Rather Be Healthy

Breast cancer is big business, and mammography is one of its primary profit centers. This is why the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep it, by downplaying or outright ignoring its significant risks.

In the US, women are still urged to get an annual mammogram starting at the age of 40, completely ignoring the updated guidelines set forth by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2009.

Unfortunately, many women are completely unaware that the science simply does not back up the use of routine mammograms as a means to prevent breast cancer death.

As was revealed in a 2011 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, mammography breast cancer screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which equates to an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent.

There’s also the risk of getting a false negative, meaning that a life-threatening cancer is missed.

Unfortunately, many choose to ignore the science and continue to campaign for annual screenings without so much as a hint at the risks involved. What’s worse, in a shocking disregard for women’s health, instead of admitting there are marked flaws in mammography, they’ve now unveiled a “new and improved” type of mammogram, called 3D tomosynthesis.

Tomosynthesis is a clever re-branding of the status quo. The multi-millions of dollars spent on creating these invasive machines could have been better utilized on continuing the development of less- or non-invasive technologies such as ultrasound and infrared imaging, inventing new technologies, and on educating women on preventative strategies.

Not only does tomosynthesis still require mechanical compression, it actually exposes you to even HIGHER doses of radiation than a standard mammogram! They also still recommend you continue to receive your traditional 2D mammogram, further multiplying radiation exposure. What kind of insanity is at play here, really? This is not progress in “the war on cancer.”

New 3-D Mammography is Basically a CT Scan for Breasts

To achieve a three-dimensional image, the machine moves in an arc around your breast, taking multiple x-rays along the way, which are then computed together into a 3D image. The technology received FDA approval in 2011, and is now available in 46 states around the US. But should it be?

“The most effective way to decrease women’s risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid attending screening. Mammography screening is one of the greatest controversies in healthcare, and the extent to which some scientists have sacrificed sound scientific principles in order to arrive at politically acceptable results in their research is extraordinary.

In contrast, neutral observers increasingly find that the benefit has been much oversold and that the harms are much greater than previously believed.” writes Peter C. Gotzche, MD of The Nordic Cochrane Centre and author of Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controvesy

As reported by USA Today1 last year:

‘The procedures give women twice as much radiation as a standard mammogram, notes surgeon Susan Love, author of Dr. Susan Love’s Breast Book. That’s because women who get 3-D imaging still undergo traditional 2-D mammography, as well.

Radiation is a known cause of breast cancer. Researchers in recent years have become concerned about radiation exposure from medical imaging, particularly CT scans. A 2009 analysis estimated that CT scans cause about 29,000 cancers and 14,500 deaths a year.

Soltani says the total radiation dose from 3-D mammography is still relatively low, in spite of this increase — from 0.5 millisieverts to 1.0 millisieverts. In comparison, a CT scan of the head has a radiation dose of about 2.0 millisieverts.

Love says she’s skeptical about the technology, which she compares to ‘a new toy,’ noting that the most essential questions about its benefits are likely to remain unanswered. The most important question about a new type of screening, Love says, is not simply how well it finds cancer, but whether it saves lives.

There is no data to prove that tomosynthesis finds more cancer or saves lives, says Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. ‘3-D is a new technology that should not be used outside of a clinical trial,’ Visco says.” [Emphasis mine]

3D Mammography — A Disaster in the Making?

I find the rollout of 3D mammograms quite disturbing considering the fact that the primary hazard of conventional 2D imaging is ionizing radiation. According to one 2010 study,2 annual screening using digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40–80 years is associated with an induced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20–25 cases per 100, 000. Meaning, annual mammograms CAUSE 20-25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women getting the test. The study also states that:
•Two-view screening with digital mammography delivers a slightly lower dose than does the older screen-film mammography
•Mean glandular dose of radiation from a breast CT scan is comparable to that from one screen-film mammogram
•A single digital breast tomosynthesis view involves a mean glandular dose comparable to that of a digital mammogram. The total radiation dose delivered at digital breast tomosynthesis will depend on the image acquisition strategy: whether single-view digital breast tomosynthesis, two-view digital breast tomosynthesis, or a combination of digital breast tomosynthesis and planar digital mammogram views are acquired.

Since the 3D mammogram requires multiple views in order to achieve three-dimensionality, it stands to reason your total radiation dose from 3D mammography can be considerably higher than a standard 2D mammogram. We know all levels of ionizing radiation can cause cancer but, astonishingly, radiologists still want you to have your traditional mammogram screening first, followed by a 3D tomosynthesis mammogram for those with dense breasts or an area of suspicion!

Again, this is not progress — it’s a huge step backward, making cancer screening even more dangerous than before.

Granted, a study3 published this year (which included more than 12,600 women), showed a 40 percent increase in the detection or identification of invasive cancers, and a 15 percent decrease in false positives when adding 3D mammography to traditional 2D screening. But while this sounds good, this must be weighed against the now significantly increased risk of the test itself CAUSING fatal cancer.

Confirmed: The More Mammograms You Get the More Harm They Do

Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com recently posted an article on mammograms, stating:4

“Mammograms are in the news again, and it doesn’t look good for those who continue to advocate using them to ‘detect cancer early’ in asymptomatic populations. The science increasingly runs directly counter to the screening guidelines produced by both governmental and nongovernmental health organizations claiming to be advocates for women’s health.

Remember that only last November, the New England Journal of Medicine5 published a shocking analysis of the past 30 years of breast screening in the US, finding that 1.3 million women were overdiagnosed and overtreated for breast cancer – euphemisms for misdiagnosed and mistreated. This finding, released cunningly from scientific embargo to the media on the eve of Thanksgiving, was so devastating in its implications that many either did not understand its meaning, or could not bear to accept the truth…

The only calculable dimension of this world-historical failure is the billions of dollars that were made in the process of converting healthy, asymptomatic women into ‘patients,’ and if fortunate enough to make it through treatment, ‘survivors.’”

As reported by The Los Angeles Times,6 another study is now raising eyebrows as it claims women who follow the American Cancer Society’s guidelines and get annual mammograms starting at age 40 not only receive NO additional protection against aggressive breast cancer, but actually experience greater harm through increased false positives and unnecessary treatments, when compared to women who get bi-annual mammograms between the ages of 50 and 74 only (which is what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends).

“Even after researchers adjusted for confounding factors such as age, place of residence and race, they found no benefit to more frequent screenings,” the LA Times reports. “More concerning, the researchers found that the more times women were screened the greater their odds of getting ‘false positives’ on mammograms.”

The article goes on to estimate that if all American women between 66-89 received annual mammograms instead of biannual testing, this results in a staggering 3.86 million more false-positives and 1.15 million more biopsies.

Women Need to Become Better Informed

In order to make better informed decisions, women need to be provided with all of their screening options, including their strengths and weaknesses; benefits and risks. Today, women are still rarely informed about the fact that ionizing radiation is a major contributor to cancer, i.e. that routine testing itself can increase their risk of lethal breast cancer.

However, despite the introduction of 3D mammograms, the tide of thought on mammography’s benefits if rapidly changing, as evidenced by several recently published studies, including:
1.Archives of Internal Medicine7 published a meta-analysis of 117 randomized, controlled mammogram trials. Among its findings: Rates of false-positive results are high (20% to 56% after 10 mammograms), and “although few women 50 years of age or older have risks from mammography that outweigh the benefits, the evidence suggests that more women 40 to 49 years of age have such risks”
2.A study published in the British Medical Journal8 in December 2011, confirmed that breast cancer screening may cause women harm, especially during the early years after they start screening. This harm is largely due to surgeries, such as lumpectomies and mastectomies, and other (often unnecessary) interventions. The study highlights losses in quality of life from false positive results and unnecessary treatment
3.In September 2010, the New England Journal of Medicine published the first study9 in years to examine the effectiveness of mammograms. Their findings are a far cry from what most public health officials would have you believe. The bottom line is that mammograms seem to have reduced cancer death rates by only 0.4 deaths per 1,000 women — an amount so small it might as well be zero. Put another way, 2,500 women would have to be screened over 10 years for a single breast cancer death to be avoided.
4.A 2011 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews10 found that mammography breast cancer screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which equates to an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. The researchers noted:

“[F]or every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.” [Emphasis mine]

Breast Cancer Prevention Strategies

Cancer screening is NOT to be misconstrued as a form of cancer prevention. Preventing breast cancer is far more important and powerful than simply trying to detect it after it has already formed, which is why I want to share my top tips on how to help prevent this disease in the first place.

In the largest review of research into lifestyle and breast cancer, the American Institute of Cancer Research estimated that about 40 percent of U.S. breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser lifestyle choices.11, 12 I believe these estimates are far too low, and it is more likely that 75 percent to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the recommendations below.
•Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
•Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I’m aware of, with no adverse effects. I suggest you try watching my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to learn more.

Remember that if you take high doses of oral vitamin D3 supplements, you also need to increase your vitamin K2 intake, as vitamin D increases the need for K2 to function properly. See my previous article What You Need to Know About Vitamin K2, D and Calcium for more information.

Please consider joining one of GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action’s vitamin D studies to stay on top of your vitamin D performance. For more information, see my previous article How Vitamin D Performance Testing Can Help You Optimize Your Health.
•Get plenty of natural vitamin A. There is evidence that vitamin A also plays a role in helping prevent breast cancer.13 It’s best to obtain it from vitamin A-rich foods, rather than a supplement. Your best sources are organic egg yolks,14 raw butter, raw whole milk, and beef or chicken liver.
•Lymphatic breast massage can help enhance your body’s natural ability to eliminate cancerous toxins. This can be applied by a licensed therapists, or you can implement self-lymphatic massage. It is also promotes self-nurturance.
•Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide — a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried — has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.
•Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
•Improve your insulin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and making sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.
•Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It’s important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
•Drink a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
•Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
•Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of breast cancer. It shows immense therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.15 It’s important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I’ve provided several absorption tips here.
•Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
•Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows breastfeeding can reduce your breast cancer risk.
•Avoid wearing underwire bras. There is a good deal of data that metal underwire bras can heighten your breast cancer risk.
•Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
•Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)

If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
•Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk
•Make sure you’re not iodine deficient, as there’s compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with breast cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,16 author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.

For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein’s book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are too high.

Arm Yourself with Information So You Can Take Control of Your Health

Many women are completely unaware that the science backing the use of mammograms is sorely lacking, and that more women are being harmed by regular mammograms than are saved by them.

Peter C. Gotzche, MD of the Nordic Cochrane Centre’ recently published a groundbreaking book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy. It offers a comprehensive take on the evidence, and a critical look at the scientific disputes and the information provided to women by governments and cancer charities. It also explains why mammography screening is unlikely to be effective today.

Many also do not realize that the “new and improved” 3D tomosynthesis mammogram actually ends up exposing you to MORE cancer-causing ionizing radiation than the older version. This is not a step forward… Please understand that there are other screening options, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and you have a right to utilize those options. Also remember that in order to truly avoid breast cancer, you need to focus your attention on prevention

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

If you’re trying your best to eat right and exercise, it might be worth it to make sure you get the proper amount of sleep each night, according to a new study that suggests lack of sleep can throw off a diet.

According to CNN Health, research from the University of Chicago showed that dieters who slept for 8.5 hours lost 55 percent more body fat than dieters who slept 5.5 hours

“The dieters who slept less reported feeling hungrier throughout the course of the study,” CNN said, even though “they ate the same diet, consumed multivitamins and performed the same type of work or leisure activities.”

The study authors concluded that “Lack of sufficient sleep may compromise the efficacy of typical dietary interventions for weight loss and related metabolic risk reduction,” CNN said. The study was released October 4 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Good sleep is a cornerstone of good health, yet is probably, by and large, the most ignored factor.

According to the 2010 “Sleep in America Poll” by The National Sleep Foundation, only about 40 percent of respondents reported getting a good night’s sleep every night, or almost every night, of the week.

There are many likely reasons for this. But part of the problem may be that many have bought into the fallacy that you can safely make do with less than eight hours of sleep a day. Modern society has more or less brainwashed us into thinking that sleeping is for wimps, or a sign of lazy luxury that most cannot afford.

This, as it turns out, is not true, and studies have linked poor or insufficient sleep with a wide range of health problems — including weight gain and obesity.

This latest study again confirms that if you do not take your sleep needs seriously, you could be unknowingly sabotaging your weight, not to mention your overall health.

Sleep Less, Weigh More

In this latest study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, dieters who slept for 8.5 hours lost 55 percent more body fat than dieters who only got 5.5 hours of shut-eye.

They also reported feeling less hungry throughout each day compared with those who slept less.

These results were echoed in another recent study published earlier this year, in which subjects who slept less than six hours per night had a 32 percent gain in visceral fat, compared to a 13 percent gain among those who slept six or seven hours per night, and a 22 percent increase among men and women who got at least eight hours of sleep each night. This is the type of fat linked to heart disease, type 2 diabetes, strokes and other chronic diseases.

But why would lack of sleep lead to increased weight?

It is believed that insufficient amounts of sleep affect your hunger-regulating hormones, leptin and ghrelin. This and other studies have shown that when you are sleep deprived, your body decreases production of leptin (whose job it is to tell your brain when you’re full and should stop eating), while at the same time increasing levels of ghrelin, a hormone that triggers hunger.

Lack of sleep also appears to affect glucose and fat utilization in your body, as well as energy metabolism – all of which can lead to a decreased ability to lose weight.

Although none of the studies mentioned in this article can prove that a lack of sleep directly causes fat gain, they all support the proposed link between sleep duration — particularly a lack of sleep – and weight gain, as well as an increased risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Your Hormones Depend on Your Body Clock to Set the Pace…

It’s important to realize just how vital a function your internal body clock serves, because in many ways it helps regulate your overall health.

The physiological functions of virtually all organisms are governed by 24-hour circadian rhythms. Your circadian clock is an essential time-tracking system, which your body uses to anticipate environmental changes and adapt to the appropriate time of day.

When operating normally, this ‘internal clock’ is what wakes your body in the morning and makes you get sleepy once darkness falls.

However, if you deprive yourself of sleep, or eat meals at odd hours (times at which your internal clock expects you to be sleeping), you send conflicting signals to your body that can confuse and unbalance this internal system.

In one study, researchers found that people who got four hours of sleep a night for just two nights in a row experienced:
•18 percent reduction in leptin
•28 percent increase in ghrelin

As described earlier, these hormonal alterations basically instruct your body to “be hungry,” and “store fat.”

In addition, previous research has also shown that subjects tend to crave more sweet and starchy foods opposed to vegetables and dairy products when getting less than six hours of sleep.

One possible explanation for this is that your brain is fueled by glucose (blood sugar); therefore, when you’re sleep deprived, your brain searches for carbohydrates.

Regardless of the exact mechanisms, it’s clear that sleep deprivation can push your body into a pre-diabetic state and make you feel hungry, even if you’ve already eaten – both of which can lead to weight problems.

Other Health Risks Linked to Poor or Insufficient Sleep

In addition to impaired weight control, poor sleep is associated with a number of other potentially serious health risks.

For example, interrupted or impaired sleep can:
•Dramatically weaken your immune system
•Seriously impair your memory; even a single night of poor sleep—meaning sleeping only 4 to 6 hours—can impact your ability to think clearly the next day
•Impair your performance on physical or mental tasks, and decrease your problem solving ability
•Raise blood sugar levels and increase your risk of diabetes
•Accelerate aging — Sleep deprivation prematurely ages you by interfering with your growth hormone production, normally released by your pituitary gland during deep sleep (and during certain types of exercise, such as Peak 8 exercises). Growth hormone helps you look and feel younger.
•Lead to hypertension (high blood pressure)
•Cause or worsen depression
•Increase your risk of cardiovascular disease – One recent study found that sleeping fewer than five hours a day more than doubles your risk of being diagnosed with angina, coronary heart disease, heart attack or stroke.

But sleeping more than seven hours also increased the risk of cardiovascular disease; more than nine hours of sleep resulted in a 50 percent increase in risk.

Although a direct causative relationship between certain amounts of sleep and cardiovascular disease has yet to be found, researchers believe it is related to your endocrine and metabolic functions. In addition, sleep deprivation can impair your glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity, and can raise your blood pressure — all of which are associated with hardening of your arteries.

•Increase your risk of cancer and accelerate tumor growth by altering the balance of hormones in your body. (Tumors grow two to three times faster in laboratory animals with severe sleep dysfunctions).

One explanation for this is related to your production of melatonin, which is both a hormone and an antioxidant. When your circadian rhythms are disrupted, your body produces less melatonin, which reduces your body’s ability to fight cancer since melatonin helps suppress free radicals that can lead to cancer. This is also why tumors grow faster when you sleep poorly.

•Increase your risk of dying from any cause – According to one study, people with chronic insomnia have a three times greater risk of dying from any cause.

So, What’s the Ideal Amount of Sleep?

Interestingly, excessive sleeping is not the answer to any of these problems because sleeping more than nine hours has also been linked to a number of health issues, including weight gain, back pain, headaches, depression and heart disease.

So, what is the ideal amount of sleep?

It appears the Goldilocks’ zone can be found somewhere between six to eight hours per night for most adults.

Keep in mind that your age and activity level will influence your sleep needs to some extent. Children and teens, for instance, need more sleep than adults.

However, your sleep needs are individual to you. You may require more or less sleep than someone of the same age, gender and activity level. Part of the reason for the difference has to do with what the National Sleep Foundation (NSF) calls your basal sleep need and your sleep debt:
•Basal Sleep Need: The amount of sleep you need on a regular basis for optimal performance
•Sleep Debt: The accumulated sleep lost due to poor sleep habits, sickness, environmental factors and other causes

Studies suggest that healthy adults have a basal sleep need of seven to eight hours each night, corresponding nicely with all the research findings discussed above.

Your best bet?

Listen to your body!

If you still feel tired and fuzzy headed when the alarm goes off, you probably aren’t getting sufficient sleep.

Can’t Sleep? Try Something New…

If you have trouble sleeping, take advantage of some of the many practical solutions I’ve outlined in my 33 Secrets to a Good Night’s Sleep, which include:
•Avoid before-bed snacks, particularly grains and sugars. This will raise blood sugar and inhibit sleep. Later, when blood sugar drops too low (hypoglycemia), you might wake up and not be able to fall back asleep.
•Sleep in complete darkness or as close as possible. If there is even the tiniest bit of light in your room it can disrupt your circadian rhythm and your pineal gland’s production of melatonin and serotonin.
•No TV right before bed. Even better, get the TV out of the bedroom or even out of the house, completely. It is too stimulating to your brain and it will take longer to fall asleep.
•Wear socks to bed. Due to the fact that they have the poorest circulation, your feet often feel cold before the rest of your body. A study has shown that wearing socks reduces night wakings
•Get to bed as early as possible. Our systems, particularly our adrenals, do a majority of their recharging or recovering during the hours of 11PM and 1AM.
•Keep the temperature in the bedroom no higher than 70 degrees F. Many people keep their homes and particularly the upstairs bedrooms too hot.
•Eat a high-protein snack several hours before bed. This can provide the L-tryptophan need to produce melatonin and serotonin.

In addition, you can use Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). It effectively addresses emotional reasons for insomnia. See Using EFT for Insomnia.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

A new study of 1,800 pairs of twins found that even if you’re genetically predisposed to being overweight, there is one easy thing you can do to put yourself in control of how much weight you gain.

As reported by CNN, researchers found that genes accounted for 70 percent of the differences in body mass index (BMI) in those who slept less than seven hours per night. Environmental factors, such as diet and exercise, accounted for just four percent of the differences. But in twins who slept nine or more hours per night, environmental factors shot up to 51 percent, and genetic influences dipped to 32 percent. So, sleep deprivation appears to have a significant influence over your genetic expression.

According to CNN Health1:

“Getting adequate sleep, in other words, appears to dampen genetic risk and allow the influence of diet, exercise, and other controllable lifestyle factors to “surface,” the researchers say.”

Sleeping Well Matters if You’re Struggling with Your Weight

Previous research has already shown that people who sleep less than seven hours a night tend to have a higher body mass index (BMI) than people who get more sleep. The biological mechanisms linking sleep deprivation and weight gain are numerous.

Alterations to your metabolism account for some of this effect, because when you’re sleep deprived, leptin (the hormone that signals satiety) falls, while ghrelin (which signals hunger) rises. In one 2010 study2, researchers found that people who slept only four hours for two consecutive nights experienced:
•18 percent reduction in leptin
•28 percent increase in ghrelin

This combination leads to an increase in appetite. Additionally, sleep deprivation tends to lead to food cravings, particularly for sweet and starchy foods. Researchers have suggested that these sugar cravings stem from the fact that your brain is fueled by glucose (blood sugar); therefore, when lack of sleep occurs, your brain starts searching for carbohydrates to keep going. If you’re chronically sleep deprived, consistently giving in to these sugar cravings will virtually guarantee that you’ll gain weight.

Sleeping less than six hours per night can also radically decrease the sensitivity of your insulin receptors, which will raise your insulin levels. This too is a surefire way to gain weight as the insulin will seriously impair your body’s ability to burn and digest fat. It also increases your risk of diabetes. In short, sleep deprivation puts your body in a pre-diabetic state, which can lead to increased weight and decreased health.

Sleep Deprivation, Stress, and Weight Gain

Biological stress is another mechanism that can help explain the link between poor sleeping habits and increased risk of weight gain. According to the featured article on CNN Health3:

“Sleep deprivation puts stress on your body, and that stress could help explain the relationship between sleep and gene expression seen in the study, says Carl Boethel, M.D., director of the Sleep Institute at Scott & White Healthcare, in Temple, Texas. “When you are constantly depriving yourself of sleep, you are keeping yourself in a state of stress, and the genes that encode for that stressful environment start saying, ‘I need to hold on to calories,'” Boethel says”.

When your body is under stress, it releases hormones that increase your heart rate and blood pressure. Your muscles get tense, your digestive processes stop, and certain brain centers are triggered, which alter your brain chemistry. For example, it tends to raise your levels of corticosterone, the stress hormone associated with road rage. Left unchecked, this stress response can eventually lead to a variety of health problems including:
•Headaches
•Indigestion
•Increased anxiety
•Depression
•High blood pressure

Unfortunately, precious few are willing to take a much-needed look at their sleeping habits and make the required readjustments to their schedules and habits. I strongly urge you not to be part of the majority in this regard…

How Much Sleep Do You Need?

Chronic lack of sleep has a cumulative effect, so you cannot skimp on sleep on weekdays and then try to “catch up” over the weekend. In order to benefit your health, you need to be consistent in your sleeping habits.

As a general rule, adults need between six and eight hours of sleep every night. However, there are plenty of exceptions. Also, as the featured study on twins suggests, you may need upwards of nine hours a night in order for it to outweigh certain genetic predispositions, by allowing your body to reap maximum benefits from a healthy diet and exercise regimen. The amount of sleep you need can also drastically change depending on your circumstances, such as illness or going through an emotionally stressful time.

Pregnant women also typically need more sleep than usual during the first trimester. My advice is to pay close heed to your body, mind and emotional state. For example, if you consistently feel tired upon waking, you probably need to sleep longer. Frequent yawning throughout the day is another dead giveaway that you need more shut-eye.

Optimizing Your Sleep Sanctuary

There are many factors that can influence your sleep, but one that many fail to consider is the use of light-emitting technology, such as your TV, iPad, and computer, before going to bed. These emit the type of light that will suppress melatonin production, which in turn will hamper your ability to fall asleep. Ideally, you’ll want to turn all such light-emitting gadgets off at least an hour prior to bed time. Next, making some adjustments to your sleeping area can also go a long way to ensure uninterrupted, restful sleep:
1.Cover your windows with blackout shades or drapes to ensure complete darkness. Even the tiniest bit of light in the room can disrupt your pineal gland’s production of melatonin and serotonin, thereby disrupting your sleep cycle.

So close your bedroom door, get rid of night-lights, and refrain from turning on any light during the night, even when getting up to go to the bathroom. If you have to use a light, install so-called “low blue” light bulbs in your bedroom and bathroom. These emit an amber light that will not suppress melatonin production.
2.Keep the temperature in your bedroom at or below 70 degrees F (21 degrees Celcius). Many people keep their homes and particularly their upstairs bedrooms too warm. Studies show that the optimal room temperature for sleep is quite cool, between 60 to 68 degrees F (15.5 to 20 C). Keeping your room cooler or hotter can lead to restless sleep.
3.Check your bedroom for electro-magnetic fields(EMFs). These can also disrupt your pineal gland’s production of melatonin and serotonin, and may have other negative effects as well. To do this, you need a gauss meter. You can find various models online, starting around $50 to $200. Some experts even recommend pulling your circuit breaker before bed to kill all power in your house.
4.Move alarm clocks and other electrical devices away from your head. If these devices must be used, keep them as far away from your bed as possible, preferably at least three feet.

If you’re feeling anxious or restless, try using the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which can help you address any emotional issues that might keep you tossing and turning at night. For many more recommendations and guidelines that can help you improve your sleep, please see my article 33 Secrets to a Good Night’s Sleep.

References:

——————————————————————————–
1 CNN Health May 1, 2012
2 Adolescent Medicine State of the Art Reviews December 2010;21(3):480-90
3 CNN Health May 1, 2012

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Does Your Diet Influence How Well You Sleep?

Too little sleep is known to impact your eating habits, appetite, weight gain and other metabolic functions, but little is known about whether different diets play a role in how well you sleep. A new study evaluated the diets and sleep patterns of more than 4,500 people and found distinct dietary patterns among short and long sleepers.1

Do People Who Sleep Less Eat Differently Than Those Who Sleep More?

While the study was only able to generate hypotheses about dietary nutrients that may be associated with short and long sleep durations, it did yield some interesting data. Participants were grouped into four sleep groups:
•Very short (less than 5 hours a night)
•Short (5-6 hours)
•Normal (7-8 hours)
•Long (9 or more hours)

Here are some of the dietary characteristics uncovered about each sleep group:
•Very short sleepers: Had the least food variety, drank less water and consumed fewer total carbohydrates and lycopene (an antioxidant found in fruits and vegetables).
•Short sleepers: Consumed the most calories but ate less vitamin C and selenium, and drank less water. Short sleepers tended to eat more lutein and zeaxanthin than other groups.
•Normal sleepers: Had the most food variety in their diet, which is generally associated with a healthier way of eating.
•Long sleepers: Consumed the least calories as well as less theobromine (found in chocolate and tea), choline and total carbs. Long sleepers tended to drink more alcohol.

As for what the data means, researchers aren’t yet sure. They’re using it as more of a starting point from which to base future research:

“Future studies should assess whether these associations are due to appetite dysregulation, due to short/long sleep and/or whether these nutrients have physiologic effects on sleep regulation.

In addition, these data may help us better understand the complex relationship between diet and sleep and the potential role of diet in the relationship between sleep and obesity and other cardiometabolic risks,” they said.

Certain Foods are Known to Help Promote (and Disturb) Sleep

Many people grew up drinking a glass of warm milk before bed to help lull them into sleep, and you may have “graduated” as an adult to a cup of warm chamomile tea, which is known for its calming properties.

Certain foods, too, are known for their sleep-inducing effects. Cherries, for instance, are a natural source of the “sleep hormone” melatonin, and drinking tart cherry juice has been found to be beneficial in improving sleep duration and quality.2 Alternatively, almonds and spinach are rich in magnesium, which is known for promoting sleep and relaxing muscles.

Of course, the converse is also true in that certain foods can significantly interfere with your sleep. Anything with too much caffeine would certainly be among them, but so would spicy foods before bedtime, which are linked with more time spent awake during the night and taking longer to fall asleep.3

In general, you want to avoid before-bed snacks, particularly grains and sugars. These will raise your blood sugar and delay sleep. Later, when blood sugar drops too low (hypoglycemia), you may wake up and be unable to fall back asleep.

How Sleep Impacts Your Appetite and Your Weight

If you’re someone who likes to “burn the midnight oil,” either by choice or because you have difficulty sleeping, you probably expect it to make you feel groggy and irritable the next day. But did you know that it can also seriously alter your appetite?

When you’re sleep deprived, leptin (the hormone that signals satiety) falls, while ghrelin (which signals hunger) rises. In one 2010 study, researchers found that people who slept only four hours for two consecutive nights experienced:4
•18 percent reduction in leptin
•28 percent increase in ghrelin

This combination leads to an increase in appetite. Additionally, sleep deprivation tends to lead to food cravings, particularly for sweet and starchy foods. Researchers have suggested that these sugar cravings stem from the fact that your brain is fueled by glucose (blood sugar); therefore, when lack of sleep occurs, and your brain is unable to properly respond to insulin (which drives glucose into brain cells) your brain becomes desperate for carbohydrates to keep going.

If you’re chronically sleep deprived, consistently giving in to these sugar cravings will virtually guarantee that you’ll gain weight. Further, according to research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine,5 after four nights of sleep deprivation (sleep time was only 4.5 hours per night), study participants’ insulin sensitivity was 16 percent lower, while their fat cells’ insulin sensitivity was 30 percent lower, and rivaled levels seen in those with diabetes or obesity.

This too is a surefire way to gain weight, as the insulin will seriously impair your body’s ability to burn and digest fat. It also increases your risk of diabetes. In short, sleep deprivation puts your body in a pre-diabetic state, which can lead to increased weight and decreased health.

When You Eat May be as Important as What You Eat

Emerging research suggests that the timing of your meals, for instance eating very late at night when you’d normally be sleeping, may throw off your body’s internal clock and lead to weight gain. For instance, artificial light, such as a glow from your TV or computer, can serve as a stimulus for keeping you awake and, possibly, eating, when you should really be asleep.

In one study, mice that were exposed to dim light during the night gained 50 percent more weight over an eight-week period than mice kept in complete darkness at night.6 They also had increased levels of glucose intolerance, a marker for pre-diabetes. The weight gain occurred even though the mice were fed the same amount of food and had similar activity levels, and the researchers believe the findings may hold true for humans as well.

When mice were exposed to nighttime light, they ended up eating more of their food when they would normally be sleeping and this lead to significant weight gain. However, in a second experiment when researchers restricted meals to times of day when the mice would normally eat, they did not gain weight, even when exposed to light at night.

In other words, while it’s typically thought that your biological clock is what tells you when it’s time to wake up or go to sleep, light and dark signals actually control your biological clock. In turn, your biological clock regulates your metabolism. So when your light and dark signals become disrupted it not only changes the times you may normally eat, it also throws your metabolism off kilter, likely leading to weight gain.

Are You Better Off Eating Your Biggest Meal at Night?

We’ve all heard the advice that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. But some experts believe that skipping breakfast and eating your main meal at night may actually be more in-tune with your innate biological clock. Routinely eating at the wrong time may not only disrupt your biological clock and interfere with your sleep, but it may also devastate vital body functions and contribute to disease.

According to Ori Hofmekler, author of The Warrior Diet:

“Your body is programmed for nocturnal feeding. All your activities, including your feeding, are controlled by your autonomic nervous system, which operates around the circadian clock. During the day, your sympathetic nervous system (SNS) puts your body in an energy spending active mode, whereas during the night your parasympathetic nervous system (PSNS) puts your body in an energy replenishing relaxed and sleepy mode.

These two parts of your autonomic nervous system complement each other like yin and yang. Your SNS, which is stimulated by fasting and exercise, keeps you alert and active with an increased capacity to resist stress and hunger throughout the day. And your PSNS, which is stimulated by your nightly feeding, makes you relaxed and sleepy, with a better capacity to digest and replenish nutrients throughout the night. This is how your autonomic nervous system operates under normal conditions.

But that system is highly vulnerable to disruption. If you eat at the wrong time such as when having a large meal during the day, you will mess with your autonomic nervous system; you’ll inhibit your SNS and instead turn on the PSNS, which will make you sleepy and fatigued rather than alert and active during the working hours of the day. And instead of spending energy and burning fat, you’ll store energy and gain fat. This is indeed a lose-lose situation.”

Are You Eating Right for Restful Sleep?

Researchers are only beginning to tease out the complex relationship between your diet and your sleep, but it did appear that one similarity among the “normal” sleepers was attention to eating a varied diet. If you need some help in this area, check out my nutrition plan for a step-by-step guide to optimizing your eating habits.

And, if you need tips for getting a more restful night’s sleep, be sure to read my 33 secrets to a good night’s sleep.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The Coca-Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health & Wellness (an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one), has released an “aspartame safety” page that is described as a “resource for professionals.”1

The only problem is that it claims aspartame is safe for use by nearly all populations, except for those born with the genetic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU). In reality, research suggests this artificial sweetener may be implicated in health risks ranging from cancer to seizures and even death.2

Coca-Cola’s Misleading Aspartame Information

Aspartame is used in more than 6,000 products worldwide, including Diet Coke products, which may contain up to 190 milligrams (mg) of aspartame per 8.3 fluid ounce serving.

Coca-Cola notes that “when aspartame is digested, the body breaks it down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol” – and it is methanol that is one of the root problems with aspartame.

However, Coca-Cola (and many other food and beverage manufacturers) often misleadingly counter the claims of methanol being a harmful aspect of aspartame by pointing out that it also occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables. For instance, Coca-Cola writes:

“Compared to amounts obtained from an aspartame-sweetened beverage, these components are consumed in much greater amounts from a variety of foods, including milk, meat, dried beans, fruits and vegetables… a serving of tomato juice provides about six times more methanol, compared to an equivalent serving of a beverage sweetened with aspartame.”

So why would methanol cause a problem in aspartame?

Methanol in Fruits and Veggies Differs From Methanol in Aspartame…

Download Interview Transcript

Aspartame is primarily made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. The phenylalanine has been synthetically modified to carry a methyl group, which provides the majority of the sweetness.

That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl ester, is very weak, which allows the methyl group on the phenylalanine to easily break off and form methanol. This is in sharp contrast to naturally occurring methanol found in certain fruits and vegetables, where it is firmly bonded to pectin, allowing the methanol to be safely passed through your digestive tract.

(However, the methyl alcohol can be liberated by putrefying bacteria that spoil fruits and vegetables and in fact methanol is an indication of spoilage in fruits and vegetables.

Dr. Monte recommends cutting off all spoiled parts before eating your fruits and veggies. I believe most people avoid eating spoiled produce. If not, it would be a wise move. It’s the putrefaction that liberates the methyl alcohol.)

Methanol acts as a Trojan horse; it’s carried into susceptible tissues in your body, like your brain and bone marrow, where the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) enzyme converts it into formaldehyde, which wreaks havoc with sensitive proteins and DNA.

All other animals have a protective mechanism that allows methanol to be broken down into harmless formic acid, but according to aspartame expert Dr. Woodrow Monte, there’s a major biochemical problem with methanol in humans, because of the difference in how it’s metabolized compared to in all other animals. This is why toxicology testing on animals is a flawed model. It doesn’t fully apply to humans.

Aspartame Poses Major Biochemical Problems in Humans

Coca-Cola also misleadingly challenges the link between aspartame and headaches, stating:

“Most studies investigating a relationship between aspartame and headaches show no effect. However, results from some small studies have shown a positive connection between aspartame intake and headaches, suggesting a susceptible population subset, although there is no biological explanation. Inconsistent findings may be caused by lack of objective measurements for headache onset or duration.”

This simply isn’t true. There is, in fact, an obvious biological explanation according to Dr. Monte:

“‘Here is the story: there is a major biochemical problem here,’ he says. ‘Methyl alcohol is known now, and has been known since 1940, to be metabolized differently by humans from every other animal.'”

Both animals and humans have small structures called peroxisomes in each cell. There are a couple of hundred in every cell of your body, which are designed to detoxify a variety of chemicals. Peroxisome contains catalase, which help detoxify methanol. Other chemicals in the peroxisome convert the formaldehyde to formic acid, which is harmless, but this last step occurs only in animals.

When methanol enters the peroxisome of every animal except humans, it gets into that mechanism. Humans do have the same number of peroxisomes in comparable cells as animals, but human peroxisomes cannot convert the toxic formaldehyde into harmless formic acid.

So to recap: In humans, the methyl alcohol travels through your blood vessels into sensitive areas, such as your brain, that are loaded with ADH, which converts methanol to formaldehyde. And since there’s no catalase present, the formaldehyde is free to cause enormous damage in your tissues.

Symptoms from methanol poisoning are many, and include headaches, ear buzzing, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral disturbances, and neuritis. The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage, and blindness. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication and may cause birth defects.

Aspartame May Be More Toxic in Men than Women

In one recent study,3 the health statistics for nearly 48,000 men and over 77,000 women over the age of 20 were reviewed, in which they found that men who consumed more than one diet soda per day had an increased risk of developing multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This was the longest-ever human aspartame study, spanning 22 years. Interestingly enough, this association was not found in women. Leukemia was associated with diet soda intake in both sexes.

I first found out about this study when ABC News contacted me and requested that I provide them with a comprehensive analysis of this 40-page study within an hour. Fortunately, I have extensively reviewed this topic and was able to provide their requested review.

One hypothesis for the difference between the sexes is that men have a higher activity of the enzyme ADH (explained above), which metabolizes methanol and converts it to formaldehyde. More formaldehyde circulating in your blood would naturally have more opportunity to cause greater damage.

Although the authors’ summary conclusion mentions they do not rule out the possibility of chance for this association, it’s worth noting that this is because they could not offer a conclusive explanation for the difference between the sexes. I carefully reviewed this study in its entirety, and found it to be extremely well executed. While the mechanism responsible for the difference between the sexes for certain cancers need to be studied further, Dr. Monty’s research demonstrates a perfectly viable mechanism of harm, including cancer.

The long-term nature of this study is really crucial because one of the primary tricks companies use to hide the toxicity of their products is short-term tests. The longest study prior to this one was only 4.5 months, far too short to reveal any toxicity from chronic exposure. Unfortunately, because there are so many of these short-term trials, manufacturers get away with saying that aspartame is one of the most studied food additives ever made and no health concerns have ever been discovered. As Coca-Cola put it on their page:

“Aspartame is one of the most thoroughly studied food ingredients, with more than 200 scientific studies confirming its safety.”

Researchers Downplayed Aspartame’s Toxic Effects…

Unfortunately, even though Harvard University researchers originally put out a press release alerting of these potential cancer dangers, they soon caved to pressure from industry and issued a second press release that minimized the impact of the study. Even the study’s authors offered only a milquetoast conclusion:

“Although our findings preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect of a constituent of diet soda, such as aspartame, on select cancers, the inconsistent sex effects… do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation.”

One hypothesis for the difference between the sexes is that men have a higher activity of the enzyme ADH, as I mentioned earlier, which metabolizes methanol and converts it to formaldehyde. More formaldehyde circulating in your blood would naturally have more opportunity to cause greater damage. It’s possible that there is some hormonally mediated protection against the adverse effects of aspartame in women, in addition to men having higher ADH activity, but the study was not designed to answer that question. All in all however, I believe the study offers significant supporting evidence of the danger that aspartame-sweetened and other “diet” drinks and foods pose.

Alcohol with Diet Soda Accelerates Intoxication

In a related study,4 researchers found that mixing alcohol with diet soda, compared to regular soda, gets you drunk faster. The study compared Smirnoff Red Label with Squirt (a lemon-lime soda) against the same vodka mixed with Diet Squirt. The diet drink increased breath-alcohol content (BAC) by 18 percent — the near-equivalent of one additional standard drink, and enough to push you over the legal limit for driving. As reported by Counsel & Heal:5

“While diet drinks save calorie intake, they actually accelerate the intoxication. The reason is that since diet drinks have less sugar in them, they get digested faster in the intestine and the alcohol in the drink gets mixed in the blood faster. So it is always a good idea to have alcohol with regular soft drinks, as alcohol with diet soft drinks accelerates the intoxication process.”

A Historical Timeline of Aspartame

Aspartame is the number one source of side-effect complaints to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with over 10,000 complaints filed and over 91 symptoms documented that are related to its consumption. With that many reports of adverse effects, it’s hard to believe aspartame is still allowed on the market. Unfortunately, aspartame’s approval was and still is largely a political affair. Many readers have long forgotten what the 60-Minutes’ correspondent Mike Wallace stated in his 1996 report on aspartame – available to view in this 2009 article – that the approval of aspartame was “the most contested in FDA history.”

And for good reason. At the time, independent studies had found it caused brain cancer in lab animals, and the studies submitted by G.D. Searle to the FDA for the approval were quickly suspected of being sloppy at best. To get an idea of of how aspartame made it through the FDA approval process despite warning signs of potential health hazards and alleged scientific fraud, take a look at the historical timeline of aspartame:

Food Industry Undermines Health Policy, Study Finds

According to a recent international analysis of the involvement by “unhealthy commodity” companies in health policy-making, researchers warn that self-regulation was failing, calling for more stringent industry regulations by outside parties.6 The analysis, which was published in the journal Lancet,7 points out that aggressive marketing of health harming foods by multinational food companies is the driving factor behind global epidemics of chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Even more importantly, the researchers cited industry documents that reveal how companies are actively trying to affect health legislation and avoid regulation that might harm their bottom lines. As reported by Reuters:8

“This is done by ‘building financial and institutional relations’ with health professionals, non-governmental organizations and health agencies, distorting research findings, and lobbying politicians to oppose health reforms… They cited analysis of published research which found systematic bias from industry funding: articles sponsored exclusively by food and drinks companies were between four and eight times more likely to have conclusions that favored the companies than those not sponsored by them.

‘Regulation, or the threat of regulation, is the only way to change these transnational corporations,’ wrote the researchers, led by Rob Moodie from the University of Melbourne in Australia. Ian Gilmore, special adviser on alcohol to Britain’s Royal College of Physicians said the findings were ‘a final nail in the coffin’ of the idea that involving the alcohol industry in public health measures could work. ‘Any government serious about public health should in future divorce its public health activities from industry involvement,’ Gilmore, who was not involved in study, said in a statement.”

The Most Dangerous Food Additive on the Market: Are You Being Affected?

Unfortunately, aspartame toxicity is not well known by physicians, despite its frequency. Diagnosis is also hampered by the fact that it mimics several other common health conditions. It’s quite possible that you could be having a reaction to artificial sweeteners and not even know it, or be blaming it on another cause. To determine if you’re having a reaction to artificial sweeteners, take the following steps:
•Eliminate all artificial sweeteners from your diet for two weeks.
•After two weeks of being artificial sweetener-free, reintroduce your artificial sweetener of choice in a significant quantity (about three servings daily).
•Avoid other artificial sweeteners during this period.
•Do this for one to three days and notice how you feel, especially as compared to when you were consuming no artificial sweeteners.
•If you don’t notice a difference in how you feel after re-introducing your primary artificial sweetener for a few days, it’s a safe bet you’re able to tolerate it acutely, meaning your body doesn’t have an immediate, adverse response. However, this doesn’t mean your health won’t be damaged in the long run.
•If you’ve been consuming more than one type of artificial sweetener, you can repeat steps 2 through 4 with the next one on your list.

If you do experience side effects from aspartame, please report it to the FDA (if you live in the United States) without delay. It’s easy to make a report — just go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number for your state, and make a call reporting your reaction.

Are You Addicted to Artificial Sweeteners?

Artificial sweeteners tend to trigger enhanced activity within your brain’s pleasure centers, yet at the same time provide less actual satisfaction. This separation of the taste of sweetness from caloric content means that when you consume artificial sweeteners, your brain actually craves more of it because your body receives no satisfaction on a cellular level by the sugar imposter. This can actually contribute to not only overeating and weight gain, but also an addiction to artificial sweeteners.

In order to break free, be sure you address the emotional component to your food cravings using a tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). More than any traditional or alternative method I have used or researched, EFT works to overcome food cravings and helps you reach dietary success. If diet soda is the culprit for you, be sure to check out Turbo Tapping, which is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short amount of time.

If you still have cravings after trying EFT or Turbo Tapping, you may need to make some changes to your diet. My free nutrition plan can help you do this in a step-by-step fashion.

If you’re searching for a safer sweetener option, you could use stevia or Lo Han, both of which are safe natural sweeteners. Remember, if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would likely benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Common BPA substitute is just as bad

by Dr. Mark Stengler

February 12, 2013
The scam behind ‘BPA-free’

It’s the one-letter switch that could put your health and the health of your family in jeopardy — and it’s a switch no one has warned you about.

It’s the shift away from bisphenol-A to bisphenol-S in food containers, packages, and paper products.

On the surface, it sounds great.

You know all about BPA by now — about how it mimics estrogen in the body and has been linked to obesity, diabetes, thyroid problems, sexual dysfunction, and a whole lot more.

So you go out of you way to buy “BPA-free” products — even when that means paying extra.

But before you open your wallet, consider what makes those products “BPA-free” in the first place — because in many cases, it’s that BPS I just mentioned.

As the names suggest, both BPA and BPS belong to the same class of chemicals — but the similarities don’t end with the names and chemical class. They also share many of the same risks — and in some cases, BPS could be even worse than BPA.

In one new in vitro study, University of Texas researchers found that BPS does pretty much the same thing as BPA, at least on the cellular level. In a series of tests, BPS interfered with the response to estrogen.

This disrupted critical cellular processes, including the growth and death of those cells.

This didn’t happen at massive doses either. It happened at very small levels of exposure — levels equal to what a human might be exposed to from BPS leeching into food and drink from plastic containers, according to the researchers.

The experiments were done on rat cells in a lab dish, but other recent studies have been every bit as worrying. One study last year even found that BPS is actually more effective at penetrating the skin than BPA.

What makes that report so disturbing is that paper is actually one of the prime sources of BPA and BPS exposure — including the paper receipts we all handle nearly every day.

Clearly, avoiding BPA, BPS, and the rest of the endocrine-disrupting hormones out there is a lot harder than simply looking for labels on packages. But there’s one easy way to avoid the entire alphabet soup of bad chemicals.

And all you have to do is avoid the foods and drinks you shouldn’t be eating anyway. That means pass on anything in a can, bag, or bottle and shop the perimeter of the supermarket instead.

That’s where you’ll find everything you need — fresh fruits and vegetables and lean meats.

Along with avoiding dangerous chemicals, you and your family will also eat better at every meal.

And maybe you should tell the clerk to keep the receipt.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Herbal medicines, acupressure, acupuncture, natural medication, and
healing are some of those. And we dance along because if things cannot
be explained by scientific methods, it cannot be true.

In my personal opinion:

Definition of health varies from person to person. To some it means that
nothing is really serious, for some it means not getting any worse, for
other it is the visit to the doctor every year to get a nod of “all clear”.

Seldom did it mean zero health problems. And so we get by with taking
aspirins and painkillers and live with aches and pains that we associate
with certain infective bug, overwork, or aging.

The problem with chemically formulated drugs and medicines is that:

One; it remedies a part of the body but destroys another, often the liver.

Two: it has questionable benefits that simple observation will tell you that
if the medication prescribed by the physician is not getting the desired result,
an alternative prescription will be given (a physician that has a reputation
for having a higher batting average will be called as “good” and so will the
physicians fees be).

Third: When a part of the body fails to function normally when taking the drug,
it will be termed as side effects.

Fourth: When the body acclimatizes to the drug prescribed, we are in effect
sentencing our body to a lifetime of medication.

Fifth: Behind the advances claimed, it does not really increase the average
lifespan. Like the rest of the world, we still are satisfied if we hit the magic
mark of seventy years.

For most of us, it has not been recognized that there is an alternative to
a life sentence of traditional medication.

That there are medications not only to cure whatever ails but to build the
reserves and boost the system so that ailments are reversed naturally.

When the system is made healthier and reserves are built, we could in
part avoid the doctor whose typical remedy is give us drugs.

In the ancient world, our forebears have already recognized that there are
only two kinds of plants, that which is good for food and that which is
better for healing.

Even animals know this. Our house pets like dogs, cats, and chickens will
forage for a particular grass of herb when they are not feeling well.

Sooner this is vomited and the animal heals. In eastern cultures, these
natural methods have been the BASIS for healing.

Test the process of relieving suffering and health anxiety naturally, that
you can enjoy more of life without chemical drugs – that give you only
temporary eight-hour solutions until the pain strikes again.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Biotech Industry Ups Propaganda Efforts with Undercover Ambassadors
For years now I’ve warned of the many potential dangers of genetically engineered (GE) foods, pointing out that such crops might have wholly unforeseen consequences.

In recent years, such suspicions have increasingly proven correct, forcing the biotech industry to up the ante of their propaganda campaign.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Monsanto: Battered, Bruised, and Still Growing”1 sets the stage for the discussion that follows. The dark heart of Monsanto has been exposed in recent years, and they’re in dire need of an image makeover.

I bet they probably have the best and brightest propaganda experts on speed dial these days. In the featured article, the company is lauded for “fending off” California Proposition 37 last November, as labeling foods containing genetically engineered ingredients would be “befuddling” to consumers.

“I’d be up for the dialogue around labeling. Maybe we’ll look back and say [Prop 37] was the start of a more reasonable debate. But it was a confusing proposition,” Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant tells the Wall Street Journal.

Grant goes on to talk about how the company is now going “back to the basics of reconnecting” with their customers, and how consistency in messaging and predictable pricing is helping turn the tide that has threatened to engulf them over the past three years.

Biotech Industry Ups Propaganda Efforts with Undercover Ambassadors

Part of this makeover program appears to be the recruitment of seemingly independent “ambassadors” to covertly lobby the GE agenda. The appearance of being an independent voice is imperative for the role to be effective, SpinWatch2 said in a recent article.

According to an October 2011 article in the Guardian, leaked emails from a PR company working with EuropaBio listed potential candidates for the role3, including Lord Patten, chancellor of Oxford University and BBC Trust chairman; Sir Bob Geldof; former Irish EU commissioner and attorney general David Byrne; former UN secretary general Kofi Annan; and Mark Lynas, an environmentalist and writer who claims to have helped create the anti-GE movement back in the mid-1990’s. According to the Guardian:

“The 10 or more ambassadors will not be paid directly, but the lobbyists have offered to write, research and place articles in their names, arrange interviews and speaking engagements with the Financial Times and other international media, and secure for them what could be lucrative speaking slots at major conferences.

In addition, EuropaBio says it will introduce them to the highest-level European bureaucrats and MEPs in order for them to make the case for GM within EU institutions.”

In 2011, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas responded to the news by saying:

“This brazen attempt by EuropaBio to recruit covert ‘ambassadors’ to ‘change the debate’ on GM is yet further proof that the powerful GM lobby will stop at nothing to push its hugely unpopular and unnecessary products onto European citizens. We need far stronger regulation on corporate lobbyists across the EU to prevent this kind of insidious behind-the-scenes maneuvering from seriously undermining our democratic system.”

The Art of Spin, and the World of “War Craft”

When confronted, the above named candidates denied knowledge of EuropaBio4, known as “the voice for the biotech industry at the EU level.” Most, including Mark Lynas, also claimed they’d reject the offer to peddle GMO policy should they be asked.

What a difference a year makes. While Lynas suddenly began writing about his “conversion” in 2010, he recently took to the stage as a veritable born-again proselytizer of genetically engineered crops at the January 3 Oxford Farming Conference5.

What better ambassador for the tattered and bruised Monsanto than a “former foe” having “seen the light of science” and, of his own free will (supposedly), deciding to mend his ways and right the wrongs he’s done against the biotech industry?

“I want to start with some apologies,” Lynas says. “For the record, here and upfront, I apologize for having spent several years ripping up genetically modified (GM) crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.”

Gimme a break… If you believe the conversion of Lynas was based on scientific enlightenment, I have a religion of my own you might be interested in. To me, this has all the hallmarks of a carefully crafted propaganda campaign. People have likened Lynas’ opening statements to Martin Luther King apologizing for the civil rights movement, or the Pope renouncing Catholicism. Indeed.

But while many choose to see his new stance as evidence that concerns about genetically engineered foods have been unfounded and overblown, all I see is someone who has sold their soul to the proverbial Devil. You can tell that this is part of a spin campaign for the sheer fact that Lynas goes to great lengths to take as much credit as possible for founding and steering the anti-GM movement. This way, his conversion becomes far more powerful.

Spin and Propaganda Techniques — Are You Still Deaf and Blind to Them?

As SpinWatch points out in its revealing article6, concerns about genetically engineered foods began decades before Lynas entered the scene. Crediting him as “the mastermind of the anti-biotechnology campaign” is PR talk. It’s the jargon of propaganda. And it has one sole purpose — to build up Lynas as a trustworthy independent voice on issues relating to genetically engineered foods.

“… while Lynas says he co-founded the anti-GM movement in 1995, the first wave of resistance to the possible uses of genetic engineering in food and farming began two decades earlier in the mid-1970s,” SpinWatch notes.

“By the early 1980s concerned US scientists and academics had founded the Council for Responsible Genetics, and by the late 1980s a US network called the Biotechnology Working Group was meeting regularly to plan joint strategies and actions regarding the new technology. It was composed of approximately 20 national and local NGOs, and included regular participation by representatives of the European Greens and an Australian NGO, GenEthics. By the early 1990s the Consumers Union and the Union of Concerned Scientists were also on the case.

Concern over GMOs had also begun to appear on the international policy agenda in the years running up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which called for the establishment of a Biosafety Protocol. It was also at Rio that the first international workshop on GMOs took place. Among those addressing it was Vandana Shiva. This is worth noting because Lynas implies in his speech that it was the movement that he supposedly co-founded in the UK in 1995 which “exported” GM opposition worldwide. In reality, concerns over GM in food and farming were already well established on the world stage.”

… After hearing how Lynas was portraying himself, Sue Mayer contacted him7 to say, ‘I think I can lay claim to having been one of the leaders of the campaign in the UK thoughout the 1990s and until 2007 when I left GeneWatch. It’s strange that although we did speak on the phone once in the late 90s we never met and I missed the fact that you helped start the anti-GM movement!!’ Mayer added, ‘I think this is a very misleading claim and you should feel ashamed of yourself. I wouldn’t normally worry about people puffing themselves up like this but I am concerned that you are letting this be used to promote yourself and the biotech industry.’

Mayer is not alone. Nobody we have spoken to among the many leading figures of the 1990s counts Lynas as either a founder or a leader. Indeed, if he was even involved in the grassroots actions of 1995-1996, then nobody we spoke to remembers it.

Beware: Front Groups with an Aim to Mislead You

Now that Washington State has been confirmed with enough signatures to allow voters to take a stand on GMO labeling, Monsanto and their henchmen are revving up their propaganda campaign, which also includes friendly-sounding front groups8 paid to spead misleading information and industry propaganda, while pretending to serve you.

“We think labeling is really intended to frighten people away from a technology,” said Healther Hansen of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests. “It’s implying that there is something wrong with the food and we think that’s misleading to the consumer,” Komo News writes9. Who is Heather Hansen? She’s a contract lobbyist from the William Ruckelshaus Center at WSU10. And, William Ruckelshaus11 was a board member for — you guessed it — Monsanto…

Why GE Crops are NOT the “Most Tested” Product in the World

Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:
a.Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results
b.The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer
c.Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence independent research is extremely difficult to conduct
d.There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GE item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects

All in all, if their genetically altered seeds have something wrong with them that potentially could cause consumer illness, Monsanto would rather NOT have you find out about it. Not through independent research, nor through a simple little label that would allow you to opt out of the experiment, should you choose not to take them on their word.

Why don’t they want labeling? Because you might sue them for putting your health in danger! Doesn’t this remind you of the public health debate that went on for decades over another multi-billion dollar industry — cigarettes?

For decades the companies producing this cancer-causing product denied they caused any harm, denied nicotine was addictive, and even ran advertisements featuring doctors claiming cigarettes were good for your cough. They produced study after study by their own scientists claiming there was no health threat whatsoever from cigarettes. Executives from every major cigarette company even lied to Congress under oath, claiming they had no knowledge cigarettes were addictive, when in fact they did know — they even manipulated the nicotine content12 of cigarettes to keep you hooked! Bet you didn’t know that, did you?

Genetically engineered foods are just another wolf in the same old sheep’s clothing. The propaganda and the fraud have worked so well for so long, why bother changing something that works so well? Don’t fall for the same old scheme! Instead, read what the few independent researchers are really saying about the science behind genetically engineered foods. You can find all previous articles on this topic on my dedicated GMO News page.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelWA.org:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The #1 WORST Food that HARMS Your Brain

Certain foods you eat can indeed harm your brain, both in impaired learning ability as well as impaired memory. Even worse, the wrong food and drink choices throughout your life can even lead to the terrible and deadly disease of Alzheimers.

A friend of mine just told me that her dad died of Alzheimers recently and it was just a terrible disease where he didn’t even know who she was anymore towards the end. It’s time our society starts taking degenerative diseases like Alzheimers, cancer, and heart disease more seriously throughout our lives, and not just once it’s too late. Even in our 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s, the choices we make with our daily food can PREVENT these terrible diseases.

So let’s dig in with the topic today of foods that harm your brain, and what you can do about it…

Food #1 that HARMS your brain: Fructose

In a 2012 UCLA study published in the Journal of Physiology, researchers found that a diet high in fructose over time can damage your memory and learning ability.

Beyond the harm to your brain, it’s well known in the research world that a high fructose diet can also cause insulin resistance in your body over time, and possibly lead to type-2 diabetes and extra body fat. If that’s not enough, a high fructose diet also detrimentally affects your triglyceride levels in your blood as well as small dense LDL particles that cause plaque in your arteries.

So what we have here is high-fructose intake = impaired memory and learning in your brain, increased risk of diabetes, and increased risk of heart disease. Oh, and we forgot to mention extra belly fat too… Yum – who wants another can of soda pop or a large bowl of corn syrup sweetened ice cream!

The average person eating a modern western diet of processed food consumes a LARGE quantity of fructose without even thinking about it from all of the soft drinks (high fructose corn syrup typically), sweetened juice drinks, orange juice, processed junk foods such as cakes and candies, as well as the HFCS that’s added to store-bought salad dressings, breads and cereals, and even condiments like ketchup.

Note that many sports drinks, even though marketed as “healthy”, can have large amounts of corn syrup or even crystalline fructose as their main sweetener. These sports drinks can be equally as bad as a soda for your body and your brain. Don’t be fooled by the clever marketing showing pictures of pro athletes guzzling this stuff.

Also note that agave syrup (aka, agave nectar) which is marketed as a “healthy” sweetener as well, is one of the most concentrated forms of processed fructose in sweeteners as well. I personally stay away from agave sweeteners as much as possible unless the amounts are very small.

All of these fructose-laden foods and drinks are easy to avoid though if you choose to eat consciously… for example, make homemade salad dressings from your favorite olive oil and vinegar with added spices, or choose to drink unsweetened iced tea with lemon instead of sweetened drinks or juices. If you use a lot of ketchup, try to reduce the quantity by mixing with mustard or hot sauce, which typically don’t contain HFCS sweetener in any significant quantities.

Last thing to note about fructose… Yes, natural whole fruits do contain fructose, but generally contain MUCH smaller quantities of fructose than you would consume in a sweetened juice drink, soft drink or sweetened junk foods. Also, the phytonutrients, antioxidants, and fiber that’s contained in most whole fruits counteracts any negative effects of fructose. I personally try to keep fruit intake to no more than 1-2 pieces a day due to the sugar and fructose content of larger amounts of fruit.

Here’s a trick: Did you know that limes and lemons contain virtually zero fructose, and only 3-4 grams of total carbs in a whole lemon or lime, whereas a typical orange contains 6 grams of fructose and 25 grams of total sugar per fruit. I squeeze lemons and limes daily into either water or teas for a healthy flavorful drink. Fresh lemon juice has even been shown to control blood sugar response from a meal…another bonus!

Other Foods that HARM Your Brain:

You probably already know some of the harmful health effects of these foods, but long term effects on your brain are yet another…

Trans fats — strongly inflammatory in your entire body including damage to cell membranes throughout your body. Avoid hydrogenated oils in processed foods and deep fried foods.

Mercury — studies show that mercury from pollution (coal burning plants are the biggest source of mercury pollution to air and water) and from fish that are high on the food chain such as tuna, shark, swordfish, tilefish, etc can possibly cause long term negative effects on your brain. Limit these types of fish to a couple times a month and focus more on fish such as salmon, trout, and many other types of smaller fish to reduce your mercury load.

Wheat-based foods — In the groundbreaking book, Wheat Belly, Dr William Davis makes a very convincing argument that wheat has addictive properties in the brain. Wheat contains compounds termed “exorphins” that have an effect in your brain similar to opiate drugs. This explains why people have such a hard time giving up their beloved breads, cereals, pasta, and muffins because these foods are mildly addictive.

I know personally from past experience that if I have have a pasta dinner, I’ll go back for seconds and thirds as I just can’t seem to stop eating the stuff. And then hours after dinner, I’ll get cravings for more carb-based foods or sweets. But if I pass on the pasta and just have meat, veggies, and salad, I find myself totally satisfied after dinner with no cravings later at night.

The good news is…

There are plenty of superfoods, herbs, and spices that can protect your brain and your other organs too!

In fact, did you know that turmeric is one of the highest antioxidant spices that also exhibits brain-protecting effects? In India, where curry containing turmeric and other spices is eaten daily, rates of Alzheimers disease is among the lowest in the world, proving some of the brain-protecting effects of turmeric.

In addition, the powerful DHA and EPA omega-3 fats in fish oil has been proven in countless studies to protect your brain from damage over the years.

by Mike Geary – Certified Nutrition Specialist
Co-Author of the best seller: The Top 101 Foods that FIGHT Aging

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

1 Trillin CFU’s per litre…

How Digestion Works.

Digestion is the mechanical and chemical breakdown of food into smaller components that are more easily absorbed into a blood stream, for instance. Digestion is a form of catabolism: a breakdown of large food molecules to smaller ones.

And why Progurt is so beneficial..

Digestion

The whole digestive system is around 9 meters long. In a healthy human adult this process can take between 24 and 72 hours. Food digestion physiology varies between individuals and upon other factors such as the characteristics of the food and size of the meal.

Food enters the mouth, being chewed by teeth, with chemical processing beginning with chemicals in the saliva from the salivary glands. This is called mastication. Then it travels down the esophagus into the stomach, where hydrochloric acid kills most contaminating microorganisms and begins mechanical break down of some food (e.g., denaturation of protein), and chemical alteration of some. The hydrochloric acid also has a low pH, which allows enzymes to work more efficiently. After some time (typically an hour or two in humans, 4–6 hours in dogs, somewhat shorter duration in house cats, …), the resulting thick liquid is called chyme. Chyme will go through the small intestine, where 95% of absorption of nutrients occurs, through the large intestine, and are eliminated during defecation.

Human Gastro Intestinal Tract

The human gastrointestinal tract refers to the stomach and intestine, and sometimes to all the structures from the mouth to the anus. (The “digestive system” is a broader term that includes other structures, including the accessory organs of digestion). In an adult male human, the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is 5 metres (20 ft) long in a live subject, or up to 9 metres (30 ft) without the effect of muscle tone, and consists of the upper and lower GI tracts. The tract may also be divided into foregut, midgut, and hindgut, reflecting the embryological origin of each segment of the tract.

Transit Time

The time taken for food or other ingested objects to transit through the gastrointestinal tract varies depending on many factors, but roughly, it takes 2.5 to 3 hours after meal for 50% of stomach contents to empty into the intestines and total emptying of the stomach takes 4 to 5 hours. Subsequently, 50% emptying of the small intestine takes 2.5 to 3 hours. Finally, transit through the colon takes approximately 30 hours.

Immune System

The gastrointestinal tract is a prominent part of the immune system. The surface area of the digestive tract is estimated to be the surface area of a football field. With such a large exposure, the immune system must work hard to prevent pathogens from entering into blood and lymph.

The low pH (ranging from 1 to 4) of the stomach is fatal for many microorganisms that enter it. Similarly, mucus (containing IgA antibodies) neutralizes many of these microorganisms. Other factors in the GI tract help with immune function as well, including enzymes in saliva and bile. Enzymes such as Cyp3A4, along with the antiporter activities, also are instrumental in the intestine’s role of detoxification of antigens and xenobiotics, such as drugs, involved in first pass metabolism.

Health-enhancing intestinal bacteria serve to prevent the overgrowth of potentially harmful bacteria in the gut. These two types of bacteria compete for space and “food,” as there are limited resources within the intestinal tract. A ratio of 80-85% beneficial to 15-20% potentially harmful bacteria generally is considered normal within the intestines. Microorganisms also are kept at bay by an extensive immune system comprising the gut-associated lymphoid tissue.

Progurt vs Yogurt

• Human Probiotic Isolate™ (HPI)
• 1 Trillion CFU per litre
• Live powerful culture
• Multiple strains
• Colonising strains
• Broad spectrum
• Unique formulation
• Greater potency
• Guaranteed freshness
• Natural Ingredients
• No artificial additives
• No artificial fillers
Guaranteed Potent and Fresh

The probiotic bacteria have been isolated, identified, purified and produced in the laboratory.Store bought yogurts go through a distribution to consumption process that can take up to 45 days. E.g. Factory production – Storage – Distribution – Store Shelf – Home – Consumption. Progurt is produced and consumed within 7 days, guaranteeing absolute freshness and potency of live probiotic bacteria of human origin and a simply beautiful taste.

Made from Natural Ingredients

Progurt is guaranteed completely natural, with absolutely no additives or satbilizers.

• No artificial flavours
• No artificial colours
• No artificial preservatives
• Low GI
• No sugar
• No cornstarch
• No gluten
• No pectin
• No gelatine
• No cochineal
• No binders
• No stabilizers
• No aspartame or saccharin
• No high fructose corn syrup
• No added mineral compounds

Progurt is revolutionising the entire probiotic and yogurt industry. The foundation to this revolution rests with one single Sachet. Each Progurt Sachet contains a unique formulation of probiotic bacteria.

Progurt’s unique formulation using multiple viable probiotic strains of Human Probiotic Isolate™ (HPI), combined with its potency and freshness, makes Progurt an amazing probiotic – in the form of a yogurt.

Progurt initiates balance of gut flora – improving digestion, nutrition, absorption and nutritional support to every living cell in your body.

Nothing has been compromised in bringing you the ultimate probiotic.

*CFU (Colony Forming-Unit) is a unit of measurement of viable bacterial numbers.

Contains Beneficial Human Strains

The beneficial effects of probiotics are attributed to the characteristics of specific strains. Probiotic strains must be resilient in order to survive in the intestinal tract in which they are dwelling.

The probiotic stains must be able to withstand human stomach acid, in order to make it to the intestinal tract. They must also be able to withstand human intestinal fluids, and they must be able to colonize the human intestinal tract to exert their greatest benefits.

Choosing the Right Probiotic Strains

Gut microbial flora is species specific, in exactly the same way the mother’s milk of a species is species specific.

Bacterial preparations, referred to as probiotics are widely available commercially. It is important to recognize and choose the right product. Many bacterial preparations are harvested from the gut flora of mammals such as swine or cattle.

Dairy products provide an ideal medium in which these organisms can grow. However, gastric acidity and the action of bile salts are just some of the main obstacles to survival of probiotics in humans, including those found in some of the specialised commercial yogurts

Shop at the Progurt Online Store.
Or call +61 2 9922 2188.