|
[ Sugar Addiction Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Hi, I'm dating a wonderful man whom I'm trying to teach about wellness. Like most Americans, he eats a typical SAD diet, although because of what I've taught him he has made a few positive changes, like giving up aspartame. However, he still ingests fast food including white sugar and flour, and, of course, lots of Cokes, Pepsis, etc.
Sometimes I think that he thinks I'm some kind of kook after I send him e-mails containing health-related info such as the adverse effects of drinking sodas. After all (he is probably thinking), is the rest of America stupid/crazy and I'm the one who's right? Sodas are now so pervasive in our society that even schools have soda machines (insane, isn't it?). People don't even drink water that much anymore, just coffee and sodas. The "healthiest" beverages they consume are antibiotic- and hormone-laden milk and "juice drinks."
My concern is that if we should marry and have a child that it would be very difficult to have his family respect my wishes and not pump the kid full of soda pop while he is visiting them. Then, of course, there are the occasions when our child would spend time at friends' houses. . and what do you think they will be drinking, spring water? Probably not.
I realize that this sounds pessimistic. I DO know that I have the power to raise my children as I wish. But it seems an overwhelming prospect at times to have to go "against the grain" in such a major way, as this aspect of society seems so deeply-ingrained. Not just the soda thing, but sugar- and carb-laden diets in general. Seeing that one can't raise a child to live in a vacuum, I'd be interested in hearing how you parents handle these issues. Thanks.
In Reply to: How our society feels about sodas posted by Future mother on March 30, 2002 at 03:34:45:
Persnally I feel that that supposed health things aren't
for everyone. If someone has a sensitivity to every day
things or maybe is ill then Trying health items is good
but I don't think you can say that someone eating and
drinking all the Right things will always be better off. I
think that many people know what works for them and
Forcing Healthy foods isn't always best. Now maybe the
worry about geting sick or being unhealthy does them in but
I hate water and always did and only eat corn, peas, and
potatoes as veggies. I go by what tastes and makes me feel
good and I use butter, sugar, smoke, and drink soda, coffee,
and tea. I hate margarine and artificial sweetners and they
give me headaches. I only drink water when I crave it which
is about twice a yr and the only thing that will quench my
thirst.
It was interesting to learn that peas and corn form a
complete protein and that potatoes have 2x the potassium
of bananas. In My family at least it doesn't pay to not
listen to your body and give it what it is asking for.
Forcing what it doesn't want looks foolish when the ones
who don't live incredably long and healthy and have to be
put in a home to slow them down while the others get sick
and die but tell me to eat and drink what I want amd smoke
if I want to. Wht they can come to that conclusion and Not
do it themselves Has to be fear of what they wind up with
anyway.
I have a friend who eats Everything said to be right but
has some of the same problems that I got from a chem
injury and he Insists that my weakness and fatigue come from
eating sugar and Keeps telling me that the sugar gives me
a rush of energy and then fatigue. WISH that I had energy
to get fatigued about but he Claims that that is what
happens..Well, it doesn't happen to me and never did but
The Book says it does ...I think in Sugar Sensitive people
it may.
A few yrs ago I heard about results of a study with
infants and food and they let Them select whated to eat.
First they ate the sweets and then went after food. They
said that by the end of the week they had eaten a balanced
diet for the week on their own. Sounds like your body will
tell you what it needs. I usually think that we learn what
we need like when I get a craving for something or try to
think about what I want to eat. All of a sudden I can
almost taste the item in my mouth and that is what I eat.
My grandfather lived by satisfying All his cravings and
was strong till age 104 when a hospital did him in in a
stay to check a bruise.
VF
In Reply to: How our society feels about sodas posted by Future mother on March 30, 2002 at 03:34:45:
As a mother of a 21 month old, I can relate to these issues. However, I know that I will not be able to always cotrol evry aspect of my child's life as much as I would like. What I CAN control is the environment in my own home. When we go to a playgroup and another toddler gives my daughter a cookie, I let it go. Lucklily, my mother agrees with my choices (it's rare that my child even gets fruit juice) and will back me up to the rest of my family. My inlaws are good about going with our wishes as well. My daughter follows my example and drinks almost nothing but clean water. You'd be amazed by how much your own example really does play a role. I do give her "shakes" made of bananas and rice milk laced with an EFA oil blend.
I have to admit, I am usually appalled by what others feed their babies - fast food, artificially sweetened milk, tons of sugar, etc. But I feel if I can get good and healthy food in my daughter 90-95% of the time, I am doing well. There's even the rare occasion when I give her an oatmeal cookie or the like myself. One has to be realistic, and all you can really control is your own environment. A good example at home from the start does the trick, in my opinion :)
Good luck!
Caroline
In Reply to: How our society feels about sodas posted by Future mother on March 30, 2002 at 03:34:45:
My son is almost 5 and he doesn't even know what soda is yet. I just never gave it to him. His father drinks coke at restaurants, but my son thinks it's something that only adults drink, like coffee, so he doesn't have any interest in it and doesn't even know what it's called. He drinks mineral water, Gerolsteiner. I let him have lemonade and some all-juice juices.
He also doesn't know about the candy in the checkout lines. Never got it for him. So, no hassle there.
But, he'll be starting school soon and we'll see how that goes. Hoping to go much longer before he discovers these things. Yeah, right.
In Reply to: How our society feels about sodas posted by Future mother on March 30, 2002 at 03:34:45:
My 5-year-old does occasionally get sodas, usually as a treat on a holiday or at a relative's house. I can't totally stop my mother or her friends from giving him forbidden things in my absence, but at least that keeps the instances down. I've told my son that soda steals vitamins from his bones, and he actually keeps that in mind.
A good, mainstream source of info for your BF might be the "askdrsears.com" website and books by Wm. Sears about pregnancy, child and family, and nutrition. Dr. Sears is not seen as "alternative" although he stresses many/most of the nutritional points from this site, including sugar's adverse effect on immunity. Since he is more mainstream, perhaps your BF and family will pay more attention until they really come around.
Best of luck.
In Reply to: Re: How our society feels about sodas posted by PH on March 30, 2002 at 10:58:39:
You've done an outstanding job! School is likely to be a problem. Teachers usually serve junk-food snacks every day. Parents bring in cupcakes for their kids birthdays. Every holiday is celebrated with tons of treats and punch or soda.
Junk food, sadly, is such an excepted part of society today. Doctors are telling their patients sugar is not harmful.
Even school lunch programs are sad, if you ask me. Lots of chicken nuggets, pizza, corn dogs, mini corn dogs are the standard fare. The only drinks offered - milk or chocolate milk!
I don't do near as good a job as you at keeping my kids off all junk food. Still, the lunches I send them off to school with are about 300% healthier than what other parents are sending ("Lunchables", chips, pop tarts, soda or some other high-sugar drink box, and to top it off, a candy bar!) This is what the kids around here are eating every day.
In Reply to: How our society feels about sodas posted by Future mother on March 30, 2002 at 03:34:45:
Hi, Future Mother.
The fact that you use this moniker tells me that having healthy children is a priority for you.
I would suggest you first check out his family genetics (how long did they live and how many chronic diseases did they have) thoroughly. He MAY be one who is likely living at the top end of the Bell Curve and he and any children would be relatively protected.
NOW, having said that, I can see this becoming a major problem between you IF you have children. Besides, with this set of habits (to which he is apparently clinging desperately), hs is likely to become chronically ill pretty early in his life and you will be left with the debts and the care of an invalid for the rest of your HEALTHY life.
There is a section in my book about this exact problem and many references by MDs and PhDs documenting the behavioral problems made more likely with children who ingest lots of sodas. See the "stable criminal" reference. I do not expect that he will be interested in facts, though.
There are better fish in the sea.
Hope this helps.
Walt
In Reply to: How our society feels about sodas posted by Future mother on March 30, 2002 at 03:34:45:
The addict feels low. His body needs a boost. He reaches into his pocket and finds a dollar bill. He slides it into the machine and a can rolls out. He opens the can and guzzles. He feels his energy return. His fix will last a couple of hours, enough to keep him alert for the rest of the morning.
The addict is twelve years old and his drug is a soft drink, purchased from a vending machine in his school. This addict and thousands like him will attend special classes, sponsored by his school, to warn him about the dangers of drugs, tobacco and alcohol. But no one will tell him about America’s other drinking problem.
According to the National Soft Drink Association (NSDA), consumption of soft drinks is now over 600 12-ounce servings (12 oz.) per person per year. Since 1978, soda consumption in the US has tripled for boys and doubled for girls. Young males age 12-29 are the biggest consumers at over 160 gallons per year—that’s almost 2 quarts per day. At these levels, the calories from soft drinks contribute as much as 10 percent of the total daily caloric intake for a growing boy.
TARGETING THE YOUNG
Huge increases in soft drink consumption have not happened by chance—they are due to intense marketing efforts by soft drink corporations. Coca Cola, for example, has set the goal of raising consumption of its products in the US by at least 25 percent per year. The adult market is stagnant so kids are the target. According to an article in Beverage, January 1999, “Influencing elementary school students is very important to soft drink marketers.”
Since the 1960s the industry has increased the single-serving size from a standard 6-½-ounce bottle to a 20-ounce bottle. At movie theaters and at 7-Eleven stores the most popular size is now the 64-ounce “Double Gulp.”
Soft drink companies spend billions on advertising. Much of these marketing efforts are aimed at children through playgrounds, toys, cartoons, movies, videos, charities and amusement parks; and through contests, sweepstakes, games and clubs via television, radio, magazines and the internet. Their efforts have paid off. Last year soft drink companies grossed over $57 billion in sales in the US alone, a colossal amount.
In 1998 the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) warned the public that soft drink companies were beginning to infiltrate our schools and kid clubs. For example, they reported that Coca-Cola paid the Boys & Girls Clubs of America $60 million to market its brand exclusively in over 2000 facilities. Fast food companies selling soft drinks now run ads on Channel One, the commercial television network with programming shown in classrooms almost every day to eight million middle, junior and high school students. In 1993, District 11 in Colorado Springs became the first public school district in the US to place ads for Burger King in its hallways and on the sides of its school buses. Later, the school district signed a 10-year deal with Coca-Cola, bringing in $11 million during the life of the contract. This arrangement was later imitated all over Colorado. The contracts specify annual sales quotas with the result that school administrators encourage students to drink sodas, even in the classrooms. One high school in Beltsville, Maryland, made nearly $100,000 last year on a deal with a soft drink company.
While our children are exposed to unremitting publicity for soft drinks, evidence of their dangers accumulates. The consumption of soft drinks, like land-mine terrain, is riddled with hazards. We as practitioners and advocates of a healthy life-style recognize that consuming even as little as one or two sodas per day is undeniably connected to a myriad of pathologies. The most commonly associated health risks are obesity, diabetes and other blood sugar disorders, tooth decay, osteoporosis and bone fractures, nutritional deficiencies, heart disease, food addictions and eating disorders, neurotransmitter dysfunction from chemical sweeteners, and neurological and adrenal disorders from excessive caffeine.
EARLY WARNINGS
Warnings about the dangers of soft drink consumption came to us as early as 1942 when the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Council on Food and Nutrition made the following noble statement: “From the health point of view it is desirable especially to have restriction of such use of sugar as is represented by consumption of sweetened carbonated beverages and forms of candy which are of low nutritional value. The Council believes it would be in the interest of the public health for all practical means to be taken to limit consumption of sugar in any form in which it fails to be combined with significant proportions of other foods of high nutritive quality.”
Since that time the first notable public outcry came in 1998, 56 years later, when the CSPI published a paper called “Liquid Candy” blasting the food industry for “mounting predatory marketing campaigns [especially] aimed at children and adolescents.” At a press conference, CSPI set up 868 cans of soda to represent the amount of soda the average young male consumed during the prior year. For additional shock effect, CSPI displayed baby bottles with soft drink logos such as Pepsi, Seven-Up and Dr. Pepper, highlighting a study that “found that parents are four times more likely to feed their children soda pop when their children use those logo bottles than when they don’t.”
In “Liquid Candy” CSPI revealed that even though, over a period of fifty years, soft drink production increased nine times and by 1998 “…provided more than one-third of all refined sugars in the diet, . . . the AMA and other health organizations [remained] largely silent.” How could the medical community and we as responsible citizens concerned with health policy have been apathetic for a half a century? Considering this question makes me feel like a tired old guard dog that knows he is ignoring his responsibilities, but is too worn down to do anything about them. Even if inertia were not a problem, the money and effort required to launch a public interest campaign to stand up to the soft drink industry would be Herculean if not impossible. In the meantime, the relentlessly ambitious and wealthy soft drink companies with their very hip life-style ads manage to seduce ever increasing numbers of consumers, most of them our kids.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INGREDIENTS IN SOFT DRINKS—A WITCH’S BREW
High Fructose Corn Syrup, now used in preference to sugar, is associated with poor development of collagen in growing animals, especially in the context of copper deficiency. All fructose must be metabolized by the liver. Animals on high-fructose diets develop liver problems similar to those of alcoholics.
Aspartame, used in diet sodas, is a potent neurotoxin and endocrine disrupter. See article on page 25.
Caffeine stimulates the adrenal gland without providing nourishment. In large amounts, caffeine can lead to adrenal exhaustion, especially in children.
Phosphoric acid, added to give soft drinks “bite,” is associated with calcium loss.
Citric acid often contains traces of MSG, a neurotoxin.
Artificial Flavors may also contain traces of MSG.
Water may contain high amounts of fluoride and other contaminants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GI DISTRESS
One common problem I have seen over the years, especially in teenagers, is general gastrointestinal (GI) distress. This includes increased stomach acid levels requiring acid inhibitors and moderate to severe gastric inflammation with possible stomach lining erosion. The common complaint I hear is chronic “stomach ache.” In almost every case, when the client successfully abstains from sodas and caffeine, the symptoms will go away.
What causes these symptoms? We know that many soda brands contain caffeine and that caffeine does increase stomach acid levels. What we may not be aware of is that sodas also contain an array of chemical acids as additives, such as acetic, fumaric, gluconic and phosphoric acids, all of them synthetically produced. That is why certain sodas work so well when used to clean car engines. For human consumption, however, the effects are much less satisfying and quite precarious. Drinking sodas, especially on an empty stomach, can upset the fragile acid-alkaline balance of the stomach and other gastric lining, creating a continuous acid environment. This prolonged acid environment can lead to inflammation of the stomach and duodenal lining which becomes quite painful. Over the long term, it can lead to gastric lining erosion.
Another problem with sodas is that they act as dehydrating diuretics, much like tea, coffee and alcohol. All of these drinks can inhibit proper digestive function. It is much healthier to consume herbal teas, nutritional soups and broths, naturally lacto-fermented beverages and water to supply our daily fluid needs. These fluids support, not inhibit, digestion.
SPORTS DRINKS
Students are now being given “electrolyte” drinks called “ergogenic aids” to replace electrolytes that are allegedly depleted during workouts. There are three problems with using these drinks as a rehydration solution. First, most soft drinks are diuretics, meaning they squeeze liquids out of the body, thus exacerbating dehydration instead of correcting it. Second, most people actually lose few electrolytes during exercise. After exercise the body is usually in an electrolyte load having lost more fluids than electrolytes. If sweating has been profuse, electrolytes can be replaced by drinking a lacto-fermented beverage or pure mineral water, which contains a proper ratio of minerals (electrolytes), and by eating a healthy diet containing Celtic sea salt. Third, when we give sugar-laden drinks to dehydrated kids, the high sugar content requires that blood be sent to the stomach to digest it. This fluid shift can lower the blood volume in other parts of the body making them more susceptible to cramps and heat-related illnesses.
STIMULANT SOFT DRINKS AND VIOLENCE
The industry has begun to market so-called stimulant soft drinks, which usually consist of higher-than-usual levels of caffeine, along with other compound stimulants. According to an article published in The Lancet, December 2000, the Irish government ordered “urgent research” into the effects of so-called “functional energy” or stimulant soft drinks after the death of an 18-year-old who died while playing basketball. He had consumed three cans of “Red Bull,” a stimulant soft drink. The article noted there have been reports of a rise in aggressive late-night violence occurring when people switch to these drinks while drowsy from too much alcohol. The resulting violence was so pervasive that some establishments in Ireland have refused to sell stimulant drinks. The entire European community has taken the problem seriously enough to ask the EU’s scientific community to examine stimulant sodas and their effect on food and health safety, but no such outcry has been heard in the US.
BONE FRACTURES
Over the last 30 years a virtual tome of information has been published linking soft drink consumption to a rise in osteoporosis and bone fractures. New evidence has shown an alarming rise in deficiencies of calcium and other minerals and resulting bone fractures in young girls. A 1994 report published in the Journal of Adolescent Health summarizes a small study (76 girls and 51 boys) and points toward an increasing and “strong association between cola beverage consumption and bone fractures in girls.” High calcium intake offered some protection. For boys, only low total caloric intake was associated with a higher risk of bone fractures. The study concluded with the following: “The high consumption of carbonated beverages and the declining consumption of milk are of great public health significance for girls and women because of their proneness to osteoporosis in later life.”
A larger, cross sectional retrospective study of 460 high school girls was published in Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine in June 2000. The study indicated that cola beverages were “highly associated with bone fractures.” In their conclusion the authors warned that, “. . . national concern and alarm about the health impact of carbonated beverage consumption on teenaged girls is supported by the findings of this study” (emphasis mine).
THE BATTLE AHEAD
The dangers of society’s other drinking problem have recently been in the news. Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative George Miller have commissioned a study on the uses and oversight of school vending machines. Pending legislation in the State of Maryland would turn school soda vending machines off during the school day. Senator Patrick Leahy has introduced a bill requiring the USDA to rule within 18 months on banning or limiting the sale of soda and junk food in schools before students have eaten lunch.
The soft drink industry has fought back by funding four studies on soft drink consumption at the Georgetown Center for Food and Nutrition Policy. Predictably, these studies found that there was nothing wrong with soft drinks. In fact, researchers said they found a positive relationship between soft drink consumption and exercise. All this means is that those children participating in sports programs drank more sodas.
The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NAASP) says that decisions about soda sales should be made at the local level and not by the federal government. School administrators are caught between demands of a few parents for a saner food policy and the need for more funds in the face of dwindling school budgets.
One good idea comes from the Philippines, a country where malnutrition is an ominous health threat. A recently devised plan there would allow citizens to cash in on the country’s “junk food diet” by taxing every liter bottle of carbonated soft drink sold. If the US taxed soft drink sales, the new income stream generated could then be distributed to declining school budgets. Is this not a better idea than forcing our schools to sell their souls to soft drink companies under the titanic sink of fiscal degradation?
The alarm has been sounded! Are you listening? I strongly encourage all who are concerned about the health of their families to consider the debilitating consequences of drinking soft drinks. How many more studies and reports need to be published before we notice the tsunami lurking ahead? In the 1970s, we finally recognized the risks of smoking. In the 1990s, the problem of teenage drinking became widely known. The new millennium is the time for awakening to the risks of soda consumption—America’s other drinking problem.
Judith Valentine received her doctorate in Nutrition from the American Holistic College of Nutrition and completed her clinical internship in residence at the Capital University Clinic of Integrative Medicine in Washington, DC where she was certified as an Integrative Health Practitioner. She is also certified by the American Association of Nutritional Consultants and is on the teaching staff at Anne Arundel Community College. Dr. Valentine provides holistic nutrition education to individual clients and works with corporations to develop wellness policies for their employees. She can be contacted at (410) 626-0978 or DoctorJAV@aol.com.
References
“Soft Drinks Hard Facts,” The Washington Post /Health, February 27, 2001.
“Schools Hooked on Junk Food,” The Washington Post, February 27, 2001.
“Coke to Dilute Push in Schools For Its Products,” The New York Times, March 14, 2001.
National Soft Drink Association. Web Site, www.nwda.org.
“Some Nutritional Aspects of Sugar, Candy and Sweetened Carbonated Beverages,”
Journal of the American Medical Association, 1942;120:763-5.
Liquid Candy, How Soft Drinks are Harming Americans’ Health, M. Jacobson, PhD.
Web Site, CSPI.com.
“Soft Drinks Undermining Americans’ Health: Teens Consume Twice as Much ‘Liquid Candy’ as Milk,” CSPI Press Release, Oct. 21, 1998.
Food Surveys Research Group – What We Eat in America. USDA Web Site.
“Relationship Between Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Drinks & Childhood Obesity: AProspective and Observational Analysis,” The Lancet, 2001. 357:505-08.
“The Cariogenicity of Soft Drinks in the United States,” Journal of the American Dental Association, Aug. 1984 109(2):241-5.
“How Sugar-Containing Drinks Might Increase Adiposity in Children,” The Lancet, 2001. 357; 9225.
“Junk Food Boost for Health in the Philippines,” The Lancet, 1997. 350; 9087.
“Teenaged Girls, Carbonated Beverage Consumption, and Bone Fractures,” Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, June 2000. 154(6).
“Carbonated beverages, dietary calcium, the dietary calcium/phosphorus ratio, and bone fractures in girls and boys,” Journal of Adolescent Health, May 1994. 15(3): 210-5.
“Soft drink consumption among US children and adolescents: nutritional consequences,”
Journal of the American Dietetic Association,. April 1999. (4): 436-41.
“Irish concerned about health effects of stimulant soft drinks,” The Lancet, December 2000; 356; 9245.
The Diet Cure, Julia Ross. 1999. Penguin Books, NY, NY.
Eating for A’s. Alexander Schauss, Barbara Friedlander Meyer, Arnold Meyer. 1991: NY Pocket Books.
The Encyclopedia of Nutrition & Good Health. Robert Ronzio.1997. Facts on File, NY.
Fast Food Nation. Eric Schlosser. 2001. Houghton Mifflin.
Nourishing Traditions. Sally Fallon, with Mary Enig, PhD. NewTrends Publishing, Washington, DC
Textbook of Natural Medicine. J. Pizzorno, M. Murray. 1999 2d Ed. Church Livingstone, NY.
“Hard Line on Soft Drinks?” Nutrition Week, Community Nutrition Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOSPHORIC ACID AND TOOTH ROT
Now that soft drinks are sold in almost all public and private schools, dentists are noticing a condition in teenagers that used to be found only in the elderly—a complete loss of enamel on the teeth, resulting in yellow teeth. The culprit is phosphoric acid in soft drinks, which causes tooth rot as well as digestive problems and bone loss. Dentists are reporting complete loss of the enamel on the front teeth in teenaged boys and girls who habitually drink sodas.
Normally the saliva is slightly alkaline, with a pH of about 7.4. When sodas are sipped throughout the day, as is often the case with teenagers, the phosphoric acid lowers the pH of the saliva to acidic levels. In order to buffer this acidic saliva, and bring the pH level above 7 again, the body pulls calcium ions from the teeth. The result is a very rapid depletion of the enamel coating on the teeth.
When dentists do cosmetic bonding, they first roughen up the enamel with a chemical compound—that chemical is phosphoric acid! Young people who must have all their yellowed front teeth cosmetically bonded have already done part of the dentist’s job, by roughening up the tooth surface with phosphoric acid.
Recently the National Institutes of Health held a conference on dental decay worldwide. The speakers discussed many possible causes and solutions, but not one mentioned the known effects of phosphoric acid in soft drinks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRUIT JUICES
Consumers often drink commercial fruit juices in the belief that they are healthier than soft drinks. However, the manufacture of fruit juices is a highly industrialized process. Orange juice, for example, is made in huge quantities. The entire orange is squeezed and goes into the tank, which means that neurotoxic cholinesterase inhibitor pesticide sprays on the peel end up in the juice. Although the juice is pasteurized under high temperatures and pressures, pressure-resistent and temperature-resistant fungi and molds can remain in the juice. Many mutagenic factors have been detected in commercial orange juice. A compound made of soy protein and pectin is added to orange juice so that it remains opaque and doesn’t settle.
Other fruits, such as grapes, present additional problems because of the large amounts of fluoride-containing pesticides used on the crops.
Fruit juices are very high in sugar and have actually been more detrimental to the teeth of test animals than sodas!
If you want to drink fruit juice, buy a juicer and make your own with organic fruit. It’s best to dilute a small amount of fruit juice with mineral water (either flat or carbonated). The juice of one-half grapefruit added to a glass of sparkling water, for example, makes a delicious, refreshing drink. A recipe for a pineapple cooler, made from equal parts of fresh pineapple juice and whole raw milk, is found in old cookbooks. In restaurants, order mineral water and some pieces of fresh lemon or lime.
Above all, support the comeback of traditional lacto-fermented beverages such as kombucha and kvass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspartame -
Diet-sastrous Results
By Rebecca Ephraim, RD, CCN
As a nutritionist who straddles conventional and complementary therapies, I attend numerous lectures, workshops, and conferences in both realms. I can generally tell you whether a gathering is one of conventional practitioners or complementary practitioners simply by seeing who’s drinking what!
Where conventional practitioners such as registered dietitians, nurses, and medical doctors are meeting, the familiar, brightly colored cans of diet soda, sweetened with the artificial sweetener aspartame, prominently dot the meeting-room landscape. Not so in a gathering of complementary practitioners such as naturopaths, “alternative” nutritionists and chiropractors. Bottled or filtered water is the rule here.
It’s an apt example of the conventional medical mindset butting heads with the philosophy of the health providers who are natural-living advocates. Aspartame, which goes by names such as Equal, NutraSweet, and Spoonful, is and has been the giant among artificial sweeteners for the twenty years it has been around. Almost any “diet” food out there, in addition to the diet sodas, will surely have aspartame in its ingredient list. Holistic practitioners tell their clients and patients to never use the stuff—that it’s literally poison. Conventional practitioners usually encourage its use. Many, perhaps most, of my dietician colleagues, for instance, consider aspartame, with zero calories, pivotal in weight-control programs. Their perspective is that it’s a safe replacement for high-calorie sugary foods that sabotage dieters’ best intentions.
”No, no, no!” shout an escalating number of health practitioners, professionals and laypeople. They point to ugly and debilitating side effects from the use of aspartame, including headaches, memory loss, slurred speech and vision problems. For years these aspartame opponents were but small voices muffled by the incredibly loud sounds of money talking. Under the ownership of the giant international chemical company Monsanto, aspartame thoroughly trounced its competition by using an unstoppable combination of marketing brilliance and limitless spending—along with tactics characterized as morally and ethically corrupt.
One critic, David Rietz, denounces Monsanto for plying “agency [e.g. Food and Drug Administration, FDA] officials with gratuities and/or very favorable future employment, politicians with campaign funds/PAC money, non-profit foundations with endowments, scientists with research grants, and the media with lots of advertising dollars” all for the sake of defending its safety and, hence, its ironclad hold on the artificial sweetener market. Monsanto sold its aspartame ingredient business last year to a number of buyers (including, by the way, MSD Capital, which is computer king Michael Dell’s investment firm).
The voices of dissent have grown louder with the advent of the internet. Rietz, for example, is the owner and master of one of thousands of “anti-aspartame” internet websites (www.dorway.com). Like so many other “anti-aspartame” crusaders, Rietz founded his website after years of battling debilitating health problems and finally regaining his health after discontinuing his use of the artificial sweetener. Examining why so many attest to aspartame’s role in scores of severe adverse reactions is beyond the scope of this article. But one thing is certain, despite what appears to be a concerted effort on the part of aspartame’s makers to negate the allegations of health problems, adverse reactions from aspartame are real.
This was eloquently borne out in 1996, when Ralph G. Walton, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio University’s College of Medicine, conducted an analysis of all the medical studies—164 of them at the time—dealing with human safety as it relates to the use of aspartame. The studies were separated into two categories: 74 of the studies were sponsored by the aspartame industry and 90 of them were non-industry-sponsored studies. Dr. Walton found that of the 74 studies sponsored by the aspartame industry, 100 percent of them claimed there were no health problems associated with aspartame use. Of the 90 studies that had no connections to industry, all but seven of them identified one or more problems with aspartame use. Interestingly, of the seven studies that did not find problems, the FDA had conducted six. Critics suggest that since a number of FDA officials eventually went to work for the aspartame industry, these six studies should be considered industry-sponsored research as well.
Knowing all this, if a person desperately wanted to lose weight and was prepared to risk the safety problems associated with aspartame, would it make sense to use this sugar substitute as an easy and effective tool for weight control?
Hardly! Dr. Walton, who has also studied the effects of aspartame, is emphatic when he tells me, “Probably one major contributor to obesity is the widespread use of diet products!” A chorus of non-conventional health professionals echoes his statement, which can just aswell be read as a warning. The reasons are not simple; they involve complex biochemical reactions linked to hormones and brain chemicals.
Aspartame itself doesn’t have any calories, but basically, one of its ingredients, the amino acid phenylalanine, blocks production of serotonin, a nerve chemical that, among other activities, controls food cravings. As you might well imagine, a shortage of serotonin will make your brain and body scream for the foods that create more of this brain chemical—and those are the high-calorie, carbohydrate-rich snacks that can sabotage a dieter. Obviously, the more aspartame one ingests, the more heightened the effects. Simply put, aspartame appears to muddle the brain chemistry.
Nutritionist Susan Allen, RD, CCN, at Chicago’s Northwestern Center for Integrative Medicine, suspects that something additional is going on in many of her patients who have been using aspartame and other artificial sweeteners. Allen believes that when they consume them, the sweet taste of no-calorie sweeteners triggers their bodies to release insulin, even though there is no food to feed the cells. Normally, when we eat, the sugar in that food, which is derived from carbohydrates, is broken down into simple sugars, like glucose, which then enter the blood stream (we call it “blood sugar”).
We depend on insulin (secreted by the pancreas) to usher that blood sugar into our cells to supply energy and maintain normal blood sugar levels. The problem Allen sees is that an “insulin-sensitive” person who uses artificial sweeteners teases his or her body into thinking food is on its way, so insulin is released. But when the body discovers it was cheated out of food, it revolts by throwing a food-craving tantrum that can only be quelled by eating blood sugar food that will more than likely be high-calorie sugary snacks. “I point out to them how it doesn’t make sense. . . they’re trying to save themselves sugar but then they eat more foods that are going to raise their blood sugar anyway.”
Yet, the unabashed public acceptance of artificial sweeteners, namely aspartame, is fueled by the approval of a host of scientific and professional organizations, including the American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, American Medical Association and the National Cancer Institute. Is it any wonder that some 200 million Americans use this ubiquitous product?
In Reply to: Soft Drinks.....America's other drinking problem. posted by Deto on March 31, 2002 at 22:11:32:
being one who drinks cola and coffee or tea because I don't
like the taste of water and never did this subject
interests me. A friend think that all my problems of
fatigue and weakness com from the sugar I consume and not
the chemical injury that almost killed me. He keeps telling
me that sugar gives me a rush of energy and then I fade. I
keep telling him that Nothing gives me energy except an
emergency I feel compelled to deal with. Coffee never
woke me up or gave me energy. My dad liked ice cream so
bought the 10qt containers that ice cream stores get and
expresso was common around the house. I dreaded the times
that dad bought peach ice cream or some other flavor since
I wouldn't eat it and it lasted forever. I liked anything
with nuts and still do but went for Years not eating any
till I was injured and almost lived on it in the summers
after my injury but then eating one meal a day and snacks in
between works for me now.
The part about female bone fractures in the note made me
think of the, Female Athelete Triad they are starting to
talk about where young female atheletes, especially ones
that diet to keep their weight down have a Serious problem
with low bone density and in their 30's are in serious
shape with low bone density and can break bones just
walking. It has to do with estrogen and not puting on
calcium when younger. I wonder who was tested or looked at
when they blamed phosphoric acid ?? Acid Does affect calcium
and Does move it in the bones which they say is normal and
too much acid will move the calcium right out of the body
so acidosis can be dangerous but the kidneys regulate ph
and Should compensate unless something is off.
I developed an acid condition from my injury and I don't
blame it on cola but from kidney damage since I had to
live on salt which is another thing the kidneys regulate
and mine must have been dumping it since I could have used
an IV for as many salt tabs as I had to take not to get
disoriented in the heat. Acidosis can also come from the
lungs not blowing off CO2. I had that also.
I keep runing into, that Some people are sensitive to
this, that, or something else and They have to watch. I
Wish I could get uncoated aspirins since I will use
aspirin if my stomach bothers me like if I ate too much
but because 1% of people might get stomach irritation
because aspirins block the stomach protecting enzyme All
the aspirins are coated. I break them in half if I want
them to work in it. I do the same with most coated pills
if I want faster action and it doesn't bother me. I wasn't
very happy to have to pay 10X for salt tabs when they
Thought that salt was dangerous. Called them, Thermo Tabs
and added potassium and calcium and they were kept with
controled substances. SO I carried a salt shaker with me or
the little packs.
VF
In Reply to: Re: Soft Drinks.....America's other drinking problem. posted by Vince F on April 01, 2002 at 07:11:43:
Vince,
You KNOW that each stored stressor MAGNIFIES the damaging effects of all the others!
Alcohol is the only substance more damaging than sugar(and then just barely more damaging). BOTH are dealt with in the Krebs Cycle in exactly the same way.
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Soft Drinks.....America's other drinking problem. (Archive in sugar.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 02, 2002 at 10:27:33:
Walt, Now Alcohol can give me problems. 2 drinks and my
lips can get numb and I sound like I am plastered. Must
absorb right through them.
VF
|
[ Sugar Addiction Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |