Is sugar toxic ? CBS Special

(CBS) Is sugar toxic? Watch the Segment » Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports on new research showing that beyond weight gain, sugar can take a serious toll on your health, worsening conditions ranging from heart disease to cancer.

Web Extras • Is sugar toxic? • Sugar and kids: The toxic truth • Calories: not all created equal (CBS News) If you are what you eat, then what does it mean that the average American consumes 130 pounds of sugar a year? Sanjay Gupta reports on new research showing that beyond weight gain, sugar can take a serious toll on your health, worsening conditions ranging from heart disease to cancer. Some physicians go so far as to call sugar a toxin. ________________________________________ The following script is from "Sugar" which aired on April 1, 2012. Dr. Sanjay Gupta is the correspondent. Denise Schrier Cetta and Sumi Aggarwal, producers. The chances are good that sugar is a bigger part of your daily diet than you may realize which is why our story tonight is so important. New research coming out of some of America's most respected institutions is starting to find that sugar, the way many people are eating it today, is a toxin and could be a driving force behind some of this country's leading killers, including heart disease. 60 Minutes Overtime Sugar and kids: The toxic truth » As a result of these findings, an anti-sugar campaign has sprung up, led by Dr. Robert Lustig, a California endocrinologist, who believes the consumption of added sugars has plunged America into a public health crisis. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Is sugar toxic? Dr. Robert Lustig: I believe it is. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Do you ever worry that that's-- it just sounds a little bit over the top? Dr. Robert Lustig: Sure. All the time. But it's the truth. Dr. Robert Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco and a pioneer in what is becoming a war against sugar. Motivated by his own patients -- too many sick and obese children - Dr. Lustig has concluded that sugar, more than any other substance, is to blame. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: What are all these various diseases that you say are linked to sugar? Dr. Robert Lustig: Obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease itself. Lustig says the American lifestyle is killing us. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And most of it you say is preventable? Dr. Robert Lustig: Seventy-five percent of it is preventable. While Dr. Lustig has published a dozen scientific articles on the evils of sugar, it was his lecture on YouTube, called "Sugar: The Bitter Truth," that brought his message to the masses. [YouTube Video: I'm standing here today to recruit you in the war against bad food.] By "bad food" Dr. Lustig means the obvious things such as table sugar, honey, syrup, sugary drinks and desserts, but also just about every processed food you can imagine, where sugar is often hidden: yogurts and sauces, bread, and even peanut butter. And what about the man-made, often vilified sweetener, high fructose corn syrup? Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Is it worse than just table sugar? Dr. Robert Lustig: No. 'Cause it's the exact same. They are basically equivalent. The problem is they're both bad. They're both equally toxic. Since the 1970s, sugar consumption has gone down nearly 40 percent, but high fructose corn syrup has more than made up the difference. Dr. Lustig says they are both toxic because they both contain fructose -- that's what makes them sweet and irresistible. Dr. Robert Lustig: We love it. We go out of our way to find it. I think one of the reasons evolutionarily is because there is no food stuff on the planet that has fructose that is poisonous to you. It is all good. So when you taste something that's sweet, it's an evolutionary Darwinian signal that this is a safe food. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: We were born this way? Dr. Robert Lustig: We were born this way. Central to Dr. Lustig's theory is that we used to get our fructose mostly in small amounts of fruit -- which came loaded with fiber that slows absorption and consumption -- after all, who can eat 10 oranges at a time? But as sugar and high fructose corn syrup became cheaper to refine and produce, we started gorging on them. Americans now consume 130 pounds per person a year -- that's a third of a pound every day. Dr. Lustig believes those sweeteners are helping fuel an increase in the most deadly disease in America: heart disease. For years, he's been a controversial voice. [Kimber Stanhope: Here is our oral isotope...] But now, studies done by Kimber Stanhope, a nutritional biologist at the University of California, Davis are starting to back him up. She's in the middle of a groundbreaking, five-year study which has already shown strong evidence linking excess high fructose corn syrup consumption to an increase in risk factors for heart disease and stroke. That suggests calories from added sugars are different than calories from other foods. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: The mantra that you hear from most nutritionists is that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Kimber Stanhope: And I think the results of the study showed clearly that is not true. Stanhope's conclusions weren't easy to come by. Nutrition studies are expensive and difficult. Stanhope has paid groups of research subjects to live in this hospital wing for weeks at a time, under a sort of 24-hour lockdown. They undergo scans and blood tests - every calorie they ingest, meticulously weighed and prepared. Kimber Stanhope: They're never out of our sight. So we do know that they are consuming exactly what we need them to consume. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And they're not sneaking any candy bars on the side. Kimber Stanhope: Yeah, right, exactly. For the first few days, participants eat a diet low in added sugars, so baseline blood levels can be measured. [Research assistant: So remember you guys have to finish all of your Kool-Aid. ] Then, 25 percent of their calories are replaced with sweetened drinks and Stanhope's team starts drawing blood every 30 minutes around the clock. And those blood samples? They revealed something disturbing. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: And what are you starting to see? Kimber Stanhope: We found that the subjects who consumed high fructose corn syrup had increased blood levels of LDL cholesterol and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: How quickly did these changes occur? Kimber Stanhope: Within two weeks. Kimber Stanhope's study suggests that when a person consumes too much sweet stuff, the liver gets overloaded with fructose and converts some of it into fat. Some of that fat ends up in the bloodstream and helps generate a dangerous kind of cholesterol called small dense LDL. These particles are known to lodge in blood vessels, form plaque and are associated with heart attacks. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Did it surprise you when you first got these results back? Kimber Stanhope: I would have to say I was surprised because when I saw our data, I started drinking and eating a whole lot less sugar. I would say our data surprised me. So imagine, for these healthy young people, drinking a sweetened drink might be just as bad for their hearts as the fatty cheeseburgers we've all been warned about since the 1970s. That's when a government commission mandated that we lower fat consumption to try and reduce heart disease. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So with the best of intentions, they say, "Time to reduce fat in the American diet?" Dr. Robert Lustig: Exactly. And we did. And guess what? Heart disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes and death are skyrocketing. Dr. Lustig believes that's primarily because we replaced a lot of that fat with added sugars. Dr. Robert Lustig: Take the fat out of food, it tastes like cardboard. And the food industry knew that. So they replaced it with sugar. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: This idea that sugar increases this particularly bad LDL, the small dense particles that are associated with heart disease. Do most doctors-- do they know this? Dr. Robert Lustig: No, they do not know this. This is new. And it turns out, sugar has become a major focus in cancer research too. Lewis Cantley, is looking at the connection. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: If you limit your sugar you decrease your chances of developing cancer? Lewis Cantley: Absolutely. Cantley, a Harvard professor and the head of the Beth Israel Deaconess Cancer Center, says when we eat or drink sugar, it causes a sudden spike in the hormone insulin, which can serve as a catalyst to fuel certain types of cancers. Lewis Cantley: What we're beginning to learn is that insulin can cause adverse effects in the various tissues. And of particular concern is cancer. Why? Nearly a third of some common cancers -- including breast and colon cancers -- have something called insulin receptors on their surface. Insulin binds to these receptors and signals the tumor to start consuming glucose. Lewis Cantley: This is your body... Every cell in our body needs glucose to survive. But the trouble is, these cancer cells also use it to grow. Lewis Cantley: So if you happen to have the tumor that has insulin receptors on it then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that's in the bloodstream rather than go into fat or muscle, the glucose goes into the tumor. And the tumor uses it to grow. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So you've just seen that tumor turn blue which is essentially reflective of glucose going into it. Lewis Cantley: That's right. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So these cancers, much in the same way that muscle will say, "Hey, I'd like some of that glucose, the fat says, "I would like some of that glucose," the cancers have learned how to do this themselves as well? Lewis Cantley: Yes. So they have evolved the ability to hijack that flow of glucose that's going by in the bloodstream into the tumor itself. Lewis Cantley's research team is working on developing drugs that will cut off the glucose supply to cancer cells and keep them from growing. But until there's a breakthrough, Cantley's advice? Don't eat sugar. And if you must, keep it to a minimum. Lewis Cantley: In fact-- I-- you know, I live my life that way. I rarely eat sugar. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: When you see a sugary drink or if I were to offer you one, what-- with all that you know, what's going through your mind? Lewis Cantley: I probably would turn it down and get a glass of water. But for most of us, that's easier said than done... Eric Stice: It turns out sugar is much more addictive than I think we had sort of realized early on. Eric Stice, a neuroscientist at the Oregon Research Institute, is using functional MRI scanners to learn how our brains respond to sweetness. Eric Stice: Sugar activates our brain in a special way. That's very reminiscent of, you know, drugs like cocaine. That's right. Cocaine. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Let's give it a shot... I climbed into the MRI scanner to see how my brain would respond. That's a straw that's been rigged to deliver a tiny sip of soda into my mouth. Eric Stice: Stay as still as you can, ok? Just as it hit my tongue, the scanner detected increased blood rushing to certain regions of my brain. In these images, the yellow areas show that my reward region is responding to the sweet taste. Dopamine - a chemical that controls the brain's pleasure center - is being released, just as it would in response to drugs or alcohol. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So dopamine is released. That sort of makes me feel good. I'm experiencing some pleasure from having this Coke. Eric Stice: Right, that euphoric effect. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So far be it for people to realize this 'cause sugar is everywhere, but you're saying this is one of the most addictive substances possibly that we have? Eric Stice: It certainly is very good at firing the reward regions in our brain. Eric Stice says by scanning hundreds of volunteers, he's learned that people who frequently drink sodas or eat ice cream or other sweet foods may be building up a tolerance, much like drug users do. As strange as it sounds, that means the more you eat, the less you feel the reward. The result: you eat more than ever. Eric Stice: If you overeat these on a regular basis it causes changes in the brain that basically it blunts your reward region response to the food, so then you eat more and more to achieve the same satisfaction you felt originally. With all this new science emerging, we wanted to hear from the sugar industry, so we visited Jim Simon, who's on the board of the Sugar Association, at a sugar cane farm in Louisiana. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Would it surprise you that almost every scientist that we talked to in researching this story told us they are eliminating all added sugars. They're getting rid of it because they're concerned about the health impacts. Jim Simon: To say that the American consuming public is going to completely omit, eliminate, sweeteners out of their diet I don't think gets us there. Simon cautions that eliminating sugar wrongly vilifies one food, rather than working towards the long-term solution of reducing calories and exercising. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: You know, a lot of people, Jim, are saying that sugar is different. That it is bad for your heart and is causing a lot of the problems we're talking about. It is addictive and in some cases might even fuel cancers. What would you - I mean you've looked at this. You must have looked at some of these studies. What do you say about that? Jim Simon: The science is not completely clear here. Dr. Sanjay Gupta: But some of that's, but some of these studies exist. I mean, what is a consumer, what are they to make of all that? Jim Simon: Well, I would say to them, that they've got to approach, their diet in balance.

Dr. Robert Lustig agrees -- we need a balanced diet -- but his idea of balance is a drastic reduction in sugar consumption. To that end he co-authored an American Heart Association report recommending men should consume no more than 150 calories of added sugars a day. And women, just 100 calories. That's less than the amount in just one can of soda. Dr. Robert Lustig: Ultimately this is a public health crisis. And when it's a public health crisis, you have to do big things and you have to do them across the board. Tobacco and alcohol are perfect examples. We have made a conscious choice that we're not going to get rid of them, but we are going to limit their consumption. I think sugar belongs in this exact same wastebasket.

Dandelion gets scientific acceptance as an antioxidant and "novel" cancer therapy

Dandelion gets scientific acceptance as an antioxidant and "novel" cancer therapy Sat, March 31, 2012 by: Donna Earnest Pravel Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035418_dandelion_cancer_therapy_herbs.html#ixzz1qnrIglFX (NaturalNews) Dandelion is the bane of immaculate lawn enthusiasts, but holds healing secrets that few people realize. Dandelion is a delicious super-food to add to salads and soups. It contains substantial vitamins and a host of plant-based minerals, especially potassium. The herb stimulates the flow of bile from the liver into the gall bladder, making dandelion a key ingredient in liver cleanse formulas. It helps to break down liver fats and is an effective diuretic. The scientific community has been frenetically studying dandelion recently, due to encouraging evidence that dandelion suppresses the growth and invasive behavior in several types of cancer. Scientists "approve" dandelion extract as an effective oxidative stress inhibitor Scientists at the University of Annunzio Chieti-Pasaca in Italy compared extracts of tumeric, dandelion, rosemary, and artichoke in a study released in 2010. The researchers acknowledged the positive effect that these herbs have on the liver and gallbladder, and wanted to compare their anti-proliferation (spreading), antioxidant (combating free radical activity), and protective effects. While tumeric had the greatest antioxidant effects, dandelion also had these qualities. The scientists confirmed that these herbs are useful healing aids in modern phytomedicine.

The oxidative stress-reducing effects of dandelion extract was tested on rats with liver damage from carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), a chemical used in fire extinguishers and refrigerants which is highly toxic to the liver. Water-based dandelion extract, or dandelion tea, was observed to significantly reduce the amount of oxidative stress and inflammation present in the livers of rats. Medical researchers are enthusiastic about the effects of dandelion on various cancers Medical science is finally beginning to accept the positive results from natural dietary supplements in healing cancer. Just in the past few years, clinical research has been published stating the benefits of herbal supplements such as dandelion for cancer. Here are a few studies: The International Journal of Oncology published a 2008 clinical study showing the positive effects of dandelion leaf tea. Dandelion leaf tea decreased breast cancer cells, but dandelion root tea did not. Researchers went on to test prostate cancer cells and found similar results. The scientists concluded that dandelion extract may be considered a "novel" anti-cancer agent. The Journal of Ethnopharmacology published a study in January 2011 which tested the effects of dandelion root tea on leukemia cells. The study showed that dandelion root tea killed leukemia cells through a process called apoptosis. It is believed that dandelion root tea signals a "kill switch" on leukemia cell receptors. Researchers found it "interesting" that dandelion root tea did not transmit the same "kill switch" signal to healthy cells. These scientists also believed that dandelion should be considered a "novel" non-toxic anti-cancer agent. The International Journal of Oncology published a 2011 report that a dietary supplement containing dandelion as one ingredient suppresses the growth of prostate cancer cells. In yet another 2011 study performed with dandelion, dandelion root extract was clinically proven to induce apoptosis in human drug-resistant melanoma cells without poisoning or damaging healthy cells. Once again, tests proved that dandelion root extract should be considered a "novel" and non-toxic therapy for even drug-resistant forms of cancer. Sources for this article include: Medline.gov. "Antiproliferative, protective and antioxidant effects of artichoke, dandelion, tumeric, and rosemary extracts and their formulation," L. Menghini, et al. International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology April-June 2010; 23(2): 601-10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20646355 Wiley Online Library.com. "Amelioration of oxidative stress by dandelion extract through CYP2E1 suppression against acute liver injury induced by carbon tetrachloride in Sprague-Dawley rats," Chung My Park, et al. Phytotherapy Research, September 2010; 24(9): 1347-1353. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ptr.3121/abstract Spandidos Publications.com. "Suppression of growth and invasive behavior of human prostate cancer cells by ProstaCaidTM: Mechanism of activity," J. Jang, et al. International Journal of Oncology. June 2011; 38(6): 1675-82. http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/38/6/1675 Pubmed.gov. "Evaluation of aqueous extracts of Taraxacum officinale [dandelion] on growth and invasion of breast and prostate cancer cells," S.C. Sigstedt, et al. International Journal of Oncology, May 2008; 32(5): 1085-90. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18425335 Pubmed.gov. "Selective induction of apoptosis through activation of caspase-8 in human leukemia cells (Jurkat) by dandelion root extract," P. Ovadie, et al. The Journal of Ethnopharmacology. January 2011; 133(1): 86-91. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20849941 Pubmed.gov. "The efficacy of dandelion root extract in inducing apoptosis in drug-resistant human melanoma cells," S.J. Chatterjee, et al. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2011; 2011: 129045. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21234313 About the author: This article is provided courtesy of Donna Earnest Pravel, owner and senior editor of Heart of Texas Copywriting Solutions.com. Get free biweekly tips on natural healing and herbs by visiting her blog, Bluebonnet Natural Healing Therapy. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035418_dandelion_cancer_therapy_herbs.html#ixzz1qnpceg00

Vegetarian Diet Could Make You Happier And Less Stressed, Study Shows

Vegetarian Diet Could Make You Happier And Less Stressed, Study Shows By Elizabeth Nolan Brown, for Blisstree.com Omnivores, take note: Embracing a vegetarian diet could make you happier and less stressed, according to new research published in Nutrition Journal. The reason comes down to fatty acids: Diets that include meat and fish are higher in arachidonic acid (AA), an animal source of omega-6 fatty acids. Much of the meat Americans eat today is quite high in AA: The average omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid profile of modern grain-fed meat is 5 times higher than grass-fed meat, like our ancestors ate. And previous research has shown high levels of AA can cause mood-disturbing brain changes.

More from Blisstree.com: Meatless Monday: 10 Vegetarian Comfort Food Recipes Does Going Vegan Change Your Metabolism? 6 Ways to Sneak More Omega-3s Into Your Diet (Even If You're Vegan) High-fish diets also mean higher levels of long-chain, or omega-3 fatty acids, like eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Both EPA and DHA combat the negative effects of AA. High dietary levels of omega-3 fatty acids are linked to better brain health, better mood and a host of other health benefits. Most health experts recommend an omega-6/omega-3 ratio of about 4:1. http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/healthy-living/meat-vs-vegetarian-diet-face-off-517243938 In theory, then, frequent fish eaters should have be protected against the damaging effects of AA because of their higher intake of omega-3 acids. But an earlier study found omnivores reported significantly worse moods than vegetarians, despite higher intakes of EPA and DHA. In this follow-up study, 39 meat-eating participants were assigned to one of three diets. A control group ate meat, fish or poultry daily; a second group ate fish 3-4 times weekly but no meat; and a third group ate strictly vegetarian. After two weeks, mood scores were unchanged for the fish- and meat-eating groups, but vegetarians reported significantly better moods and less stress. “Restricting meat, fish, and poultry improved … short-term mood state in modern omnivores,” the researchers concluded.

After two weeks on a vegetarian diet, participants had “negligible amounts” of EPA, DHA and AA in their bodies. Fatty acid levels in the control group were unchanged. Participants in the fish eating group showed 95 to 100% higher levels of EPA and DHA fatty acids—but their omega-6 to omega-3 ratios were still heavily skewed toward omega-6′s. To work plant sources of omega-3 fatty acids (called ALA) into your diet, try chia seeds, hemp seed, cauliflower and purslane.

7 Foods You Should Never Eat Written by Lacy Boggs Renner

Sometimes, even foods that seem healthy can harbor hidden problems that can affect our health and our planet. Here are seven foods you should never eat—and easy swaps to help eliminate them from your kitchen. Conventional Apples

Right at the top of the "dirty dozen" list, conventional apples are sprayed with the most pesticides of almost any fruit because their growing method means they don't develop natural pest resistance. Farm workers exposed to these pesticides have documented higher incidents of cancer, and more and more studies are linking pesticides in the body to Parkinson's disease. Make the switch: Buy organic apples! If you can't afford organic, be sure to wash and peel apples before eating (although that won't rid the fruit of all pesticides). Conventionally Grown Potatoes Think about it: A potato is a root vegetable, and plants absorb nutrients—and other junk—from the soil through their roots. That means that potatoes take up and store more of the chemical fertilizers, fungicides and pesticides that conventional farmers spray on their crops. Plus, after they are harvested, conventional potatoes are treated with another chemical to prevent them from sprouting on the shelf. Because the potato stores these toxins in its flesh, just scrubbing (or even peeling) won't remove the pesticides and other chemicals. Make the swap: Buy organic potatoes—even frozen ones. Corn-Fed Beef The biggest problems with corn-fed beef start with the corn, because cows evolved to eat grasses, not grains. Eating corn actually makes the cattle sick, requiring that farmers dose them with high levels of antibiotics. But feeding corn to cows isn't just bad for the cows; it's bad for the environment, too, as conventionally grown corn requires tons of fertilizers and pesticides that pollute the environment. Make the swap: Buy grass-fed beef instead of corn-fed and enjoy higher levels of good nutrients like omega-3s and vitamin E, and lower levels of bad stuff like inflammatory omega-6s and saturated fat. Look for cheaper cuts on the bone to help offset the premium price for grass-fed beef. Canned Tomatoes

Tomatoes are a great source of lycopene, which can help guard against agressive cancers like prostate cancer. But the resin used to line tin cans to protect from corrosion by the acid in tomatoes contains bisphenol-A, or BPA, which acts as a synthetic estrogen in the body. It can disrupt the endocrine system and cause a variety of problems, like chromosomal and reproductive system abnormalities, impaired brain and neurological functions, cancer, cardiovascular system damage, adult-onset diabetes, early puberty, obesity and resistance to chemotherapy. Unfortunately, the acidity of tomatoes helps break down the BPA which leaches into the food, making canned tomatoes one of the biggest culprits when it comes to ingesting BPA. Scientists with the National Institutes of Health have concluded that pregnant women, infants and children are at highest risk from exposure to BPA. Make the swap: The best solution is to look for brands sold in glass jars or Tetra Pak boxes. Microwave Popcorn

Did you hear about the guy who got popcorn lung from eating more than two bags of microwave popcorn a day? It turns out that even if your popcorn habit isn't quite as extreme, chemicals like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) found in the lining of the bag and diacetyl, which is used in the butter flavoring, could cause major health problems. Microwaving these chemicals causes them to vaporize, and then the miniature particles can make their way into your popcorn and your lungs if you inhale the steam from the bag. Make the swap: Pop your own kernels the old fashioned way. You'll be able to add your own natural seasonings, and as a bonus, unpopped popcorn kernels are dirt cheap. Milk With rBGH rBGH stands for recombinant bovine growth hormone, and it's given to dairy cows to boost their milk production. But, it's been shown to increase udder infections and even lead to pus in the milk! It also increases a hormone called insulin-like growth factor, which is thought to be linked to an increased risk for breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer and early puberty. Make the switch: Look for milk that says rBGH-free or rBST-free, or buy organic milk. You can also make the switch to a non-dairy milk. Farmed Salmon When we think of factory farming, cows or maybe chickens tend to come to mind. But, it turns out farmed salmon live in similarly horrible conditions. In addition to overcrowding, farm salmon are fed a diet of soy, poultry litter (which means chicken poop) and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. They also have been found to be contaminated with all kinds of chemicals—which probably are run off into the pools where they are farmed. Plus, waste from the salmon pens is released directly into the open ocean. The Environmental Defense Fund lists farmed salmon as an eco-worst choice. Make the swap: Look for wild-caught Alaskan salmon. The brand Wild Catch is almost the only brand which sells canned wild salmon. Eat ONLY Organic !!!

ALL RED MEAT IS IS BAD FOR YOU !

All red meat is bad for you, new study says

A long-term study finds that eating any amount and any type increases the risk of premature death. By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times March 12, 2012, 4:28 p.m. Eating red meat — any amount and any type — appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years. For instance, adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat — picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards — to one's daily diet was associated with a 13% greater chance of dying during the course of the study. Even worse, adding an extra daily serving of processed red meat, such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, was linked to a 20% higher risk of death during the study. "Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk," said An Pan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and lead author of the study, published online Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Crunching data from thousands of questionnaires that asked people how frequently they ate a variety of foods, the researchers also discovered that replacing red meat with other foods seemed to reduce mortality risk for study participants. Eating a serving of nuts instead of beef or pork was associated with a 19% lower risk of dying during the study. The team said choosing poultry or whole grains as a substitute was linked with a 14% reduction in mortality risk; low-fat dairy or legumes, 10%; and fish, 7%. Previous studies had associated red meat consumption with diabetes, heart disease and cancer, all of which can be fatal. Scientists aren't sure exactly what makes red meat so dangerous, but the suspects include the iron and saturated fat in beef, pork and lamb, the nitrates used to preserve them, and the chemicals created by high-temperature cooking.

The Harvard researchers hypothesized that eating red meat would also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause, Pan said. And the results suggest they were right: Among the 37,698 men and 83,644 women who were tracked, as meat consumption increased, so did mortality risk. In separate analyses of processed and unprocessed meats, the group found that both types appear to hasten death. Pan said that at the outset, he and his colleagues had thought it likely that only processed meat posed a health danger.

Carol Koprowski, a professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine who wasn't involved in the research, cautioned that it can be hard to draw specific conclusions from a study like this because there can be a lot of error in the way diet information is recorded in food frequency questionnaires, which ask subjects to remember past meals in sometimes grueling detail. But Pan said the bottom line was that there was no amount of red meat that's good for you. "If you want to eat red meat, eat the unprocessed products, and reduce it to two or three servings a week," he said. "That would have a huge impact on public health." A majority of people in the study reported that they ate an average of at least one serving of meat per day. Pan said that he eats one or two servings of red meat per week, and that he doesn't eat bacon or other processed meats.

Cancer researcher Lawrence H. Kushi of the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland said that groups putting together dietary guidelines were likely to pay attention to the findings in the study. "There's a pretty strong supposition that eating red meat is important — that it should be part of a healthful diet," said Kushi, who was not involved in the study. "These data basically demonstrate that the less you eat, the better." UC San Francisco researcher and vegetarian diet advocate Dr. Dean Ornish said he gleaned a hopeful message from the study. "Something as simple as a meatless Monday can help," he said. "Even small changes can make a difference." Additionally, Ornish said, "What's good for you is also good for the planet."

In an editorial that accompanied the study, Ornish wrote that a plant-based diet could help cut annual healthcare costs from chronic diseases in the U.S., which exceed $1 trillion. Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt the destruction of forests to create pastures, he wrote. eryn.brown@latimes.com

What is dead food, & how much are you eating daily?

Health Basics: What is dead food, & how much are you eating daily? Jan 24, 2012 by: S. D. Wells Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034770_dead_food_diet_nutrition.html#ixzz1kgp2wjJ8 (NaturalNews) You can eat food that is organic every day, but if most of it is cooked on high heat then it is void of nutrition. Just about everyone has heard of the benefits of eating raw "live" food, but what ratio of your total food intake is actually raw (or not heated over 120 degrees)? When you add up everything you put in your mouth, from baked, boiled, broiled, and fried, you may find you're eating a majority of "dead food." If you have a "cooked food" profile above 70%, you need to flip that ratio and become at least 70% raw, and it may take awhile to adjust. Cooking food chemically changes additives into acid-forming toxins, free radicals and poisons that make you lethargic, depressed, tired, inflamed, achy, weak, sick and in need of relief from a general numb feeling that keeps you performing at your best. Baking, boiling, broiling and frying, destroys essential nutrients. Vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants, probiotics and enzymes are the foundation of good health. (http://www.rawfoodlife.com/)

Flash frying is a good compromise if you're missing that "heat" in the kitchen. Also, try heating soups, stews, and casseroles at 120 degrees or lower. This will retain many more of the nutrients your body needs. Use avocado to substitute for deli meats, you won't even notice the difference after a few sandwiches. Say goodbye to nitrates, hormones, antibiotics and MSG in meats. Make sprouted grain sandwiches with fresh spinach and some olive oil, and always avoid the cooked, processed wheat bread, white bread and buns. Dispelling the protein myth and more. Most "raw foodists" are not as extreme as they are often labeled, and they usually consume about 75% organic, uncooked, unprocessed foods and live spring water. If you want to morph yourself into this highly beneficial and intelligent regimen, the best way to begin is to only shop around the edges of a store, where there are fresh fruits and vegetables, especially greens like kale, lettuce, parsley and cilantro.

Remember, your body is like an alkaline battery, running on the electrons. Cooking and processing food eliminates these electrons, the exact source of energy your body requires to perform at top notch. Too much acid causing food (more than 30% daily) makes your body break down and decay. Alcohol, prescription drugs, meat, dairy, starch foods, cooked food, salt, and sugar all produce acid. (http://www.alissacohen.com/) In other words, just as fish needs certain pH levels in water to flourish, if the pH of your blood becomes more acidic than alkaline, it quickly reduces the oxygen levels in your blood, so you simply lose energy, immunity, and brain power!

Let's dispel the three most common myths about eating raw: • Raw food doesn't deliver enough protein. Wrong! Fresh vegetables deliver amino acids, your direct link to protein. Meat and eggs are only the "middle man" that requires too much energy to digest. • Eating raw is too expensive. Wrong. Many local farmers markets and co-ops have amazing prices, especially if you watch out for what's in season for your region. Find the closest ones to you and go visit or take advantage of fresh local food, even in the winter. • Raw food takes too long to prepare (not convenient). Wrong again. Organic vegetables and fruits are more accessible than ever, and so are simple recipes for making it tasty every time. Put the following on your next list: Green leafy vegetables, wild dandelion, fresh herbs, garlic, basil, sprouts, sea veggies, and don't forget avocado for your chocolate mousse! The best part is that these alkalizing foods are all around you, just like the junk food, so there's really no excuse. Make sure you're prepared for each meal, so when you get hungry, you always choose the right balance of alkalizing foods and drinks

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae-dlHOmwk4). Sources for this article include: http://www.natural-cancer-cures.com/cooked-versus-raw.html http://www.rawfoodlife.com/ http://www.thebestofrawfood.com/alkaline-food-list.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae-dlHOmwk4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYO4dfwhzvQ&feature=relmfu http://www.alissacohen.com/ Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034770_dead_food_diet_nutrition.html#ixzz1kgovFX3B

DRUGMAKERS have paid $8 billion in FRAUD FINES

DRUGMAKERS have paid $8 billion in FRAUD FINES By Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON–The nation's largest drugmakers have paid at least $8 billion in fines for repeatedly defrauding Medicare and Medicaid over the past decade, but they remain in business with the federal government because they are often the sole suppliers of critical products, records show. Pfizer spent $12 million lobbying Congress in 2011. Pfizer, the maker of drugs that help alleviate arthritis and other ailments, has paid almost $3 billion in fines since 2002 and entered into three corporate integrity agreements with the Dept of Health and Human Services aimed at preventing future fraud. It and other cos are fighting attempts by Congress to exclude them from government business because of their history of fraud. Merck, another pharmaceutical giant, paid $1.6 billion in fines since 2008, Medicare and Justice Department records show, to resolve claims it was not paying proper rebates to the government. • STORY: Whistle-blowers key in health care fraud fight • STORY: Experts seek alternatives to excluding drug cos Pfizer's 2009 settlement was for improperly promoting the use of drugs for purposes other than those for which they were approved by the government. Merck's 2008 settlement involved claims the co paid illegal kickbacks to health care providers in exchange for prescribing its drugs. Government investigators say their hands are tied with the tools they have. They can exclude Pfizer and other pharmaceutical cos from providing medications to Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries as punishment for bad behavior, but that would leave beneficiaries without drugs patented through a particular company.

Or they can fine the companies and force them to enter corporate integrity agreements that require government oversight and a promise not to defraud the government again — a promise that often goes unkept. "We're seeing some of the big companies a second and third time," said Gregory Demske, assistant inspector general for legal affairs for Health and Human Services. "The corporate integrity agreement is not sufficient to deter further misconduct." In addition, the cases are labor- and cost-intensive as the companies fight often for years to avoid an exclusion, Demske said.

To try to change that trend, the government announced in 2010 that, rather than exclude an entire company, investigators would go after individuals within a company. Demske said his organization, the Justice Department and the Food and Drug Administration have come up with some ideas to use within the scope of the rules — such as taking away a company's patent rights as a condition of a settlement. That could begin with cases being investigated now, he said. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced a bipartisan bill that would make it easier for the government to find a middle ground, saying the law now forces "the inspector general to use all-or-nothing, mandatory exclusion penalties against corporations that have committed fraud." The bill would allow the exclusion of individuals from working with the government even after they've left the co where the fraud occurred. Pharmaceutical cos altogether spent more than $200 million lobbying Congress in 2011, including $12 million spent by Pfizer. At least 12 pharmaceutical and medical device cos are lobbying specifically against a House bill, HR 675, that complements Grassley's. None of the pharmaceutical companies —Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer or Bristol-Myers Squibb— contacted by USA TODAY responded to questions about their response to the government's proposed enforcement actions.

The industry's trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, says excluding an individual should occur only when there is "significant wrongdoing" that the individual knew about and did nothing to stop, said Matthew Bennett, the group's senior vice president.