Showing posts with label Cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cancer. Show all posts

Friday, December 20, 2013

Cell Phone Use Linked to Lower Grades, Anxiety, and Much Worse...

mobile phone mast
mobile phone mast (Photo credit: osde8info)
Mounting research raises tremendously important questions about the long-term safety of saturating ourselves in electromagnetic frequencies. As a result, at least a dozen countries around the world have begun to adopt a precautionary approach toward cell phone use and other wireless technologies.
For example, two years ago, a Council of Europe committee concluded that “immediate action was required to protect children” after examining the evidence.1Russian officials have issued the recommendation that all children under the age of 18 should avoid using cell phones entirely. And the UK, Israel, Germany, India and Finland also urge citizens to err on the side of caution with respect to their children’s use of cell phones.
Most recently, Belgium adopted new cell phone regulations2 prohibiting the sale of mobile phones designed for, and marketed to children under the age of seven.3The regulations take effect in March 2014. Retailers and internet marketers will also be required to disclose the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the phones they sell, and must display posters with recommendations for safer cell phone use.
Qualifying the new regulations, officials said, “But it is not the intention to use it for hours at a time: the way in which you use your mobile phone also determines your exposure.”
Such measures, while not going far enough to ensure safety, are at least a step in the right direction. I firmly believe the health ramifications of our modern technologies need to be properly assessed before coming to market—and addressed, the sooner the better. Pre-market testing and post-market surveillance should be the norm for any technology with biological consequences.

With Whom Does Responsibility of Safety Reside?

Alas, in the US, both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) have chosen to ignore the evidence of health risks associated with cell phones. As noted by the Environmental Working Group in a recent guide4 to safer cell phone usage:
“The FCC adopted radiation standards developed by the cell phone industry 17 years ago. These standards, still in use, allow 20 times more radiation to reach the head than the rest of the body. They do not account for risks to children.”
Camilla Rees, MBA of ElectromagneticHealth.org says clarification is also needed about where exactly responsibility and accountability reside on this subject between the FCC and FDA:
“If the FCC says it relies on the safety expertise of the FDA, and states it considered opinions from the FDA in setting its safety guidelines, but the FDA officially does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and PDAs before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices, then where is the responsibility for assuring safety actually domiciled?”
She asks, in a long piece on this subject:
"On what basis does the FCC, a communications commission charged with regulating interstate and international communications, not a health agency, have authority to ascertain safety and establish safety guidelines, such as the SAR limit for cell phones, in the first place? On what basis has the FCC assumed this responsibility?"

No Regulatory Agency Currently Looks at Biological Effects...

If the SAR value is a measure of the power or heating effects from a phone, and is a physics measure unrelated to biology, what regulatory agency is looking at thebiological effects? This would include biological effects from all forms of radiation being emitted by a cell phone, including
  1. The heating effects (that the SAR attempts to reflect)
  2. Non-heating effects from the frequencies and modulation, and
  3. Low frequency (ELF) fields emitted by the devices.
Has responsibility and accountability on this issue conveniently fallen through the cracks? Parallels can and have been drawn between the tobacco industry’s longstanding efforts to hide the truth about the health effects of smoking, and the wireless industry’s denial’s of harm without evidence of safety—and despite a plethora of scientific evidence of harm!

Frequent Cell Phone Use Promotes Anxiety and Poor Academic Performance

In one recent study, researchers from the College of Education, Health and Human Services at Kent State University in Ohio reported that frequent cell phone use appears to be associated with reduced academic performance, anxiety and unhappiness in college students. As reported by Medical News Today:5
“Not decrying the usefulness of the smartphone to today's college students, which allows them to stay in touch with family and friends and easily browse the Internet, the researchers suggest there is merit in considering what potential harms they may pose.”
The study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior6 surveyed more than 500 college students to assess their cell phone usage and then compared it to their grades and clinical anxiety- and life-satisfaction testsCell phone usage levels were linked to both GPA scores and anxiety levels in a “dose” dependent manner. The higher a student’s cell phone use, the lower their grades and the higher their reported anxiety level.
While it could be argued that perhaps people who are more anxious tend to spend more time on their smartphones, or that fiddling around on your phone too much will have a more or less obvious adverse effect on your academic performance, the authors urge students to consider the impact their cell phone use may be having on their grades, mental health and well-being.
This includes negative effects on activity levels. Earlier this year, researchers from the same University found that higher cell phone use was linked with reduced physical activity and fitness.7 Apparently, portability does not mean that people actually use them while staying active... According to the authors, “their findings suggest that cell phone use may be able to gauge a person's risk for a multitude of health issues related to an inactive lifestyle.”

Can Cell Phones Cause Cancer?

This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.
While still lagging behind many other countries, local authorities around the US are starting to pay more attention to these issues. For example, in November, 2012 the city of Pembroke Pines, Florida passed a resolution to warn its residents about the potential risk of cancer related to cell phone radiation. As reported by WCSH68 at the time:
“The resolution, believed to be the first of its kind in the state, encourages residents to keep their cellphones at least one-inch away from their bodies, use a headset or speakerphone and send messages by text or email... The resolution was passed after resident Jimmy Gonzalez told the commission about his brush with cancer, which he believes was caused by his cell phone.
Gonzalez had a cancerous tumor above his left ear removed in August 2011, a year after he'd had another tumor removed from his left hand. Gonzalez, an attorney who used to use his cellphone for several hours a day, is now cancer-free. "Do I have 100 percent scientific study that can say well this is what caused it?" Gonzalez said. "No, but I can't think of anything that would explain this otherwise.”
I believe such concerns are valid. While the reporter of that story did not mention any of the evidence supporting Gonzalez’ suspicion, mounting research indeed suggests there is such a link. For example, a review of 11 long-term epidemiologic studies published in the journal Surgical Neurology9 by leading international brain surgeons and scientists revealed that using a cell phone for 10 years or longer approximately doubles your risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same side of the head where the cell phone is typically held.
Professor Mild, lead researcher of that particular study, cautioned that the danger may be even greater than what they found because cancers need a minimum of 10 years to develop.  Children and teens are at greatest risk, as their thinner skulls allow more radiation to penetrate into their brains.10 Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust, says,
“There are many studies which have significant risks brain cancer, acoustic neuroma, parotid gland cancer, and leukemia from wireless (cell and cordless) phone use. In totality, there is strong evidence for each of these tumors. I am convinced that this will lead to a pandemic of wireless phone induced tumors. While there is a decades long average latency time (30-40 years for brain cancer), we have already seen a doubled risk of glioblastoma in Australia, Denmark, and the United States in the previous 10 years.
“Assuming that long-time use of wireless devices affects 10% of the users with one of more of these cancers (similar to long-term smokers and lung cancer). It would mean, at minimum, 10% of such users will be diagnosed with one or moreof these tumors. Thus, possibly 30% of such users would have at least one of these 4 cancers.
“Should this occur it would create a calamity like the world has not seen since the black plagues of the 13th century. Maybe it will only be 5% or even 1%. No matter the assumption, the result will have profound ramifications for our society.”
At the ElectromagneticHealth.org program on “Cell Phones & WiFi: Are Children, Fetuses and Fertility at Risk” in June, leading NY State public health physician, Dr. David Carpenter, MD, said, “The strongest evidence for EMF effects are the science showing the connection between cell phone use and brain cancer. Brain cancer rates are double for people who’ve been using cell phones for 10 years or more, appearing on the side of the head where they hold their phones, and risks are 5x greater for children using cell phones under the age of 20 compared to those over the age of 50.”

Radiofrequency Fields Currently Classified as “Possibly Carcinogenic”

More importantly—and I cannot fathom how WCSH6 (Who is this?) missed this one—the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Class 2B) in May of 2011.11 The classification—which also covers lead and chloroform—came in part in response to research showing wireless telephones increase the risk for brain cancer. According to the press release:12
“Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the longterm, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as handsfree devices or texting. "
Since then, additional research has further strengthened the link between cancer and radiofrequency (RF) fields. According to Dr. Anthony Miller, who was on the IARC committee, the accumulated evidence is now strong enough to suggest RF fields really should be classified as a 2A or “probable carcinogen.”
A study published in September 2013, “Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumors diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use” by Hardell et al also confirmed previously reported results showing an association between cell phones and malignant brain tumors, suggesting RFs from cell phones may play a role in both the initiation and promotion of cancer.
And another study by Hardell et al, published in December 2013, used the Bradford Hill criteria for establishing causality in long-term users of cell phones, showed that the evidence available suggests that RF-EMF exposure from mobile (and cordless) phones should be regarded as an IARC class 1 human carcinogen. Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch (U.K.) says, “The criteria on strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, and biologic gradient for evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma were fulfilled.”
To learn more, I highly recommend listening to the excellent Media Teleclass on Cellphones and Brain Tumors moderated by Camilla Rees, MBA of www.ElectromagneticHealth.org. Listen for yourself to experts who are independent of the telecom industry and close to the science. The teleclass features Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, David Carpenter, MD, Lloyd Morgan, BS and Joel Moskowitz, PhD.

Other Health Hazards Linked to Cell Phone Use

Experts in the area of the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and wireless technologies believe there’s virtually no doubt that cell phones and related gadgets are capable of causing not only cancer but contributing to a wide variety of other conditions, from depression and diabetes to heart irregularities and impaired fertility.  For example, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health13 (ANSES) recently published an expert appraisal and risk assessment of radiofrequencies, linking cell phone use to:
  • Sleep disturbances
  • Male infertility
  • Cognitive problems
  • Brain Tumors
In their 2-year review of the RF science (10/15/13), where they warn the public to reduce exposure to mobile phone radiation, they say:
“…Against a background of rapid development of technologies and practices, ANSES recommends limiting the population's exposure to radiofrequencies – in particular from mobile phones - especially for children and intensive users, and controlling the overall exposure that results from mobile phone masts."
Regarding wireless devices, ANSES says:
  • For intensive adult mobile phone users (in talk mode): use of hands-free kits and more generally, for all users, favoring the purchase of phones with the lowest SAR values
  • That all common devices emitting electromagnetic fields intended for use near the body (DECT telephones, tablet computers, baby monitors, etc.) display the maximum level of exposure generated (SAR, for example), as is already the case for mobile phones.
Regarding ambient fields, ANSES has recommended:
Ambient RF:
  • Reducing the exposure of children by encouraging only moderate use of mobile phones
  • Continuing to improve characterisation of population exposure in outdoor and indoor environments through the use of measurement campaigns
  • New mobile phone network infrastructures be subject to prior studies concerning the characterisation of exposures
  • Study of consequences of multiplying the number of relay antennas in order to reduce levels of environmental exposure
  • Documenting existing installations causing the highest exposure to the public and investigating how these exposures can be reduced by technical means
One 2008 study 14 linked cell phone use to an 80 percent increased risk of emotional problems and hyperactivity in children.  Scientists have also found that microwaves transmitted by cell phones and other wireless devices can:
Harm your blood cellsDamage your eyes
Damage your DNAContribute to salivary gland tumors
Cause nerve cell damage15Cause decreased bone density in the pelvic region
Possibly accelerate and contribute to onset of autismLead to electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Trigger Alzheimer’s diseaseAffect your heart rate and blood pressure

How is all of this possible? In a nutshell, human beings are influenced by all kinds of electromagnetic fields. Energy, frequencies, sounds, and vibrations are all around us, even if you can’t hear them, see them or sense them in any way, and they can have a profound impact on your health. Those found in nature can be profoundly healing. But today, these natural frequencies and rhythms are being drowned out by wholly unnatural wireless transmissions and emissions. Michael Gilbert, a leading New York integrative health practitioner, explains, from a nervous system persective, why the energy from wireless devices is harmful, how we can actively work with our nervous systems to modulate this unnatural energy, and why cultivating variability in our lives is essential in a wireless age:
This video may not be available in all countries.

The Spectrum of Frequencies that Surround You

Dr. Martin Blank, PhD—an experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields at Columbia University—gave an informative speech in which he explains how electromagnetic fields affect your DNA. His explanation sheds light on the truly profound implications of our current situation. When looking at a spectrum chart of frequencies, you’ll find that cell phones operate in the middle of the spectrum, in the microwave section of the Radiofrequency range. Below it are radio frequencies from radio and tv, and at the bottom of the spectrum you have Extremely Low Frequencies known as ELF, which include fields from electrical wiring and household appliances, for example. All of these frequencies are within the non-ionizingradiation range.
Above that, you enter the ionizing frequency range, which include infrared, ultraviolet (UV) rays, x-rays, gamma rays and cosmic radiation. Some of these frequencies exist in nature while others are man-made. Larry Gust, President of the Board of the Institute for Building Biology & Ecology, presents an overview of the electromagnetic spectrum and technical aspects of electromagnetic fields here:
Just one of the many reasons why we need to thoroughly investigate the biological repercussions of broadcasting a range of these frequencies is that technologies keep shifting upward, using higher and higher frequencies.The reason for this is because the higher the frequency, the more information you can transmit, but also potentially, in some cases, the more biologically active.
It’s quite clear that ionizing radiation causes significant damage to your body, but scientists are wrong when they claim you cannot get any kind of biological reaction as long as you stay within the non-ionizing range of frequencies as the radiation is not hot enough to heat tissues. The claim has been that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause harm because there’s not enough energy in this range to knock an electron out of an atom.
It’s true that there’s an insufficient amount of energy to dislodge an electron, “but boy, you can get a lot of biological reactions in the non-ionizing range!” Dr. Blank says. To learn more, I highly recommend reviewing my previous article The Hardcore Science of How Cell Phones and Other EMF Damages You.
One of the core issues is use of the SAR, a measure of power, as a measure of safety. The SAR is anything but a measure of safety as there are many other risks besides heating, and even the way one uses the phone can impact the SAR exposure. (See previous Mercola article by Camilla Rees, “Top Safe Cell Phones that Aren’t Safe”! But even the means of measuring the SAR, or heating, are inadequate and misleading, as has been demonstrated by Memorial Sloan-Kettering scientist, David Gultekin, PhD., in a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Gultekin, using NMR or nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, shows effects on brain tissue are not uniform, but instead there are hot spots in the brain tissue where the temperature can increase up to 5o C in about 12 minutes. Importantly, Gultekin says “The volume of the hot spot generated by absorbed cell phone radiation depends on the antenna power level and the irradiation time”. Thus, the very basis for determining SAR levels are ‘safe’, from the thermal perspective, may not, as it turns out, be safe at all. This research was conducted on animal brain tissue. Human in vivo studies are expected to prove the inadequacy of current means of measuring SAR for assessing thermal effects and safety.
Please remember, also, that there are very important new risks from ‘wearable wireless’ devices. These include eyewear, like Google Glass, smart watches, wireless pedometers, etc. This category, according to Wall Street analysts, is projected to grow from $2-3 billion today to $50 billion in 2-3 years. Unlike a cell phone against the head, for example, radiation impacting the eye has no skull to even partly shield the wireless radiation, and both the radiation and heating levels can be substantial.
See “Does Wearable Technology on Holiday Shopping List Pose Health Risks?,” with comments from Dr. Gultekin, Hugh Taylor, MD from Yale University, Joel Moskowitz, PhD from University of California, Berkeley and Martin Blank, PhD from Columbia University, all weighing in on wireless and wearable wireless risks.

Steps You Can Take to Protect Yourself and Your Family

In the end, all the evidence points to the fact that our current safety standards are completely inadequate. Our rapidly expanding wireless technologies must be properly evaluated, first of all, the ALARA principle (“As Low As Reasonably Achievable”) should be invoked in development of RF technologies, and the Precautionary Principle must be invoked, protecting the public from exposure to harm, as a matter of social responsibility, when scientific investigation has found possible risks.  While you can’t completely avoid radiation in today’s wireless world, if you’re ready to give up your cell phone, you can virtually eliminate that one hazard, at least. If you’re not prepared to take that step, you can minimize your exposure by heeding the following advice:
  • Children Should Never Use Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones.  See “Children’s Health Expert Panel: Cell Phones & WiFi—Are Children Fetuses and Fertility at Risk?” for an overview of the risks to children. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/21/cell-phone-wifi-radiation.aspx
  • Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.
  • Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
  • Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time, and be on alert for addiction.
  • If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won’t help much). See meters at emfsafetystore.com.16 You can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.
  • Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception. Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag.
  • Don’t Assume One Cell Phone is Safer Than Another.There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone, and rankings by SAR are misleading people into thinking some phones are safe.
  • Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
  • Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and some of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.
  • Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded. The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.
  • Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones, iPads, and other gadgets in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.

 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/12/19/cell-phone-use.aspx
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Sugar Promotes Heart Disease and Cancer

Sugar
Sugar (Photo credit: oskay)
By Dr. Mercola
More than 1,660,290 new cancer cases are projected to be diagnosed in the US this year, and an estimated 580,350 Americans will die from the disease.1Another 600,000 Americans die of heart disease each year.2 At present, heart disease is the leading cause of death among both sexes.
Despite massive technological advances over the past half-century, Western medicine is still at a loss for how to rein in the prevalence of these top two killers.
It’s become increasingly clear that many of the conventional strategies, from diagnosis to treatment, are riddled with flawed assumptions and approaches that, in many cases, do more harm than good.
What’s worse, virtually none of the conventional strategies actually address the root cause of the problem, a flawed diet high in sugars and processed foods.
In fact, conventional dietary recommendations for the prevention of heart diseaseare diametrically opposed to what you actually need for optimal heart health! For over 60 years, saturated fats have been blamed for heart disease, resulting in the promulgation of a dangerous low-fat, high-sugar diet.
In reality, a diet that promotes health is high in healthful fats and very, very low in sugar and non-vegetable carbohydrates... Research coming out of some of America’s most respected institutions now confirms that sugar is a primary dietary factor driving chronic disease development.
Sugar, and fructose in particular, has been implicated as a culprit in the development of both heart disease and cancer, and having this information putsyou in the driver’s seat when it comes to prevention.

How Much Sugar Is in Your Diet?

Ever since I started this Web site back in 1997, I’ve been warning about the dangers of high sugar consumption. It’s important to realize that even if you don’tadd sugar to your foods, hidden sugar, typically in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), is in virtually all processed foods, from yogurts and sauces to breads and sodas.
Many favorite staples are also grain-based, such as bagels, pancakes, and breakfast cereals. All those grains are also quickly turned into sugar in your body, adding to your sugar burden.
Clinical trials have shown that those who consume HFCS tend to develop higher risk factors for cardiovascular disease within as little as two weeks, so if I had to pick out the worst culprit among sugars, it would be fructose.
Other studies indicate that if you limit your sugar, no matter what form you get it in, you effectively decrease your chances of developing cancer—including breast and colon cancers.

Soda Drinkers Have Increased Cancer Risk

According to recent research,3, 4 older women who drink a lot of soda or other sugary beverages may be at significantly increased risk for endometrial cancer—an estrogen-dependent type of cancer that affects the lining of a woman’s uterus.
The study included data for more than 23,000 postmenopausal women who were followed for 14 years.
Women who had the highest intake of sugary beverages had a whopping 78 percent higher risk for endometrial cancer, and the risk appeared to be dose dependent; rising right along with consumption. Study author Maki Inoue-Choi was not surprised by the results, and neither am I.
“Other studies have shown increasing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has paralleled the increase in obesity. Obese women tend to have higher levels of estrogens and insulin than women of normal weight, [and] increased levels of estrogens and insulin are established risk factors for endometrial cancer,” she said.5
Previous research has also shown that dietary fructose can promote cancergrowth in a number of different ways, including:
  • Altered cellular metabolism
  • Increased reactive oxygen species (free radicals)
  • DNA damage
  • Inflammation

Fructose Promotes Cancer Cell Proliferation

Studies have shown that different sugars are metabolized using different metabolic pathways, and this is of MAJOR consequence when it comes to feeding cancer and making it proliferate. Three years ago, researchers published findings showing that fructose is readily used by cancer cells to increase their proliferation.6 Cancer cells did not respond to glucose in the same manner.
In this case, the cancer cells used were pancreatic cancer, which is typically regarded as the most deadly and universally rapid-killing form of cancer. According to the authors:
“Traditionally, glucose and fructose have been considered as interchangeable monosaccharide substrates that are similarly metabolized, and little attention has been given to sugars other than glucose. However, fructose intake has increased dramatically in recent decades and cellular uptake of glucose and fructose uses distinct transporters.
Here, we report that fructose provides an alternative substrate to induce pancreatic cancer cell proliferation. Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different; in comparison with glucose, fructose... is preferentially metabolized via the nonoxidative pentose phosphate pathway to synthesize nucleic acids and increase uric acid production.
These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation. They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth.” [Emphasis mine]
The study confirms the old adage that sugar feeds cancer because they found that tumor cells do thrive on sugar (glucose). However, the cells used fructose for cell division, speeding up the growth and spread of the cancer. This difference is clearly of major consequence, and should be carefully considered by anyone who is currently undergoing cancer treatment or seeking to prevent cancer.

This does not mean you should avoid fruits, the benefits of most fruits outweigh any concerns to fructose.   I would suggest to not juice your fruits and to eat them whole, and also realize we have bred many of these fruits to a very high level of fructose.   Fruits today are many times sweeter than they were historically, and should be consumed in moderation.

The real problem is the high fructose corn syrup that is added to practically every processed food and drink you see.

Remember: Exercise Is Another Potent Ally Against Cancer and Heart Disease

Controlling your blood-glucose and insulin levels—through diet, along with a comprehensive exercise program—can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer recovery program. These factors are also crucial in order to prevent cancer in the first place. Diet and exercise—particularly high intensity interval training—are also the dynamic duo that will help you stave off heart disease.
In fact, a recent meta-analysis that reviewed 305 randomized controlled trials found no statistically detectable differences between exercise and medications for heart disease, including statins and beta blockers. (Previous research has also shown that exercise alone can reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease by a factor of three,7 which isn’t too shabby.) Exercise is in fact so potent, the researchers suggested that drug companies ought to be required to include it for comparison when conducting clinical trials for new drugs. As reported by Bloomberg:8
“The analysis adds to evidence showing the benefit of non-medical approaches to disease through behavior and lifestyle changes... ‘In cases where drug options provide only modest benefit, patients deserve to understand the relative impact that physical activity might have on their condition,’ Naci and Ioannidis said in the published paper. In the meantime, 'exercise interventions should therefore be considered as a viable alternative to, or, alongside, drug therapy.'”
In a nutshell, being a healthy weight and exercising regularly creates a healthy feedback loop that optimizes and helps maintain insulin and leptin receptor sensitivity. And, as I’ve mentioned before, insulin and leptin resistance—primarily driven by excessive consumption of refined sugar and grains along with lack of exercise—are the underlying factors of nearly all chronic disease.

Connecting the Dots: Fructose—Uric Acid—Cancer and Chronic Disease Risk

The theory that sugar feeds cancer was actually born nearly 80 years ago. Shockingly, most conventional cancer programs STILL do not adequately address diet and the need to avoid sugars. The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. Malignant tumors tend to use a process where glucose is used as a fuel by the cancer cells, creating lactic acid as a byproduct.9
The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from cancer cells is then transported to your liver. This conversion of glucose to lactic acid generates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid buildup.10, 11
This is a very inefficient pathway for energy metabolism, which extracts only about five percent of the available energy in your food supply. In simplistic terms, the cancer is "wasting" energy, which leads you to become both tired and undernourished, and as the vicious cycle continues, will lead to the body wasting so many cancer patients experience. Additionally, carbohydrates from glucose and sucrose significantly decrease the capacity of neutrophils to do their job. Neutrophils are a type of white blood cell that helps cells to envelop and destroy invaders, such as cancer.
While all forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer, but in slightly different ways and to a different extent, fructose clearly seems to be one of the overall most harmful. As mentioned above, fructose metabolism leads to increased uric acid production along with cancer cell proliferation.12 Again, ONLY fructose (not glucose) drives up your uric acidlevels.
Now, the connection between fructose, uric acid, and insulin resistance is so clear that your uric acid level can actually be used as a marker for toxicity from fructose. What this means is that if your uric acid levels are high, you’re at increased risk of all the health hazards associated with fructose consumption—including both heart disease and cancer. Subsequently, you’d be well advised to reduce your fructose intake. For more information about this, please see my previous interview with Dr. Richard Johnson, who is an expert on this topic. Two key recommendations however are:
  • Keep your uric acid level below 4 mg/dl for men and 3.5 mg/dl for women, and
  • As a standard recommendation, I strongly advise keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day

Reeling in Your Fructose Consumption May Be the Most Important Lifestyle Change You Can Make

Dr. Johnson has written one of the best books on the market on the health dangers of fructose, called The Sugar Fix, which explains how fructose causes high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and kidney disease. It’s also safe to say that many cancers are also on the list of diseases that are directly linked to excessive fructose consumption. In addition to the studies already mentioned, fructose has also been found to promote metastasis in breast cancer,13 and shows genotoxic effects on the colon in animal research.14
Fructose also promotes a condition called intracranial atherosclerosis15—a narrowing and hardening of the arteries in your skull—and contrary to popular belief, it is the sugar/fructose in your diet that increases your risk for heart disease, NOT saturated animal fats.
At the basic dietary level, the prevention strategies for heart disease and cancer are identical. First and foremost, you need to address your insulin and leptin resistance, which is the result of eating a diet too high in sugars and grains—again, not fat, with the exception of trans fats from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which have been linked to increased heart disease risk, even in small amounts. To safely and effectively reverse insulin and leptin resistance, you need to:
  • Avoid sugar, processed fructose, grains if you are insulin and leptin resistant, and processed foods
  • Eat a healthful diet of whole foods, ideally organic, and replace the grain carbs with:
    • Large amounts of vegetables
    • Low-to-moderate amount of high-quality protein (think organically raised, pastured animals)
    • As much high-quality healthful fat as you want (saturated and monosaturated from animal and tropical oil sources). Most people actually need upwards of 50-85 percent fats in their diet for optimal health—a far cry from the 10 percent currently recommended.

Restricting Fructose Consumption Is Crucial Part of a Healthy Lifestyle

Whether we’re talking about heart disease or cancer, reducing (or preferably eliminating) fructose and other added sugars, as well as limiting grain carbohydrates from your diet is a primary strategy on my list if you have insulin and leptin resistance. This dietary modification should also be part of your comprehensive treatment plan if you’ve been diagnosed with either cancer or heart disease.
Understand that excessive fructose consumption leads to insulin resistance, and insulin resistance appears to be the root of many if not most chronic disease, including heart disease and cancer. So far, scientific studies have linked excessive fructose consumption to about 78 different diseases and health problems.16
By severely reducing your intake of fructose and carbs in your diet, you help stave off any potential cancer growth, and “starve” any tumors you currently have. It also bolsters your overall immune function, because sugar decreases the function of your immune system almost immediately.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, December 1, 2013

The Hippocrates Health Institute Demonstrates How Food Can Be Used as Medicine

Considered a father of Western medicine, Hippo...
Considered a father of Western medicine, Hippocrates advocated the healing effects of food. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Hippocrates Health Institute, situated in southern Florida, is one of the world's oldest complementary health centers. Dr. Brian Clement got started with the organization in 1975, and assumed directorship in 1980.
He’s also the author of a three-volume series of academic books called, Food Is Medicine: The Scientific Evidence, reflecting on the work done at the Institute over the past six decades, combined with the empirical evidence coming out of research institutions such as Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, and Stanford.
Dr. Clement is the medical director of the Hippocrates Health Institute. They offer residential programs lasting anywhere from one to three weeks, sometimes even longer. This allows you to learn, absorb, and help implement a new set of lifestyle strategies at a deep and lasting level.
The Institute was founded by a woman named Anne Wigmore who, in 1952, was diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. Her doctors told her she had about three months left to live.
“Well, thank goodness for her history,” Dr. Clement says. “In Europe, her grandmother was a village doctor. She saw her grandma, a natural doctor who used herbs and plants. She adopted that, healed herself, and reversed her cancer.”
Upon her return to Boston, Massachusetts, Wigmore decided to share her experience and help others who were suffering debilitating and lethal diseases. And so the Hippocrates Health Institute was born in Boston in 1956.
Today, six decades in business, the Institute is at the cutting edge in terms of using food and other lifestyle strategies as medicine. When Dr. Clement first joined the staff, he was sent off to Europe.
“I spent three years there, bringing back the message of plant-based raw food diets and ran the original living food center called Humlegaarden – which was started more than 100 years ago in Denmark by Dr. Kristine Nolfi, who had reversed breast cancer with raw food... I came back in 1980 and assumed the directorship,” he says.

What You Can Learn at the Hippocrates Health Institute

Presently, about half of the Institute’s patients are interested in disease prevention. The other half are quite ill. People come from all over the world to learn how to improve and regain their health at this spa-style health retreat. As I said earlier, I had a chance to personally visit the Institute for a week, and it was truly a wonderful experience.
One of the things I was particularly impressed with is the focus on raw foods, specifically sprouts.
I usually eat six to eight ounces of sunflower seed sprouts a day. Four truly powerful nutritional approaches taught at the institute are:
  • Intermittent fasting and shifting from burning carbs to burning fat as your primary fuel
  • Eating live, raw foods, including lots of sprouts
  • Avoiding sugars, refined foods, and processed foods. They also advise avoiding all fruit juices and minimizing fruit initially
  • Shifting from poor quality protein to high-quality protein
With respects to the latter, Dr. Clement explains:
“... [E]ach and every one of those four aspects are clinically researched here, and we’ve established concrete empirical evidence on how they work, biochemically, in your body, [and] high-protein diets are major culprits.
What we have seen recently, after 60 years and working with hundreds of thousands of people, is that when we reduce the amount of protein... and minimize the breakdown effect or digestion effect that your body requires to take this very dense nutrition and split it to amino acids, there’s health balance.
Our colleagues in Europe have added another dimension... glycation [and]advanced glycation end products (AGEs). In Germany, they showed us that proteins, when bonding with sugars, actually created another structure.
This structure is such an oddity, an enigma to the human biochemistry, that the immune system doesn’t know what to do with it. It runs rampant, actually causing cell death, producing free radicals.
When we bond high-protein diets, certainly high-animal protein diets (although this could happen in high-soybean diets) and sugars (not only white sugar and red beet but agave syrup and way too many soy proteins), you end up killing cells and creating free radicals. That’s what glycation and AGE’s does.”

Sprouts—Powerhouses of Nutrition

In 1992, Johns Hopkins researched natural ways to squelch cancer. A diet high in cruciferous vegetables was identified as a factor that lowered the incidence. Additional research identified broccoli as having some of the most potent anti-cancer activity. Since then, when they finally looked into sprouted broccoli seeds, researchers discovered that the phytochemical in the sprouts killed cancer dozensof times more effectively than mature broccoli!
The reason why they teach that sprouts are a core food at the Institute is because sprouts, depending on the variety, are anywhere from 10 to 30 times more nutritious than the best organic vegetables you can grow in the best organic soil in your yard.
Sunflower seed and pea sprouts tend to top the list, in terms of their nutritional profile, each being typically about 30 times more nutritious than organic vegetables. While you can sprout a variety of different beans, nuts, seeds and grains, sprouts in general have the following beneficial attributes:
  • Support for cell regeneration
  • Powerful sources of antioxidants, minerals, vitamins and enzymes that protect against free radical damage
  • Alkalinizing effect on your body, which is thought to protect against disease, including cancer (as many tumors are acidic)
  • Abundantly rich in oxygen, which can also help protect against abnormal cell growth, viruses and bacteria that cannot survive in an oxygen-rich environment
Phytonutrients, found in raw foods such as sprouts, are key for reversing disease with food. This is such a common-sense approach to health, yet the vision of so many people has been clouded by modern day living.
“I’ll never forget Ann Wigmore... This woman was purely heart and instinct. That’s why she was correct almost always,” Dr. Clement says. “I was frustrating her because I was young and insecure and was, in a way, challenging her [to explain]: “How does this reverse disease?”
She got frustrated one day and took a little organic sunflower seed, and said, “Don’t you realize if we put this to the ground, in seven weeks, it will be 12 to 15 feet-tall with thousands of seeds on it? That sunflower plant is going to be facing the east in the morning and facing the west at night. Now, don’t you think the power of the sunflower is that you’re taking hundreds and thousands of these, by eating them, and that juicing them is going to be good for you?”
It’s the light force in the food that is even more important than the nutrients and the proteins... It is so overwhelmingly obvious that, whatever food choices you make, eat large amounts of green, fresh food.”
Sprouts may in fact be one of the most obvious solutions to worldwide malnutrition and hunger due to poverty. They’re inexpensive and simple to grow, in virtually any climate when grown indoors, and can provide up to 30 times more nutrients than even organically grown vegetables! With barely any money at all, you can eat the healthiest of diets, year-round. Keeping seeds for sprouting is easy. Seeds are relatively simple to store and last for a long time. You also have to store FAR less food if you’re using seeds, as they don’t take up much space. I think it’s just a marvelous preparation strategy.

The Health Benefits of Intermittent Fasting

One of the things I teach is that, for most people, it’s far healthier to skip breakfast. Omitting breakfast, as part of an intermittent fasting schedule, can have a number of phenomenal health benefits, from improving your insulin sensitivity to shifting your body into burning more fat instead of sugar for fuel. This will help you painlessly lose weight without being hungry as you will now finally have the ability to burn fat. The Hippocrates Institute has also more or less eliminated breakfast, serving only raw vegetable juicesin the morning. This is basically intermittent fasting, even though it’s not being taught as that in the program.
Intermittent fasting, also known as “scheduled eating,” does not necessarily mean abstaining from all food for extended periods of time. Rather it refers to limiting your eating to a narrow window of time each day. Ideally, you’ll want to limit your eating to a window of about 6-8 hours, say from noon until 6 or 8 pm each day, which means you’re fasting daily for 16-18 hours. This is enough to get your body to shift into fat-burning mode.
This is a gradual process. Typically you start by not eating anything for three hours prior to going to sleep. This will give you a head start to the fasting process so if you sleep for 8 hours you’ve already fasted for 11 hours when you awake. The next step is to wait as long as you can before you start your first meal or “break” your fast. You can gradually extend the time that you have your first meal by 15 to 30 minutes a day. After several weeks you will be having your first meal at lunch. Typically, the more your body uses carbs as its primary fuel rather than fat, the longer this will take. Once you shift to fat burning mode, modern research has confirmed some of the benefits to be:
  • Normalizing your insulin sensitivity, which is key for optimal health as insulin resistance is a primary contributing factor to nearly all chronic disease, from diabetes to heart disease and even cancer
  • Normalizing ghrelin levels, also known as "the hunger hormone"
  • Promoting human growth hormone (HGH) production, which plays an important part in health, fitness and slowing the aging process
  • Lowering triglyceride levels
  • Reducing inflammation and lessening free radical damage

Juice Your Vegetables Without Adding Fruit

The Hippocrates Institute also provides and promotes raw vegetable juicing—but not the juicing of fruits. The reasons for this are manifold. According to Dr. Clement:
“Seventy-five percent of raw food eaters today are sugar addicts trading white sugar for agave syrup; trading cakes for three mangoes or watermelons. You’re still a sugar addict... We’ve done empirical research on that. For 35 years, [sugar, including fruit] has been restricted here at Hippocrates in people with cancer.”
If you have cancer and are in treatment, the Institute will tell you to eliminate all sugar, fruit juices and most fruit initially. Fruit juice is clearly worse than eating the whole fruit, since you’re then getting a high dose of fructose all at once, without any of the fiber. But even excessive whole fruit can be a problem for the vast majority of people today, especially if you’re struggling with your weight, insulin resistance, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease or cancer.
Large amounts of fructose, especially for someone who’s insulin- and/or leptin-resistant, is not a good idea. Dr. Clement, however, believes that most people, with the exception of athletes, should avoid fruit.
Remember, this is his position, not mine. I am just presenting it so you can evaluate it for yourself. Personally I believe that if you are fat adapted, fruit can be beneficial, especially if consumed before or after a workout where the sugar is consumed as a fuel and does not increase glycogen stores. His argument probably makes more sense for those who are insulin and/or leptin resistant, which happens to be the vast majority of the population.

Why Large Amounts of Fruit Are Not Recommended

Some 30 years ago, Dr. Clement met a fruit cultivation specialist who informed him about some nutritional facts that few people ever consider. Eighty-five percent of the fruit available today did not exist 100 years ago. Fruit has been thoroughly changed through hybridization practices to increase sweetness, and therein lies the problem... and the answer to why it’s probably unwise for most people to eat a diet high in fruit.
For example, the honeybell orange, which is quite sweet, was spliced together about 35 years ago, mixing grapefruit with tangerine. And the popular Red Delicious apple? It’s now 50 times higher in fructose than the original apple, which was more sour than a crab apple!
“Here’s where we saw it: the average fruit today through hybridization has a minimum of 30 times more sugar on an average,” Dr. Clement says, and this is why one of humankind’s original foods is no longer appropriate in large quantities...
Our forefathers also didn’t eat processed sugar, which was primarily reserved for the aristocracy. Increasing sugar consumption over the past four or five generations has resulted in disturbed pancreatic functioning in most people. The human pancreas simply doesn’t know how to process sugars properly anymore, due to being overloaded.
“Now we have massive sugars from what I considered to be the original food of man. What could be more perfect? You eat a fruit, you spit it out, and the seed grows another tree. But now it is quite an altered fruit. Added to this, your pancreas doesn’t work well. So, now you have a problem. When we can get people off the addictive pattern of sugar and we can get them onto plant-based foods without the high-sugar content with enough glucose in it to sustain fuel of the cell, they don’t age prematurely and it works,” he says.
“I would rather have a mango than a green lettuce, because it tastes better. But a green lettuce supplies glucose for my cell without supplying additional amounts that become blood sugar, which not only creates blood sugar swings but feeds every known disease to man and create free radicals. That’s the answer... Definitively, I say that the only people who can eat – not should eat– dried fruit and a lot of bananas are people who are major athletes.”

Unripe Fruit Creates Acidity, and Most Commercially Available Fruit is Unripe...

Another interesting aspect relating to the consumption of fruit is the fact that often the fruit available at your local grocery store is not ripe, and unripe fruit, according to Dr. Clement, creates acidity in your body. (Ripe fruit is alkaline.) Sure, the fruit you buy maylook ripe, but we actually have a vastly erroneous concept of how fruit ripens.
As it turns out, you cannot commercially process ripe fruit. If you were to pack ripe oranges in Florida, for example, and ship them to another state, they’d be rotten in about a week. Hence the fruit is picked months before it’s ripe. If you’re like most people, you probably think that once a fruit turns color and softens, it’s ripening. But this is not accurate.
Dr. Clement explains that in order for a fruit to optimally ripen, it must remain attached to the branch on the tree or bush. Nutrients are continuously fed to the fruit while on the tree. The veins that feed the fruit come from the roots, which in turn extract nutrients from the soil and beneficial soil bacteria. Add to that the UV rays from the sun, causing photosynthesis to occur throughout the plant. Once you pluck the fruit, it’s no longer receiving nutrients, and the ripening process stops. Hence the nutritional value of the fruit is compromised.
We tell people that up to 15 percent of your diet can be ripe organic fruit, even if you’re not an athlete. But once we get beyond the 15 percent, 20 percent it starts to spill over and put sugar in the blood,” Dr. Clement says.

If Eating Fruit, Consider this Food Combining Principle

I recently interviewed Wayne Pickering, better known as “The Mango Man.” He eats plenty of fruit, but appears to be quite healthy. He is a strong proponent of food combining. Food combination takes into account the area and complexity of digestion of each food, to ensure it goes through your entire digestive system with ease. One of the core principles of food combining according to Dr. Pickering is that you should not combine fruit with vegetables, as this inhibits proper digestion. So, if you’re going to eat fruit, seek to eat it by itself, and not in combination with other foods—especially not starches. Dr. Clement agrees with this approach, saying:
“Yes, this is something I have adopted... [W]e’ve had so many times, when people have gotten on the food combining, they’ve eliminated gastrointestinal problems; diverticulosis, diverticulitis, overweight, nausea, and headaches. It has a lot to do with this [principle].”

Juice, Don’t Blend, Your Veggies

Last but not least, with regards to juicing Dr. Clement makes a very interesting and important distinction. Chopping and blending your veggies with a high speed blender should not be confused with juicing as it does NOT provide you with the same health benefits as juicing. Remarkably, blending your veggies using a blender can kill up to 90 percent of the nutrients in 90 seconds, primarily due to oxidation, according to Dr. Clement. He explains:
“I had a colleague at the University of Miami set up a 29-dollar blender. He had his Vitamix. We measured the nutritional levels in several ounces of food. We put that food in the blenders. We knew what the numbers were. We blended it for 90 seconds. About 15 years ago, we found out that 90 percent of the nutrients (we were looking at vitamins A, E, C; the basic five nutrients at the top) are killed in 90 seconds of blending with a high-speed blender.”
Furthermore, when you drink—opposed to chew—the blended vegetables, your body does not produce the enzymes required for digestion of the pulp. Eighty percent of carbohydrates are digested in your mouth when you chew. Without the enzymes to break down the carbohydrates, your blended veggies begin to ferment in your intestinal tract. If the food you eat is not digesting properly, not only can painful gas, heart burn, acid reflux and other stomach problems arise, but your body will also be deprived of critical nutrients, which defeats the whole purpose of juicing in the first place.

More Information

Tens of thousands of people have already visited the Hippocrates Health Institute, and if you're interested in their services, check out their website at www.hippocratesinst.org. You can also call them at 561-623-1002. The Institute is open seven days a week.
Enhanced by Zemanta