent high blood pressure, but the research’s limitations mean the debate over the effects of salt in the diet is far from over.

In fact, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention felt so strongly that the study was flawed that they criticized it in an interview, something they normally do not do.

Dr. Peter Briss, a medical director at the centers, said that the study was small; that its subjects were relatively young, with an average age of 40 at the start; and that with few cardiovascular events, it was hard to draw conclusions. And the study, Dr. Briss and others say, flies in the face of a body of evidence indicating that higher sodium consumption can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

[Continues at The New York Times]

More Than 50% Of Americans Take Dietary Supplements

majestic — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:33:42 +0000

Photo: Ragesoss (CC)

The proliferation of vitamins and diet supplements is healthy for the companies that flog them, but is it really beneficial for the hundreds of millions of people consuming them? Madison Park (real name, apparently, as I write a stone’s throw from Madison Square Park in NYC) reports for CNN:

As more than half of U.S. adults are popping vitamins and supplements, the question remains — has it made Americans healthier?

That depends on whom you ask.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday that more of half of U.S. adults use dietary supplements — including multivitamins, minerals and herbs.

That rise, from 42% in 1988 to 53% in 2006, has fueled the growth of the supplement industry to a $27 billion behemoth, according to Consumer Reports.

Dietary supplements are not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the same way as drugs. The makers do not have to prove safety or effectiveness.

“There’s a false perception that supplements fall under the same regulatory umbrella as prescription drugs,” said Dr. Orly Avitzur, medical adviser for Consumer Reports. “That’s not the case; we really don’t know what’s inside.”

The most popular supplements are multivitamins, used by 39% of U.S. adults in 2006.
Some consumers mistakenly view supplements as a way to make up for a poor diet.

“It’s a Band-Aid approach to think you can eat poorly and just take a vitamin and you’ll be equal to another person who eats well and exercises and takes care of their health and gets regular checkups,” Avitzur said. “There’s no substitute for a healthy lifestyle.”…

[continues at CNN]

Coffee Is Good For Your Heart. Really.

majestic — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:27:18 +0000

Photo: Julius Schorzman (CC)

For all your coffee addicts out there, some surprisingly good news. Too good to be true? Elane Conis reports for the Los Anegeles Times:

Looking for a reason to not give up your coffee habit? Here’s one possibility: heart health.

Numerous studies in recent years have reported that drinking coffee may be good for the cardiovascular system and might even help prevent strokes. Just last month, Swedish researchers announced results of a large study showing that coffee seemed to reduce the risk of stroke in women by up to 25%.

Not long ago, researchers thought quite the opposite about coffee and the heart, says Dr. Thomas Hemmen, director of the UC San Diego Stroke Center: “Coffee is fun and it tastes good, so people assumed for many years that it would be bad for you.”

Studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s offered little in the way of confirmation or refutation. Several suggested an increased risk of heart attack among coffee drinkers. Others showed a lowered risk of heart attack and stroke. Still others found no connection at all.

Many of these early studies were criticized for being too small or too brief. In response, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health decided to look at coffee consumption, heart disease and stroke risk among more than 45,000 healthy men enrolled in the school’s ongoing Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Their analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1990, found that coffee drinking had no effect on the men’s risk of heart attack or stroke.

But in the last few years, a spate of studies has revisited the question, and many of them have found — unexpectedly — that coffee drinking is linked to a decreased stroke risk…

[continues in the Los Anegeles Times]

Caramel Coloring In Coke Causes Cancer

majestic — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:15:50 +0000

Photo Credit: Jorge Bach, CSPI

A few days ago it was revealed that diet soda can trigger strokes in regular drinkers of the sweet fizzy beverages. Now the Center for Science in the Public Interest is petitioning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prohibit what it says is carcinogenic “caramel coloring” (that is, not real caramel but synthetic, chemical “caramel”):

The “caramel coloring” used in Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and other foods is contaminated with two cancer-causing chemicals and should be banned, according to a regulatory petition filed today by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In contrast to the caramel one might make at home by melting sugar in a saucepan, the artificial brown coloring in colas and some other products is made by reacting sugars with ammonia and sulfites under high pressure and temperatures. Chemical reactions result in the formation of 2-methylimidazole and 4 methylimidazole, which in government-conducted studies caused lung, liver, or thyroid cancer or leukemia in laboratory mice or rats.

The National Toxicology Program, the division of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences that conducted the animal studies, said that there is “clear evidence” that both 2-MI and 4-MI are animal carcinogens. Chemicals that cause cancer in animals are considered to pose cancer threats to humans. Researchers at the University of California, Davis, found significant levels of 4-MI in five brands of cola.

“Carcinogenic colorings have no place in the food supply, especially considering that their only function is a cosmetic one,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. “The FDA should act quickly to revoke its approval of caramel colorings made with ammonia.”

Federal regulations distinguish among four types of caramel coloring, two of which are produced with ammonia and two without it. CSPI wants the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the two made with ammonia. The type used in colas and other dark soft drinks is known as Caramel IV, or ammonia sulfite process caramel. Caramel III, which is produced with ammonia but not sulfites, is sometimes used in beer, soy sauce, and other foods.

Five prominent experts on animal carcinogenesis, including several who have worked at the National Toxicology Program, joined CSPI in calling on the FDA to bar the use of caramel colorings made with an ammonia process. “The American public should not be exposed to any cancer risk whatsoever as a result of consuming such chemicals, especially when they serve a non-essential, cosmetic purpose,” the scientists wrote in a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

CSPI also says the phrase “caramel coloring” is misleading when used to describe colorings made with ammonia or sulfite. The terms “ammonia process caramel” or “ammonia sulfite process caramel” would be more accurate, and companies should not be allowed to label any products that contain such colorings as “natural,” according to the group.

“Most people would interpret ‘caramel coloring’ to mean ‘colored with caramel,’ but this particular ingredient has little in common with ordinary caramel or caramel candy,” Jacobson said. “It’s a concentrated dark brown mixture of chemicals that simply does not occur in nature. Regular caramel isn’t healthful, but at least it is not tainted with carcinogens.”

In a little-noticed regulatory proceeding in California, state health officials have added 4 MI to the state’s list of “chemicals known to the state to cause cancer.”…

[continues at the Center for Science in the Public Interest]

Negative Health Effects Of Sports And Energy Drinks

majestic — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:24:48 +0000

Photo: Grendelkhan (CC)

Scientists at University of Miami School of Medicine have reviewed the effects, adverse consequences, and extent of energy-drink consumption among children, adolescents, and young adults. Here’s what they found in their study:

RESULTS According to self-report surveys, energy drinks are consumed by 30% to 50% of adolescents and young adults. Frequently containing high and unregulated amounts of caffeine, these drinks have been reported in association with serious adverse effects, especially in children, adolescents, and young adults with seizures, diabetes, cardiac abnormalities, or mood and behavioral disorders or those who take certain medications. Of the 5448 US caffeine overdoses reported in 2007, 46% occurred in those younger than 19 years. Several countries and states have debated or restricted their sales and advertising.

CONCLUSIONS Energy drinks have no therapeutic benefit, and many ingredients are understudied and not regulated. The known and unknown pharmacology of agents included in such drinks, combined with reports of toxicity, raises concern for potentially serious adverse effects in association with energy-drink use. In the short-term, pediatricians need to be aware of the possible effects of energy drinks in vulnerable populations and screen for consumption to educate families. Long-term research should aim to understand the effects in at-risk populations. Toxicity surveillance should be improved, and regulations of energy-drink sales and consumption should be based on appropriate research.

You can download the full text of the study as a PDF.

Drinking Diet Soda Increases Risk Of Stroke

majestic — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 12:54:24 +0000

No matter what new chemical concoctions the corporate food companies put in “diet” (i.e. low calorie) carbonated beverages (variously known as soda, pop or other terms depending on where you live) to replace sugar, it’s not natural and it’s not good for you. Just think of the various health risks later discovered from saccharin and aspartame. Now it turns out that stroke is another of the health hazards. Stick to sugar — in moderation! From the South Asia Mail:

New research is raising fresh worries about diet soft drinks, noting that people who drink them every day have a higher risk for strokes and heart attacks compared to those who drink no pop at all.

But the researchers are quick to point out that their study does not prove that diet soft drinks cause heart attacks or strokes. They note there could be other aspects about diet pop drinkers that accounts for the increased risk that they observed.

The research was presented this week at the American Stroke Association’s International Stroke Conference 2011. It found that people who drank diet pop every day had a 48 per cent higher risk of stroke or heart attack than people who said they never drank the stuff.

The study’s lead researcher, Hannah Gardener, an epidemiologist at the University of Miami, says she has no idea why diet soft drinks could be risky.

It may be that people who drink lots of diet pop also tend to have a poor lifestyle that raises their stroke risk. That poor lifestyle could include smoking, drinking too much alcohol, not exercising enough or having high blood pressure and smoking.

However, the researchers tried to take into account these known stroke risk factors. And yet, they still didn’t see a change in the link between drinking diet pop and increased stroke risk.

“If our results are confirmed with future studies, then it would suggest that diet soda may not be the optimal substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages for protection against vascular outcomes,” Gardener said in a news release…

[continues in the South Asia Mail]

Does Eating Junk Food Make Children Dumber?

JacobSloan — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:31:20 +0000

Tragically, when kids are fed junk food, their developing brains may suffer as a result. (Thus producing dim-minded adults who gobble more junk food, in an endless cycle?)

After controlling for every socioeconomic factor they could think of, researchers found that young children with diets heavy in processed foods grew to have lower IQs than similar children who ate more healthily, The Week writes:

Researchers at England’s University of Bristol found that a child’s eating habits at age 3 may influence his cognitive abilities at age 8. Toddler diets high in fat and sugar were associated with lower IQ scores, while healthier eating was tied to higher scores. The report, which appears in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, is being billed as “the first study to suggest a direct link between the diet of young children and their brainpower” years later.

The researchers examined data on nearly 4,000 children born in the early 1990s, including detailed information from parents on what the kids ate and drank at specific ages. It also included the results of IQ tests performed when the children were 8.5 years old. The researchers sorted the kids into three categories based on whether they were given a “processed” diet full of fat and sugar; a “traditional” diet of “meat, potatoes, bread and vegetables”; or a “health-conscious” diet heavy on salad, fruit, rice, and fish. They also rated the kids’ diets on a point scale, “which ranged from minus two for the most healthy to 10 for the most unhealthy.”

At age 8.5, the kids who’d been fed the worst diet as toddlers had slightly lower IQs than the kids with the healthiest eating habits. Every one-point increase in the 12-point unhealthy food scale was associated with a 1.67-point drop in IQ. That correlation held even after researchers adjusted the data for other factors like socioeconomic status and parental education. Improving a child’s diet after age 3 did not seem to correlate to a jump in IQ.

How To Reverse Diabetes

majestic — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:41:13 +0000

Potentially massive news for those who suffer Type 2 diabetes — you may be able to reverse it, without the “help” of Big Pharma and their medications. Val Willingham reports for CNN:

When Jonathan Legg of Bethesda, Maryland, got a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes at 39, he was shocked. “I had always been pretty active,” said Legg. “But it was a big wake-up call, that what I was doing and my current weight were not OK.”

That was two years ago. Since that time, the Morgan Stanley executive decided to make some changes and reverse his diabetes. Although his doctor recommended he go on medication to control his illness, Legg took a different approach. Instead of meds, he began to exercise every day and changed his diet, cutting out alcohol, fatty foods and watching his carbs.

“I wanted to be able to know the changes I was making were making a difference, and it wasn’t the drug,” said Legg.

According to new statistics just out from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25.8 million people, or 8.3% of the U.S. population, are affected by either type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Most, like Legg, have type 2 diabetes, which in many people develops later in life. Caused primarily by genetic makeup, a sedentary lifestyle and poor eating habits, type 2 diabetes can be reversed in some cases. By making changes to their lives such as adding exercise and improving their diets, many type 2 diabetics can drop their glucose or sugar numbers back to the normal range, reversing their condition.

“We have seen numerous people reverse their condition,” says Dr. Michelle Magee, director of the MedStar Diabetes Institute in Washington. “But it takes a real dedication for the rest of their lives,” she notes.

So why do exercise and diet help reverse diabetes? To answer that question, we first need to know why people get diabetes in the first place.

New Years Resolution, Diets And Obesity

Pelliciari — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:25:38 +0000

New Years is a celebration of starting over, the time when many people make resolutions to improve the following year. The most popular resolution in America is to lose weight and be more healthy. According to disinformation’s book 50 Facts That Should Change the USA, written by Stephen Fender, it is also the least kept resolution. With Fact #40: 65% of American adults are overweight, 30% are obese, and these proportions are growing, Americans should reconsider how they keep their resolutions throughout the whole year:

65% of American Adults Are Overweight, 30% Are Obese, And These Proportions Are Growing

“I myself am very well in body, mind spirits, quite stout,” an immigrant wrote from Pittsburgh to his brother back in Manchester, England in 1837. “I weigh 182 lbs so you may think how I am, a man of my size. Am very corpulent.” Those were the days—when fat was a sign of success and prosperity. What he meant was that he had made it in the New World, and left the lean years in the Old forever.

Nowadays, of course, fatness means something very different. For us the sight of people waddling through shopping malls, trying to squeeze into a booth in an all-you-can-eat-for-$14.95 restaurant or spreading out across two seats in a crowded bus brings out all kinds of disapproval. We take it as a sign of slovenly living, laziness, lack of exercise, ignorance of proper eating, even a sort of moral collapse.

Like poverty, to which it is related, obesity is a comparative measurement. According to the American Obesity Association, source of these headline figures, anyone with a body mass index (BMI) between 25 and 29.9 is overweight. From 30 to 39.9 you are obese and suffering from a clinical condition. Over 40, you are severely obese and probably need a forklift truck to get around. Severe obesity has risen too—from 2.9 percent of the population in 1988–1994 to 4.7 currently.

Obesity is not just a matter of appearance and convenience. The medical effects can be pretty horrendous too. By 2006 it was killing some 400,000 Americans a year, just a shade behind, and rapidly catching up with, the total for cigarette smokers, 435,000, as the chief cause of preventable death in the country. Killer diseases associated with obesity include Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure and—in postmenopausal women—breast cancer. Less immediately threatening but still serious are osteoarthritis, decreased fertility in women due to menstrual irregularities, and obstructive sleep apnea—that is, loud snoring and irregular breathing during deep sleep, causing excessive daytime sleepiness, personality changes, decreased memory, impotence and depression.

Though an increasing phenomenon in many developed countries, obesity is now an acute problem in the U.S. Why in America especially? The usual explanation is that we eat too much convenience and fast food loaded with fat and carbohydrates, and get too little exercise. Given that many of us would drive our cars to bed if only we could get them up the stairs, there may be something in this simple reasoning. But simple answers won’t do for a country so ready to believe in dastardly plots perpetrated by “them”—in this case the global food industry and fast-food moguls.

According to the paranoid explanation, what really makes us fat are monosodium glutamate (MSG), hydrolyzed vegetable protein and other taste-enhancers added to American convenience foods. These stimulate the pancreas to produce insulin, which in turn promotes the body to lay down fat. They also stimulate cravings, leaving us wanting more of the same. This notion satisfies because it seems to explain so much. MSG or other so-called “excititoxins” are in virtually everything Americans eat, from canned soups and frozen prepared meals, to proprietary gravies and salad dressings—not to mention nearly every menu item on fast-food outlets like Burger King, McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Taco Bell. But then again, so are the fats and carbohydrates that actually do the business.

With obesity so widespread, you’d think we’d at least try to keep our children from getting fat. But excess weight seems to run in families. According to the American Obesity Association, “around 30 percent of children aged from six to nineteen are overweight, and another 15 percent are obese.” No doubt the chief element in this sorry statistic is the family diet, but in case mothers want to keep their kids from eating badly, the convenience and fast-food producers are making their own end run round the parental line, appealing to the next generation directly via television. With kids now responsible—either directly or through nagging power over parents—for over $500 billion spending annually, anti fast-food campaigner Eric Schlosser has written, “American children now see a junk food ad every five minutes while watching TV.” Maybe there’s some point to that paranoia after all.

But all this debate over causes and effects ignores another factor connected with American obesity. What the usual obesity sources fail to mention is that poverty in America has been increasing at more or less the same rate (though at a lower level) as obesity. Present levels of American poverty stand at 34.5 million people, or 12.7 percent of the population. This figure includes 13.5 million children.

Furthermore, obesity and poverty are linked. This sounds counter-intuitive. We are used to images of poverty in the form of thin-faced children with their ribs showing staring out of an appeal for African aid. Even the experts seem to have been taken aback by this recent discovery, since they have labeled the phenomenon “the hunger-obesity paradox.”

The real surprise is why the connection between poverty and obesity should have come as such a surprise. It’s obvious that poor households are going to buy the tastiest and most filling foods they can find on a limited budget. That means sugary soft drinks, pizza, doughnuts, hamburgers and salty, starchy snacks like pretzels and potato chips. When whole days go by without enough food, the body stores up fat to tide it over through the “lean” period. This may be the vestige of a hunter-gatherer metabolism.

In his study, “Does Hunger Cause Obesity?” W. H. Dietz cites the case of a mother on food stamps who didn’t have enough money to satisfy her daughter’s hunger for half of every month. For the remaining two weeks she would make up the difference with high-fat, high-starch, filling foods. The seven-year-old girl was 220 percent the normal weight for her age and size.

The writer Fujioka Kim, who quotes this example, points out that a woman and two children driving home from the supermarket could take the edge off their appetites with a 16 ounce bag of potato chips costing $1.99 and a bottle of soda bought on sale for 99¢. For the same money they could have bought three apples and a quart bottle of soy milk. Far fewer calories, more nutrition. Ms. Kim offers a few “easy, inexpensive but healthy recipes” from her own Japanese American background. These include “ninjin salad”—shredded raw carrot with lemon juice squeezed over it—and “hiya-yakko”—tofu (bean curd) covered with chopped scallions, ground sesame and a few drops of soy sauce.

Well, maybe sensible eating will catch on even among the poor. But the economic pressure of poverty and the emotional response to it, especially when children come into the equation, form a complex dynamic of motivations which would be condescending to expect to play like an instrument. If poor people don’t feed their children “sensibly,” that isn’t necessarily because they are stupid or uninformed about good nutrition. Apart from the economic hurdles in the way of low-calorie, high-nutritional eating, there is what we might call the “treat factor” to consider. Parents may feel the need to give their kids a treat to make up for things missing elsewhere in their lives.

One place to test the treat factor is in the fast-food market, since it is here that people eat as a break from their routines. Increasingly sensitive to the criticism that they were undermining the nation’s health with hamburgers, french fries and sweet drinks, fast-food outlets began to introduce “healthy options” like fresh fruit and vegetables to their menus. McDonald’s began to add “fruit ‘n’ walnut” salads and grilled (instead of deep-fried) chicken, to the range offered, later pushing the health-agenda envelope out to carrot sticks and toasted deli sandwiches.

As a result—apparently—McDonald’s Corp.’s earnings for January to June 2006 jumped by 17 percent over the previously half year. But two months later, after 29 years with the company, Mike Roberts, the chief backer of these innovations, suddenly resigned, leaving seasoned observers of the industry puzzled. Did he know something they didn’t know?

Maybe he doubted whether the healthy revolution could last. Already parts of this extremely fast moving market have turned against healthy eating at the fast-food outlets. “We listened to consumers who said they wanted to eat fresh fruit,” said a spokesman for Wendy’s, “but apparently they lied.” Now hamburgers are meatier, cheesier, thicker than ever, and there’s not a blade of lettuce in sight—let alone tofu topped with soy sauce and spring onions. Hardee’s now offers a “Monster Thickburger” consisting of two beef patties, each with cheese and bacon on top. Burger King has gone two better, with their new “Stacker Quad”—four layers of hamburger, and cheese, topped with bacon, packing in as much saturated fat as three Big Macs. And sales are singing.

As Many As A Third Of Americans Will Have Diabetes By 2050

majestic — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:11:03 +0000

The blue circle symbol used to represent diabetes

Obesity truly is the “Killer At Large.” If this statistic won’t stop people from consuming vast quantities of HCFC-laced junk food and soda, I don’t know what will. From Reuters:

Up to a third of U.S. adults could have diabetes by 2050 if Americans continue to gain weight and avoid exercise, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention projected on Friday.

The numbers are certain to go up as the population gets older, but they will accelerate even more unless Americans change their behavior, the CDC said.

“We project that, over the next 40 years, the prevalence of total diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) in the United States will increase from its current level of about one in 10 adults to between one in five and one in three adults in 2050,” the CDC’s James Boyle and colleagues wrote in their report.

“These are alarming numbers that show how critical it is to change the course of type-2 diabetes,” CDC diabetes expert Ann Albright said in a statement.

“Successful programs to improve lifestyle choices on healthy eating and physical activity must be made more widely available because the stakes are too high and the personal toll too devastating to fail.”

The CDC says about 24 million U.S. adults have diabetes now, most of them type-2 diabetes linked strongly with poor diet and lack of exercise…

[continues at Reuters]

The Addictive Opioids In Wheat And Dairy Foods

phunkychic666 — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:49:24 +0000

Photo: Janine Chedid (CC)

A 2008 article from Brad Weeks, MD, on his blog WeeksMD.com:

In Short: Wheat- and dairy products contain opioid peptides influencing endorphin receptors in the brain. These peptides are physically addictive, causing dependence, asthma, obesity, apathy, ignorance and numbness. The same goes for beta-carbolines from prepared food.

To be sharp and investigative, you ought to consume neither dairy- nor wheat-products. You don’t need those ‘foods’ at all.

To obtain all required nutrients and to remain sharp and investigative; consume as much fruits (there are about 6000 different fruits), and some fresh raw animal food regularly (like sashimi or egg yolk). And for munch-food; only consume what you really, really love to eat (and not because they say it’s healthy), containing little protein, but much fat and / or sugar, satisfying your cravings for munch-food.

In Detail: Zombies

Look around you; don’t you see many zombies ?

Why do so many people act like zombies nowadays ?

It’s not natural, for every specie has to react swiftly upon changes, and needs to explore new opportunities. You might say that humans are mainly ‘followers’, like it would be true for cattle. But by nature, humans do not live together in large numbers; we’re not like cattle. Millions of years ago, humans at the most lived together by the dozens, and not thousands, or even millions. Therefore, lots of us humans should be curious, investigative and explorative.

What makes so many people so apathetic, slow and ignorant ?

Opioid Peptides

Everybody knows that if one uses morphine, one is slow and apathetic. Simply because morphine is an opioid substance.

The only reason why we, and other animals, are sensitive to such substances, is because our body and brain contain receptors for opioid peptides. Why ?

When we have to flee from danger but are wounded, we have to be able to run away anyway. Therefore the body produces opioid peptides to ease the pain, when necessary. These opioid peptides are called endorphins. Marathon-runners know the action of these endorphins as ‘runner’s high’ ; it enables them to go on even when exhausted. Without the proper receptors, these endorphins (and anesthetics !!) don’t work.

Besides drugs and endorphins, opioid-receptors in the brain are susceptible to some other opioid substances: those that are absorbed through consuming food. This happens because far from all peptides are entirely decomposed into single amino acids in the digestive tract. (1) Also, most opioid peptides are hard to decompose. (2)

But why do some foods contain opioid peptides ? And what foods ?

[continues at WeeksMD.com]

High Fructose Corn Syrup Changes Name To ‘Corn Sugar’

majestic — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:59:41 +0000

Who are they kidding? It’s not sugar and it’s not natural! From Fast Company’s Co.Design:

Cast as an evil, oozing harbinger of obesity and diabetes, sales of high fructose corn syrup have seen a downward spiral as companies swap the over-processed sweetener for healthier-sounding ingredients. So what’s the solution for the industry, according to the Corn Refiners Association? Change the name. To “corn sugar.” And presto! What was once a scary sounding goo becomes more natural-sounding, just as sweet and pure as cane sugar.

A new Web site and campaign rebranding HFCS as the innocuous term was launched today in the hopes that they will get FDA approval to change the name on food labeling. Over at CornSugar.com, ads and imagery of a maze mowed through corn fields symbolizes the path of misdirected customers confused by current labeling systems, as quotes from dietitians float helpfully above. (The Corn Refiners Association also own Corn.org and the icky-sounding SweetSurprise.com.)

[A brand-new ad, touting the subtle rebranding]

“This seems to be a last-ditch attempt to try and salvage a product that they know is not good for Americans,” says Curt Ellis, one of the co-producers and stars of the 2007 documentary King Corn, as well as a Food and Society Fellow with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “They have lost some of their biggest customers as more industrial food companies are converting to table sugar or more natural ingredients than that. Companies are reducing the empty calories in their products.” Indeed, Pepsi Throwback, is among the many products from big companies now marketing their use of real sugar…

[continues at Fast Company's Co.Design]

Michelle Obama Program Blames Sony PlayStation For Making America’s Children Fat

majestic — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:45:53 +0000

A great post from disinformation friend and neighbor Nicholas Deleon, over at Crunchgear:

Consuming more calories than you use makes you fat. That’s a fact, Jack. Figuring out where these calories come from, OK, that’s a noble endeavor, but let’s not pretend there’s anything secret going on here. Like, you see this graphic here? It’s the winner of some Michelle Obama-headed design contest to help folks figure out how to best fight childhood obesity. And you’ll see the PlayStation completely demonized, as if Sony itself is somehow responsible for little kids packing on the pounds.

The chart, part of the Let’s Move program (and you’ll want to see the full-res version), highlights a few bad guys, including the use of high fructose corn syrup in soda, the launch of Super Size-sized foods at McDonalds, the increase in screen-watching hours, and, yes, the launch of the Sony PlayStation.

Surely Nintendo and Microsoft are thrilled with the award-winning chart…

[continues at Crunchgear]

Disinformation » Diet

Sugar Should Be Regulated As A Toxin

Fried Food Not A Cause Of Heart Disease

The Fake Sugar Rush

Norway’s Low-Carb, High-Fat Diet Fad Has Caused a Butter Shortage

Going To A Public Farm School

How The Food Industry Eats Your Kid’s Lunch

A Simple Cure For Heart Disease

David Irving [disinfo ed.'s note: the following is an excerpt from The Protein Myth: Significantly reducing the Risk of Cancer, Heart Disease, Stoke and Diabetes while Saving the Animals and the Planet courtesy of John Hunt Publishing.]

David Irving is a vegan and an animal rights activist. His writings on various animal rights issues have appeared on Cyrano’s Journal, Thomas Paine’s Corner, All-Creatures.org, Press Action, Radical Noesis, Dandelion Salad, The Animals Voice, and other blogs and journals.

The High Price Of Cheap Food

Marijuana Munchies Won’t Make You Fat

Kids’ Weight Loss Book Sparks Protests

Dieting Forces Brain To Eat Itself

Vegan Is The New Viagra!

Chill Out Drinks Are The New Cool Beverage

America Just Keeps Getting Fatter

One Quarter Of American Teens Drink Soda Every Day

Only In America: Purchase A Giant Pepsi To Raise Money For Diabetes Research

Do Students Eat Like Prisoners?

Does A Low-Salt Diet Really Feed A Healthy Heart?

More Than 50% Of Americans Take Dietary Supplements

Coffee Is Good For Your Heart. Really.

Caramel Coloring In Coke Causes Cancer

Negative Health Effects Of Sports And Energy Drinks

Drinking Diet Soda Increases Risk Of Stroke

Does Eating Junk Food Make Children Dumber?

How To Reverse Diabetes

New Years Resolution, Diets And Obesity

As Many As A Third Of Americans Will Have Diabetes By 2050

The Addictive Opioids In Wheat And Dairy Foods

High Fructose Corn Syrup Changes Name To ‘Corn Sugar’

Michelle Obama Program Blames Sony PlayStation For Making America’s Children Fat

David Irving

[disinfo ed.'s note: the following is an excerpt from The Protein Myth: Significantly reducing the Risk of Cancer, Heart Disease, Stoke and Diabetes while Saving the Animals and the Planet courtesy of John Hunt Publishing.]