Diet Coke fans warned as more evidence shows it could increase the risk of ‘silent killer’

This "new study" is garbage. No attempt at allowing for demographic confounds was made. It's probably just another proof that poor people have worse health. I append the original journal article below

The new study, published in the Diabetes Journal, found people who consumed artificial sweeteners were more at risk to type 2 diabetes compared with those who didn't.

“The findings strengthen evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives,” the researchers wrote.

“[It also] provides important insights in the context of ongoing worldwide re-evaluation of artificial sweeteners by health authorities.”

The French scientists analysed the diets and health of 105,588 people for nine years.

By the end of the study, 972 participants had developed type 2 diabetes.

The experts found those who consumed between 16 and 18mg of artificial sweeteners per day had a 69 per cent higher chance of developing the condition than those who ate less.

While those who ate and drank aspartame-containing products specifically had a 63 per cent higher chance of developing the disease.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/health/diet-coke-fans-warned-as-more-evidence-shows-it-could-increase-the-risk-of-silent-killer/news-story/cb4abd65327fbe78111dc81bed243bbb

Artificial Sweeteners and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in the Prospective NutriNet-Santé Cohort

Charlotte Debras et al.

OBJECTIVE
To study the relationships between artificial sweeteners, accounting for all dietary sources(total and by type of artificial sweetener) and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), in a large-scale prospective cohort.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The analyses included 105,588 participants from the web-based NutriNet-Santé study (France, 2009–2022; mean age 42.5 ± 14.6 years, 79.2% women). Repeated 24-h dietary records, including brands and commercial names of industrial products, merged with qualitative and quantitative food additive composition data, enabled artificial sweetener intakes to be accurately assessed from all dietary sources. Associations between artificial sweeteners (total, aspartame, acesulfame potassium [K], and sucralose) and T2D were investigated using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for potential confounders, including weight variation during follow-up.

RESULTS
During a median follow-up of 9.1 years (946,650 person-years, 972 incident T2D), compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners (i.e., above the sex-specific medians of 16.4 mg/day in men and 18.5 mg/day in women) had higher risks of developing T2D (hazard ratio [HR] 1.69; 95% CI 1.45–1.97; P-trend <0.001). Positive associations were also observed for individual artificial sweeteners: aspartame (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.38–1.93], P-trend <0.001), acesulfame-K (HR 1.70 [1.42–2.04], P-trend <0.001), and sucralose (HR 1.34 [1.07–1.69], P-trend = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS
Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated; however, many sensitivity analyses were computed to limit this and other potential biases. These findings of positive associations between artificial sweetener intakes and increased T2D risk strengthen the evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives. This study provides important insights in the context of on-going reevaluation of artificial sweeteners by health authorities worldwide.

https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/doi/10.2337/dc23-0206/153434/Artificial-Sweeteners-and-Risk-of-Type-2-Diabetes

***************************************************

Aspartame to be declared 'possible carcinogen' by WHO

This is just the latest in a long line of do-gooder attempts to "get" artificial sweeteners. Sugar is bad for you too, of course, so you can't win. And fruit sugar (fructose) is the worst of all, allegedly

I once took on the Aspartame evangelists at some length, linking to many studies that debunked the scare. You can find my posts here. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Sources told Reuters that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." But historically, the agency's decisions have been controversial and confusing.

Reuters reported that an arm of the World Health Organization will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." (Image credit: Steve Russell / Contributor via Getty Images)
An agency within the World Health Organization (WHO) will soon name the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame a "possible carcinogen," based on a review of 1,300 studies, Reuters reported, citing information from two sources who are knowledgeable about the process.

But don't panic: The arm of the WHO that did the review, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), uses a classification system for possible and known carcinogens that is notoriously confusing and often misleading, Reuters noted. Science writer Ed Yong summed it up well in a 2015 Atlantic article, in which he wrote, "Perhaps we need a separate classification scheme for scientific organizations that are 'confusogenic to humans.'"

Here's what you need to know.

The IARC doesn't analyze how much of a product a person can safely consume before it poses a health risk, according to Reuters. When it comes to aspartame, the answer is a lot: Past assessments suggest that a typical, 150-pound (68 kilograms) person could safely consume the equivalent of the aspartame contained in more than 13 cans of Diet Coke a day.

The arm of the WHO that handles such assessments — the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives, or JECFA — has ruled on aspartame many times before. In its most recent review, the agency again held that the sweetener is safe to consume and set the acceptable daily intake at zero to 40 milligrams per 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of body weight. That translates to about 2,730 milligrams per day for a 150-pound person.

Again, this recommendation reflects how much aspartame can be consumed before it poses any health risk — not specifically cancer. Various agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have not found any definitive link between aspartame consumption and an increased risk of cancer, the American Cancer Society states.

Interestingly, JECFA is also reviewing the available data on aspartame and will announce its findings July 14, the same day the IARC is expected to rule on the artificial sweetener.

The IARC ranks substances as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic or not classifiable. These classifications serve as a rough way to rank the strength of the evidence linking a substance to cancer in humans; this evidence includes studies of humans, human cells and tissues and lab animals, as well as studies of the substances' similarity to known or probable carcinogens. The rankings aren't related to how much a substance might increase cancer risk, but how conclusively the IARC can say it causes cancer at all.

Tobacco, asbestos and processed meat are all classified as carcinogenic, meaning the IARC determined there's conclusive evidence that they can cause cancer in humans, even though the degree of risk differs among these substances.

The IARC considers glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, a "probable" carcinogen, meaning there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence that it can cause cancer in humans and either sufficient evidence showing it causes cancer in animals or strong evidence that it has similar characteristics to known or probable human carcinogens. (Regulatory agencies have contested the IARC's ruling on glyphosate, Reuters noted.)

For "possible" carcinogens, there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence they can cause cancer in humans but sufficient evidence that they cause cancer in animals or strong evidence that they have carcinogen-like characteristics. In some cases, something can rank as a possible carcinogen if there's "strong" evidence from cell and chemical studies but inadequate evidence in animals and humans.

Sources told Reuters that aspartame will fall into this category, alongside the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with cellphones. (Note that non-IARC authorities have said there's no or insufficient evidence linking cancer to cellphone use.)

Listing aspartame as a possible carcinogen is intended to motivate more research, sources close to the IARC told Reuters. Read more about the IARC's upcoming decision in Reuters.

https://www.livescience.com/health/food-diet/aspartame-to-be-declared-possible-carcinogen-by-who-dont-panic

****************************************************

Could a tipple in pregnancy be good for baby? Study suggests mothers-to-be who drink lightly have better adjusted children

Mothers-to-be who indulge in a light tipple actually go on to have better adjusted children than those who abstain, a study has claimed.

Advice on drinking in pregnancy has varied from a complete ban to moderate consumption – amid fears that it could contribute to miscarriage and child developmental problems.

But the latest research looked at mothers in Denmark who drank ten bottles of white wine – or 90 units – over the course of the pregnancy.

Their offspring were both emotionally and behaviourally better adjusted than those of teetotal mothers.

The mothers who did drink were also likely to be from well-educated backgrounds with healthier lifestyles.

However, psychologist Janni Niclasen, who carried out the research, warned it was important to emphasise that the findings were not an invitation to pregnant women to drink alcohol.

She said: ‘At first  sight this makes no sense, since alcohol during pregnancy is not seen as beneficial to child behaviour.

‘But when you look at the lifestyle of the mothers, you find an explanation. Mothers who drank 90 units or more of alcohol turn out to be the most well-educated and healthiest lifestyle over all.

‘Further, it is a question of taking account of childhood-related psychological factors like attachment between mother and child in this type of study.

This is a problem because we know that attachment is a very significant predictor for child cognitive and mental health.

‘Therefore, it should be taken into account in our statistical analysis.’

Miss Niclasen, of the University of Copenhagen, examined the results of a large population survey carried out by the Danish health and medicine authorities.

She only studied the alcohol consumption of women who drank small quantities during pregnancy, so the results do not show the effect on children whose mothers drank heavily.

The population study involved 100,000 pregnant women interviewed on three separate occasions about their consumption – twice in pregnancy and when the children were aged six months. When the children were seven, 37,000 women were contacted again.

Since 2007, the Department of Health has advised that alcohol should be avoided  altogether during pregnancy. However, women who do decide to drink are advised to have no more than one or two units, once or twice a week.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advises women to avoid alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says women should abstain.  But it also says that evidence shows that one or two units, once or twice a week, are acceptable after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

SOURCE






I am the 70s child of a health nut. And I wasn’t vaccinated

Amy Parker

I am the 70s child of a health nut. I wasn’t vaccinated. I was brought up on an incredibly healthy diet: no sugar till I was one, breastfed for over a year, organic homegrown vegetables, raw milk, no MSG, no additives, no aspartame. My mother used homeopathy, aromatherapy, osteopathy, we took daily supplements of vitamin C, echinacea, cod liver oil.

I had an outdoor lifestyle; I grew up next to a farm, walked everywhere, did sports and danced twice a week, drank plenty of water. I wasn’t even allowed pop; even my fresh juice was watered down to protect my teeth, and I would’ve killed for white, shop-bought bread in my lunch box once in a while and biscuits instead of fruit like all the other kids.

We only ate (organic local) meat maybe once or twice a week and my mother and father cooked everything from scratch – I have yet to taste a Findus crispy pancake and oven chips were reserved for those nights when mum and dad had friends over and we got a “treat.”

As healthy as my lifestyle seemed, I contracted measles, mumps, rubella, a type of viral meningitis, scarlatina, whooping cough, yearly tonsillitis, and chickenpox, some of which are vaccine preventable. In my twenties I got precancerous HPV and spent 6 months of my life wondering how I was going to tell my two children under the age of 7 that mummy might have cancer before it was safely removed.

So having the “natural immunity sterilised out of us” just doesn’t cut it for me. How could I, with my idyllic childhood and my amazing health food, get so freaking ill all the time?

My mother was the biggest health freak around–she would put most of my current “crunchy” friends to shame. She didn’t drink, she didn’t smoke, she didn’t do drugs and we certainly weren’t allowed to watch whatever we wanted on telly or wear plastic shoes or any of that stuff. She LIVED alternative health. And you know what? I’m glad she gave us the great diet that we had, I’m glad that she cared about us in that way.

But it just didn’t stop me getting childhood illnesses.

My two vaccinated children, on the other hand, have rarely been ill, have had antibiotics maybe twice in their lives, if that (not like me who got so many illnesses which needed treatment with antibiotics that I developed a resistance to them, which led me to be hospitalized with penicillin-resistant quinsy at 21–you know that old fashioned disease that killed Queen Elizabeth I and which was almost wiped out through use of antibiotics).

My kids have had no childhood illnesses other than chickenpox, which they both contracted while still breastfeeding. They too grew up on a healthy diet, homegrown organics etc. Not to the same extent as I did, though, as I was not quite as strict as my mother, but they are both healthier than I have ever been.

I find myself wondering about the claim that complications from childhood illnesses are extremely rare but that “vaccine injuries” are rampant. If this is the case, I struggle to understand why I know far more people who have experienced complications from preventable childhood illnesses than I have EVER met with complications from vaccines. I have friends who became deaf from measles. I have a partially sighted friend who contracted rubella in the womb. My ex got pneumonia from chickenpox. A friend’s brother died from meningitis.

Anecdotal evidence is nothing to base decisions on. But when facts and evidence-based science aren’t good enough to sway someone’s opinion, then this is where I come from. After all, anecdotes are the anti-vaccine supporter’s way. Well, this is my personal experience. And my personal experience prompts me to vaccinate my children and myself. I got the flu vaccine recently, and I am getting the whooping cough booster to protect my unborn baby. My natural immunity from having whooping cough at age 5 will not protect him once he’s born.

I understand, to a point, where the anti-vaccine parents are coming from. Back in the 90s when I was a concerned, 19-year-old mother, frightened by the world I was bringing my child into, I was studying homeopathy, herbalism and aromatherapy; I believed in angels, witchcraft, clairvoyants, crop circles, aliens at Nazca, giant ginger mariners spreading their knowledge to the Aztecs, the Incas and the Egyptians and that I was somehow personally blessed by the Holy Spirit with healing abilities.

I was having my aura read at a hefty price and filtering the fluoride out of my water. I was choosing to have past life regressions instead of taking anti-depressants. I was taking my daily advice from tarot cards. I grew all my own veg and made my own herbal remedies.

I was so freaking crunchy that I literally crumbled. It was only when I took control of those paranoid thoughts and fears about the world around me and became an objective critical thinker that I got well. It was when I stopped taking sugar pills for everything and started seeing medical professionals that I began to thrive physically and mentally.

If you think your child’s immune system is strong enough to fight off vaccine-preventable diseases, then it’s strong enough to fight off the tiny amounts of dead or weakened pathogens present in any of the vaccines.

But not everyone around you is that strong, not everyone has a choice, not everyone can fight those illnesses, and not everyone can be vaccinated. If you have a healthy child, then your healthy child can cope with vaccines and can care about those unhealthy children who can’t.

Teach your child compassion, and teach your child a sense of responsibility for those around them. Don’t teach your child to be self serving and scared of the world in which it lives and the people around him/her. And teach them to LOVE people with ASD or any other disability for that matter, not to label them as damaged.

“Those of you who have avoided childhood illnesses without vaccines are lucky. You couldn’t do it without us pro-vaxxers.”
And lastly but most importantly for me – knowingly exposing your child to childhood illnesses is cruel; even without complications these diseases aren’t exactly pleasant. I don’t know about you, but I don’t enjoy watching children suffer even with a cold or a hurt knee. If you’ve never had these illnesses you don’t know how awful they are – I do.

Pain, discomfort, the inability to breathe or to eat or to swallow, fever and nightmares, itching all over your body so much that you can’t stand lying on bed sheets, losing so much weight you can’t walk properly, diarrhea that leaves you lying prostrate on the bathroom floor, the unpaid time off work for parents (and if you’re self employed that means NO INCOME), the quarantine, missing school, missing parties, the worry, the sleepless nights, the sweat, the tears and the blood, the midnight visits to A and E, sitting in a doctor’s waiting room on your own because no one will sit near you because they’re rightfully scared of those spots all over your kid’s face.

Those of you who have avoided childhood illnesses without vaccines are lucky. You couldn’t do it without us pro-vaxxers. Once the vaccination rates begin dropping, the less herd immunity will be able to protect your children. The more people you convert to your anti-vax stance, the quicker that luck will run out.

SOURCE

How traffic fumes can be deadly - even at 'safe' levels: Living near a busy road can increase risk of premature death by 7%

A tiny and hence totally insignificant effect

Living near busy roads could put men at higher risk of premature death – even when air pollution levels are rated as ‘safe’, claim researchers.  A major study found exposure to traffic pollutants can push up the risk of dying by seven per cent, compared with living in quieter neighbourhoods.

There is mounting evidence of the health dangers of pollution, which is already known to play a part in asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes.

Microscopic particles largely generated by diesel exhausts have been shown to cause lung damage and harmful changes in blood vessels and clotting.

But the latest study adds to research showing problems occur at levels well below those stipulated in current European Union (EU) air-quality directives.

The new research examined two decades of data from 22 studies involving over 367,000 residents of large cities in 13 European countries.

Researchers looked at the impact of prolonged exposure to tiny particles of soot or dust found in traffic fumes and industrial emissions, fine-particle matter known as PM 2.5.

They estimate that for every increase of 5 micrograms per cubic metre (5 µg/m3) in annual exposure to PM 2.5, the risk of dying from rises by seven per cent.

The risk of death increased only in men, not in women.

Study leader Dr Rob Beelen from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, said ‘A difference of 5 µg/m3 can be found between a location at a busy urban road and at a location not influenced by traffic.

‘Our findings support health impact assessments of fine particles in Europe which were previously based almost entirely on North American studies.’

In the study air pollution concentrations of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter were estimated at home addresses of participants, along with traffic load on nearly major roads.

Traffic density on the nearest road and total traffic load on all major roads within 100m of the residence were also recorded.

Among the participants, 29,076 died from natural causes during the average 14 years of follow up, says a report in The Lancet medical journal (must credit).

The results showed that long-term exposure to fine particles with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5) posed the greatest threat to health even within concentration ranges well below the limits in current European legislation.

The link between prolonged exposure to PM2.5 and premature death was significant even after taking into account factors such as smoking, obesity and activity levels.

Dr Beelen said ‘Our findings suggest that significant adverse health effects occur even at PM2.5 concentrations well below the EU annual average air-quality limit value of 25 µg/m3.

‘The WHO air-quality guideline is 10 µg/m3 and our findings support the idea that significant health benefits can be achieved by moving towards this target.’

Previous research found pregnant women exposed to ‘safe’ levels of air pollution have a higher risk of giving birth to small babies.

Jeremy Langrish and Nicholas Mills from the University of Edinburgh, writing a commentary in the journal, said ‘Despite major improvements in air quality in the past 50 years, the data from Beelen and colleagues’ report draw attention to the continuing effects of air pollution on health.

‘These data, along with the findings from other large cohort studies, suggest that further public and environmental health policy interventions are necessary and have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality across Europe.

‘Movement towards more stringent guidelines, as recommended by WHO, should be an urgent priority.’

Prof Frank Kelly, Professor of Environmental Health at King’s College London, said ‘This study enhances an increasing scientific evidence base that PM2.5 poses a danger to health at concentrations below current EU limit values and supports the ongoing WHO review of European air quality policies.

‘Results such as these, plus recently published data claiming combustion emissions in the US account for 200,000 premature deaths per year, show that policy measures have enormous potential to create a cleaner and healthier environment.

‘Such action is particularly urgent in cities where concentrations of pollutants routinely breach current EU limit values, let alone the more stringent and health-based WHO guidelines - such as London.’

SOURCE





Why diet cola could be making you FATTER and WRINKLIER: Low-calorie drink could be to blame for spare tyre and withered skin

Diet colas have long been regarded as the dieter's friend - but one-calorie fizzy drinks may actually be the reason you can't shift that stubborn spare tyre.

Some health experts now believe the chemicals in the drink could actually be causing your body to lay down fat deposits around your middle - dubbed 'diet cola belly' - reports Get The Gloss.

And that's not all: some experts also believe diet cola’s mix of carbonated water, colourings and sweeteners such as aspartame and acesulfame K could also speed up the ageing process, and have disastrous health consequences.

Hoards of nutritionists and scientists now claim diet cola’s image as a 'healthy' alternative to the nine-teaspoons-of sugar, regular variety of the fizzy drink is wholly misplaced.

WEIGHT

The fructose, artificial sweeteners, and sugar alcohols (another type of low-calorie sweetener) present in diet colas can all interfere with natural gut bacteria, according to Amanda Payne of Switzerland’s Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health which published a paper in the journal Obesity Reviews.

This messes up your metabolism and disrupts the body’s way of signaling to you that you’re full and satisfied.

As a consequence, the body pumps out insulin, the hormone that controls sugar levels and fat storage, so that you lay down what Toribio-Mateas calls 'diet cola belly in the form of more fat around the midriff' - just where you wanted to shed fat.

In addition to this: 'The fake sugars in the drink are hundreds of times sweeter than sugar and trick your brain into thinking real sugar is on the way,' says Toribio-Mateas. 'When the calories don’t arrive, it triggers a cascading effect that interferes with hunger signals, blood sugar levels and satiety.'

AGEING

Amanda Griggs, director of health and nutrition at the Balance Clinic in London, says: 'phosphoric acid, the ingredient that gives diet cola its appealing tangy taste and the tingle you get when it is swallowed, can cause a host of problems'.

According to one, study, published in a 2010 issue of the FASEB Journal, it can even accelerate the ageing process.

It found that the excessive phosphate levels found in sodas caused lab rats to die a full five weeks earlier than the rats whose diets had more normal phosphate levels.

The excessive phosphate levels found in sodas caused lab rats to die a full five weeks earlier than the rats whose diets had more normal phosphate levels

Phosphoric acid has also been linked to lower bone density in some studies, including a discussion in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

In experiments at Harvard University, the mineral was found to make skin and muscles wither and to damage the heart and kidneys over time.

However, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer watchdog group not affiliated with the food industry, only a small fraction of the phosphate in diets comes from additives in soft drinks. Most comes from meat and dairy products.

TEETH

Sian Porter, spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association says diet colas may lack sugar, but the acidic nature of artificially sweetened fizzy varieties means they still attack tooth enamel.

'It’s not just the sugary drinks that are causing teeth problems,' says Porter. 'Sugar raises the risk of decay, but diet drinks are equally acidic and can cause erosion in the same way.'

HEALTH

It has also been shown to raise the risk of type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure by some researchers. To add to the dire news for diet cola fans, results of a ten-year study found a link with cardiovascular disease among those who drank it every day; cola drinkers were found to be 43 per cent more likely to suffer a stroke or heart attack during a ten-year period than those who abstained.

Other studies have shown that the phosphorus released from phosphoric acid in just two fizzy drinks a week can cause calcium to be leached from bones, raising the risk of osteoporosis.

Cola (both diet and regular varieties) seems particularly damaging to the skeleton. Typically, a can of diet cola contains 44-62mg of phosphoric acid - more than in many other soft drinks - and researchers at Tufts University in Boston showed that women who regularly drank three or more cans a day had four per cent lower bone mineral density in their hips compared to those who preferred other soft drinks.

SOURCE

Trying for a baby? Eat Brussels sprouts: Vegetable helps boost fertility in both men and women

Just theory.  No research cited

Many people shudder at the thought of Brussels sprouts with their minds conjure up images of bitter, overcooked school vegetables.   But new research suggests that couples who are trying for a baby should tuck into a regular helping of the festive staple.

According to studies, nine per cent of all conceptions take place over the Christmas period, making December the most fertile month of the year. Parties and festive tipples are thought to be partly responsible for this trend.

However, Neema Savvides, a nutritional therapist at the Harley Street Fertility Clinic, says the increased consumption of sprouts could also play a role.  She said: ‘Believe it or not, this green micro cabbage is a baby making super food.

‘Firstly, they are bursting with folic acid which is essential for boosting fertility in both men and women.  ‘This vitamin rich source also increases sperm levels and helps line the womb with the right nutrients raising sperm survival chances.

‘Another benefit of this folic rich food is that it also helps to decrease the risk of miscarriages and birth defects.’

Brussels sprouts also contain a phytonutrient called di-indolylmethane, which helps women absorb balanced levels of the hormone oestrogen.

In fact, it binds to environmental oestrogens, like pesticides and hormones in meat and dairy products, and helps rid the body of excess hormones – this boosts fertility.

The vegetable is also thought to lower cholesterol levels and have anti-inflammatory properties.

SOURCE






Trials discover that controversial sweetener aspartame is actually SAFE and doesn't cause headaches or nausea

The aspartame warriors will block their ears

The controversial sweetener aspartame has effectively been cleared as safe to eat by Government experts following human feeding trials.

Human guinea pigs were fed cereal snack bars, some of which contained the artificial sweetener, by a team of researchers at Hull York Medical School.

The study recruited 50 people who had reported reactions after consuming aspartame in the past, such as headaches and nausea.

There was also a control group of another 50 others who have eaten aspartame in food and fizzy drink over many years without any ill-effects.

However, the investigation found no evidence of harm in either those who reported past sensitivity to aspartame or the control group.

Significantly, this was a so-called double-blind trial where neither the trial participants or the researchers knew which of the bars was being eaten.

Yesterday, the Food Standards Agency announced that as a result of the British research, the Committee on Toxicity(CoT) had decided there is no need to ban or control the sale or consumption of the sweetener.

The FSA said: ‘The expert committee concluded that 'the results presented did not indicate any need for action to protect the health of the public'.’

The government watchdog has not released the full details of the research because they remain confidential until they have been published in a peer reviewed journal.

And despite concluding there is no reason to protect consumers, the FSA said the committee had not carried out an overall safety evaluation of aspartame

A separate safety evaluation is being conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is due to be published this month. The FSA said it will send the results of the British trial to EFSA, so they can be taken into account.

The conclusions of the experts on the CoT are unlikely to satisfy the many critics of aspartame, who include Erik Millstone, Professor of Science Policy at the University of Sussex.

He insists there is good quality independent research projects that have identified potential problems, ranging from premature births in women who enjoy diet drinks, to cancer.

Prof Millstone, of the university’s Science and Technology Policy Research unit, believes that EFSA’s evaluation is biased in favour of aspartame.

He claims the EFSA panel set up to carry out the safety assessment is dominated by experts linked to manufacturers or regulators that have previously supported aspartame.

The professor pointed to several studies that raise real questions about the safety of aspartame and justify the need for further research.

An EU funded project published in 2010 found pregnant women who down cans of fizzy drink containing artificial sweeteners appear to be at greater risk of having a premature baby,.

It is rare for a mother to be to give birth early - before 37 weeks - assuming all aspects of the pregnancy have been normal. The research found this low risk was increased by 38per cent if the woman was drinking an average of one can of diet drink a day.

The statistics, gathered by academics in Denmark, showed that a woman who routinely drank at least four cans a day could increase the risk by as much as 78per cent. This meant that if the risk of a premature birth was normally one in a 100, it increased to 1.78 in 100.

The professor also highlighted work by the independent Ramazzini Foundation in Italy, which has published research suggesting aspartame caused several types of cancer in rats at doses very close to the current acceptable daily intake for humans.

The concern about artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame, relates to the fact that they contain methanol.

Methanol is a nerve toxin, which can be metabolised in the body to form formic acid, which is another nerve toxin, as well as formaldehyde, which is the chemical used to preserve dead bodies.

All of these research studies have formed part of the EFSA review. A paper detailing the review’s draft conclusions found they did not identify a health risk.

SOURCE

Restaurant menu calorie counts don't work - and may even make diners consume MORE, study finds

This is by now a common finding but the people who "just know" what the truth is don't care about evidence

Calorie counts on food menus do not motivate people to make healthier choices, according to new findings.

Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania analyzed the purchasing behaviors of 1,121 adults at two McDonald’s restaurants in New York City.

They found that even when they provided information on 'ideal' dietary intakes for each day or per meal, diners did not change their orders.

Commenting on the results, lead researcher Dr Julie Downs said: 'Putting calorie labels on menus really has little or no effect on people’s ordering behaviors at all.'

She and her team found that the majority of participants actually ended up consuming more calories than recommended per meal - 650 for women; 800 for men.

Calorie counts have become a hot topic of debate over recent years, especially in light of America's worsening obesity epidemic.

Nutrition advocates say if people knew how simple it is to cut their caloric intake, they would make better decisions.

As a result, several states and municipalities across the country including New York, Philadelphia and California, have already introduced mandatory menu labeling.

And soon nationwide regulations will go into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act, although a precise date has not been set.

However, Dr Downs argues the 'well-intentioned' policy is unrealistic and 'not going to help curb' the obesity trend.

'The people who set these policies aren’t very representative,' she explained.

The results suggest that consumers, especially at fast-food venues, tend choose taste, value, and convenience over nutrient content.

According to the American Heart Association, among Americans age 20 and older, 154.7million are overweight or obese.

The recent study was published in the American Journal of Public Health.

SOURCE





Sweeteners are not bad for you: Take the scare stories about diet drinks and sweets with a pinch of salt, experts say

Aspartame, xylitol and Stevia might sound like Doctor Who villains, but in fact they are sugar substitutes, or sweeteners.

Most of us have been consuming them in some form since the first of them, saccharin – dubbed ‘the poor man’s sugar’ – was formulated by German chemists more than 100 years  ago.

And fears about their potentially toxic effects date back almost as far.

Diabetes, cancer, strokes, seizures, hypertension, vomiting, dizziness – all have been cited as risks from sweetener consumption.

Yet none of these claims has stuck, and today sweeteners are a global industry worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

They are found in more than 6,000 products from drinks and desserts  to cakes, chewing gum and  ready meals.

Last week a new study emerged, with Purdue University in Indiana claiming that diet drinks containing the artificial sweetener aspartame (such as Coke Zero) are no healthier than their full-sugar counterparts and could contribute to weight gain, diabetes and heart disease.

The report author, Professor Susan Swithers, suggested this could be because the chemical fails to trigger the ‘full’ feeling in our brain, so we over-indulge elsewhere.

She also proposed  a link between aspartame and metabolic syndrome, a much-disputed term denoting a combination of symptoms that increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

Catherine Collins, principal dietician at St George’s Hospital, London, strongly disputes the findings of the Purdue University research.

‘There are many, many factors involved in us feeling full or satisfied, and indeed experiments have shown that chocolate cravings are noticeably reduced the moment you eat the first piece, before the sugar even hits your bloodstream, so this study proves nothing,’ she says.

It is sugar (sucrose), with its high calorific content and need for insulin to break it down, that poses the real risk for obesity and type 2 diabetes, Collins argues.

‘Sweeteners have either zero calories or are very low in calories that aren’t absorbed anyway, so are effectively zero calorie,’ she adds.

‘So the suggestion that these products are no better at preventing weight gain or diabetes, or that they in fact cause them, is unfounded, as the accepted scientific evidence demonstrates.’

THE CANCER MYTH

The spectre of sweeteners as carcinogens first surfaced in the 1970s when saccharin (found in Sweet’N Low) was discovered in one study  to raise the risk of bladder cancer  in rats.

A wealth of later research in humans found no link. Equally, aspartame, the most commonly used sweetener, was blamed in 1996 as the cause  of the spike in brain tumours in Americans between 1975 and 1992.

Subsequent studies again found no relationship.

The sweetener sodium cyclamate was banned in the US in 1969 after a study found that rats fed the equivalent of 250 cans of diet drinks  a day developed bladder tumours.

Further studies failed to replicate these findings, but the ban remains. Sodium cyclamate is deemed safe in Europe and 50 countries worldwide – but is not routinely found in UK products.

Dr Paul Mulholland, an oncologist at University College London who specialises in brain tumours, says: ‘I am not aware of any risk factors for brain cancer apart from radiation.’

SO ARE THEY SAFE?

Collins says: ‘The problem with many of these studies looking at links between cancers, seizures, hypertension and sweeteners – and the way they are reported – is that  too often people confuse correlation with causation.

'For example, an analysis of Mail on Sunday readers would probably find that they have higher levels of bowel cancer than people in Africa, but that’s because this group lives in a Western country with a particular diet, not because reading a newspaper causes cancer.’

The concerns about sugar substitutes are, she argues, based on a misunderstanding of the wider data.

One such misunderstanding is that aspartame is harmful because the body breaks it down into toxic substances – methanol and formaldehyde. But they’re not absorbed and the amounts are negligible: a can of Diet Coke produces 20mg of methanol, half the amount produced by the same quantity of fruit juice .

‘The fact is, sweeteners are safe,’ adds Collins. ‘Both the American Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority approve them. Those who cast doubt about their safety can often have a vested interest in doing so.’

A major review was conducted in 2006 by the EFSA, which concluded: ‘Extensive scientific research ...... together with a history of more than 20 years of safe use, support the conclusion that aspartame is safe.’

Doctors and dieticians warn that there can be unfortunate side effects to some sweeteners. ‘Sugar alcohols in particular – the xylitols and sorbitols – are not absorbed by the gut and will in larger doses, and especially in people who already have irritable bowel syndrome, cause bloating and diarrhoea,’ says consultant gastroenterologist Neil Ikin, from London’s Homerton hospital.

Collins, however, recommends such sugar alcohols, which are often found in chewing gums, as they have consistently been shown to help fight plaque and tooth decay  by preventing bacteria in the  mouth from forming the acids that attack teeth.

The message, it seems, is clear: sweeteners won’t cause any ill effects. Just as long as you don’t have IBS.

SOURCE

Sweet soft drinks may raise risk of depression

It's only a conference paper so far so is difficult to evaluate but apparently BOTH sugar and aspartame intake were associated with depression.  Sugar and aspartame are very different chemicals so is it the bubbles in pop that are bad for you?  Perhaps the real question is why do depressed people like pop?

If you are feeling low, it may be best to lay off the fizzy drinks and have a cup of coffee instead.  A study has linked soft drinks to depression – with diet versions particularly problematic.  Coffee, however, appeared to have the opposite effect.

The finding comes from US researchers who studied the drink consumption of 265,000 men and women aged 50 to 71.  Ten years into the study, the volunteers were asked if they had been diagnosed with depression in the previous five years.

Those who drank more than four cans of soft drinks a day were 30 per cent more likely to have had depression than those who drank none, the American Academy of Neurology conference heard. The risk seemed greater among those who preferred diet drinks.

The researchers said this may be due to the presence of the artificial sweetener aspartame, which yesterday was provisionally given a clean bill of health by the European Food Safety Authority, following a review.

Making the link does not prove soft drinks cause depression.  But researcher Honglei Chen said: ‘While our findings are preliminary and the underlying biological mechanisms are not known, they are consistent with a small but growing body of evidence suggesting that artificially sweetened beverages may be associated with poor health.’

The study found that those who had four cups of coffee a day were 10 per cent less likely to become depressed than non-coffee drinkers.  Dr Chen said this may be due to the caffeine in coffee stimulating the brain.

The British Soft Drinks Association urged caution over the findings and pointed out that the scientists themselves said that more research is needed.

SOURCE






"Superfoods" can make cancer MORE likely, says pioneer of DNA study

Mega-pesky!

Fashionable anti-cancer superfoods and supplements do not prevent the disease and may even cause it, according to a scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA.

James Watson said the cure for many cancers will remain elusive unless scientists rethink the role of antioxidants, which include vitamin pills and food such as blueberries and broccoli.

It is widely believed they boost health and fight cancer by mopping up oxygen molecules called free radicals. But Dr Watson argues these may be key to preventing and treating cancer – and depleting the body of them may be counter-productive.

Free radicals not only help keep diseased cells under control, they are also pivotal in making many cancer drugs, as well as radiotherapy, effective, he believes.

Writing in a journal published by the Royal Society, the 84-year-old Nobel laureate stated that antioxidants ‘may have caused more cancers than they have prevented’.

‘For as long as I have been focused on the curing of cancer, well-intentioned individuals have been consuming antioxidative nutritional supplements as cancer preventatives, if not actual therapies,’ he said.

‘In light of recent data strongly hinting that much of late-stage cancer’s untreatability may arise from its possession of too many antioxidants, the time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer.’

He said a vast number of studies had found antioxidants including vitamins A, C and E and the mineral selenium, to have ‘no obvious effectiveness’ in preventing stomach cancer or in lengthening life.  Instead, they seem to slightly shorten the lives of those who take them, and vitamin E may be particularly dangerous.

The American, who describes his theory as among his most important work since the DNA breakthrough with British colleague Francis Crick in 1953, said blueberries may taste good but give no protection against cancer. The study by Dr Watson,  based at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, is published in the journal Open Biology.

He has caused uproar in the past with his opinions on race, intelligence, beauty and homosexuality.

Professor Nic Jones, of Cancer Research UK, agreed that studies showed antioxidants were ineffective for cancer prevention in healthy people and can even slightly increase the risk of the disease.

He said vitamins and minerals should be obtained through a healthy and balanced diet.

SOURCE

Lustig fructose

"Lustig" is German for "funny" or "amusing".  Usually Ashkenazi  when used as a surname

Robert Lustig is an attention-seeking food-fanatic and seems to be some kind of nut.  But a small recent study suggests that he may be on to something. 

His extreme claims about natural fruit sugar (fructose) being a "poison" have rightly put most of the medical research fraternity against him and the research evidence  against his demonization of fructose is strong.  There are even some studies (e.g. here) that suggest that fructose is good for you.

He does seem to have crumpled under the weight of opposition  and now demonizes sugar generally, including ordinary table sugar, which is a combination of fructose and glucose.  And, broadly speaking, his argument that in some way we get used to a high sugar intake and thus consume more sugar that we otherwise would is reasonable enough.  Habituation is a well-known process in many things.  I reproduce below some comments on his latest book.

But has he given up too soon?  A recent study does show a strong differential response to fructose versus glucose.  Admittedly the study is small and very short term but it is carefully constructed, cautiously analysed and relies on direct brain measurements rather than subjective judgments.

On the other hand (you almost need to be an octopus in this matter) measuring cerebral blood flow is a pretty crude measurement of anything -- but on yet another hand several different measures produced similar results

What I think the latest results suggest is that there needs to be more attention to glucose.  Fructose may not be the villain but glucose may be the saviour!  Lustig may have been right in separating out different types of sugar, even if he originally focused on the wrong one.  Should we replace ordinary table sugar with glucose only?

Glucose is not as sweet as table sugar so we would have to use more of it  -- which might not be good.  But we could add a bit of aspartame for more sweetness.  Yes:  I know the cannonade of condemnation that will greet me from the aspartame freaks.  Been there.  Done that.

Excerpt:

Waistband feeling a bit tighter, or buttons straining after Christmas?

While it’s easy to blame your appalling willpower or TV-inspired lethargy, according to a respected U.S. obesity expert, weight gain might not be your fault at all.

In a fascinating new book, Robert Lustig, a professor of clinical paediatrics at the University of California, expounds a whole new scientific theory.

He argues that the urge to overeat and lounge around doing nothing is not a sign of weakness.

It is, he says, a hormonal issue, triggered by eating too much sugar.

He points the finger of blame at the hormone leptin, which acts like an appetite thermostat.

As one of two ‘hunger hormones’ in the body, leptin works to decrease the appetite (its partner, ghrelin, increases appetite).

When you have had enough to eat, your fat cells release leptin, which effectively dulls the appetite by instructing the brain that it’s time to stop eating.

But Professor Lustig warns that our sweet tooth is sending this process haywire.

For many years scientists thought obesity could be caused by a shortage of leptin — thinking that without adequate levels, overweight people simply never received the message that they were full.

But more recent studies have shown that obese people have plenty of leptin (in fact, the fatter you are, the more of it you appear to have), but are more likely to be ‘leptin-resistant’.

This means the cells in the brain that should register leptin no longer ‘read’ the signals saying the body is full, but instead assume it is starving — no matter how much food you continue to eat.

In panic, the brain pumps out instructions to increase energy storage — instigating powerful cravings for high-fat, high-sugar foods because these are the easiest and most immediate forms of energy — and conserve energy usage, by dampening any urge to get up off the sofa and go for a run.

The food cravings are made even more intense — and impossible to resist — because leptin is supposed to dampen the feeling of pleasure and enjoyment you get from food by suppressing the release of the brain chemical dopamine, helping to decrease appetite.

But if you are leptin-resistant, food never stops tasting delicious, no matter how much of it you eat.

This, says Professor Lustig, is why many overweight people find it so hard to stop eating, and why diets so often fail.

Scientists have been struggling to work out what causes leptin resistance.

But now Professor Lustig and his team have been able to show — in repeated studies on humans — that too much sugar in the diet is to blame.

High sugar diets lead to spikes in the hormone.  This is needed to clear sugar out of the blood and into storage as fat.

But repeated insulin spikes, due to a high sugar diet, can lead to a condition called ‘insulin resistance’ (when the cells have been so bombarded by insulin they no longer respond to it).

Professor Lustig believes insulin resistance triggers leptin resistance, and, crucially, he has discovered that by reducing insulin levels it is possible to improve ‘leptin signalling’ (the brain’s ability to read leptin), stop cravings, put the brakes on food consumption — and trigger weight loss.

In his new book Fat Chance, Professor Lustig explains that leptin resistance — and sugar — is at the root of the obesity epidemic.

More here




Dreading your diet? Don't worry...plump people live LONGER than their skinnier counterparts

This cannot be noted often enough

If your New Year’s resolution is to live a healthier life, it might be best to ditch that diet and enjoy another helping of festive leftovers.  For a bit of extra weight could actually help you live longer, according to extensive research.

Men and women who are slightly plump have longer lives than those who are slimmer, it found.

Analysis of the results of almost 100 studies revealed that those who were of normal weight – a usual barometer of health – were likely to die sooner than those who were slightly overweight.

However, those who were any bigger than this were around a third more likely to die during the months or years they were being studied than those of normal weight.

The analysis is not the first to suggest that a bit of extra weight is actually good for health.

Explanations as to why this might be include the possibility that those who start out slightly heavier will have more fat reserves to call on should they lose weight due to ill health as they get older.

It is also possible that concerns about the health of the overweight and obese means that problems linked to weight, such as high blood pressure and diabetes, are more likely to be spotted and treated, improving that person’s overall health.

It has also been suggested that some people’s genes may help them escape the health consequences of being slightly overweight, while a bit of extra padding could help the elderly to survive falls unscathed.

Another theory is that some of those who are overweight may actually exercise more and eat better than thin people who  starve themselves or smoke to suppress  their appetite.

For the latest study, US government researchers read 91 previous research papers  on the topic from around the world – involving millions of men and women.

They looked at the subjects’ body mass index at the start of the research and how likely they were to have died by the end of it.

Body mass index, or BMI, is a mathematical formula relating height to weight.

People are classified as being of normal weight if they have a BMI of between 18.5 and 24.9 and overweight if their reading is between 25 and 29.9.  A BMI higher than this is classified as obese and the bigger the reading the greater the risks to health are thought to be.

The results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed that those judged to be overweight were 6 per cent less likely to have died by the end of the study period than those of normal weight.

Having a BMI of between 30 and 34.9, and so being slightly obese, also did not seem to harm health.

However, those whose BMI was greater than this were 29 per cent less likely to live to see the end of the study than those whose weight was classed as ‘normal’.

SOURCE

We're all doomed!

Sugar is going to kill us! And this time it's not the fructose demonized by the obsessive Lustig but ordinary table sugar.

But not to worry. It's a nonsense study supported by a Danish milk supplier. But that does not bias the report of course. Oh no!

Ad homs aside, however, the experimental design is ludicrous. They took a small group of fatties and then subdivided them into four even smaller groups -- leaving subgroups with averages that are likely to be extremely unstable and unreplicable

But here's the fun: All four groups ended up equally fat. It was only the distribution of the fat around the body that differed. Do we now have a doctrine about where your fat must be?

But to complete the laughter at this piece of nonsense, notice that they are giving a guernsey to Aspartame -- the most demonized sweetener there is. The anti-Aspartame brigade will be outraged!

Sucrose-sweetened beverages increase fat storage in the liver, muscle, and visceral fat depot: a 6-mo randomized intervention study

By Maria Maersk et al.

Abstract

Background: The consumption of sucrose-sweetened soft drinks (SSSDs) has been associated with obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disorders in observational and short-term intervention studies. Too few long-term intervention studies in humans have examined the effects of soft drinks.

Objective: We compared the effects of SSSDs with those of isocaloric milk and a noncaloric soft drink on changes in total fat mass and ectopic fat deposition (in liver and muscle tissue).

Design: Overweight subjects (n = 47) were randomly assigned to 4 different test drinks (1 L/d for 6 mo): SSSD (regular cola), isocaloric semiskim milk, aspartame-sweetened diet cola, and water. The amount of intrahepatic fat and intramyocellular fat was measured with 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Other endpoints were fat mass, fat distribution (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and magnetic resonance imaging), and metabolic risk factors.

Results: The relative changes between baseline and the end of 6-mo intervention were significantly higher in the regular cola group than in the 3 other groups for liver fat (132–143%, sex-adjusted mean; P < 0.01), skeletal muscle fat (117–221%; P < 0.05), visceral fat (24–31%; P < 0.05), blood triglycerides (32%; P < 0.01), and total cholesterol (11%; P < 0.01). Total fat mass was not significantly different between the 4 beverage groups. Milk and diet cola reduced systolic blood pressure by 10–15% compared with regular cola (P < 0.05). Otherwise, diet cola had effects similar to those of water.

Conclusion: Daily intake of SSSDs for 6 mo increases ectopic fat accumulation and lipids compared with milk, diet cola, and water. Thus, daily intake of SSSDs is likely to enhance the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00777647.

SOURCE

Anti-obesity propaganda blamed for new eating disorder among children

DOCTORS have started treating a new type of eating disorder, warning aggressive anti-obesity campaigns are driving healthy children to starvation.

The phenomenon has been seen by Victoria's three leading paediatric services, with doctors hospitalising children who have lost up to a third of their body weight over a few months in an irrational desire to stay thin.

Royal Children's Hospital chair of adolescent health Susan Sawyer said this eating disorder, affecting children at the upper end of the healthy weight range, was only starting to be documented.

"When you're older and overweight it's a very simple message that weight loss is good for you," Prof Sawyer said. "The difficulty with young people is that even if they are moderately overweight, they are still growing height-wise and are at risk of over-interpreting public health messages of 'low fat is good' to suggest that 'no fat is better'.

"For all intents and purposes, these adolescents have anorexia nervosa in terms of how unwell they are, the distorted body image and the amount of weight loss, but they are at a normal weight. "This is very new."

Austin Hospital's medical director of mental health, Richard Newton, said he believed some of the nine and 10-year-olds being treated were becoming ill from "the panic" created by anti-obesity campaigns. "We need to be giving healthy weight messages that don't vilify fatness, but actually encourage health," Associate Prof Newton explained. "Some of the health messages we give create panic.

"We have to reassure young people that if they do have a weight problem, it doesn't mean that makes them a bad person. "We need to encourage people to not just consider physical health, but emotional wellbeing as well."

Monash Children's head of adolescent medicine Jacinta Coleman said children developing this type of eating disorder could become sick quickly. "The kids we're seeing are at the upper end of their healthy weight range, not necessarily obese but on the more overweight side, and there is so much pressure on kids to lose weight," Dr Coleman said.

"They need to understand that you can be healthy even at a heavier weight, as long as you're active, eating nutritious food. "I think that's where the message is getting misinterpreted."

SOURCE

Diet drinks make you FATTER

The effect reported seems to be an unusually large one and may therefore be of interest but the evidence is epidemiological so is not decisive. It could well be people who are prone to overeating anyhow who use such drinks heavily

They are the calorie-free way of having a sweet treat, but diet drinks could still make you fat, scientists have warned. A ten-year study of almost 500 men and women linked low-calorie soft drinks with bulging waistlines – even when taken in small quantities.

Those who downed two or more diet fizzy drinks a day saw their waistbands expand at five times the rate of those who never touched the stuff, a diabetes conference heard.

The results were so dramatic that the American researchers advise that people ditch their diet drinks and use water to quench their thirst instead. Those who cannot bear to give up the sugar rush may be better off drinking normal full-sugar fizzy drinks.

Professor Helen Hazuda, of the University of Texas’s health science centre, said diet sodas and artificial sweeteners may foster a sweet tooth, distort appetite and even damage key brain cells. As a result, treating them as healthy alternatives may be ‘ill advised’. The professor, who no longer drinks diet colas and lemonades, said: ‘They may be free of calories but not of consequences.’

Professor Hazuda tracked the health and habits of 474 adults for an average of nine and a half years. She then compared the growth in waistline of those who consumed diet drinks with the others, including some who only buy regular fizzy drinks.

Overall, those who favoured diet drinks saw their waists expand 70 per cent faster. But ‘frequent users’ – defined as those who drink two or more cans a day – saw a 500 per cent greater increase in girth, the American Diabetes Association conference heard.

Significantly, the results still stood even when other factors such as exercise, social class, education and smoking were taken into account.

With pot bellies being blamed for ills from heart disease to diabetes and cancer, the researchers said: ‘These results suggest that amidst the national drive to reduce chronic consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks, policies that would promote the consumption of diet soft drinks may have unintended deleterious side-effects.’

A second study, involving some of the same researchers and carried out on mice, linked sweetener aspartame with the sort of damage in the pancreas that can occur early in diabetes.

The researchers said they think that artificial sweeteners may distort appetite, leaving us craving extra-sweet and unhealthy treats. They may also damage brain cells involved in feelings of fullness, while the lack of real sugar could also stop us from feeling full.

Sharon Fowler, who was involved in both pieces of research, said: ‘Artificial sweeteners could have the effect of triggering appetite but unlike regular sugars they don’t deliver something that will squelch the appetite.’

Professor Hazuda said that her study was the fourth large-scale piece of research to link diet drinks with ill health. She added: ‘I think prudence would dictate drinking water.’

SOURCE




Cancer patients prescribed chewing gum to aid recovery from surgery

An unpublished study!

Doctors at a leading London hospital are advising bowel cancer patients to chew sugar-free gum after their operations, in order to get their digestive systems back to normal so they can get better faster.

Studies have found that patients undergoing surgery likely to affect their bowel function were fit enough to go home as much as two days earlier than other patients if they chewed gum.

Chewing gum has helped new mothers recovering from caesarean sections, as well as patients undergoing stomach surgery, who can suffer from painful cramps until digestion returns to normal, research has found.

Now surgeons at University College London Hospital are asking patients booked for bowel cancer surgery to bring supplies of sugar-free gum with them, to be chewed three times a day, for an hour, after their operation.

Consultant colorectal surgeon Alastair Windsor said the trial is part of a programme to find new ways to help patients recover from treatment. He said many patients undergoing many types of surgery likely to affect their digestive system could benefit from bringing gum to hospital - but advised them to ask their own doctor first.

Mr Windsor said: "One of the things that delays people recovering from surgery is that they get what is called an ileas - where the bowel goes to sleep. "It seems that chewing gum can stimulate the saliva, which starts enzyme production in the pancreas, and that then stimulates gastro-intestinal activity."

The trial, which began six months ago, has yet to publish results, but the surgeon said so far patients were responding well to it. He said: "Patients seem to like it and in particular to like the fact they are doing something to aid the recovery. We don't yet know how far it is speeding up their recovery, but there doesn't seem to be a downside to it."

The surgeon added: "If I was a patient going into hospital for surgery, I would say talk to your medical team first, but from all the research done, it seems that chewing gum is something that can help patients and for most people, it is certainly unlikely to do any harm."

Different studies from across the world have shown faster recovery when patients are asked to chew gum, but it is not known whether the act works as a placebo, improving patients' sense of well-being, and reducing stress - which could in itself improve bowel function - or whether the impact is physical.

SOURCE

Lack of sleep can lead to overweight kids

The fact that -- for once -- parental education and income was controlled for makes this study unusually strong. So it is amusing that diet and exercise were found to have negligible effect

A lack of sleep is more likely to lead to overweight children than a poor diet or lethargic lifestyle, a new long-term study has found.

New Zealand researchers monitored a random sample of almost 250 children, regularly tracking weight, diet, body composition, physical activity and sleep patterns from the ages of three to seven.

They took into account birth weight, parent's education, income, ethnicity and if their mother was smoking while pregnant - all factors known to affect a child's weight.

Previous studies have found poor sleep is linked to heavier children, but this is the first time such a thorough and long assessment had been done, researcher Professor Barry Taylor said.

Almost a quarter of the Dunedin children surveyed were overweight by the time they were seven, Prof Taylor said. "(But) how active you are actually seems to have no effect on whether or not you're overweight at the age of seven," he told AAP. "The food that you ate had some effect, but actually the biggest effect was short sleep."

He said the children slept an average of 11 hours each night and those that got any less shut-eye were more likely to be overweight, even if other factors were controlled. "It's a complicated connection," said Prof Taylor, a pediatrician and academic from the Dunedin School of Medicine.

He said the amount of sleep a person got altered the hormones controlling metabolism and appetite, hence, how much one eats. "We were surprised by how big a factor (sleep was)," Prof Taylor said. "I was expecting the ... percentage of food eaten as vegetables and fruit would be more important and that activity levels ... would be more important."

Evidence suggests the amount of sleep both children and adults get has dropped significantly in the past 30 years, Prof Taylor said, blaming a "modern lifestyle". He said children should generally get about nine to 10 hours of sleep a night, but some will need more.

Trials are now under way to see if teaching families how to deliberately increase their child's sleep can alter growth. "All we can say at this stage is this looks like something that needs to be done," Prof Taylor said.

The study was published in the British Medical Journal.

SOURCE





Aspartame in the gun again

Based on specious epidemiological reasoning. There are some very strange aspartame crusaders. I have had run-ins with them before

An artificial sweetener used in Diet Coke is to undergo an urgent EU safety review. Aspartame is ingested every day by millions of people around the world in more than 6,000 well-known brands of food, drink and medicine. However, it has been the subject of a number of studies that appear to show harmful effects on human health.

One recent study linked diet drinks containing aspartame to premature births, while another suggested it could cause cancer.

To date, health watchdogs, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA), have ruled out any link to ill-health.

But after several MEPs asked for a new investigation following pressure from European health campaigners, EU Commission officials have now asked the EFSA to bring forward a review that had been planned for 2020.

The concern about artificial sweeteners such as aspartame relates to the fact that they contain methanol, a nerve toxin which can be metabolised in the body to form two more nerve toxins: formic acid and formaldehyde, the chemical used to preserve dead bodies.

Earlier this year, experts on Britain’s Committee on Toxicity(CoT) ruled that ‘long-term exposure to methanol consumed through food, including from aspartame, is unlikely to be harmful to health’. The committee pointed out that methanol is also found in fruit and vegetables.

As a result of the experts’ conclusions, the FSA ruled the consumption of aspartame ‘is not of concern at the current levels of use’.

Despite this verdict, the FSA is currently recruiting volunteers for an investigation into anecdotal reports of ill health, including headaches and stomach upsets, associated with aspartame.

The watchdog announced the research project in 2009, however it has had difficulties recruiting volunteers who claim to suffer problems.

EFSA spokesman, Lucia De Luca, said: ‘Aspartame is one of hundreds of flavourings. It is on the market because it has been assessed in the past and considered safe. ‘We have received an official request for a complete re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame. ‘The re-evaluation is scheduled for 2020 but the Commission asked us to do this re-evaluation now in the light of recent events. ‘In the past year, there have been a couple of studies looking at aspartame and concerns expressed by consumer groups and others.’

In July last year, EU-funded research by Danish scientists, which looked at almost 60,000 mothers-to-be, found a correlation between the amount of diet drink consumed and an early birth.

Previously, the Independent Ramazzini Foundation in Italy has published research suggesting aspartame caused several types of cancer in rats at doses very close to the current acceptable daily intake for humans. Both of these have been evaluated by EFSA experts, who have rejected any risk to human health.

Aspartame is manufactured by Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe. The firm said it welcomes the decision to bring forward the safety evaluation. A spokesman said: ‘EFSA reaffirmed the safety of aspartame in 2006, 2009 and 2010. In addition, recent allegations about the safety of aspartame made in France and by a handful of MEPs have already been dismissed by EFSA. ‘This review of the extensive body of science on aspartame will provide additional confirmation of the ingredient’s safety.

‘By providing an excellent sweet taste, aspartame makes a useful contribution to a healthy, calorie-controlled diet and can help people to avoid overweight and obesity, and their associated diseases.’

SOURCE

Red meat DOES increase cancer risk, new report will say

"Although the evidence is not conclusive". Well what is it then? Speculation is what it is -- motivated by the fact that meat is popular. The "superior" people will attack ANYTHING that is popular

Britons should cut their consumption of red and processed meat to reduce the risk of bowel cancer, scientific experts are expected to recommend in a report. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) was asked by the Department of Health to review dietary advice on meat consumption as a source of iron.

In a draft report published in June 2009 the committee of independent experts said lower consumption of red and processed meat would probably reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.

The committee said: 'Although the evidence is not conclusive, as a precaution, it may be advisable for intakes of red and processed meat not to increase above the current average (70g/day) and for high consumers of red and processed meat (100g/day or more) to reduce their intakes.'

A daily total of 70g is equivalent to about three rashers of bacon.

The Sunday Telegraph said the full report, to be published within days, was expected to echo the committee's draft report.

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: 'The DH committee of independent experts on nutrition will shortly publish their final report on iron and health.'

The World Cancer Research Fund already recommends people limit their intake of red meat, including pork, beef, lamb and goat, to 500g a week. The fund also advises consumers to avoid too much processed meat, including hot dogs, ham, bacon and some sausages and burgers.

It follows a review by the British Nutrition Foundation last week which suggested demolished the ‘myths and misconceptions’ about the meat, saying that most people eat healthy amounts which are not linked to greater risk of disease.

Modern farming methods have cut fat levels, which can be even lower than chicken, while red meat provides high levels of vital nutrients, including iron.

A vegetarian having a Cheddar cheese salad will eat seven times more fat, pound for pound, than lean red meat contains, said the review which looks at current evidence on health and red meat and found no evidence of ‘negative health effects’.

SOURCE





The Ultimate in Nanny-State Paternalism

Aside from the air we breathe, nothing is more important than the food and drink we consume. Not healthcare, not employment, not housing — nothing. Obviously, the best healthcare, the highest-paying job, and the biggest mansion in the world can’t do anything for you if you don’t eat. For someone to dictate to someone else the food and drink he should and shouldn’t consume is the ultimate in paternalism; for the state to tell someone the food and drink he should and shouldn’t consume is the ultimate in nanny-state paternalism.

Although the government’s war on poverty has been around about fifty years, its war on drugs about forty years, and its war on terrorism about ten years, it was only last year that the government declared war on childhood obesity. First Lady Michelle Obama has made this latest war her signature issue. “Obesity in this country is nothing less than a public health crisis,” said the president’s wife. She further claims that because military leaders say that one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, “childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well.”

But the first lady is not alone. To help fight the war on childhood obesity, Congress last year passed, and President Obama signed into law, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. This new law, which amends the Child Nutrition Act, the Food and Nutrition Act, and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, gives the government more power to decide what kinds of foods can be sold at schools. School-sponsored fundraisers like candy sales are exempt, but only if they are “infrequent within the school.”

What many Americans probably don’t realize is that the federal government is not just concerned about what children eat in school. Since 1980, and every five years since then, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have joined forces to publish Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The 112-page seventh edition dated 2010 has just been published. It provides nutritional guidelines for all Americans two years and older. It is based on the 453-page Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010.

This edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that Americans reduce their daily sodium intake, as well as their consumption of saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, added sugars, refined grains, and alcohol. It recommends that Americans increase their consumption of vegetables, fruit, whole grains, fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products, and seafood. It also recommends that Americans choose a variety of protein foods and foods that contain more potassium, fiber, calcium, and vitamin D. And, of course, it is also recommended that Americans “increase physical activity and reduce time spent in sedentary behaviors.”

There are two problems with these dietary guidelines, one nutritional and one philosophical.

Some physicians, nutritionists, and health professionals would strongly disagree with some of what is recommended in the Guidelines. For example, the demonization of cholesterol, butter, saturated fat, and unpasteurized dairy products, the dismissal of the glycemic index and the recommendation that 45 to 65 percent of one’s caloric intake should be from carbohydrates, and the lack of any warning about the dangers of aspartame, soy, and genetically modified foods. In fact, some of the above individuals blame the government itself for contributing to the current obesity and diabetes epidemics because it accepted the “lipid hypothesis” and the “cholesterol myth” that links dietary fat to coronary heart disease and recommended an unhealthy excess of carbohydrates in the form of bread, cereal, rice, and pasta at the bottom of its food pyramid.

There is no question that obesity is a growing problem in America. If government figures in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans are to be believed, in 2008, 10 percent of children ages 2 to 5 were obese, 20 percent of children ages 6 to 11 were obese, 18 percent of adolescents were obese, and 34 percent of adults were obese. A visit to your local buffet will probably confirm these figures.

But even if the government recruited the best and brightest nutritional scientists to solve the deepest and darkest mysteries of metabolism, diet, nutrition, exercise, and weight loss, even if they came up with the perfect diet to ensure that every American leads a long and healthy life, even if they won the war on obesity, and even if they did their work without government funding — there would still be a problem with the government’s issuing dietary guidelines.

It’s not that libertarians are indifferent to the obesity epidemic, unconcerned about the tragedy of childhood obesity, and dismissive of the health risks associated with being obese.

The more important issue is the role of government in the family and society. It is just simply not the purpose of government to issue nutrition guidelines, make food pyramids, wage war on obesity, conduct scientific research, subsidize agriculture, promote or demonize certain foods, monitor school lunches, ban unpasteurized dairy products, encourage healthy eating and exercise, regulate food production and labeling, and gather statistics on obesity.

And unlike programs like Social Security, which some people say we just can’t abolish because there is no free-market alternative, in the case of diet and nutrition there are already scores if not hundreds of private organizations in existence offering analysis and advice on a myriad of health-, medical-, food-, exercise-, nutrition-, and diet-related subjects.

But, it is argued, with so many organizations offering such a variety of opinions there is no way to know what is right and so, it is claimed, we need the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to serve as the final arbiter. And what about the people who are just too lazy or too mentally deficient to do any reading and research on their own? Don’t we need the government to take care of those people by issuing things like dietary guidelines?

But how do we know that the government will get it right? Just look at how many times the Food and Drug Administration has gotten it wrong on drug policy with deadly consequences for tens of thousands of Americans. And what about those people who are just too lazy or too mentally deficient to read and follow the government’s pronouncements and guidelines? Should the state spoon-feed them every day and force them to exercise?

Once the government dictates to us the food and drink we should and shouldn’t consume, there is no stopping its reach into the family and society. And as Ludwig von Mises pointed out:

It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects’ minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away.

The issue is one of freedom. Freedom to consume or not to consume. Freedom to exercise or not to exercise. Freedom to make one’s own health and welfare decisions. Freedom to not have to fund the FDA, USDA, and HHS bureaucracies. Freedom from a nanny state. And yes, freedom to be obese.

As C. K. Chesterton reminds us:

The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.

The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans should be taken with a grain of salt, but no more than a grain lest you fun afoul of the government-recommended daily allowance.

SOURCE

Diet drinks are fattening

Consuming low-calorie drinks may increase the risk of putting on weight, according to scientists in the United States. They have suggested that people who choose diet drinks containing artificial sweeteners tend to overcompensate and consume more calories than those who do not.

Although the rise in obesity has corresponded with a growth in low-calorie soft drinks, designed to make keeping weight down easy by replacing sugar with saccharine or other sweeteners, scientists who conducted experiments using rats at Purdue University, in Indiana, have suggested that the opposite may be happening. They found that rats fed on yoghurt sweetened with saccharine ate more calories, gained more weight and put on more body fat than rats that were given yoghurt sweetened with glucose.

Susan Swithers and Terry Davidson, who conducted the experiments, have suggested that, by breaking the connection between a sweet sensation and high-calorie food, the use of saccharine changes the body's ability to regulate how many calories it consumes. "The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharine can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with a higher-calorie sugar," they conclude in their report, which is published in the journal Behavioural Neuroscience.

They admit that their results may seem counterintuitive and might not be welcome to nutritionists and doctors who have long recommended low-calorie or no-calorie sweeteners. But they say that their findings match emerging evidence that people who drink more diet drinks are at higher risk of obesity and metabolic syndrome, a collection of medical problems such as abdominal fat, high blood pressure and insulin resistance that put people at greater risk of heart disease and diabetes.

People and animals learn that eating certain foods has consequences. Sweet tastes signal calories. If that link is broken, the researchers suggest, then the individual loses the ability to judge how many calories are being consumed. One controversial theory is that calorie consumption is signalled by a rise in body temperature after eating. The greater the rise in body temperature, the more aware the individual is that a lot of calories have been consumed.

In the experiments the rats that were used to eating low-calorie yoghurt showed a smaller rise in temperature after eating a different, calorie-loaded meal. It appeared that their ability to detect calories had been blunted, leading to overeating.

Normally, the researchers say, sweet foods provide a stimulus that strongly predicts that someone is about to take in a lot of calories and their ingestive and digestive reflexes gear up for that intake. But when false sweetness is not followed by lots of calories the system gets confused. Thus, they argue, people on low-calorie diets may eat more - or expend less energy - than they otherwise would. If their theory is correct, then artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, sucralose and acesulfame K, which taste sweet but do not provide calories, could have similar effects.

The results did not surprise Richard Cottrell of the Sugar Bureau. He said that there had been a number of studies that suggested a link between use of low-calorie sweeteners and weight gain and that dietary studies in humans "do not support the idea that avoiding sugar is a predictor of low body mass index, quite the contrary".

Dr Cottrell said that the evidence suggested that people who chose low-calorie drinks tended to consume more calories. "The advocates of low-calorie products tend to rely on evidence from covert substitution experiments, where the subjects don't know their food has been doctored. But even these experiments suggest that compensation kicks in slowly over a few days. People who know they are `banking some goodness' by taking, say diet drinks, are inclined to overindulge."

Source






Risk-averse world demands the unattainable

Comment on the latest extension of British bureaucracy. New drugs are to be suicide-rated

For drug manufacturers, the hurdles constantly get higher. Patients demand drugs that work effectively but which are targeted so precisely that they have no side-effects. The pharmaceutical industry would like us to believe that such products are possible, but there is hardly a drug on pharmacists' shelves that does not have at least one undesirable side-effect.

Some of the cosiest and most familiar drugs are among the worst offenders. Take aspirin. We all do. This centenarian is a genuine lifesaver, with a near-miraculous list of battle honours. It is effective against pain, but more aspirins are swallowed to protect against heart disease than headaches. Worldwide, more than 60 billion doses are taken every year. Yet if it were invented today, aspirin could never be marketed. Its most dangerous side-effect is damage to the stomach lining, causing ulcers and bleeding. In under16s, it can trigger a rare but potentially fatal condition, Reye's syndrome.

No drug with two such damaging side-effects would get far in today's risk-averse world. Yet it is impossible to deny that, overall, aspirin has done far more good than harm. By expecting drugs to be completely safe we are throwing away potentially valuable products too readily. Whenever new safety rules are introduced, costs rise and it becomes less and less profitable to produce drugs that have a limited market.

So people with rare diseases suffer. "Orphan drug" designations, whereby companies are given incentives to develop less profitable drugs, may help a little but the cost pressures inevitably drive companies to seek big-market drugs, the only way they can get their money back.

The problem then is that a rare side-effect may loom large simply because of the huge number of people taking the medication. It looks awful if thousands of people suffer side-effects and join in class actions, but if tens of millions are taking the drug the numbers suffering may be only one in a thousand or less. The other 999 are alleviating their symptoms and enjoying life.

Side-effects of drugs for treating depression are especially tricky to assess. There is evidence that they may increase suicidal thoughts, if not actual suicide, among adolescents. This may mean that teenagers plunged into gloom are lifted sufficiently by the medicine so that they see the possibility of controlling their lives once more. Thinking of suicide could be a sign of improvement.

If every drug is to be assessed for suicidal thoughts, it creates another barrier, another set of costs, and another reason for rejecting promising medicines because of a side-effect that may be tiny when compared with potential benefits.

The reductio ad absurdum of the search for complete safety is stasis. No new drug will ever be approved because fear has paralysed innovation. Everybody will lose. There will be no new medications, and we will be forced to fall back on those approved in earlier times when standards were lower. So by seeking perfect safety we will end up with drugs that are actually less safe, but familiar. It's enough to give you a headache. I'd recommend an aspirin.

Source

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter and margarine? They are just about pure fat. Surely they should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). And how odd it is that we never hear of the huge American study which showed that women who eat lots of veggies have an INCREASED risk of stomach cancer? So the official recommendation to eat five lots of veggies every day might just be creating lots of cancer for the future! It's as plausible (i.e. not very) as all the other dietary "wisdom" we read about fat etc.

10). And will "this generation of Western children be the first in history to lead shorter lives than their parents did"? This is another anti-fat scare that emanates from a much-cited editorial in a prominent medical journal that said so. Yet this editorial offered no statistical basis for its opinion -- an opinion that flies directly in the face of the available evidence.

Even statistical correlations far stronger than anything found in medical research may disappear if more data is used. A remarkable example from Sociology:

"The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre's yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at -0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper's data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added."

So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. But in medical research, data selectivity and the "overlooking" of discordant research findings is epidemic.

"What we should be doing is monitoring children from birth so we can detect any deviations from the norm at an early stage and action can be taken". Who said that? Joe Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Orwell's "Big Brother"? The Spanish Inquisition? Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde? None of those. It was Dr Colin Waine, chairman of Britain's National Obesity Forum. What a fine fellow!

*********************