Mom knew what she was talking about when she told you to eat your veggies. There are dozens of good reasons to consume a diet that is loaded with organic vegetables, and now researchers have unearthed another one. It appears that cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli can enable your body to fight off free radicals that bring on negative affects of aging, including disease and weakening of the immune system. This discovery brings a bit more understanding to the marvelous ways our bodies are designed to nurture and heal themselves if we are wise enough to give them the fuel and nutritional building blocks they need to be successful. As the article points out, these findings may also open the door to additional preventative measures in the future that will stimulate the bodys own immune functions by supplying critical natural substances. Of course, it is always best to get these nutrients from the vegetable itself - not a synthetic chemical or man-made vaccine that has been made to try to mimic the synergy of the vegetable. Man cannot improve on the synergistic effects that organic vegetables and fruits have within the body.
The challenges of providing ourselves with necessary nutrients are numerous in the day and age we live in. As the soil becomes more depleted of necessary minerals and modern farming practices, including genetic modification, become the norm, we must get back to growing our own organic food to supply our bodies with the whole foods we need to thrive and flourish. In addition, it is vital to use a high-quality food-grade vitamin/mineral supplement to fill in any nutritional gaps.
Broccoli May Help Boost The Aging Immune System
07 Mar 2008
Eat your broccoli! That's the advice from UCLA researchers who have found that a chemical in broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables may hold a key to restoring the body's immunity, which declines as we age.
Published in this week's online edition of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the study findings show that sulforaphane, a chemical in broccoli, switches on a set of antioxidant genes and enzymes in specific immune cells, which then combat the injurious effects of molecules known as free radicals that can damage cells and lead to disease.
Free radicals are byproducts of normal body processes, such as the metabolic conversion of food into energy, and can also enter the body through small particles present in polluted air. A supercharged form of oxygen, these molecules can cause oxidative tissue damage, leading to disease for example, triggering the inflammation process that causes clogged arteries. Oxidative damage to body tissues and organs is thought to be one of the major causes of aging.
"The mysteries of aging have always intrigued man," said Dr. Andre Nel, the study's principal investigator and chief of nanomedicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. "While we have known for some time that free radicals are important in aging, most of the past attention has focused on the mechanisms that produce free radicals rather than addressing the pathways used by the body to suppress their production."
A dynamic equilibrium exists in the body between the mechanisms that lead to increased free radical production and those antioxidant pathways that help combat free radicals.
"Our study contributes to the growing understanding of the importance of these antioxidant defense pathways that the body uses to fight free radicals," said Nel, a practicing clinical allergist and immunologist at the Geffen School. "Insight into these processes points to ways in which we may be able to alleviate the effects of aging."
The delicate balance between pro-oxidant and antioxidant forces in the body could determine the outcome of many disease processes that are associated with aging, including cardiovascular disease, degenerative joint diseases and diabetes, as well as the decline in efficiency of the immune system's ability to protect against infectious agents.
"As we age, the ability of the immune system to fight disease and infections and protect against cancer wears down as a result of the impact of oxygen radicals on the immune system," Nel said.
According to the UCLA study, the ability of aged tissues to reinvigorate their antioxidant defense can play an important role in reversing much of the negative impact of free radicals on the immune system. However, until this current study, the extent to which antioxidant defense can impact the aging process in the immune system was not properly understood.
"Our defense against oxidative stress damage may determine at what rate we age, how it will manifest and how to interfere in those processes," Nel said. "In particular, our study shows that a chemical present in broccoli is capable of stimulating a wide range of antioxidant defense pathways and may be able to interfere with the age-related decline in immune function."
The UCLA team not only found that the direct administration of sulforaphane in broccoli reversed the decline in cellular immune function in old mice, but they witnessed similar results when they took individual immune cells from old mice, treated those cells with the chemical outside the body and then placed the treated cells back into a recipient animal.
In particular, the scientists discovered that dendritic cells, which introduce infectious agents and foreign substances to the immune system, were particularly effective in restoring immune function in aged animals when treated with sulforaphane.
"We found that treating older mice with sulforaphane increased the immune response to the level of younger mice," said Hyon-Jeen Kim, first author and research scientist at the Geffen School.
To investigate how the chemical in broccoli increased the immune system's response, the UCLA group confirmed that sulforaphane interacts with a protein called Nrf2, which serves as a master regulator of the body's overall antioxidant response and is capable of switching on hundreds of antioxidant and rejuvenating genes and enzymes.
Nel said that the chemistry leading to activation of this gene-regulation pathway could be a platform for drug discovery and vaccine development to boost the decline of immune function in elderly people.
"This is a radical new way of thinking in how to increase the immune function of elderly people to possibly protect against viral infections and cancer," Nel said. "We may have uncovered a new mechanism by which to boost vaccine responses by using a nutrient chemical to impact oxidant stress pathways in the immune system."
Kim said that although there is a decline in Nrf2 activity with aging, this pathway remains accessible to chemicals like sulforaphane that are capable of restoring some of the ravages of aging by boosting antioxidant pathways.
The next step is further study to see how these findings would translate to humans.
For now, Nel suggests including these vegetables as part of a healthy diet.
Nel said that these findings offer a window into how the immune system ages.
"We may find that combating free radicals is only part of the answer. It may prove to be a more multifaceted process and interplay between pro- and antioxidant forces," he said.
The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the UCLA Claude D. Pepper Older Adults Independence Center, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Other study authors included Berenice Barajas and Dr. Meiying Wang.
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Health Sciences
924 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 350
Los Angeles, CA 90095
United States
http://www.ucla.edu
URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99811.php
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply
A recent study has found that trace amounts of various medications are common place in both drinking water and natural water supplies throughout the US and in other parts of the world. What a buzz this has created among the media, internet forum groups, and even conventional medicine. Of course, this is not the ahha moment that they would have everyone believe. Those of us in natural medicine have been warning people about the danger of pharmaceuticals in the water supply for years. However, we have been conditioned to believe that we must hear from science before a concept is to be believed.
Testing for drugs in water is mostly non-existent, or minimal at best. As the article below points out, these substances are designed to have specific chemical effects on the systems of humans, or in some cases animals. Thus, they are potential toxins even at very low concentrations. However, the media is telling us that the amounts are so low that the actual effect should be negligible. I do not know about you, but I think we have heard that line before, have we not?
This story reinforces the importance of knowing and testing your water sources, and the absolute necessity of using high-quality water filtration systems that will remove a vast array of organic chemicals, as much as humanly possible. It also brings up another interesting issue. Who do you think should be financially responsible for paying the cost of purging water sources of these drugs? It would seem to me that our legal drug-pushers, the pharmaceutical companies, are the ones who created this situation, and they should take it on their shoulders to solve it. However, that is not likely to happen in the real world.
Now even people who do not use artificial hormones, antidepressants, antibiotics, and other commonly used medications are being negatively affected by second hand exposure. Considering the amount of financial and political pull Big Pharma has, it would not be surprising to see this issue quietly fade away or be handled with a bit of public relations fluff that leads to no productive solutions. Or, I guess they could develop a drug that would ... (cough, cough) ...
Drugs In US Drinking Water
10 Mar 2008
A five month investigation by the Associated Press has discovered that small quantities of drugs, including antibiotics, sex hormones, and anti-seizure compounds, have been found in public drinking water supplied to over 40 million Americans across the US.
While the concentrations are so small they have to be measured in parts per billion or even parts per trillion, and water companies insist these levels are within safety limits, the AP said the long term effects on people's health of so many prescription drugs and over the counter medicines such as acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen, even in tiny amounts, are starting to worry scientists.
Drugs and their derivatives get into the drinking water supply because when people on medication go to the toilet they excrete whatever the body does not absorb and any metabolized byproducts. Water companies treat the waste before discharging it into rivers, lakes and reservoirs, and then treat it again before it enters the drinking water system. However, the various treatments don't remove all traces of drugs.
For five months, the AP National Investigative Team visited treatment plants, interviewed over 200 scientists, officials and academics, analyzed federal databases and reviewed hundreds of scientific reports.
Among their enquiries the AP investigators came across research studies that have "gone virtually unnoticed by the general public" where scientists were alarmed at the effect of the drinking water contaminants on human cells and wildlife.
The investigators also found that water companies don't like to publish the results of drug screening tests because they think the public would not know how to interpret them and would become unduly alarmed. However, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assistant administrator for water, Benjamin H Grumbles told AP that:
"We recognize it is a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously."
The AP investigators discovered that drugs have been found in the drinking water of 24 major metropolitan areas across the country. Here are some of the key findings:
Southern California: a portion of drinking water that supplies 18.5 million people contained traces of anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety drugs.
Philadelphia: treated drinking water contained 56 drugs or byproducts, including pharmaceuticals for pain, infection, cholesterol control, heart conditions, asthma.
San Francisco: a sex hormone was detected in the drinking water.
Washington DC: six drugs were found in the drinking water supply of the capital and surrounding area.
Tucson, Arizona: an antibiotic and two other medications were found in the drinking water.
Northern New Jersey: drinking water for 850,000 residents was found to contain carbamazepine, a mood stabilizer, and a metabolized byproduct of angina medication. This was found by US Geological Survey researchers who analyzed a treatment plant.
The AP report paints a rather chaotic and inconsistent picture of what is happening nationwide, with some water companies testing for a vast range of pharmaceutical compounds and others only testing for two. This is not surprising, since the AP team found that the "federal government doesn't require any testing and hasn't set safety limits for drugs in water".
It is not just waste water that is contaminated. The AP report says that watersheds, the natural source of most of the country's drinking water, are also affected. The AP investigators said tests were carried out in the watersheds of 35 of the 62 major water utilities they surveyed and drugs were found in 28 of them. Six of the 28, when contacted by the AP, said they did not test their drinking water, despite the watersheds being contaminated.
It would seem that no source of drinking water is entirely free of drugs. People who drink water from their own wells may not realize where the water comes from. It could come from a contaminated watershed, like one part of New York City's upstate watershed that tested positive for caffeine, often a marker of other drugs being present. One possible source of contamination for watersheds could be leaky septic tanks, according to one researcher interviewed by the AP team.
Bottled water and home filtration systems are also affected. According to the industry's main trade group, bottlers do not test or treat for pharmaceuticals (and some of these just repackage tap water said the AP).
Even aquifers, deep underground water systems that supply 40 per cent of the US water demand, are affected. The AP report mentions scientists examined aquifers located near landfill and other potential sources of contamination in 24 states and found traces of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.
As more and more people in the world take more and more drugs, and flush them, either unused or after metabolizing them, the concentrations entering the water system goes up. This problem is not confined to the US and the AP report cites evidence from other countries, including lakes in Switzerland and Canada. And it is not just human waste that puts drugs into the water system, but animal waste too, ranging from drugs used to treat domestic pets, to steroids used to treat cattle.
There is already evidence that drugs in the waterways is damaging wildlife, a prime example being male fish that are starting to create egg yolk proteins, a characteristic of female fish.
A large problem appears to be lack of funding to investigate the long term effects of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals, or the disproportionate way that limited funds are being used. The AP team interviewed Shane Snyder, research and development project manager at the Southern Nevada Water Authority, who said:
"I think it's a shame that so much money is going into monitoring to figure out if these things are out there, and so little is being spent on human health."
" It's time for the EPA to step up to the plate and make a statement about the need to study effects, both human and environmental," added Snyder.
Perhaps it is time, suggests the AP, for the focus that is currently maintained on regulated contaminants like pesticides, lead and PCBs, which are present in larger quantities and therefore pose a greater health risk, be extended to include medicines.
Drugs are a unique case because unlike other pollutants, they were designed to act on the human body. The AP team talked to a specialist who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs, zoologist John Sumpter of Brunel University, London, who pointed out:
"These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That's what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects."
It is true to say there is no clear evidence that trace amounts of drugs in the drinking supply are causing us harm, but this is because there have been no long term studies on the combined effects of so many drugs, albeit in trace amounts. Clinical trials of drugs concern themselves with a limited time period and use dosage amounts to test safety and side effects. They don't look at the lifetime effects of trace amounts of the drug, and certainly not in combination with a large number of others.
Sources: Associated Press.Written by: Catharine Paddock, PhD Copyright: Medical News Today
Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100038.php
Testing for drugs in water is mostly non-existent, or minimal at best. As the article below points out, these substances are designed to have specific chemical effects on the systems of humans, or in some cases animals. Thus, they are potential toxins even at very low concentrations. However, the media is telling us that the amounts are so low that the actual effect should be negligible. I do not know about you, but I think we have heard that line before, have we not?
This story reinforces the importance of knowing and testing your water sources, and the absolute necessity of using high-quality water filtration systems that will remove a vast array of organic chemicals, as much as humanly possible. It also brings up another interesting issue. Who do you think should be financially responsible for paying the cost of purging water sources of these drugs? It would seem to me that our legal drug-pushers, the pharmaceutical companies, are the ones who created this situation, and they should take it on their shoulders to solve it. However, that is not likely to happen in the real world.
Now even people who do not use artificial hormones, antidepressants, antibiotics, and other commonly used medications are being negatively affected by second hand exposure. Considering the amount of financial and political pull Big Pharma has, it would not be surprising to see this issue quietly fade away or be handled with a bit of public relations fluff that leads to no productive solutions. Or, I guess they could develop a drug that would ...
Drugs In US Drinking Water
10 Mar 2008
A five month investigation by the Associated Press has discovered that small quantities of drugs, including antibiotics, sex hormones, and anti-seizure compounds, have been found in public drinking water supplied to over 40 million Americans across the US.
While the concentrations are so small they have to be measured in parts per billion or even parts per trillion, and water companies insist these levels are within safety limits, the AP said the long term effects on people's health of so many prescription drugs and over the counter medicines such as acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen, even in tiny amounts, are starting to worry scientists.
Drugs and their derivatives get into the drinking water supply because when people on medication go to the toilet they excrete whatever the body does not absorb and any metabolized byproducts. Water companies treat the waste before discharging it into rivers, lakes and reservoirs, and then treat it again before it enters the drinking water system. However, the various treatments don't remove all traces of drugs.
For five months, the AP National Investigative Team visited treatment plants, interviewed over 200 scientists, officials and academics, analyzed federal databases and reviewed hundreds of scientific reports.
Among their enquiries the AP investigators came across research studies that have "gone virtually unnoticed by the general public" where scientists were alarmed at the effect of the drinking water contaminants on human cells and wildlife.
The investigators also found that water companies don't like to publish the results of drug screening tests because they think the public would not know how to interpret them and would become unduly alarmed. However, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assistant administrator for water, Benjamin H Grumbles told AP that:
"We recognize it is a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously."
The AP investigators discovered that drugs have been found in the drinking water of 24 major metropolitan areas across the country. Here are some of the key findings:
Southern California: a portion of drinking water that supplies 18.5 million people contained traces of anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety drugs.
Philadelphia: treated drinking water contained 56 drugs or byproducts, including pharmaceuticals for pain, infection, cholesterol control, heart conditions, asthma.
San Francisco: a sex hormone was detected in the drinking water.
Washington DC: six drugs were found in the drinking water supply of the capital and surrounding area.
Tucson, Arizona: an antibiotic and two other medications were found in the drinking water.
Northern New Jersey: drinking water for 850,000 residents was found to contain carbamazepine, a mood stabilizer, and a metabolized byproduct of angina medication. This was found by US Geological Survey researchers who analyzed a treatment plant.
The AP report paints a rather chaotic and inconsistent picture of what is happening nationwide, with some water companies testing for a vast range of pharmaceutical compounds and others only testing for two. This is not surprising, since the AP team found that the "federal government doesn't require any testing and hasn't set safety limits for drugs in water".
It is not just waste water that is contaminated. The AP report says that watersheds, the natural source of most of the country's drinking water, are also affected. The AP investigators said tests were carried out in the watersheds of 35 of the 62 major water utilities they surveyed and drugs were found in 28 of them. Six of the 28, when contacted by the AP, said they did not test their drinking water, despite the watersheds being contaminated.
It would seem that no source of drinking water is entirely free of drugs. People who drink water from their own wells may not realize where the water comes from. It could come from a contaminated watershed, like one part of New York City's upstate watershed that tested positive for caffeine, often a marker of other drugs being present. One possible source of contamination for watersheds could be leaky septic tanks, according to one researcher interviewed by the AP team.
Bottled water and home filtration systems are also affected. According to the industry's main trade group, bottlers do not test or treat for pharmaceuticals (and some of these just repackage tap water said the AP).
Even aquifers, deep underground water systems that supply 40 per cent of the US water demand, are affected. The AP report mentions scientists examined aquifers located near landfill and other potential sources of contamination in 24 states and found traces of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.
As more and more people in the world take more and more drugs, and flush them, either unused or after metabolizing them, the concentrations entering the water system goes up. This problem is not confined to the US and the AP report cites evidence from other countries, including lakes in Switzerland and Canada. And it is not just human waste that puts drugs into the water system, but animal waste too, ranging from drugs used to treat domestic pets, to steroids used to treat cattle.
There is already evidence that drugs in the waterways is damaging wildlife, a prime example being male fish that are starting to create egg yolk proteins, a characteristic of female fish.
A large problem appears to be lack of funding to investigate the long term effects of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals, or the disproportionate way that limited funds are being used. The AP team interviewed Shane Snyder, research and development project manager at the Southern Nevada Water Authority, who said:
"I think it's a shame that so much money is going into monitoring to figure out if these things are out there, and so little is being spent on human health."
" It's time for the EPA to step up to the plate and make a statement about the need to study effects, both human and environmental," added Snyder.
Perhaps it is time, suggests the AP, for the focus that is currently maintained on regulated contaminants like pesticides, lead and PCBs, which are present in larger quantities and therefore pose a greater health risk, be extended to include medicines.
Drugs are a unique case because unlike other pollutants, they were designed to act on the human body. The AP team talked to a specialist who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs, zoologist John Sumpter of Brunel University, London, who pointed out:
"These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That's what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects."
It is true to say there is no clear evidence that trace amounts of drugs in the drinking supply are causing us harm, but this is because there have been no long term studies on the combined effects of so many drugs, albeit in trace amounts. Clinical trials of drugs concern themselves with a limited time period and use dosage amounts to test safety and side effects. They don't look at the lifetime effects of trace amounts of the drug, and certainly not in combination with a large number of others.
Sources: Associated Press.Written by: Catharine Paddock, PhD Copyright: Medical News Today
Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100038.php
Monday, March 10, 2008
Lo-Cal Foods and Beverages May Encourage Weight Gain
The hazards of toxins found in artificial sweeteners have been well-publicized for many years, but new research is now pointing to the fact that these substances may actually enable the body to gain extra pounds rather than lose. It appears that these falsely sweet concoctions trick the body by giving errant signals about metabolic processes and appetite triggers that can cause individuals to feel hungrier, eat more, and convert less calories into energy.
Of course, the diet soda and other interested parties in the food industry are up in arms. Sales of diet soft drinks alone number more than 2 billion cases annually in the United States. What else are these chemicals doing to our bodies, especially those of children and teens? To make matters worse, industry chemists are constantly coming up with new sweetener products that are cheaper and easier to manufacture, and that also have next to no research behind them that may indicate potential harm they can incur.
Unfortunately, most Americans will not back off from artificial sweeteners based solely on reported health hazards, but the industry stands to lose their shirts if the public becomes convinced that their diet sodas are making them fatter. It would not surprise me if the huge corporations that thrive on these profits will somehow discredit such research with a PR blitz, possibly justified by the negative impact that the economy would suffer if the truth was upheld regarding artificial sweeteners. And if history repeats itself, as it often does, it would all be done with the FDAs blessing.
Lab study ties artificial sweetener to weight gain
Rats fed food with saccharin added more body fat, researchers found
Reuters
updated 5:30 p.m. CT, Sun., Feb. 10, 2008
WASHINGTON - Using an artificial, no-calorie sweetener rather than sugar may make it tougher, not easier, to lose weight, U.S. researchers said Sunday.
Scientists at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, studied rats that were fed food with the artificial sweetener saccharin and rats fed food with glucose, a natural sugar.
In comparison to rats given yogurt sweetened with glucose, those that ate yogurt sweetened with saccharin went on to consume more calories and put on more weight and body fat.
The researchers said sweet foods may prompt the body to get ready to take in a lot of calories, but when sweetness in the form of artificial sweeteners is not followed by a large amount of calories, the body gets confused, which may lead to eating more or expending less energy than normal.
"The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with high-calorie sugar," Purdue researchers Susan Swithers and Terry Davidson wrote in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience, published by the American Psychological Association.
"Such an outcome may seem counterintuitive, if not an anathema, to human clinical researchers and health care practitioners who have long recommended the use of low- and no-calorie sweeteners as a means of weight control."
Other artificial sweeteners such as aspartame that also taste sweet but do not lead to the delivery of calories may have similar effects, the researchers said.
"Animals may use sweet taste to predict the caloric contents of food. Eating sweet noncaloric substances may degrade this predictive relationship," the researchers wrote.
"With the growing use of noncaloric sweeteners in the current food environment, millions of people are being exposed to sweet tastes that are not associated with caloric or nutritive consequences," the researchers added.
The research was the latest to examine the question of whether artificial sweeteners -- used in many soft drinks and other foods — help or thwart those trying to lose weight. Various studies have offered mixed results.
Industry respondsThe new research drew criticism from the food industry.
"This study oversimplifies the causes of obesity," Beth Hubrich, a dietitian with the Calorie Control Council, an industry association representing companies that make low- and reduced-calorie foods and beverages, said in a statement.
"The causes of obesity are multi-factorial. Although surveys have shown that there has been an increase in the use of 'sugar-free' foods over the years, portion sizes of foods have also increased, physical activity has decreased and overall calorie intake has increased," Hubrich added.
The council also said findings in animal studies may not be applicable to people, which the researchers acknowledged.
Davidson said by e-mail that the implication of the council's statement "that they, too, are interested in the health of the public seems insincere."
"If they were sincere, one might expect that they would be alarmed by findings from animal or human models suggesting that their products might be contributing to the obesity epidemic that continues to expand and do its damage," Davidson said.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23097135/
Of course, the diet soda and other interested parties in the food industry are up in arms. Sales of diet soft drinks alone number more than 2 billion cases annually in the United States. What else are these chemicals doing to our bodies, especially those of children and teens? To make matters worse, industry chemists are constantly coming up with new sweetener products that are cheaper and easier to manufacture, and that also have next to no research behind them that may indicate potential harm they can incur.
Unfortunately, most Americans will not back off from artificial sweeteners based solely on reported health hazards, but the industry stands to lose their shirts if the public becomes convinced that their diet sodas are making them fatter. It would not surprise me if the huge corporations that thrive on these profits will somehow discredit such research with a PR blitz, possibly justified by the negative impact that the economy would suffer if the truth was upheld regarding artificial sweeteners. And if history repeats itself, as it often does, it would all be done with the FDAs blessing.
Lab study ties artificial sweetener to weight gain
Rats fed food with saccharin added more body fat, researchers found
Reuters
updated 5:30 p.m. CT, Sun., Feb. 10, 2008
WASHINGTON - Using an artificial, no-calorie sweetener rather than sugar may make it tougher, not easier, to lose weight, U.S. researchers said Sunday.
Scientists at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, studied rats that were fed food with the artificial sweetener saccharin and rats fed food with glucose, a natural sugar.
In comparison to rats given yogurt sweetened with glucose, those that ate yogurt sweetened with saccharin went on to consume more calories and put on more weight and body fat.
The researchers said sweet foods may prompt the body to get ready to take in a lot of calories, but when sweetness in the form of artificial sweeteners is not followed by a large amount of calories, the body gets confused, which may lead to eating more or expending less energy than normal.
"The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with high-calorie sugar," Purdue researchers Susan Swithers and Terry Davidson wrote in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience, published by the American Psychological Association.
"Such an outcome may seem counterintuitive, if not an anathema, to human clinical researchers and health care practitioners who have long recommended the use of low- and no-calorie sweeteners as a means of weight control."
Other artificial sweeteners such as aspartame that also taste sweet but do not lead to the delivery of calories may have similar effects, the researchers said.
"Animals may use sweet taste to predict the caloric contents of food. Eating sweet noncaloric substances may degrade this predictive relationship," the researchers wrote.
"With the growing use of noncaloric sweeteners in the current food environment, millions of people are being exposed to sweet tastes that are not associated with caloric or nutritive consequences," the researchers added.
The research was the latest to examine the question of whether artificial sweeteners -- used in many soft drinks and other foods — help or thwart those trying to lose weight. Various studies have offered mixed results.
Industry respondsThe new research drew criticism from the food industry.
"This study oversimplifies the causes of obesity," Beth Hubrich, a dietitian with the Calorie Control Council, an industry association representing companies that make low- and reduced-calorie foods and beverages, said in a statement.
"The causes of obesity are multi-factorial. Although surveys have shown that there has been an increase in the use of 'sugar-free' foods over the years, portion sizes of foods have also increased, physical activity has decreased and overall calorie intake has increased," Hubrich added.
The council also said findings in animal studies may not be applicable to people, which the researchers acknowledged.
Davidson said by e-mail that the implication of the council's statement "that they, too, are interested in the health of the public seems insincere."
"If they were sincere, one might expect that they would be alarmed by findings from animal or human models suggesting that their products might be contributing to the obesity epidemic that continues to expand and do its damage," Davidson said.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23097135/
Friday, March 7, 2008
New Turn in Vaccine-Autism Cases
Families who are awaiting the courts decisions regarding lawsuits connecting autism in their children from vaccines the children have received are paying close attention to an announcement made this week. The vaccine court established by congress to handle disputes regarding the damaging effects of vaccinations has recommended payment to a Georgia family because they have found enough evidence to conclude that their daughters autism-related condition was aggravated by a vaccine.
The battle for justice in the many pending lawsuits is far from over, but I found this story to be quite timely, especially considering a statement by John McCain this week regarding the connection between autism and Thimerosal. The whole idea of a special court and associated fund to handle claims about vaccine damages totally conflicts with the governments and others views that these vaccines are safe and necessary for the welfare of the public. The various neurotoxins present in these substances are very hazardous, especially to the fragile systems of infants and young children. It remains to be seen whether the courts will open the door to a legal connection between autism and vaccines, but the more the public becomes aware of the issues involved, the greater the chances that a parents freedom of choice regarding the use of vaccinations on their children will be maintained.
I highly recommend that all potential parents do their research before the issue of vaccinations comes up with their own children. This means researching before your baby arrives. You will also want a birth plan to file with the hospital that contains your wishes about vaccinations, keeping the baby in your room, and whether or not you want the hospital to feed your baby formula - especially important if you are going to breastfeed. If you have no plan, they will do what is standard procedure. Many women are now choosing birthing centers run by midwives or homebirths assisted by midwives in order to make sure that their wishes are acted upon and respected. Again, become informed about anything that is going to be injected into your baby and/or children. You will be glad you did!
Government Concedes Vaccine Injury Case
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE - 21 hours ago
Government health officials have conceded that childhood vaccines worsened a rare, underlying disorder that ultimately led to autism-like symptoms in a Georgia girl, and that she should be paid from a federal vaccine-injury fund.
Medical and legal experts say the narrow wording and circumstances probably make the case an exception - not a precedent for thousands of other pending claims.
The government "has not conceded that vaccines cause autism," said Linda Renzi, the lawyer representing federal officials, who have consistently maintained that childhood shots are safe.
However, parents and advocates for autistic children see the case as a victory that may help certain others. Although the science on this is very limited, the girl's disorder may be more common in autistic children than in healthy ones.
"It's a beginning," said Kevin Conway, a Boston lawyer representing more than 1,200 families with vaccine injury claims. "Each case is going to have to be proved on its individual merits. But it shows to me that the government has conceded that it's biologically plausible for a vaccine to cause these injuries. They've never done it before."
A lawyer for the 9-year-old girl has scheduled a news conference in Atlanta on Thursday. Her parents have declined to comment in the meantime because the case is not final and the payment amount has not been set.
Nearly 5,000 families are seeking compensation for autism or other developmental disabilities they blame on vaccines and a mercury-based preservative, thimerosal. It once was commonly used to prevent bacterial contamination but since 2001 has been used only in certain flu shots. Some cases contend that the cumulative effect of many shots given at once may have caused injuries.
The cases are before a special "vaccine court" that doles out cash from a fund Congress set up to pay people injured by vaccines and to protect makers from damages as a way to help ensure an adequate vaccine supply. The burden of proof is lighter than in a traditional court, and is based on a preponderance of evidence. Since the fund started in 1988, it has paid roughly 950 claims - none for autism.
Studies repeatedly have discounted any link between thimerosal and autism, but legal challenges continue. The issue even cropped up in the presidential campaign, with Republican John McCain asserting on Friday that "there is strong evidence" autism is connected to the preservative.
The girl has a disorder involving her mitochondria, the energy factories of cells. The disorder - which can be present at birth from an inherited gene or acquired later in life - impairs cells ability to use nutrients, and often causes problems in brain functioning. It can lead to delays in walking and talking.
Federal officials say the law bars them from discussing the case or releasing documents without the family's permission. However, The Associated Press obtained a copy of the concession by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials.
According to the document, five vaccines the girl received on one day in 2000 aggravated her mitochondrial condition, predisposing her to metabolic problems that manifested as worsening brain function "with features of autism spectrum disorder." In the 1990s, the definition of autism was expanded to take in a group of milder, related conditions, which are known as autism spectrum disorders.
The document does not address whether it was the thimerosal - or something else entirely in the vaccines - that was at fault.
The compensation fund lists problems with brain function as a rare side effect of certain vaccines. Such problems are enough on their own to warrant compensation, even without autism-like symptoms, and the fund has made numerous payouts in such cases.
The Health Resources and Services Administration, which is in charge of the fund, said: "HRSA has maintained and continues to maintain the position that vaccines do not cause autism."
A Portuguese study suggested that 7 percent of autistic children might also have the mitochondrial disorder, versus one in 5,000 people - or 0.02 percent - in the general population, said Dr. Marvin Natowicz, a Cleveland Clinic geneticist.
"Even if they're off by a factor of seven" and only 1 percent are afflicted, "it's still a striking statistic," he said.
Others said they doubt the Georgia case will have much effect.
"No link between mitochondrial disorders and autism spectrum disorder has been made in mainstream medicine," said Dr. Michael Pichichero of the University of Rochester in Rochester, N.Y., who has consulted for the government on vaccines and has received speaking fees from vaccine makers.
A decision is expected this spring on the first test case for a larger group of autism-vaccine claims, which are being heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Reported cases of autism have been rising in the U.S., even after thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines. However, some experts believe the rise is due to an expansion of the definition of autism and related conditions, and a desire to diagnose children so they qualify for special services and aid.
Associated Press writer Kristen Gelineau in Richmond, Va., and medical writer Mike Stobbe in Atlanta contributed to this story.
On the Net:
U.S. Court of Federal Claims: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov
Vaccine injury fund: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation
CDC autism page: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/index.htm
American Academy of Pediatrics autism reports: http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/oct07autism.htm
URL: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPIMulfcbi1seZqbdrRmkoVP20IgD8V7HCJ02
The battle for justice in the many pending lawsuits is far from over, but I found this story to be quite timely, especially considering a statement by John McCain this week regarding the connection between autism and Thimerosal. The whole idea of a special court and associated fund to handle claims about vaccine damages totally conflicts with the governments and others views that these vaccines are safe and necessary for the welfare of the public. The various neurotoxins present in these substances are very hazardous, especially to the fragile systems of infants and young children. It remains to be seen whether the courts will open the door to a legal connection between autism and vaccines, but the more the public becomes aware of the issues involved, the greater the chances that a parents freedom of choice regarding the use of vaccinations on their children will be maintained.
I highly recommend that all potential parents do their research before the issue of vaccinations comes up with their own children. This means researching before your baby arrives. You will also want a birth plan to file with the hospital that contains your wishes about vaccinations, keeping the baby in your room, and whether or not you want the hospital to feed your baby formula - especially important if you are going to breastfeed. If you have no plan, they will do what is standard procedure. Many women are now choosing birthing centers run by midwives or homebirths assisted by midwives in order to make sure that their wishes are acted upon and respected. Again, become informed about anything that is going to be injected into your baby and/or children. You will be glad you did!
Government Concedes Vaccine Injury Case
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE - 21 hours ago
Government health officials have conceded that childhood vaccines worsened a rare, underlying disorder that ultimately led to autism-like symptoms in a Georgia girl, and that she should be paid from a federal vaccine-injury fund.
Medical and legal experts say the narrow wording and circumstances probably make the case an exception - not a precedent for thousands of other pending claims.
The government "has not conceded that vaccines cause autism," said Linda Renzi, the lawyer representing federal officials, who have consistently maintained that childhood shots are safe.
However, parents and advocates for autistic children see the case as a victory that may help certain others. Although the science on this is very limited, the girl's disorder may be more common in autistic children than in healthy ones.
"It's a beginning," said Kevin Conway, a Boston lawyer representing more than 1,200 families with vaccine injury claims. "Each case is going to have to be proved on its individual merits. But it shows to me that the government has conceded that it's biologically plausible for a vaccine to cause these injuries. They've never done it before."
A lawyer for the 9-year-old girl has scheduled a news conference in Atlanta on Thursday. Her parents have declined to comment in the meantime because the case is not final and the payment amount has not been set.
Nearly 5,000 families are seeking compensation for autism or other developmental disabilities they blame on vaccines and a mercury-based preservative, thimerosal. It once was commonly used to prevent bacterial contamination but since 2001 has been used only in certain flu shots. Some cases contend that the cumulative effect of many shots given at once may have caused injuries.
The cases are before a special "vaccine court" that doles out cash from a fund Congress set up to pay people injured by vaccines and to protect makers from damages as a way to help ensure an adequate vaccine supply. The burden of proof is lighter than in a traditional court, and is based on a preponderance of evidence. Since the fund started in 1988, it has paid roughly 950 claims - none for autism.
Studies repeatedly have discounted any link between thimerosal and autism, but legal challenges continue. The issue even cropped up in the presidential campaign, with Republican John McCain asserting on Friday that "there is strong evidence" autism is connected to the preservative.
The girl has a disorder involving her mitochondria, the energy factories of cells. The disorder - which can be present at birth from an inherited gene or acquired later in life - impairs cells ability to use nutrients, and often causes problems in brain functioning. It can lead to delays in walking and talking.
Federal officials say the law bars them from discussing the case or releasing documents without the family's permission. However, The Associated Press obtained a copy of the concession by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials.
According to the document, five vaccines the girl received on one day in 2000 aggravated her mitochondrial condition, predisposing her to metabolic problems that manifested as worsening brain function "with features of autism spectrum disorder." In the 1990s, the definition of autism was expanded to take in a group of milder, related conditions, which are known as autism spectrum disorders.
The document does not address whether it was the thimerosal - or something else entirely in the vaccines - that was at fault.
The compensation fund lists problems with brain function as a rare side effect of certain vaccines. Such problems are enough on their own to warrant compensation, even without autism-like symptoms, and the fund has made numerous payouts in such cases.
The Health Resources and Services Administration, which is in charge of the fund, said: "HRSA has maintained and continues to maintain the position that vaccines do not cause autism."
A Portuguese study suggested that 7 percent of autistic children might also have the mitochondrial disorder, versus one in 5,000 people - or 0.02 percent - in the general population, said Dr. Marvin Natowicz, a Cleveland Clinic geneticist.
"Even if they're off by a factor of seven" and only 1 percent are afflicted, "it's still a striking statistic," he said.
Others said they doubt the Georgia case will have much effect.
"No link between mitochondrial disorders and autism spectrum disorder has been made in mainstream medicine," said Dr. Michael Pichichero of the University of Rochester in Rochester, N.Y., who has consulted for the government on vaccines and has received speaking fees from vaccine makers.
A decision is expected this spring on the first test case for a larger group of autism-vaccine claims, which are being heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Reported cases of autism have been rising in the U.S., even after thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines. However, some experts believe the rise is due to an expansion of the definition of autism and related conditions, and a desire to diagnose children so they qualify for special services and aid.
Associated Press writer Kristen Gelineau in Richmond, Va., and medical writer Mike Stobbe in Atlanta contributed to this story.
On the Net:
U.S. Court of Federal Claims: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov
Vaccine injury fund: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation
CDC autism page: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/index.htm
American Academy of Pediatrics autism reports: http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/oct07autism.htm
URL: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPIMulfcbi1seZqbdrRmkoVP20IgD8V7HCJ02
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Breakfast: A Critical Component of Wellness
We have all heard that breakfast is supposedly the most important meal of the day, and there are several reasons why that is generally true. One is that, due to Circadian Rhythms, the body is in cleansing mode during the morning hours. Thus consuming easily digestible fruits actually helps to cleanse and add fiber to the digestive tract for easy elimination. The best choice would be organic fruit. I recommend eating one type of organic fruit each morning and eating as much of it as you would like. Then the next day, pick another fruit. If you wish to eat more than one type, just make sure that you do not mix sweet fruits with acidic fruits. You will get plenty of essential nutrients to meet the demands of the morning and the help that your digestive tract needs to keep moving and stay clean. It is also important to implement a mid-morning snack like organic nuts and seeds, or a health bar such as one made of hemp. In fact, it is good to eat 5 times every day - three healthy meals and two healthy snacks.
It is not good news that up to a third of children and teens have a habit of skipping breakfast, especially since a breakfast of fruit is convenient and easy. How difficult is it to peel a banana or eat a nice cold apple? Patterns such as skipping breakfast can also help determine the direction of other choices that influence our children (and our selves) for the worse. It is simply human nature to be able to have greater success at developing a lifestyle of wellness by starting each new day off on a positive, proactive note. A healthy breakfast is far from the only factor when it comes to a wellness routine, but it is the first step of the day for many people, and it just may help us avoid some of the poor choices that we are all tempted with throughout the remainder of the day.
Eating breakfast linked to lower BMI in adolescents
By David Liu, Ph. D.
Mar 3, 2008 - 11:25:03 AM
MONDAY MARCH 3, 2008 (foodconsumer.org) -- Eating breakfast may help children maintain a healthy body weight, according to a study published in the current issue of the journal Pediatrics.
The study merely suggests such a possibility because it could not prove that the observed lower body mass indexes in those who ate breakfast were actually caused by eating breakfast, meaning that other factors may be involved.
The study showed the children who ate breakfast more frequently were less likely to have a high BMI and the frequency of eating breakfast was inversely associated with BMI in a dose-dependent manner.
A number of observational studies have already linked breakfast habits to body weight in children and adolescents, according to the background information presented in the study report. And most if not all studies tended to suggest that the more often children eat breakfast, the less likely they gain excess weight.
In the United States, an estimated 12 to 34 percent of children and adolescents regularly skip breakfast and the rate is found on the rise, according to researchers from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota who claimed no conflict of interest in conducting the research.
The study initially involved in 4746 students in public middle and high schools in the Minneapolis/ St Paul, Minnesota metropolitan area. 2216 adolescents completed the surveys in 1998 to 1999 and 2003 to 2004 for their eating habits and weight statuses.
The researchers found analysis results derived from data from two survey periods showed inverse associations between the breakfast frequency and the BMI were largely independent of all considered confounding and dietary factors. And the more often the children ate breakfast, the lower BMI they obtained.
Mark A. Pereira, PhD and colleagues concluded that "Although experimental studies are needed to verify whether the association between breakfast and body weight is of a causal nature, our findings support the importance of promoting regular breakfast consumption among adolescents. Future studies should further examine the role of breakfast habits among youth who are particularly concerned about their weight."
Overweight and obesity has become commonly seen among children and adolescents. The researchers suggested that weight-related concerns affect breakfast frequency, which in turn affects dietary quality and appetite control and further affects the energy intake and bodyweight status. It is generally believed that those who skip breakfast could end up eating whatever snacks which are likely less healthy than breakfast.
For more information on the study, read the study report
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/121/3/e638
URL:http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/B_ody_W_eight_32/030311252008_Eating_breakfast_linked_to_lower_BMI_in_adolescents_printer.shtml
It is not good news that up to a third of children and teens have a habit of skipping breakfast, especially since a breakfast of fruit is convenient and easy. How difficult is it to peel a banana or eat a nice cold apple? Patterns such as skipping breakfast can also help determine the direction of other choices that influence our children (and our selves) for the worse. It is simply human nature to be able to have greater success at developing a lifestyle of wellness by starting each new day off on a positive, proactive note. A healthy breakfast is far from the only factor when it comes to a wellness routine, but it is the first step of the day for many people, and it just may help us avoid some of the poor choices that we are all tempted with throughout the remainder of the day.
Eating breakfast linked to lower BMI in adolescents
By David Liu, Ph. D.
Mar 3, 2008 - 11:25:03 AM
MONDAY MARCH 3, 2008 (foodconsumer.org) -- Eating breakfast may help children maintain a healthy body weight, according to a study published in the current issue of the journal Pediatrics.
The study merely suggests such a possibility because it could not prove that the observed lower body mass indexes in those who ate breakfast were actually caused by eating breakfast, meaning that other factors may be involved.
The study showed the children who ate breakfast more frequently were less likely to have a high BMI and the frequency of eating breakfast was inversely associated with BMI in a dose-dependent manner.
A number of observational studies have already linked breakfast habits to body weight in children and adolescents, according to the background information presented in the study report. And most if not all studies tended to suggest that the more often children eat breakfast, the less likely they gain excess weight.
In the United States, an estimated 12 to 34 percent of children and adolescents regularly skip breakfast and the rate is found on the rise, according to researchers from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota who claimed no conflict of interest in conducting the research.
The study initially involved in 4746 students in public middle and high schools in the Minneapolis/ St Paul, Minnesota metropolitan area. 2216 adolescents completed the surveys in 1998 to 1999 and 2003 to 2004 for their eating habits and weight statuses.
The researchers found analysis results derived from data from two survey periods showed inverse associations between the breakfast frequency and the BMI were largely independent of all considered confounding and dietary factors. And the more often the children ate breakfast, the lower BMI they obtained.
Mark A. Pereira, PhD and colleagues concluded that "Although experimental studies are needed to verify whether the association between breakfast and body weight is of a causal nature, our findings support the importance of promoting regular breakfast consumption among adolescents. Future studies should further examine the role of breakfast habits among youth who are particularly concerned about their weight."
Overweight and obesity has become commonly seen among children and adolescents. The researchers suggested that weight-related concerns affect breakfast frequency, which in turn affects dietary quality and appetite control and further affects the energy intake and bodyweight status. It is generally believed that those who skip breakfast could end up eating whatever snacks which are likely less healthy than breakfast.
For more information on the study, read the study report
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/121/3/e638
URL:http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/B_ody_W_eight_32/030311252008_Eating_breakfast_linked_to_lower_BMI_in_adolescents_printer.shtml
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Pros and Cons of Wine for Your Health
The article referenced below gives a very comprehensive overview regarding the potential benefits and risks of drinking a moderate amount of wine on a regular basis. The author covers all the bases when it comes to analyzing this issue, and helps health-conscious individuals sort through all the positives and negatives of wine consumption.
As with most dietary choices, it is not always as simple as whether we should or should not put a certain substance into our bodies, but decisions also involve the quality and purity of the food and beverage products that we choose. Eating large amounts of green vegetables, for example, is a wonderful idea, as long as they are not laced with pesticides, preservatives, and other toxins. The same is obviously true for wine, if we should choose to drink it. Balance is the key along with doing our research on how the food or beverage is made.
One particular point I found interesting in this article is the discussion of the French Paradox, as it has been labeled by some. The French traditionally consume a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol, yet they have significantly less coronary disease than do Americans. It appears that many of the beneficial components of the wine they typically drink may be one of the major factors that account for this phenomenon.
In the end, as with all wellness choices, it is up to the individual to decide for him or herself what is best, based on the facts and the particular needs of each person.
If You Are a Wine Drinker, Here Are Facts You Should Know
by Frank Cooper
(NaturalNews) Many health-conscious people wonder whether wine is a medicinal tonic that benefits their health, or something that should be avoided at all costs. Nutritionist Frank Cooper spent two years researching the subject of wine and health, and found many answers. He investigates the medicinal, nutritional, and environmental issues to do with wine, and the health considerations of the chemicals and additives that may be used in wine-making.
The journey starts by revisiting the French Paradox and why French cuisine is protective against heart disease. Professor Serge Renaud's paper, published in the British Medical Journal in 1991, helped bring wine into favour around the world. The good doctor, a Cardiologist working at the University of Bordeaux, reported that 2-3 glasses of red wine per day for males could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by 40%. For women he recommended 1-2 glasses per day.
The American 60 Minutes Program interviewed the good doctor in 1992 and coined the phrase The French Paradox because the French had significantly less coronary heart disease than other western countries, yet consumed a diet rich in cholesterol and saturated fats. Also, the average cholesterol level of an older male in France is 235 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/L) and at that level, an American would be reaching for their Lipitor.
Scientists at the time claimed that the beneficial component in wine was the alcohol, which dilated the arteries and acted as an anti-clotting agent, and that all alcoholic beverages would convey benefits. But were these scientists correct?
Copenhagen Heart Study - Denmark
The answer was provided several years later in 1995 when the Copenhagen Heart Study from Denmark was published in the British Medical Journal. This was a study to analyse alcohol consumers of wine, beer, and liquor. The study tracked 24,000 men and women over a twelve-year period. The report analysed the death rates and found that only wine had a beneficial effect on reducing all-cause mortality. The Copenhagen Study proved that there was something different about wine. But what was it? What were the health properties in wine?
Antioxidants / Free Radicals
The answer came from American food scientists who were investigating 'free radicals' and antioxidants. Dr. Edwin Frankel and his colleagues at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Illinois and the University of California (Davis), had done considerable study into oxidation and the benefits of anti-oxidants. When oxidation occurs in the human body it can damage living cells. However Frankel's team observed that the natural chemicals found in plant foods were powerful anti-oxidants that counter-balanced the damaging effects of cell oxidation. In other words, oxidation is fine in the human body if there is a counter-balancing supply of anti-oxidants as found in plant foods.
So what are these chemicals found in plants? Scientists call them phytonutrients or phytochemicals and they are a general term to describe the thousands of chemicals in fruits and vegetables that give plants their colours, smell, and medicinal properties. Phyto is simply a Greek word for 'plant'. The green in broccoli, the blue in blueberries, the red in grapes, are due to different phytonutrients.
Plant phytonutrients are a key source of anti-oxidants for the human body. Whilst the human body does have its own ability to produce anti-oxidants, the principal source of anti-oxidants is fruits and vegetables.
Frankel's team reported in the British Medical Journal in 1993 that the phytonutrients in wine, with names like Flavonoids and Resveratrol, significantly inhibited the oxidation of lipids (ie. fats & oils) and cholesterol in human blood. It should be mentioned that a primary cause of cardiovascular disease is oxidative damage to the artery walls caused by oxidised or rancid lipids and cholesterol in the bloodstream, causing the artery walls to become inflamed, leading to the build-up of plaque that narrows the artery.
I spoke to Dr Frankel, and to cut a long story short, the research conducted by his team explained why cardiovascular damage was greatly reduced in populations that consume lots of fruits, vegetables, and wine. That's because these diets are rich in phytonutrients and therefore rich in anti-oxidants to counter-balance the free radicals. For your information, red wine is a little higher in these phytonutrients than white wines, but white wines have the advantage of being lower in ethanol alcohol.
The populations in France and Australia (my country) are regular consumers of wine providing a rich source of phytonutrients. It is therefore noteworthy that the people living in both France and Australia enjoy excellent longevity, and only the Japanese live longer. OK, that summarises the health aspects of wine.
Let's now consider some of the downsides of wine.
As a clinical nutritionist working with patients, I have noted many people who suffer from wine allergies. These sufferers restrict their consumption of wine because of headaches, facial flushing, sinus problems and other negative reactions.
Wine allergies can be linked to a number of chemicals that enter the winemaking process, and to a lesser extent, the natural chemicals contained in the grape itself. Since most people can eat grapes without a problem, it would suggest that the natural phytochemicals found in grapes are an unlikely culprit. Therefore the focus must be on the chemicals added during the grape-growing and winemaking processes.
Chemicals that are permitted by law for use in winemaking include pesticides, herbicides, equipment cleaning chemicals, and sulphite preservatives. No one really knows the exact part that each chemical plays towards allergies, and in any event, we know from studies conducted with phytomedicines (Herbal Medicines) that people react differently to the same chemicals. But at the end of the day, if you suffer from wine allergies, that is the only thing that is important.
The extent to which chemicals are used in wine-making varies greatly between wine-makers, so let's investigate the more common chemicals that are used.
Vineyard Chemicals
Insects and fungal diseases are a major problem in most vineyards and they are treated before they cause serious damage. The solution is to spray the vines with compounds that destroy the pests, and these can be either organic or man-made pesticides. Some vineyards use organically-approved pesticides like natural sulphur and hydrogen peroxide as they do not leave any toxic residues on the grapes. However the majority of vineyards use man-made pesticides because they are more powerful, and require less effort. As a rule, man-made chemicals benefit the grape-grower, whilst organic pesticides are of benefit to the consumer for health reasons.
You should be aware that the grapes used in winemaking are not washed. This may come as a surprise to many people, who would naturally assume that grapes are washed after picking but prior to fermentation to remove all traces of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides. Sadly, that is not the case. The obvious question is "Why not wash the grapes?" Unfortunately this is not possible, as grapes are normally 'machine harvested' and the grape skins are damaged by the picking equipment and grape juice is released. In other words, the collection containers are filled with damaged grapes in a sort of liquid mush, and there in no way that the grapes can be washed.
Sulphur Dioxide, Sulphites, Preservative #220
Many people, including myself, are affected by wine allergies caused by the addition of Sulphur Dioxide. This is a chemical that goes under different names including "Preservative 220" and "Sulphites". These are all the same term for Sulphur Dioxide and it is the chemical that has been proven to cause most of the allergies experienced by wine drinkers. Note that whilst #220 is the most commonly used, any number between #220-226 is a sulphite.
As a simple rule, any wine that is capable of being shipped long distances and stored in hot tropical 40c temperatures, will need high levels of preservative sulphites to stop the wine from deterioration. Such high preservative levels can be a culprit in what we call 'restaurant syndrome' and most consumers have experienced the ill effects of a good night out.
Sulphites are measured in parts per million or PPM. In most countries a 750ml bottle of wine can have up to 250ppm of sulphites added, and at that level a sensitive person can expect a nasty headache or sinus reaction after just one glass. A low-sulphite wine would contain less than 60ppm of sulphites. Some wineries indicate the level of sulphites in their wines but these are very few. In the absence of any formal data, or expensive testing, I would suggest the self-test method for anyone worried about sulphites. What's the self-test method? Drink 1/4 of a bottle of wine and see how you feel the next day. Then lift that level to 1/3 of a bottle on another day and try it again. If you don't get a headache then stick with that wine for a while as it must be low in sulphites. You might even do this test a couple of times to be sure. If it passes the test, then buy a couple of boxes of that wine. In a nutshell, find a wine that agrees with you, and stick with it.
Oak - a potential problem for some.
During my investigations, I noted that some people avoided wines made with oak because it 'did not agree' with them. This is interesting because oak barrels have been used in wine-making for centuries, and wine and oak are synonymous. However there are several problems with oak.
Oak is a problem for sensitive people because it contains high levels of tannins that are the astringent component of most plants designed to repel insects and grazing animals. Tannins have strong chemical properties that affect some people.
Another problem with oak is that the insides of wine barrels require cleaning and disinfecting from time to time. Unfortunately this will require cleaning chemicals to clean the inner barrels and these are absorbed into the timber and will leech back into the wine later.
But it gets worse. Researchers in Europe found a chemical called 2,4,6-Tribromophenol in wooden wine barrels, wooden wine racks, and the crates used to transport the grapes. It's a chemical used to give timber 'fire retardant' properties and is used in furniture, building materials, and other wood products. Unfortunately, wineries source the barrels and wood chips from distributors who source them from elsewhere and the original supplier is often unknown. You can find more on a website called (www.panda.org) which is a global environmental group concerned with the degradation of the environment.
Currently there are no laws in place to preclude the use of these chemicals in the winemaking environment. So how toxic is 2,4,6-Tribromophenol? Well it's very toxic, because if you put a tiny amount into a large aquarium with fish, the fish will die. These chemicals are stored somewhere in the human body and disease may manifest years later.
What should you do? This is difficult to answer as no one knows how pervasive this problem is. I would be cautious about wine made with oak barrels and oak chips, unless you feel confident that the oak has not been treated with hazardous fire-retardant chemicals. Oak sourced from France is probably the safest. Alternatively, do what I do and drink unoaked wine.
Cork or Screw caps - which is better?
This is a winemakers' hot topic. But let me give you the story as I see it in the year 2008. The traditional cork as we know it, has been used for centuries. It allows the wine to breath, and helps the wine to age over time for those who like to cellar their wines. However it has a real problem. Cork is a natural product and can cause the tainting of the wine giving it a bad taste and smell. Statistically, it happens to 1-in-16 bottles which means that 1 bottle in every 16 is a dud. That's a very high risk especially if you have bought a premium-imported wine. For the technically inclined, it occurs when an airborne fungus combines with chlorine and becomes a compound called 2,4,6-Trichloroanisole, which causes the musty taste and smell known as 'cork taint'. Where do these chlorine products come from? They can be found in cork trees that have absorbed chlorine-based pesticides such as DDT, chlordane, and heptachlor.
The newer Diam cork developed in France fixes the tainting problem and is a re-manufactured granulated cork which has been sterilised with super-cold liquid Carbon Dioxide CO2 under very high pressure.
I personally prefer the screw type closures like the Stelvin Closure, as they create a perfect seal, and this allows the winemaker to add less sulphite preservatives. I personally don't like to drink wines that have more than about 60ppm of sulphites, and that's achievable with a screw cap system, but difficult to do with cork unless it's a Diam.
Does wine contain histamines?
This is a commonly held belief that is inaccurate. Histamines are molecules released by the human body when exposed to some types of allergen which might be pollen or dust, and that includes the sulphites in wine. When the human body reacts to an allergen like sulphites, the immune system triggers a cascade of events, and one of those is the release of histamines by the cells and tissues, which cause the familiar redness to the skin or results in headaches and so on. Histamines are a part of your immune system - but they are not in the wine. Some wines may contain small amounts of 'amines' but these are different from histamines.
Wine does contain other trace phytonutrients such as tannins, salicylates and other compounds, and there are some adult people - statistically around 1% of the population - who have heightened levels of chemical sensitivity. If this is you, then one option is to reduce the chemical load by drinking wine that is 'organic and preservative-free' and seeing whether this fixes the problem. It should be emphasised that there is a very small percentage of the population who suffer from life-threatening reactions to some foods and chemicals, and we are well aware of the dangers of peanuts to these people. Anyone suffering from these sorts of severe reactions should avoid wine altogether.
Supplements for the alcohol blues
One of the problems with excessive alcohol is that it causes us to feel lethargic the next morning. That's because alcohol overloads the liver, and whenever your liver is overloaded, your energy level drops. The Chinese realised the importance of the liver many centuries ago, and Traditional Chinese Medicine focuses strongly on liver health. So what should you do if you are attending a dinner function, where you may drink more wine then you should?
There are several things you can do that are very helpful for reducing the effects of wine. It is well known that ethanol alcohol interferes with a number of bodily process, and in particular the action of B vitamins, so it is useful to take a multi-B vitamin before or with dinner. Secondly, drink plenty of water to flush the alcohol and to hydrate the body. When you go to bed, drink another big glass of water. This should minimize any ill effects.
One problem in 'eating out' is the over-zealous wine waiters who insist on refilling our wine glass every few minutes. This means that you don't know how much wine you are drinking, and likely to drink more than you should. The solution for this problem is a simple method used by a business friend of mine who regularly attends business lunches and dinners. This chap drinks white wine for these situations and orders a separate bottle of sparkling mineral water. Then he regularly 'tops up' his own wine glass with the mineral water and this stops the wine waiters from filling his glass. He finds that this method allows him to drink lots of water, and only a little wine, and he can go back to work without feeling sluggish.
Ethanol alcohol and your liver
Wine contains ethanol that the human body breaks down to its primary constituent which is acetaldehyde, a chemical that is toxic in high concentrations. Acetaldehyde can diffuse across the brain barrier and irritate the membranes in the brain that lead to headaches the next morning. Fortunately, we have a key body organ called the liver that has the responsibility to breakdown the acetaldehyde and remove it from circulation.
At the quantities of 1-2 glasses of wine per day, the liver can generally clear the acetaldehyde without any problem, particularly if wine is consumed with food. Drinking adequate amounts of water is important because it helps flush the system and re-hydrates the brain tissues and cells. Alcohol does have a relaxing effect on the body and arteries which is considered therapeutic. It would appear that the overall beneficial effect of the phytonutrients, vitamins and mineral in wine, may outweigh the negative effects cause by the acetaldehyde by-products, provided you keep within the recommended consumption guidelines. If you are a regular drinker, aim for a couple of days per week that are alcohol-free to give your liver a rest. And anyone with an impaired liver should not drink.
Nationalities affected by ethanol alcohol
People from Europe, who have been drinking wine since 2000 years BC, have genetically adapted to ethanol alcohol. However certain populations such as those of Asian descent, and the original native people in the Americas and Australia, do not have the same genetics for the metabolism of alcohol. These populations have a higher likelihood of experiencing facial redness and flushing, heart rate fluctuations, and symptoms of reduced blood pressure. This is sometimes referred to as 'oriental flushing syndrome'. This is due to a deficiency in the enzyme that breaks down alcohol - called aldehyde dehydrogenase - and consequently acetaldehyde remains in the bloodstream at higher levels for longer periods. In other words, the acetaldehyde is not being removed from the bloodstream quickly enough causing the hot flushing effects. Rough estimates suggest that 50% of Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are partially deficient in this enzyme.
Acetaminophen/Paracetamol and alcohol
Most people are not aware that the #1 cause of kidney failure in Australia is due to paracetamol (called acetaminophen in USA) which is a painkiller readily available in supermarkets. This "gentle to the stomach" painkiller is deadly to the kidneys if taken in excess. In fact, there is no other drug that has such a narrow margin between the effective dose and the toxic dose. In other words if taken exactly as prescribed, paracetamol has a good safety record. But if taken beyond its guidelines, then damage occurs. What is also not well known is that paracetamol affects the detoxification pathways used by the human body to breakdown alcohol, and therefore anyone concurrently drinking alcohol and taking paracetamol will be over-dosing on paracetamol. This can cause serious kidney damage and lead to kidney failure and ultimately liver failure. If painkillers are required, then I would recommend the herbal painkillers.
Vintage wines versus branded wines
It is interesting to look at the difference between vintage wines and branded wines. Grape production and sugar levels vary each year with the climate, and this contributes to the unique characteristics of vintage wines. Vintage wines are made using traditional winemaking techniques as found in France and the Mediterranean countries, and these wines reflect the characteristics of the year they were picked. On the other hand, there are mass-produced branded wines, and these are generally made to a specific taste so that the 'consumer experience' is the same every year. This can only be achieved via chemical manipulation using various additives and production processes. These branded wines require chemical additives, blending, and manipulation during fermentation to achieve the same taste each year. These mass-produced wines are overly processed and can affect those with wines allergies. To draw an analogy, you can buy quality bread made from just flour, water, salt and yeast; and you can buy bread that is made from countless ingredients and additives. You have choices.
How much wine can you safely drink?
One or two glasses per day are fine for most people who do not have a medical condition. A glass of wine is 100ml, so 100-200ml per day is fine for the average-size person. A larger person weighing say 180lbs (80kg) or more may consume 200-300ml per day. Remember that a standard size bottle of wine is 750ml (26 fluid ounces) so a quarter bottle is probably the right amount for most people.
Final Summary
It's clear when we look at all the facts that wine in general has a number of health properties.
On the plus side, we have a beverage that is extremely rich in the Flavonoids and thousands of other phytonutrients that provide significant amounts of anti-oxidants to assist our health by preventing free radical damage that is associated with heart disease and other illnesses. Wine also provides a rich array of trace minerals and vitamins that are important. There are also studies to support the fact that small quantities of ethanol alcohol does act as a relaxant and vasodilator to reduce cardio stress. In other words, in its purist form, a good vintage wine made using traditional wine-making techniques, and drunk in moderation, qualifies as a medicinal tonic that can contribute to our longevity as is seen in France.
Conversely, there is the negative aspect of wine. All alcoholic beverages result in the conversion of ethanol alcohol to toxic acetaldehyde in the human body that the liver must detoxify. This can be a problem for anyone with impaired liver function, or for people with a genetic background that is lacking in the enzymes needed to breakdown acetaldehyde. In other words, acetaldehyde remains in the bloodstream for longer periods which is harmful. And then we have the issue of agricultural chemicals, and the additives used in wine-making. As you can appreciate, it is preferential to drink wines with a minimum of chemical additives and made by traditional wine-making techniques.
I think we can learn from the French Paradox. A glass or two of good wine with dinner contributes extra vitamins, minerals, digestive factors, and greatly enhances the enjoyment of the culinary experience.
Remember, common sense should prevail before drinking wine, and those with a medical condition should consult with their physician, and pregnant women should not drink alcoholic beverages particularly during the first trimester. And remember, never drink and drive!
In conclusion, the decision to drink wine is a personal one. It's not a judgment call that any of us should make for others. The important thing is to be educated about what wine is, how it should be consumed, and whether you feel it's for you.
About the authorFrank Cooper is a Naturopathic Nutritionist based in Australia. He is the author of the book "Cholesterol and the French Paradox" released in 2006 that explains the reasons the French enjoy low levels of heart disease. His clinic is based in the Hunter Valley, one of Australia's premier wine regions. For more information visit his website http://www.frankcooper.com.au/ or his vineyard http://www.monahanestate.com.au/
As with most dietary choices, it is not always as simple as whether we should or should not put a certain substance into our bodies, but decisions also involve the quality and purity of the food and beverage products that we choose. Eating large amounts of green vegetables, for example, is a wonderful idea, as long as they are not laced with pesticides, preservatives, and other toxins. The same is obviously true for wine, if we should choose to drink it. Balance is the key along with doing our research on how the food or beverage is made.
One particular point I found interesting in this article is the discussion of the French Paradox, as it has been labeled by some. The French traditionally consume a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol, yet they have significantly less coronary disease than do Americans. It appears that many of the beneficial components of the wine they typically drink may be one of the major factors that account for this phenomenon.
In the end, as with all wellness choices, it is up to the individual to decide for him or herself what is best, based on the facts and the particular needs of each person.
If You Are a Wine Drinker, Here Are Facts You Should Know
by Frank Cooper
(NaturalNews) Many health-conscious people wonder whether wine is a medicinal tonic that benefits their health, or something that should be avoided at all costs. Nutritionist Frank Cooper spent two years researching the subject of wine and health, and found many answers. He investigates the medicinal, nutritional, and environmental issues to do with wine, and the health considerations of the chemicals and additives that may be used in wine-making.
The journey starts by revisiting the French Paradox and why French cuisine is protective against heart disease. Professor Serge Renaud's paper, published in the British Medical Journal in 1991, helped bring wine into favour around the world. The good doctor, a Cardiologist working at the University of Bordeaux, reported that 2-3 glasses of red wine per day for males could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by 40%. For women he recommended 1-2 glasses per day.
The American 60 Minutes Program interviewed the good doctor in 1992 and coined the phrase The French Paradox because the French had significantly less coronary heart disease than other western countries, yet consumed a diet rich in cholesterol and saturated fats. Also, the average cholesterol level of an older male in France is 235 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/L) and at that level, an American would be reaching for their Lipitor.
Scientists at the time claimed that the beneficial component in wine was the alcohol, which dilated the arteries and acted as an anti-clotting agent, and that all alcoholic beverages would convey benefits. But were these scientists correct?
Copenhagen Heart Study - Denmark
The answer was provided several years later in 1995 when the Copenhagen Heart Study from Denmark was published in the British Medical Journal. This was a study to analyse alcohol consumers of wine, beer, and liquor. The study tracked 24,000 men and women over a twelve-year period. The report analysed the death rates and found that only wine had a beneficial effect on reducing all-cause mortality. The Copenhagen Study proved that there was something different about wine. But what was it? What were the health properties in wine?
Antioxidants / Free Radicals
The answer came from American food scientists who were investigating 'free radicals' and antioxidants. Dr. Edwin Frankel and his colleagues at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Illinois and the University of California (Davis), had done considerable study into oxidation and the benefits of anti-oxidants. When oxidation occurs in the human body it can damage living cells. However Frankel's team observed that the natural chemicals found in plant foods were powerful anti-oxidants that counter-balanced the damaging effects of cell oxidation. In other words, oxidation is fine in the human body if there is a counter-balancing supply of anti-oxidants as found in plant foods.
So what are these chemicals found in plants? Scientists call them phytonutrients or phytochemicals and they are a general term to describe the thousands of chemicals in fruits and vegetables that give plants their colours, smell, and medicinal properties. Phyto is simply a Greek word for 'plant'. The green in broccoli, the blue in blueberries, the red in grapes, are due to different phytonutrients.
Plant phytonutrients are a key source of anti-oxidants for the human body. Whilst the human body does have its own ability to produce anti-oxidants, the principal source of anti-oxidants is fruits and vegetables.
Frankel's team reported in the British Medical Journal in 1993 that the phytonutrients in wine, with names like Flavonoids and Resveratrol, significantly inhibited the oxidation of lipids (ie. fats & oils) and cholesterol in human blood. It should be mentioned that a primary cause of cardiovascular disease is oxidative damage to the artery walls caused by oxidised or rancid lipids and cholesterol in the bloodstream, causing the artery walls to become inflamed, leading to the build-up of plaque that narrows the artery.
I spoke to Dr Frankel, and to cut a long story short, the research conducted by his team explained why cardiovascular damage was greatly reduced in populations that consume lots of fruits, vegetables, and wine. That's because these diets are rich in phytonutrients and therefore rich in anti-oxidants to counter-balance the free radicals. For your information, red wine is a little higher in these phytonutrients than white wines, but white wines have the advantage of being lower in ethanol alcohol.
The populations in France and Australia (my country) are regular consumers of wine providing a rich source of phytonutrients. It is therefore noteworthy that the people living in both France and Australia enjoy excellent longevity, and only the Japanese live longer. OK, that summarises the health aspects of wine.
Let's now consider some of the downsides of wine.
As a clinical nutritionist working with patients, I have noted many people who suffer from wine allergies. These sufferers restrict their consumption of wine because of headaches, facial flushing, sinus problems and other negative reactions.
Wine allergies can be linked to a number of chemicals that enter the winemaking process, and to a lesser extent, the natural chemicals contained in the grape itself. Since most people can eat grapes without a problem, it would suggest that the natural phytochemicals found in grapes are an unlikely culprit. Therefore the focus must be on the chemicals added during the grape-growing and winemaking processes.
Chemicals that are permitted by law for use in winemaking include pesticides, herbicides, equipment cleaning chemicals, and sulphite preservatives. No one really knows the exact part that each chemical plays towards allergies, and in any event, we know from studies conducted with phytomedicines (Herbal Medicines) that people react differently to the same chemicals. But at the end of the day, if you suffer from wine allergies, that is the only thing that is important.
The extent to which chemicals are used in wine-making varies greatly between wine-makers, so let's investigate the more common chemicals that are used.
Vineyard Chemicals
Insects and fungal diseases are a major problem in most vineyards and they are treated before they cause serious damage. The solution is to spray the vines with compounds that destroy the pests, and these can be either organic or man-made pesticides. Some vineyards use organically-approved pesticides like natural sulphur and hydrogen peroxide as they do not leave any toxic residues on the grapes. However the majority of vineyards use man-made pesticides because they are more powerful, and require less effort. As a rule, man-made chemicals benefit the grape-grower, whilst organic pesticides are of benefit to the consumer for health reasons.
You should be aware that the grapes used in winemaking are not washed. This may come as a surprise to many people, who would naturally assume that grapes are washed after picking but prior to fermentation to remove all traces of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides. Sadly, that is not the case. The obvious question is "Why not wash the grapes?" Unfortunately this is not possible, as grapes are normally 'machine harvested' and the grape skins are damaged by the picking equipment and grape juice is released. In other words, the collection containers are filled with damaged grapes in a sort of liquid mush, and there in no way that the grapes can be washed.
Sulphur Dioxide, Sulphites, Preservative #220
Many people, including myself, are affected by wine allergies caused by the addition of Sulphur Dioxide. This is a chemical that goes under different names including "Preservative 220" and "Sulphites". These are all the same term for Sulphur Dioxide and it is the chemical that has been proven to cause most of the allergies experienced by wine drinkers. Note that whilst #220 is the most commonly used, any number between #220-226 is a sulphite.
As a simple rule, any wine that is capable of being shipped long distances and stored in hot tropical 40c temperatures, will need high levels of preservative sulphites to stop the wine from deterioration. Such high preservative levels can be a culprit in what we call 'restaurant syndrome' and most consumers have experienced the ill effects of a good night out.
Sulphites are measured in parts per million or PPM. In most countries a 750ml bottle of wine can have up to 250ppm of sulphites added, and at that level a sensitive person can expect a nasty headache or sinus reaction after just one glass. A low-sulphite wine would contain less than 60ppm of sulphites. Some wineries indicate the level of sulphites in their wines but these are very few. In the absence of any formal data, or expensive testing, I would suggest the self-test method for anyone worried about sulphites. What's the self-test method? Drink 1/4 of a bottle of wine and see how you feel the next day. Then lift that level to 1/3 of a bottle on another day and try it again. If you don't get a headache then stick with that wine for a while as it must be low in sulphites. You might even do this test a couple of times to be sure. If it passes the test, then buy a couple of boxes of that wine. In a nutshell, find a wine that agrees with you, and stick with it.
Oak - a potential problem for some.
During my investigations, I noted that some people avoided wines made with oak because it 'did not agree' with them. This is interesting because oak barrels have been used in wine-making for centuries, and wine and oak are synonymous. However there are several problems with oak.
Oak is a problem for sensitive people because it contains high levels of tannins that are the astringent component of most plants designed to repel insects and grazing animals. Tannins have strong chemical properties that affect some people.
Another problem with oak is that the insides of wine barrels require cleaning and disinfecting from time to time. Unfortunately this will require cleaning chemicals to clean the inner barrels and these are absorbed into the timber and will leech back into the wine later.
But it gets worse. Researchers in Europe found a chemical called 2,4,6-Tribromophenol in wooden wine barrels, wooden wine racks, and the crates used to transport the grapes. It's a chemical used to give timber 'fire retardant' properties and is used in furniture, building materials, and other wood products. Unfortunately, wineries source the barrels and wood chips from distributors who source them from elsewhere and the original supplier is often unknown. You can find more on a website called (www.panda.org) which is a global environmental group concerned with the degradation of the environment.
Currently there are no laws in place to preclude the use of these chemicals in the winemaking environment. So how toxic is 2,4,6-Tribromophenol? Well it's very toxic, because if you put a tiny amount into a large aquarium with fish, the fish will die. These chemicals are stored somewhere in the human body and disease may manifest years later.
What should you do? This is difficult to answer as no one knows how pervasive this problem is. I would be cautious about wine made with oak barrels and oak chips, unless you feel confident that the oak has not been treated with hazardous fire-retardant chemicals. Oak sourced from France is probably the safest. Alternatively, do what I do and drink unoaked wine.
Cork or Screw caps - which is better?
This is a winemakers' hot topic. But let me give you the story as I see it in the year 2008. The traditional cork as we know it, has been used for centuries. It allows the wine to breath, and helps the wine to age over time for those who like to cellar their wines. However it has a real problem. Cork is a natural product and can cause the tainting of the wine giving it a bad taste and smell. Statistically, it happens to 1-in-16 bottles which means that 1 bottle in every 16 is a dud. That's a very high risk especially if you have bought a premium-imported wine. For the technically inclined, it occurs when an airborne fungus combines with chlorine and becomes a compound called 2,4,6-Trichloroanisole, which causes the musty taste and smell known as 'cork taint'. Where do these chlorine products come from? They can be found in cork trees that have absorbed chlorine-based pesticides such as DDT, chlordane, and heptachlor.
The newer Diam cork developed in France fixes the tainting problem and is a re-manufactured granulated cork which has been sterilised with super-cold liquid Carbon Dioxide CO2 under very high pressure.
I personally prefer the screw type closures like the Stelvin Closure, as they create a perfect seal, and this allows the winemaker to add less sulphite preservatives. I personally don't like to drink wines that have more than about 60ppm of sulphites, and that's achievable with a screw cap system, but difficult to do with cork unless it's a Diam.
Does wine contain histamines?
This is a commonly held belief that is inaccurate. Histamines are molecules released by the human body when exposed to some types of allergen which might be pollen or dust, and that includes the sulphites in wine. When the human body reacts to an allergen like sulphites, the immune system triggers a cascade of events, and one of those is the release of histamines by the cells and tissues, which cause the familiar redness to the skin or results in headaches and so on. Histamines are a part of your immune system - but they are not in the wine. Some wines may contain small amounts of 'amines' but these are different from histamines.
Wine does contain other trace phytonutrients such as tannins, salicylates and other compounds, and there are some adult people - statistically around 1% of the population - who have heightened levels of chemical sensitivity. If this is you, then one option is to reduce the chemical load by drinking wine that is 'organic and preservative-free' and seeing whether this fixes the problem. It should be emphasised that there is a very small percentage of the population who suffer from life-threatening reactions to some foods and chemicals, and we are well aware of the dangers of peanuts to these people. Anyone suffering from these sorts of severe reactions should avoid wine altogether.
Supplements for the alcohol blues
One of the problems with excessive alcohol is that it causes us to feel lethargic the next morning. That's because alcohol overloads the liver, and whenever your liver is overloaded, your energy level drops. The Chinese realised the importance of the liver many centuries ago, and Traditional Chinese Medicine focuses strongly on liver health. So what should you do if you are attending a dinner function, where you may drink more wine then you should?
There are several things you can do that are very helpful for reducing the effects of wine. It is well known that ethanol alcohol interferes with a number of bodily process, and in particular the action of B vitamins, so it is useful to take a multi-B vitamin before or with dinner. Secondly, drink plenty of water to flush the alcohol and to hydrate the body. When you go to bed, drink another big glass of water. This should minimize any ill effects.
One problem in 'eating out' is the over-zealous wine waiters who insist on refilling our wine glass every few minutes. This means that you don't know how much wine you are drinking, and likely to drink more than you should. The solution for this problem is a simple method used by a business friend of mine who regularly attends business lunches and dinners. This chap drinks white wine for these situations and orders a separate bottle of sparkling mineral water. Then he regularly 'tops up' his own wine glass with the mineral water and this stops the wine waiters from filling his glass. He finds that this method allows him to drink lots of water, and only a little wine, and he can go back to work without feeling sluggish.
Ethanol alcohol and your liver
Wine contains ethanol that the human body breaks down to its primary constituent which is acetaldehyde, a chemical that is toxic in high concentrations. Acetaldehyde can diffuse across the brain barrier and irritate the membranes in the brain that lead to headaches the next morning. Fortunately, we have a key body organ called the liver that has the responsibility to breakdown the acetaldehyde and remove it from circulation.
At the quantities of 1-2 glasses of wine per day, the liver can generally clear the acetaldehyde without any problem, particularly if wine is consumed with food. Drinking adequate amounts of water is important because it helps flush the system and re-hydrates the brain tissues and cells. Alcohol does have a relaxing effect on the body and arteries which is considered therapeutic. It would appear that the overall beneficial effect of the phytonutrients, vitamins and mineral in wine, may outweigh the negative effects cause by the acetaldehyde by-products, provided you keep within the recommended consumption guidelines. If you are a regular drinker, aim for a couple of days per week that are alcohol-free to give your liver a rest. And anyone with an impaired liver should not drink.
Nationalities affected by ethanol alcohol
People from Europe, who have been drinking wine since 2000 years BC, have genetically adapted to ethanol alcohol. However certain populations such as those of Asian descent, and the original native people in the Americas and Australia, do not have the same genetics for the metabolism of alcohol. These populations have a higher likelihood of experiencing facial redness and flushing, heart rate fluctuations, and symptoms of reduced blood pressure. This is sometimes referred to as 'oriental flushing syndrome'. This is due to a deficiency in the enzyme that breaks down alcohol - called aldehyde dehydrogenase - and consequently acetaldehyde remains in the bloodstream at higher levels for longer periods. In other words, the acetaldehyde is not being removed from the bloodstream quickly enough causing the hot flushing effects. Rough estimates suggest that 50% of Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are partially deficient in this enzyme.
Acetaminophen/Paracetamol and alcohol
Most people are not aware that the #1 cause of kidney failure in Australia is due to paracetamol (called acetaminophen in USA) which is a painkiller readily available in supermarkets. This "gentle to the stomach" painkiller is deadly to the kidneys if taken in excess. In fact, there is no other drug that has such a narrow margin between the effective dose and the toxic dose. In other words if taken exactly as prescribed, paracetamol has a good safety record. But if taken beyond its guidelines, then damage occurs. What is also not well known is that paracetamol affects the detoxification pathways used by the human body to breakdown alcohol, and therefore anyone concurrently drinking alcohol and taking paracetamol will be over-dosing on paracetamol. This can cause serious kidney damage and lead to kidney failure and ultimately liver failure. If painkillers are required, then I would recommend the herbal painkillers.
Vintage wines versus branded wines
It is interesting to look at the difference between vintage wines and branded wines. Grape production and sugar levels vary each year with the climate, and this contributes to the unique characteristics of vintage wines. Vintage wines are made using traditional winemaking techniques as found in France and the Mediterranean countries, and these wines reflect the characteristics of the year they were picked. On the other hand, there are mass-produced branded wines, and these are generally made to a specific taste so that the 'consumer experience' is the same every year. This can only be achieved via chemical manipulation using various additives and production processes. These branded wines require chemical additives, blending, and manipulation during fermentation to achieve the same taste each year. These mass-produced wines are overly processed and can affect those with wines allergies. To draw an analogy, you can buy quality bread made from just flour, water, salt and yeast; and you can buy bread that is made from countless ingredients and additives. You have choices.
How much wine can you safely drink?
One or two glasses per day are fine for most people who do not have a medical condition. A glass of wine is 100ml, so 100-200ml per day is fine for the average-size person. A larger person weighing say 180lbs (80kg) or more may consume 200-300ml per day. Remember that a standard size bottle of wine is 750ml (26 fluid ounces) so a quarter bottle is probably the right amount for most people.
Final Summary
It's clear when we look at all the facts that wine in general has a number of health properties.
On the plus side, we have a beverage that is extremely rich in the Flavonoids and thousands of other phytonutrients that provide significant amounts of anti-oxidants to assist our health by preventing free radical damage that is associated with heart disease and other illnesses. Wine also provides a rich array of trace minerals and vitamins that are important. There are also studies to support the fact that small quantities of ethanol alcohol does act as a relaxant and vasodilator to reduce cardio stress. In other words, in its purist form, a good vintage wine made using traditional wine-making techniques, and drunk in moderation, qualifies as a medicinal tonic that can contribute to our longevity as is seen in France.
Conversely, there is the negative aspect of wine. All alcoholic beverages result in the conversion of ethanol alcohol to toxic acetaldehyde in the human body that the liver must detoxify. This can be a problem for anyone with impaired liver function, or for people with a genetic background that is lacking in the enzymes needed to breakdown acetaldehyde. In other words, acetaldehyde remains in the bloodstream for longer periods which is harmful. And then we have the issue of agricultural chemicals, and the additives used in wine-making. As you can appreciate, it is preferential to drink wines with a minimum of chemical additives and made by traditional wine-making techniques.
I think we can learn from the French Paradox. A glass or two of good wine with dinner contributes extra vitamins, minerals, digestive factors, and greatly enhances the enjoyment of the culinary experience.
Remember, common sense should prevail before drinking wine, and those with a medical condition should consult with their physician, and pregnant women should not drink alcoholic beverages particularly during the first trimester. And remember, never drink and drive!
In conclusion, the decision to drink wine is a personal one. It's not a judgment call that any of us should make for others. The important thing is to be educated about what wine is, how it should be consumed, and whether you feel it's for you.
About the authorFrank Cooper is a Naturopathic Nutritionist based in Australia. He is the author of the book "Cholesterol and the French Paradox" released in 2006 that explains the reasons the French enjoy low levels of heart disease. His clinic is based in the Hunter Valley, one of Australia's premier wine regions. For more information visit his website http://www.frankcooper.com.au/ or his vineyard http://www.monahanestate.com.au/
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
More Benefits of Probiotics
The study discussed in article posted below links the use of yogurt, and specifically lactic acid and probiotics, to improved mouth and gum health. The benefits of probiotics has long been recognized in the intestinal tract, but this study gives encouraging evidence that these useful bacteria can give a boost to other bodily functions as well.
This discovery is really no surprise. By improving the health of the gut, probiotics increase the overall effectiveness of the immune system and thus provide greater defenses against disease throughout the body. Yogurt is a wonderful source of natural probiotics as long as you choose organic yogurt with live, active cultures that does not include added sugars, preservatives, or other chemicals. Many health-conscious people also include a quality probiotic supplement in their wellness routine due to its many healthful advantages.
Yogurt may take bite out of gum disease
But researchers can't say the same about the benefits of milk, cheese
Reuters
updated 12:40 p.m. CT, Thurs., Feb. 21, 2008
Regularly eating yogurt and other foods with lactic acid may be good for your mouth, Japanese researchers report.
Dr. Yoshihiro Shimazaki and colleagues found that consuming yogurt and lactic acid drinks was significantly associated with better periodontal health.
"But, milk and cheese were not," Shimazaki said.
Periodontal disease is a chronic bacterial condition associated with receding gums and tooth loss in adults. Outside of regular brushing and flossing, effective measures to allay this disease are limited, Shimazaki, of Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues note in the Journal of Periodontology.
Previous research identified a lower occurrence of periodontal disease among people who eat high amounts of dairy products, but did not identify which dairy products were most beneficial, the researchers report.
Shimazaki's team assessed the severity of periodontal disease in 942 men and women, aged 40 to 79 years, and their intake of milk, cheese, and lactic acid foods.
They found that people with generalized (more advanced) periodontal disease had a lower intake of lactic acid foods than people with localized (less advanced) periodontal disease.
A carton a day may helpCompared with individuals reporting no lactic acid food intake, those eating 55 grams or more of yogurt or lactic acid drinks a day had significantly fewer markers of severe periodontal disease. (That's less than half an average 6-ounce carton of yogurt.) The investigators made allowances for factors such as age, gender, smoking, alcohol intake, frequency of tooth brushing, blood sugar and cholesterol levels.
"The beneficial effect on periodontal disease might be based on the probiotic effect of lactobacilli found in lactic acid foods," Shimazaki said. Probiotics are living microorganisms, such as the Lactobacillus bacteria in yogurt that are beneficial to one's health.
More study neededThe investigators suggest follow up studies that further analyze the probiotic effect of lactic acid foods by assessing the distribution of lactic acid bacteria in subjects' mouths based on the lactic acid foods they eat. Future research should also examine whether continuing intake of lactic acid foods alters the progression of periodontal disease.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23277008/
This discovery is really no surprise. By improving the health of the gut, probiotics increase the overall effectiveness of the immune system and thus provide greater defenses against disease throughout the body. Yogurt is a wonderful source of natural probiotics as long as you choose organic yogurt with live, active cultures that does not include added sugars, preservatives, or other chemicals. Many health-conscious people also include a quality probiotic supplement in their wellness routine due to its many healthful advantages.
Yogurt may take bite out of gum disease
But researchers can't say the same about the benefits of milk, cheese
Reuters
updated 12:40 p.m. CT, Thurs., Feb. 21, 2008
Regularly eating yogurt and other foods with lactic acid may be good for your mouth, Japanese researchers report.
Dr. Yoshihiro Shimazaki and colleagues found that consuming yogurt and lactic acid drinks was significantly associated with better periodontal health.
"But, milk and cheese were not," Shimazaki said.
Periodontal disease is a chronic bacterial condition associated with receding gums and tooth loss in adults. Outside of regular brushing and flossing, effective measures to allay this disease are limited, Shimazaki, of Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues note in the Journal of Periodontology.
Previous research identified a lower occurrence of periodontal disease among people who eat high amounts of dairy products, but did not identify which dairy products were most beneficial, the researchers report.
Shimazaki's team assessed the severity of periodontal disease in 942 men and women, aged 40 to 79 years, and their intake of milk, cheese, and lactic acid foods.
They found that people with generalized (more advanced) periodontal disease had a lower intake of lactic acid foods than people with localized (less advanced) periodontal disease.
A carton a day may helpCompared with individuals reporting no lactic acid food intake, those eating 55 grams or more of yogurt or lactic acid drinks a day had significantly fewer markers of severe periodontal disease. (That's less than half an average 6-ounce carton of yogurt.) The investigators made allowances for factors such as age, gender, smoking, alcohol intake, frequency of tooth brushing, blood sugar and cholesterol levels.
"The beneficial effect on periodontal disease might be based on the probiotic effect of lactobacilli found in lactic acid foods," Shimazaki said. Probiotics are living microorganisms, such as the Lactobacillus bacteria in yogurt that are beneficial to one's health.
More study neededThe investigators suggest follow up studies that further analyze the probiotic effect of lactic acid foods by assessing the distribution of lactic acid bacteria in subjects' mouths based on the lactic acid foods they eat. Future research should also examine whether continuing intake of lactic acid foods alters the progression of periodontal disease.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23277008/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
