Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE


OCCUPY WELLNESS

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Turn the Middle Aisles of Supermarkets into Ghost Towns






Life Arts

Turn the Middle Aisles of Supermarkets into Ghost Towns

 

By (about the author)     Permalink  





From flickr.com/photos/10506540@N07/7155710578/: Grand Rapids April 06, 2012 4
Grand Rapids April 06, 2012 4
(image by stevendepolo)

There are thousands, even tens of thousands of items in supermarkets. Most of them are highly processed, often un-nutritious or even dangerous and unhealthy. Some barely deserve to be called "food."

The worst of these can be found in the middle aisles of supermarkets. Of late, I've been enjoying totally avoiding those aisles. The sweet thing is, I'm not missing them at all.

Some of the aisles are basically collections of combinations of corn syrup with other products-- soda, chips, brownies, breakfast snacks, supposedly healthy granola products.

Others have so many preservatives and coloring agents in them, their ingredients look more like items for a chemistry lab.

I may zip through the frozen foods section looking for some frozen fruit and vegetables, but even that walk I seem to be doing less of.

You can even make a game of it. Count how many aisles you can totally ignore.

If you are going down any of those middle aisles, be sure to use the Buycott phone app to make sure you're not supporting companies that fund campaigns you would oppose-- like Koch brother companies, Monsanto, companies that fund ads opposing GMO labeling, etc.

Even better, try to do as much of your shopping at smaller local businesses than at big supermarkets. Join a local CSA (community supported agriculture) or a community garden or create your own garden and actually help plant and harvest the food you eat. And if you are buying produce at a big supermarket, try to buy locally grown food.

Learn about the health risks involved in eating animal products Learn about the heavy footprint meat casts on ecosystems. Learn the dirtiest foods, pesticide-wise, and buy organic for them.

There are all kinds of diseases that are appearing at much higher incidences now than even a decade ago. Part of the reason-- I think a big part-- is because of the food. Save your life and your family's health. Avoid those middle aisles and get food smart. 
 
 
Rob Kall has spent his adult life as an awakener and empowerer-- first in the field of biofeedback, inventing products, developing software and a music recording label, MuPsych, within the company he founded in 1978-- Futurehealth, and founding, organizing and running 3 conferences: Winter Brain, on Neurofeedback and consciousness, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology (a pioneer in the field of Positive Psychology, first presenting workshops on it in 1985) and Storycon Summit Meeting on the Art Science and Application of Story-- each the first of their kind.  Then, when he found the process of raising people's consciousness and empowering them to take more control of their lives  one person at a time was too slow, he founded Opednews.com-- which has been the top search result on Google for the terms liberal news and progressive opinion for several years. Rob began his Bottom-up Radio show, broadcast on WNJC 1360 AM to Metro Philly, also available on iTunes, covering the transition of our culture, business and world from predominantly Top-down (hierarchical, centralized, authoritarian, patriarchal, big)  to bottom-up (egalitarian, local, interdependent, grassroots, archetypal feminine and small.) Recent long-term projects include a book, Bottom-up-- The Connection Revolution, debillionairizing the planet and the Psychopathy Defense and Optimization Project.
 
 

Saturday, November 15, 2014

The Most Popular Drug in America Is an Antipsychotic and No One Really Knows How It Works


 

The Most Popular Drug in America Is an Antipsychotic and No One Really Knows How It Works

 

The pharmaceutical industry has flooded America with antipsychotics.


 
Does anyone remember Thorazine? It was an antipsychotic given to mentally ill people, often in institutions, that was so sedating, it gave rise to the term "Thorazine shuffle." Ads for Thorazine in medical journals, before drugs were advertised directly to patients, showed Aunt Hattie in a hospital gown, zoned out but causing no trouble to herself or anyone else. No wonder Thorazine and related drugs Haldol, Mellaril and Stelazine were called chemical straitjackets.
 
But Thorazine and similar drugs became close to obsolete in 1993 when a second generation of antipsychotics which included Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Geodon and Abilify came online. Called "atypical" antipsychotics, the drugs seemed to have fewer side effects than their predecessors like dry mouth, constipation and the stigmatizing and permanent facial tics known as TD or tardive dyskinesia. (In actuality, they were similar.) More importantly, the drugs were obscenely expensive: 100 tablets of Seroquel cost as much as $2,000, Zyprexa, $1,680 and Abilify $1,644.
 
One drug that is a close cousin of Thorazine, Abilify, is currently the  top-selling of all prescription drugs in the U.S. marketed as a supplement to antidepressant drugs, reports the Daily Beast. Not only is it amazing that an antipsychotic is outselling all other drugs, no one even knows how it works to relieve depression, writes Jay Michaelson. The standardized United States Product Insert says Abilify's method of action is "unknown" but it likely "balances" brain's neurotransmitters. But critics say antipsychotics don’t treat anything at all, but zone people out and produce oblivion. They also say there is a concerning rise in the prescription of antipsychotics for routine complaints like insomnia.
 
They are right. With new names and prices and despite their unknown methods of action, Pharma marketers have devised ways to market drugs like Abilify to the whole population, not just people with severe mental illness. Only  one percent of the population, after all, has schizophrenia and only 2.5 percent has bipolar disorder. Thanks to these marketing ploys, Risperdal was the seventh best-selling drug in the world until it went off patent and Abilify currently rules.
 
Here are some of the ways Big Pharma made antipsychotics everyday drugs.
 
Approval Creep
 
Everyone has heard of "mission creep." In the pharmaceutical world, approval creep means getting the FDA to approve a drug for one thing and pushing a lot of other drug approvals through on the coattails of the first one. Though the atypical antipsychotics were originally drugs for schizophrenia, soon there was a dazzling array of new uses.
 
Seroquel was first approved in 1997 for schizophrenia but subsequently approved for bipolar disorder, psychiatric conditions in children and finally as an add-on drug for depression like Abilify. The depression "market" is so huge, Seroquel's last approval allowed the former schizophrenia drug to make  $5.3 billion a year before it went off patent. But before the add-on approval, AstraZeneca, which makes Seroquel, ran a sleazy campaign to convince depressed people they were really "bipolar." Ads showed an enraged woman screaming into the phone, her face contorted, her teeth clenched. Is this you, asked the ads? Your depression may really be bipolar disorder, warned the ad.
 
Sometimes the indication creep is under the radar. After heated FDA hearings in 2009 about extending Zyprexa, Seroquel and Geodon uses for kids--Pfizer and AstraZeneca slides showed that kids died in clinical trials--the uses were added by the FDA but never announced. They were slipped into the record right before Christmas, when no news breaks, and recorded as "label changes." Sneaky.
 
And there is another "creep" which is also under the radar: "warning creep." As atypical antipsychotics have gone into wide use in the population, more risks have surfaced. Labels now warn against death-associated risks in the elderly, children and people with depression but you have to really read the fine print. (Atypical antipsychotics are so dangerous in the elderly with dementia, at least 15,000 die in nursing homes from them each year, charged FDA drug reviewer David Graham in congressional testimony.) The Seroquel label now warns against cardiovascular risks, which the  FDA denied until the drug was almost off patent.
 
Dosing Children
 
Perhaps no drugs but ADHD medications have been so widely used and often abused in children as atypical antipsychotics. Atypical antipsychotics are known to "improve" behavior in problem children across a broad range of diagnoses but at a huge price: A National Institute of Mental Health study of 119 children ages 8 to 19 found Risperdal and Zyprexa caused such obesity a  safety panel ordered the children off the drugs.
 
In only eight weeks, kids on Risperdal gained nine pounds and kids on Zyprexa gained 13 pounds. "Kids at school were making fun of me," said one study participant who put on 35 pounds while taking Risperdal.
 
Just like the elderly in state care, poor children on Medicaid are tempting targets for Big Pharma and sleazy operators because they do not make their own medication decisions. In 2008, the state of Texas charged Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen with defrauding the state of millions with “a sophisticated and fraudulent marketing scheme,” to “secure a spot for the drug, Risperdal, on the state’s Medicaid preferred drug list and on controversial medical protocols that determine which drugs are given to adults and children in state custody.”
 
Many other states have brought legal action against Big Pharma including compelling drug makers to pay for the extreme side effects that develop with the drugs: massive weight gain, blood sugar changes leading to diabetes and cholesterol problems.
 
Add-On Conditions
 
It's called polypharmacy and it is increasingly popular: Prescribing several drugs, often as a cocktail, that are supposed to do more than the drugs do alone. Big Pharma likes polypharmacy for two obvious reasons: drug sales are tripled or quadrupled—and it's not possible to know if the drugs are working. The problems with polypharmacy parallel its "benefits." The person can’t know which, if any, of the drugs are working so they take them all. By the time someone is on four or more psychiatric drugs, there is a good chance they are on a government program and we are paying. There is also a good chance the person is on the  drugs for life, because withdrawal reactions make them think there really is something wrong with them and it is hard to quit the drugs.
 
Into this lucrative merchandising model came the idea of "add-on" medications and " treatment-resistant depression." When someone's antidepressant didn't work, Pharma marketers began floating the idea that it wasn't that the drugs didn't work; it wasn't that the person wasn't depressed to begin with but had real life, job and family problems—it was "treatment-resistant depression." The person needed to add a second or third drug to their antidepressant, such as Seroquel or Abilify. Ka-ching.
 
Lawsuits Don't Stop Unethical Marketing
 
Just as Big Pharma has camped out in Medicare and Medicaid, living on our tax dollars while  fleeing to England so it doesn't have to pay taxes, Pharma has also camped out in the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Arguably, no drugs have been as good for Big Pharma as atypical antipsychotics within the military. In 2009, the Pentagon spent $8.6 million on Seroquel and VA spent $125.4 million—almost $30 million more than is spent on a  F/A-18 Hornet.
 
Risperdal was even bigger in the military. Over a period of nine years, VA spent $717 million on its generic, risperidone, to treat PTSD in troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet not only was risperidone not approved for PTSD, it didn't even work. A 2011 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found the drug worked no better than placebo and the money was totally wasted.
 
In the last few years, the makers of Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa have all settled suits claiming illegal or fraudulent marketing. A year ago, Johnson & Johnson admitted mismarketing Risperdal in a  $2.2 billion settlement. But the penalty is nothing compared with the $24.2 billion it made from selling Risperdal between 2003 to 2010 and shareholders didn't blink. The truth is, there is too much money in hawking atypical antipsychotics to the general population for Pharma to quit.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Salinas, California: The Salad Bowl of Pesticides

HUFF POST Politics Daily!


Politics Daily


Salinas, California: The Salad Bowl of Pesticides




SALINAS VALLEY, Calif. – Locals call this place the world's salad bowl. Dole, Naturipe and Fresh Express are here, where much of the global fruit and vegetable trade emerges in neat green fields just over the hills from the Pacific Coast.

The difficulties facing migrant workers who plant and pick the crops is an old story. But in Salinas, a new story is emerging -- one with serious implications for the rest of the country and with an ending that has yet to be written.

It is here that University of California, Berkeley public health professor Brenda Eskenazi and her colleagues have spent the past 12 years studying mothers and children who are exposed to pesticides used in the fields.

The Center for Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) is a joint project of UC Berkeley, the Natividad Medical Center, Clinica de Salud Del Valle de Salinas and other community organizations. Its goal is to assess exposure to pesticides and other pollutants in pregnant women and young children to determine the effects on their health, and to try to prevent contact with the chemicals.



After forming partnerships with local health care providers, the researchers were able to recruit 600 women, who submitted to a series of tests to measure pesticide levels in their bodies. Investigators tracked the women throughout their pregnancies, waiting at hospitals as babies were born to collect the umbilical cord blood. As the children grew, Eskenazi and her team also charted their growth, mental development and general health.

This group is now 10 ½ years old, and Eskenazi's work has set off alarms among public health officials. She and her colleagues have found that at age 2, the children of mothers who had the highest levels of organophosphate pesticide metabolites in their blood had the worst mental development in the group. They also had the most cases of pervasive developmental disorder.

At age 5, the children whose mothers were most exposed during pregnancy had poorer attention spans compared to those born to a mother who had lower levels of pesticide metabolites in their urine. Metabolites, as referred to here, are compounds that are formed as a chemical breaks down in the body. They are evidence that someone was exposed to a chemical.

"We have very, very high reports by the mother of behaviors consistent with pervasive developmental disorder," said Eskenazi at a recent neurotoxicology conference. "These include signs like the child is afraid to try new things, can't stand anything out of place, and avoid looking others in the eye. This is considered to be autism spectrum behavior."

Researchers are currently studying whether children whose mothers were exposed to pesticides during the pregnancy are more likely to develop learning disabilities, behavior problems, asthma, diabetes and obesity than other children.

The levels of pesticide metabolites found in the pregnant women in CHAMACOS are higher than women who don't live in agricultural settings. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found evidence that the pesticides contaminating kids around the country, regardless of proximity to agriculture, is high enough to raise questions about the impact those pesticides may have on their growing brains. These days, children are exposed to pesticides used in their homes, pesticide residue on foods and sprays that drifts into playgrounds and other sites. Eskenazi's work is being considered by the EPA as the agency decides what to do with dozens of pesticides and other chemicals suspected of being developmental neurotoxicants, that is, chemicals that can rewire the brain and nervous system while a fetus is growing and continuing to affect the brain in early life.

On a sunny day last summer, Eskenazi and Associate Director Kim Harley visited an old trailer, which serves as headquarters for the center, squeezed between a hospital and a county jail.

The trailer is cozy, with low couches for the kids, teddy bears and dolls, videos of movies and cartoons. On the wall is a map of Salinas, with pins showing the neighborhoods where the participants live. The group has visited many of the participants at home, collecting samples of pesticides and using a GPS to determine how far they are from the fields.

Off the main room are small offices where technicians take blood and urine samples from the children and their mothers, and examiners administer a battery of tests designed to assess their memory, attention span, IQ and other cognitive and emotional indicators.

On this day, child examiner Helen Aguirre is working with a 9-year-old boy. He is shy, but they coax him into allowing them to check his height. Then he follows them into the room for the other tests. They tell him a story about a fishing trip, and then ask him to repeat the salient facts. They talk about something else for a while, then ask him how much he remembers about the fishing tale. They allow breaks for snacks and a bit of television. The whole thing takes between 2 ½ and 3 ½ hours.

This is considered an observational study, but the researchers refer the parents to a doctor if they find any health problems, such as asthma, which is increasingly prevalent in Salinas, or high blood pressure. Next door is a hospital, where almost all of the kids were born, and just across the street, rows of lettuce, celery and broccoli.

"We have a high amount of pesticides used near this building," said Eskenazi. "There are fields close by. When the wind is right, the pesticides blow in."

The project has been so successful that the federal government has funded the researchers to add a few more chemicals to the testing.

Their work also served as a model for the recently launched National Children's Study, run by the National Institutes of Health, which seeks to examine the effects of the environment on 100,000 children, tracking them from before birth until age 21.


Sunday, October 26, 2014

5 Questions You Need to Ask About Electrolytes



The Steuben Courier Advocate



Posted Sep. 7, 2014 @ 12:01 am
Updated Sep 7, 2014 at 11:26 PM

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few years, you’ve probably heard of electrolytes. They’re commonly found in sports drinks or used as medical supplements, but “plain” water and even wine spritzers also tout added electrolytes as a selling point. Read on to find out everything you need to know about electrolytes, and whether or not these electrolyte-enhanced products are worth it.

What are electrolytes and how do they work?

While all the hydration marketing may make electrolytes sound sexy and mysterious, they’re actually just minerals in your body that have an electrical charge (common electrolytes include potassium, sodium, and calcium). This electrical charge allows electrolytes to regulate a host of processes: managing blood pressure and pH, rebuilding damaged tissue, contracting muscles, monitoring hydration, and so on. For example, muscles contract because of electrical impulses, but cells can’t send these impulses unless they each maintain the right voltage across their membranes. Electrolytes are the mechanism the body uses to maintain the proper cell voltages, which in turn lets your muscles contract how and when you want them to. Electrolytes are generally found circulating through the blood, the liquid in and around cells, and other bodily fluids.

How does an electrolyte imbalance affect my body?

Your kidneys work together with several hormones to keep each of your electrolytes balanced at the correct levels. Since they control so many bodily processes, having an electrolyte imbalance can wreak havoc on your health, and even develop into a life-threatening condition. Electrolyte imbalances can be temporary and mild or prolonged and severe, and usually involve one of the “big three” electrolytes: potassium, sodium, and calcium. Symptoms of a temporary disturbance include dizziness, exhaustion, and muscle problems such as cramps, twitching, numbness, and fatigue. Some people may also suffer from stomach cramps and nausea, dark urine, dry mouth, and swelling from fluid retention. Signs of a more several imbalance are irregular heartbeat, changes in blood pressure, mental confusion, and seizures or convulsions. If you experience any of these symptoms, you should seek medical help immediately.

When should I be looking out for electrolyte imbalances?

Since electrolytes are contained in bodily fluids, any time you get rid of said fluids, you’re probably getting rid of some electrolytes too. Sweating, vomiting, diarrhea, and even urination are all different ways you can lose electrolytes. That’s why you feel so depleted after a hard workout or a bout of stomach flu — you’ve suddenly lost a lot of electrolytes through fluids. Other times to watch out for electrolyte imbalances include prolonged dehydration, high fevers, kidney problems, physical trauma such as burns, and switching medications or starting a new one. Health conditions such as kidney or heart disease or diabetes can also increase your chances of developing an electrolyte imbalance, as well as eating disorders such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa.

How should I be replenishing my electrolytes?

Electrolyte-enhanced marketing has concentrated on the hydration market, but you get your electrolytes through the food you eat as well as through the beverages you drink. However, unless you’re exercising intensely for more than an hour and sweating a lot, you can skip the pricey electrolyte elixirs and focus on replenishing them through food instead (many popular sports drinks contain too much sugar anyways). Bananas are a good option for replenishing potassium; milk or yogurt restores calcium; and salty foods or table salt replace lost sodium (just don’t overdo it, as the typical American diet already contains a lot of sodium). In regards to restoring a couple other important electrolytes through food, magnesium can be found in nuts and dark leafy green vegetables such as spinach, while chloride is found in produce such as tomatoes, lettuce, and celery. And as for that electrolyte-laced wine spritzer, while alcohol does deplete your electrolytes, after a night of drinking you don’t just need a quick electrolyte boost — you need to drink a lot of water, since alcohol interferes with fluid absorption and seriously dehydrates you. So if you were looking for a magic potion that would let you drink a lot of alcohol without any side effects, this probably isn’t it.

Who should be most concerned about electrolyte imbalances?

Athletes or extreme fitness enthusiasts who lose a lot of sweat in a short amount of time may experience temporary electrolyte imbalances, often in the form of muscle cramps. This is because you lose a lot of sodium (an important electrolyte) through sweat, which is incidentally why sweat tastes so salty. Elderly people are also at risk for electrolyte imbalances since the kidneys’ function tends to deteriorate with age. Illness, particular medications, and declining cognitive abilities can all contribute to the creation of electrolyte imbalances in the elderly. Cancer patients, particularly those undergoing chemotherapy, can also experience electrolyte imbalances due to a variety of factors, including loss of bodily fluids and malabsorption. This article originally appeared as on Spry Living

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Top 10 Companies Against GMO Labeling to Boycott







It Doesn't Take Much Sugar to Wreak Havoc on Your Body



  Food  


At least a can of soda per day is safe, right? Nope, much much less, according to the World Health Organization. 

 


Nicolette Hahn Niman, author of Righteous Porkchop, coined a new catchphrase that ought to go viral: “Sugar is NOT just an empty calorie.”

Her statement contradicts the notion we’ve had for years that the worst thing about sugar is its lack of nutrients. Either you’re eating sugar in addition to all of the calories you need to stay healthy, or you’re eating it instead of them. In the former case, you’re getting too many calories; in the latter, you’re getting too few nutrients. This idea is so dominant it was recently cited in an anti-sugar op-ed in the Guardian.

Even if that was the case, we’re eating too much sugar. Or, more specifically, too much added sugar. Sugars that are naturally present in whole foods like fruit are okay; it’s the sugar added to whole foods that we must worry about. Previously, the World Health Organization said we should limit consumption of added sugars to 10 percent of calories. Even then, more than seven in 10 Americans ate too much sugar. On average, about 15 percent of our calories came from added sugars.

But now WHO is considering cutting its recommendation in half. That means limiting sugar consumption to five teaspoons, the amount found in half a can of soda. The American Heart Association has long recommended that women limit added sugars to six teaspoons and men stick with nine or less. (For those looking for a loophole, this means all added sugars, including so-called healthier sweeteners like maple syrup, agave, honey, or even fruit juice.)

Niman was examining the health impacts of sugar at the same time as WHO. In researching and writing her latest book, she dug into studies that found evidence sugar does more than just lack nutrients. “The sugar is going to actually damage your body. It’s not just that you’re not going to get the nutrients,” she said.

The link between sugar and disease is not a new one. Decades ago, nutrition professor John Yudkin wrote a book called Pure, White, and Deadly in which he posited that sugar was the culprit behind heart disease and type 2 diabetes. The food industry fought back. This was the era of lowfat, not low sugar. (In his book, Yudkin even quotes a sugar industry advertisement claiming that sugar makes you thin. Go figure that out.)

The general term "sugar" can mean any number of things. Table sugar, or sucrose, is composed of a glucose molecule bonded to a fructose molecule. Glucose is what plants make during photosynthesis and it’s half as sweet as table sugar. Fructose, naturally found in honey and many fruits, is 70 percent sweeter than table sugar.

On your tongue, you taste a difference in sweetness between glucose and fructose. Once in your body, the difference continues. Glucose is metabolized by every cell in your body. After you eat, your blood glucose levels rise, and your body releases insulin. The insulin helps your muscles, fat and liver absorb the glucose, decreasing your blood sugar. Levels of another hormone, leptin, also rise. Leptin regulates your appetite; once you’ve eaten and your body has plenty of fuel to keep going, leptin tells you to stop. Another hormone, ghrelin, decreases. Ghrelin stimulates your appetite, and after you’ve eaten, it’s already done its job.

Fructose, on the other hand, is only metabolized by your liver. The title of a 2004 study says it all: “Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases triglycerides in women.” In other words, after you eat fructose, your body never gets the message, “You’ve eaten enough, now stop.” As for those increased triglycerides, well… another word for triglyceride is “fat.”

In scientist-speak, “Compared with glucose, the hepatic metabolism of fructose favors lipogenesis, which may contribute to hyperlipidemia and obesity.” Translated, that says when fructose is metabolized in your liver, it is often converted to fat.

These facts about fructose are often cited in arguments against high-fructose corn syrup, but remember that sucrose, honey and even apple juice contain lots of fructose too.

One consequence of overdoing it on sweets is called “metabolic syndrome.” That’s a medical term for a number of risk factors for heart disease, diabetes and stroke: a large waistline, bad cholesterol, high blood pressure, and high fasting blood sugar. In fact, fructose and sucrose are such reliable causes of metabolic syndrome that scientific papers often use the terms “fructose-induced metabolic syndrome” or “sucrose-induced metabolic syndrome.”

Some scientists add other evils to the list, including kidney disease and stroke. A 2010 study found that “Fructose feeding has now been shown to alter gene expression patterns… alter satiety factors in the brain, increase inflammation… and induce leptin resistance.”

If that sounds so bad that you decide to switch your sweetener to pure glucose (sold under the name corn syrup, and not the high-fructose variety), keep in mind that an influx of glucose into your body spikes your blood sugar, followed by a crash. This is especially true when the sugar comes in liquid form. Your body also breaks down complex carbohydrates like whole grains into glucose, but then the glucose is released more slowly into your bloodstream. In 2013, scientists found that lower blood sugar may even improve memory.

All in all, one report estimates “30%-40% of healthcare expenditures in the USA go to help address issues that are closely tied to the excess consumption of sugar.”

The sad truth is that there’s no free lunch. Even when you eat “sugar-free” cake sweetened with honey or fruit juice, it’s all sugar to your body. (However, raw unprocessed honey provides some health benefits, whereas refined sugars do not.) For an experiment, go a day with only six teaspoons of sugar (25g) if you’re a woman, or nine teaspoons (38g) if you’re a man. Don’t forget to check foods you wouldn’t expect for hidden sugars, like bread, salad dressing, pasta sauce, and ketchup. Suddenly, the amount of sugar we eat in our normal diets becomes staggering.

Longer term, if a complete sugar makeover sounds unimaginable to you, start by cutting out sugary drinks, including fruit juice. You might want to skip the diet sodas too, since research shows they can be even worse than the “real thing.”
If your heart is palpitating with dread at the very thought of giving up sugar, you’ve arrived at one of the reasons why we eat so darn much of it. Some say it’s addictive, and a 2007 study found it gives your brain a reward even greater than that of cocaine.

In his book The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite, former FDA commissioner David Kessler examined what drives wanting in food. “Liking is pleasure but wanting is an urge to it," he explains. “I need it, I need it to make me feel better. We looked in animals to see what was the most reinforcing. Was it the sweetness? Was it the fat? Was it the flavor? We found that sweetness drives wanting more than anything else. It drives—if you look at animals or people—how much effort they'll expend for it. How hard they will work for it.”

You’ve heard the old adage, “A moment on your lips, a lifetime on your hips.” The pleasure gained from food is so fleeting. If I eat a cookie now, I will experience a few moments of pleasure, and then no more. I can extend that pleasure briefly by eating a second cookie. And then it’s gone. To keep feeling that pleasure, I would have to keep eating cookies—at least until I feel sick from eating too many. Yet many of us are more than willing to continue jamming cookies down our throats even if we want to be healthy and we know that cookies are not health food, for the ephemeral bliss they provide.

“We know that sweetness can increase the pleasure centers of the brain, the opioid centers,” Kessler continues. “We know it can serve as a mild pain relief… I'm eating something that is sweet—it can change how I feel. So it's salient. It is powerful. It's directly hard-wired from our sensory receptors in our mouth to our brain. You don't even have to go through the bloodstream. It's a very powerful molecule because it's directly wired to our brain. And it can drive want.”

He adds that, “Sweetness isn't the only driver of wanting. Add fat to that, it becomes more powerful. Add color, add texture, add temperature, add mouthfeel. Kids’ candies are just very simple, but as you get older you want more levels of stimulation. But at the core of most foods that are hard to resist there is sweetness. Now a lot of that has to do with past learning and past memory. It's not always sweetness, depending on your past learning—but there's no doubt that sweetness is driving.”

Kessler goes into even greater detail in his book. He looks at the impact of priming, when a single taste of a food triggers what he calls “conditioned hypereating.” He points out how the food industry taunts us, “Bet you can’t eat just one.” Sadly, that is probably true. Even if you’re not particularly hungry, after a friend convinces you to have “just a taste” of ice cream, you’re more likely to order an entire cone. Why do you think Whole Foods is so generous at giving you free samples of its cakes and gelato?

Kessler, and later Michael Moss (in his book Salt Sugar Fat) examine how the food industry capitalizes on our hardwired drive for sugar (and salt and fat). Moss details food manufacturers’ efforts to improve their products nutritionally without sacrificing flavor (or sales) or increasing price. Sometimes, a healthier but higher priced substitute, like an herb, could compensate for salt, sugar and fat. More often, when the manufacturers reduce one of those three elements, they compensate by boosting one or both of the other two.

In response to her research, Nicolette Hahn Niman almost entirely gave up sugar. She limits herself to a few squares of dark chocolate each day, and she reports that she’s kicked her sugar habit, and the cravings that would make her fall back to it.

Eschewing sugar is not impossible, particularly after the initial cravings go away, but it can be difficult in our society unless you cook all of your own food. Even then, it can come off as socially gauche when you’re dining with friends or co-workers and you’re the only one who isn’t gushing over the triple chocolate mousse cake someone brought to the party.

That said, there are other flavors out there, including salty, bitter, spicy, sour, and umami. Perhaps we Americans would do well to explore them.


Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She is the author of "Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It."

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Are Telomeres The Key To Aging And Cancer?


LEARN GENETICS

Are Telomeres The Key To Aging And Cancer?

Fluoresence-stained chromosomes Fluorescence-stained chromosomes (red) on a microscope slide. Telomeres (yellow) sit at the ends of each chromosome. Photo courtesy of Dr. Robert Moyzis, UC Irvine, US Human Genome Program




Inside the nucleus of a cell, our genes are arranged along twisted, double-stranded molecules of DNA called chromosomes. At the ends of the chromosomes are stretches of DNA called telomeres, which protect our genetic data, make it possible for cells to divide, and hold some secrets to how we age and get cancer.

Telomeres have been compared with the plastic tips on shoelaces, because they keep chromosome ends from fraying and sticking to each other, which would destroy or scramble an organism's genetic information.

Yet, each time a cell divides, the telomeres get shorter. When they get too short, the cell can no longer divide; it becomes inactive or "senescent" or it dies. This shortening process is associated with aging, cancer, and a higher risk of death. So telomeres also have been compared with a bomb fuse.





What are telomeres?


Like the rest of a chromosome, including its genes, telomeres are sequences of DNA — chains of chemical code. Like all DNA, they are made of four nucleic acid bases: G for guanine, A for adenine, T for thymine, and C for cytosine.
Telomeres are made of repeating sequences of TTAGGG on one strand paired with AATCCC on the other strand. Thus, one section of telomere is a "repeat" made of six "base pairs."

In white blood cells, the length of telomeres ranges from 8,000 base pairs in newborns to 3,000 base pairs in adults and as low as 1,500 in elderly people. (An entire chromosome has about 150 million base pairs.) Each time it divides, an average cell loses 30 to 200 base pairs from the ends of its telomeres.

Cells normally can divide only about 50 to 70 times, with telomeres getting progressively shorter until the cells become senescent or die.

Telomeres do not shorten in tissues where cells do not continually divide, such as heart muscle.




What are Telomeres




Why do chromosomes have telomeres?

Without telomeres, the main part of the chromosome — the part with genes essential for life — would get shorter each time a cell divides. So telomeres allow cells to divide without losing genes. Cell division is necessary for growing new skin, blood, bone, and other cells.

Without telomeres, chromosome ends could fuse together and corrupt the cell's genetic blueprint, possibly causing malfunction, cancer, or cell death. Because broken DNA is dangerous, a cell has the ability to sense and repair chromosome damage. Without telomeres, the ends of chromosomes would look like broken DNA, and the cell would try to fix something that wasn't broken. That also would make them stop dividing and eventually die.
Broken DNA





Why do telomeres get shorter each time a cell divides?

Before a cell can divide, it makes copies of its chromosomes so that both new cells will have identical genetic material. To be copied, a chromosome's two DNA strands must unwind and separate. An enzyme (DNA polymerase) then reads the existing strands to build two new strands. It begins the process with the help of short pieces of RNA. When each new matching strand is complete, it is a bit shorter than the original strand because of the room needed at the end for this small piece of RNA. It is like someone who paints himself into a corner and cannot paint the corner.




Telomerase counteracts telomere shortening

An enzyme named telomerase adds bases to the ends of telomeres. In young cells, telomerase keeps telomeres from wearing down too much. But as cells divide repeatedly, there is not enough telomerase, so the telomeres grow shorter and the cells age.

Telomerase remains active in sperm and eggs, which are passed from one generation to the next. If reproductive cells did not have telomerase to maintain the length of their telomeres, any organism with such cells would soon go extinct.




Telomeres and cancer

As a cell begins to become cancerous, it divides more often, and its telomeres become very short. If its telomeres get too short, the cell may die. Often times, these cells escape death by making more telomerase enzyme, which prevents the telomeres from getting even shorter.

Many cancers have shortened telomeres, including pancreatic, bone, prostate, bladder, lung, kidney, and head and neck.

Measuring telomerase may be a way to detect cancer. And if scientists can learn how to stop telomerase, they might be able to fight cancer by making cancer cells age and die. In one experiment, researchers blocked telomerase activity in human breast and prostate cancer cells growing in the laboratory, prompting the tumor cells to die. But there are risks. Blocking telomerase could impair fertility, wound healing, and production of blood cells and immune system cells.





Telomeres and aging

Geneticist Richard Cawthon and colleagues at the University of Utah found shorter telomeres are associated with shorter lives. Among people older than 60, those with shorter telomeres were three times more likely to die from heart disease and eight times more likely to die from infectious disease.
While telomere shortening has been linked to the aging process, it is not yet known whether shorter telomeres are just a sign of aging — like gray hair — or actually contribute to aging.

If telomerase makes cancer cells immortal, could it prevent normal cells from aging? Could we extend lifespan by preserving or restoring the length of telomeres with telomerase? If so, would that increase our risk of getting cancer?
Scientists are not yet sure. But they have been able to use telomerase in the lab to keep human cells dividing far beyond their normal limit, and the cells do not become cancerous.

If we used telomerase to "immortalize" human cells, we may be able to mass produce cells for transplantation, including insulin-producing cells to cure diabetes, muscle cells for treating muscular dystrophy, cartilage cells for certain kinds of arthritis, and skin cells for healing severe burns and wounds. An unlimited supply of normal human cells grown in the laboratory would also help efforts to test new drugs and gene therapies.




How big is the role of telomeres in aging?

Some long-lived species like humans have telomeres that are much shorter than species like mice, which live only a few years. Nobody knows why. But it's evidence that telomeres alone do not dictate lifespan.

Cawthon's study found that when people are divided into two groups based on telomere length, the half with longer telomeres lives an average of five years longer than those with shorter telomeres. This study suggests that lifespan could be increased five years by increasing the length of telomeres in people with shorter ones.

People with longer telomeres still experience telomere shortening as they age. How many years might be added to our lifespan by completely stopping telomere shortening? Cawthon believes 10 years and perhaps 30 years.

After age 60, the risk of death doubles every 8 years. So a 68-year-old has twice the chance of dying within a year compared with a 60-year-old. Cawthon's study found that differences in telomere length accounted for only 4% of that difference. And while intuition tells us older people have a higher risk of death, only 6% is due purely to chronological age. When telomere length, chronological age, and gender are combined (women live longer than men), those factors account for 37% of the variation in the risk of dying over age 60. So what causes the other 63%?

A major cause of aging is "oxidative stress." It is the damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids (fats) caused by oxidants, which are highly reactive substances containing oxygen. These oxidants are produced normally when we breathe, and also result from inflammation, infection, and consumption of alcohol and cigarettes. In one study, scientists exposed worms to two substances that neutralize oxidants, and the worms' lifespan increased an average 44%.

Another factor in aging is "glycation." It happens when glucose, the main sugar we use as energy, binds to some of our DNA, proteins, and lipids, leaving them unable to do their jobs. The problem becomes worse as we get older, causing body tissues to malfunction, resulting in disease and death. Glycation may explain why studies in laboratory animals indicate that restricting calorie intake extends lifespan.

Most likely oxidative stress, glycation, telomere shortening, and chronological age — along with various genes — all work together to cause aging.



Telomeres and other diseases

People with a disease named dyskeratosis congenita have telomeres that get short much more quickly than normal. These people endure premature aging and death. They face a higher risk of life-threatening infections, leukemia and other blood cancers, intestinal disorders, cirrhosis of the liver, and pulmonary fibrosis, a deadly stiffening of lung tissue. They also are more likely to endure gray hair, balding, poor wound healing, spots on the skin, intestinal disorders, softening of the bones, and learning disabilities. The implication is that telomeres may play a role in all those conditions, because they all involve tissues in which cells divide often. There also is some evidence linking shortened telomeres to Alzheimer disease, hardening of the arteries, high blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes.




What are the prospects for human immortality?

Human lifespan has increased considerably since the 1600s, when the average lifespan was 30 years. By 2012, the average US life expectancy was nearly 79. Reasons for the increase include sewers and other sanitation measures, antibiotics, clean water, refrigeration, vaccines and other medical efforts to prevent children and babies from dying, improved diets, and better health care.
Some scientists predict average life expectancy will continue to increase, although many doubt the average will ever be much higher than 90. But a few say vastly longer lifespans are possible.

Cawthon says that if all processes of aging could be eliminated and oxidative stress damage could be repaired, "one estimate is people could live 1,000 years."