Showing posts with label Joseph Mercola. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joseph Mercola. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Will Drinking Diet Soda Help You Lose Weight?

English: Diet Coke Products
English: Diet Coke Products (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
 


By Dr. Mercola
Do you believe that drinking diet soda will allow you to "have your cake and eat it too" while still controlling your weight, or even shedding a few pounds? This is certainly what the soda industry wants you to believe.
Last year, Coca-Cola Company rolled out an ad campaign encouraging people to unite in the fight against obesity. The ads drew fire from consumers, consumer advocates, and obesity experts1, 2 alike.
Most people saw the campaign as little more than an effort in damage control, considering the overwhelming evidence linking soda consumption to obesity.
Soon thereafter, Coca-Cola Co. launched another ad campaign, this time assuring you that diet beverages containing the artificial sweetener aspartame are a safe alternative to regular soda.3
Now, the soda industry has taken their propaganda to the next level by publishing a study that claims to confirm what the industry has been saying all along—that drinking diet soda will help you lose weight.4, 5
Actually, the industry-funded trial claims diet soda drinkers lose weight faster than those who don't drink ANY soda at all! Talk about going for broke. As reported byTime Magazine:6
"The small study, funded in part by the American Beverage Association, divided 300 diet soda drinkers into two groups. One group could go on drinking the sweet stuff, while the other cut out diet soda entirely.
The study found that the drinkers, with intensive coaching, lost an average of 13 pounds over 12 weeks, while the abstainers, with the same coaching, lost only 9 pounds...
'The most likely explanation was that having access to drinks with sweet taste helps the [artificially-sweetened beverage] group to adhere better to the behavioral change program,' concluded study author Dr. Jim Hill..."

Funding Research—The Best PR Money Can Buy

This study comes like a knight in shining armor, "just in the nick of time," to rescue the soda industry's rapidly dwindling sales.
Growing awareness of the health dangers associated with soda, both regular and diet, has pushed beverage sales into a freefall.7 Sales of carbonated beverages in general fell three percent in 2013, while diet Coke and diet Pepsi both dropped by nearly seven percent.8
Purdue University researcher Susie Swithers9 has strongly criticized the featured study, saying it is "fatally flawed, and leaves us with little science to build on."
For example, it does not contain any information about what the non-diet soda drinkers were actually consuming. While water was suggested as the ideal beverage, did they actually drink water, or did they compensate with fruit juices and regular soda instead?
Susie Swithers' own research shows that diet drinks promote heart problems, and that animals fed artificial sweeteners develop a disrupted metabolic response to real sugar. Earlier this year, she told MedicineNet.com:10
"[Like diabetics], they become hyperglycemic. Their blood sugars go up higher than they should. They also make less of a heart-protective protein. If drinking diet soda interferes with this system, then over the long term you're taking something away that protects your cardiovascular health, and that could be what's contributing to these effects."
Furthermore, with so much evidence weighing against the safety and effectiveness of diet soda, whether for weight loss or any other disease prevention, the featured industry-funded study really offers no scientifically relevant evidence at all that might shift the balance in diet soda's favor. As Swithers notes, "this paper tells us nothing about the long-term health consequences that should be our real focus." What the study CAN do, however, is create media buzz and splashy headlines where the words "science," "study," and "proven weight loss" are favorably combined, and that is worth more than anything a PR firm might cook up.

Industry Funding Dramatically Increases Odds of Favorable Research Results

The misuse of science to further a preconceived commercial agenda is so rampant today that it can be quite tricky to determine what's what. One key factor is to determine who paid for the research, because when industry funds the research, it's virtually guaranteed to be favorable. Quite simply, an independent researcher has far less incentive to come to any particular conclusion—good or bad.
I've previously said that we've left evidence-based decision-making behind, and we're now in an era of "decision-based evidence-making." What I mean by that is that the preferred business model of an industry is created first, followed by "scientific evidence" that has been specifically created to support the established business model.
This is yet another perfect example of this. After two failed marketing campaigns (the latter of which was designed to look like a public service announcement rather than a classic advertisement), the beverage industry turned to "science" in an effort to win back customers.
As I discussed in a previous article, the Calorie Control Council is an association that represents manufacturers and suppliers of low-calorie, sugar-free, and reduced sugar foods and beverages. It is, of course, a staunch defender of aspartame's safety and effectiveness for weight management and diabetic control, and is quick to dismiss any research that suggests otherwise.
The group recently denounced research showing that post-menopausal diet soda drinkers raise their risk of heart attacks and stroke, stating that such findings "do not support the majority of the scientific evidence on the topic, and are at odds with statements from the American Heart Association."11
What many don't realize is that the Calorie Control Council has strong ties to the Kellen Company, which is instrumental in creating and managing industry front groups specifically created to mislead you about the product in question, protect industry profits, and influence regulatory agencies. Unfortunately for anyone who has fallen for the false advertising, diet soda actually tends to promote weight gain, and numerous studies that were NOT funded by industry attest to this.

The List of Studies Refuting 'Diet' Claims Is Long

Research has repeatedly shown that artificially sweetened no- or low-calorie drinks and other "diet" foods tend to stimulate your appetite, increase cravings for carbs, and stimulate fat storage and weight gain. Artificial sweeteners basically trick your body into thinking that it's going to receive sugar (calories), but when the sugar doesn't arrive, your body signals that it needs more, which results in carb cravings. Most people give in to such cravings and end up overeating on other foods and snacks.
This connection between sweet taste alone and increased hunger can be found in the medical literature going back at least two decades. But artificial sweeteners also appear to produce a variety of metabolic dysfunctions that promote weight gain. Here's a sampling of some of the studies published through the years, clearly refuting the beverage industry's claims that diet soda aids weight loss:
Preventive Medicine, 198612This study examined nearly 78,700 women aged 50-69 for one year. Artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight, compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners—regardless of their initial weight. According to the researchers, the results "were not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns. The data do not support the hypothesis that long-term artificial sweetener use either helps weight loss or prevents weight gain."
Physiology and Behavior, 198813In this study, they determined that intense (no- or low-calorie) sweeteners can produce significant changes in appetite. Of the three sweeteners tested, aspartame produced the most pronounced effects.
Physiology and Behavior, 199014Here, they found that aspartame had a time-dependent effect on appetite, "producing a transient decrease followed by a sustained increase in hunger ratings."
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 199115In a study of artificial sweeteners performed on college students, there was no evidence that artificial sweetener use was associated with a decrease in their overall sugar intake either.
International Journal of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, 200416This Purdue University study found that rats fed artificially sweetened liquids ate more high-calorie food than rats fed high-calorie sweetened liquids. The researchers believe the experience of drinking artificially sweetened liquids disrupted the animals' natural ability to compensate for the calories in the food.
San Antonio Heart Study, 200517Data gathered from the 25-year long San Antonio Heart Study also showed that drinking diet soft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain – far more so than regular soda.18 On average, for each diet soft drink the participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese.
Journal of Biology and Medicine, 201019This study delves into the neurobiology of sugar cravings and summarizes the epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effect of artificial sweeteners on weight.

According to the authors: "[F]indings suggest that the calorie contained in natural sweeteners may trigger a response to keep the overall energy consumption constant. ...Increasing evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners do not activate the food reward pathways in the same fashion as natural sweeteners… [A]rtificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence."
Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 201020This review offers a summary of epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effects of artificial sweeteners on weight, and explains those effects in light of the neurobiology of food reward. It also shows the correlation between increased usage of artificial sweeteners in food and drinks, and the corresponding rise in obesity.
Appetite, 201221Here, researchers showed that saccharin and aspartame both cause greater weight gain than sugar, even when the total caloric intake remains similar.
Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, 201322This report highlights the fact that diet soda drinkers suffer the same exact health problems as those who opt for regular soda, such as excessive weight gain, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and stroke.23, 24 The researchers speculate that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may induce metabolic derangements.

Comprehensive Review Finds You Gain Weight by Drinking Diet Soda

The 2010 review in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine25 is of particular relevance here, as it offers a great historical summary of artificial sweeteners in general, and the epidemiological and experimental evidence showing that artificial sweeteners tend to promote weight gain. It also illustrates that as usage of artificial sweeteners has risen, so has obesity rates—despite all these "diet friendly" products. According to a recent Democrat & Chronicle article,26 "a University of Texas Health Science Center study found that frequent drinkers of diet sodas had waist circumference increases that were 500 percent greater than non-drinkers of diet soda."
Source: Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine June 8, 2010: v83(2)
According to the author:
"Intuitively, people choose non-caloric artificial sweeteners over sugar to lose or maintain weight...But do artificial sweeteners actually help reduce weight? Surprisingly, epidemiologic data suggest the contrary. Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain.
The San Antonio Heart Study examined 3,682 adults over a seven to eight year period in the 1980s. When matched for initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity, and diet, drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs at the follow-up, with dose dependence on the amount of consumption. Average BMI gain was +1.01 kg/m2 for control and 1.78 kg/m2 for people in the third quartile for artificially sweetened beverage consumption."
The review also highlights the 1986 study published in Preventive Medicine27 (also listed above). Again, nearly 78,700 women were included in this American Cancer Society study, and at one year follow-up, 2.7 percent to 7.1 percent more artificial sweetener users had gained weight, when compared to non-users and matched by initial weight. A later study,28 performed in the 1990s, also found that women who regularly used saccharin gained more weight over an eight year period, compared to non-users. The same kind of results are found in studies evaluating the effect of artificial sweeteners in children:
  • In one two-year long study,29 which involved 166 school children, increased diet soda consumption was associated with higher BMI at the end of the trial.
  • The Growing Up Today Study,30 which included more than 11,650 children aged 9-14, also found a positive association between diet soda consumption and weight gain in boys. Each daily serving of diet beverage was associated with a BMI increase of 0.16 kg/m2.
  • The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study31 included 2,371 girls aged 9-19 for 10 years. Soda consumption in general, both regular and diet, was associated with increase in total daily energy intake.
  • Another 2003 study looking at 3,111 children found diet soda, specifically, was associated with higher BMI.32

Diet Soda May Harm Diabetics to Greater Degree Than Sugar

How much evidence do you need before you make up your mind? Will one study showing serious harm make you think twice about drinking diet soda? Will 10... 50... 100 studies bring you to a decision? Besides decimating the claim that diet soda is a useful diet aid, studies have also linked diet drinks and artificial sweeteners to a number of other, more serious health hazards, including increased risk of stroke and cancer. There are in fact hundreds of published studies demonstrating the harmful effects of aspartame... Yet the industry keeps repeating the mantra that "no harmful effects have ever been proven."
After hearing it so many times, many actually believe this to be true. Browsing through the medical literature, however, will quickly reveal such claims to be a stretch, if not an outright lie. For starters, researchers have demonstrated that aspartame worsens insulin sensitivity to a greater degree than sugar. This is a serious blow for diabetics who follow the recommendation to switch to diet sodas to manage their condition. It's worth noting that the study in question used a dosage of aspartame that approximates the ADI for aspartame in the US (approx. 50 mg/kg body weight), and not only was aspartame found to decrease insulin sensitivity compared to controls, it also wrought havoc on brain function!

Studies Also Warn of More Serious Health Hazards

Two years ago, preliminary research warned that diet soda appears to dramatically increase your risk of stroke. The researchers found that people who drank diet soft drinks on a daily basis were 43 percent more likely to have suffered a vascular event, including a stroke. This association persisted even after controlling for other factors that could increase the risk, such as smoking, physical activity levels, alcohol consumption, diabetes, heart disease, dietary factors, and more. According to the authors:
"This study suggests that diet soda is not an optimal substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages, and may be associated with a greater risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death than regular soda."
Of even greater concern are the studies suggesting a link between artificial sweeteners and cancer—the number one killer of Americans under the age of 85:33
  • One lifetime feeding study published in 201034 found that aspartame induced cancers of the liver and lung in male mice. It was also carcinogenic in male and female rats.
  • The most comprehensive and longest human study — spanning 22 years — that has ever looked at aspartame toxicity was published in 2012. It evaluated the effect between aspartame intake and cancer, and the researchers found a clear association between aspartame consumption and non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and leukemia.

FDA Approval Means Little When It Comes to Ascertaining Safety

As previously noted by Dr. Janet Hull,35 many tend to excuse the negative health effects of aspartame simply because it has received the stamp of approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). "[T]his may not be something the American consumer can actually depend upon anymore," she writes, because "[t]he FDA rules and regulations for the approval of food additives... it has some serious flaws."
As discussed in her article, "Abusing the FDA Approval Process,"36 the FDA requires that the industry do its own researchand actually places the burden of proof on the company making the product. Dr. Hull explains:
"Basically, all the FDA is responsible for is reviewing the summaries of research conducted by the company applying for approval, typically from scientific studies the applicant has pay-rolled. Then, the company presents their reasons whytheir product should be allowed in the public food supply based on their research. At the very least, the research reports are controversial, and rarely reviewed by independent researchers not related to the industry."
Should you still be confused on this issue, thinking that the buck somehow stops at the FDA, FDA spokesman Theresa Eisenman recently clarified who is ultimately responsible for making sure a food product is safe, stating that:37 "Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their food products are safe and lawful..."
But what company would really make a serious effort to find problems with the very products they want to capitalize on? Despite this illogical premise, the FDA trusts corporations to be honest in their research and evaluations. How likely do you think it is that this "honor system" will actually ensure that each product released to market is safe?
When it comes to artificial sweeteners, aspartame in particular, there's no doubt in my mind that the system has protected industry profits at consumers' expense. And we've not seen the last of it. Despite mounting evidence showing that artificial sweeteners as a group have adverse health effects, the FDA has just approved yet another artificial sweetener called Advantame,38, 39 derived from a combination of aspartame and vanillin.
Being 20,000 times sweeter than refined sugar, Advantame is the sweetest artificial sweetener so far. To put this into perspective, aspartame, sucralose, and saccharine range from 200 to 700 times sweeter than sugar. Also, as reported by the LA Times:40
"Like aspartame, advantame contains phenylalanine, which is metabolized with difficulty by people with a rare genetic disorder, phenylketonuria. But because of its intense sweetness, advantame would be used at much lower volumes than is asparatame. As a result, the FDA has declared that it can be safely consumed by those with phenylketonuria."

Are You Ready to Ditch Diet Soda?

When you consume artificial sweeteners, your brain actually craves more calories because your body receives no satisfaction on a cellular level by the sugar imposter. This can contribute to not only overeating and weight gain, but also an addiction to artificial sweeteners. To break free, I recommend addressing any emotional component of your food cravings using a tool such as theEmotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
A version of EFT specifically geared toward combating sugar cravings is called Turbo Tapping. For further instructions, please see the article, "Turbo Tapping: How to Get Rid of Your Soda Addiction." The video below with EFT practitioner Julie Schiffman also demonstrates how to use EFT to fight food cravings of all kinds.



If you still have cravings after trying EFT or Turbo Tapping, you may need to make some changes to your diet. My free nutrition plan can help you do this in a step-by-step fashion. As for safer sweetener options, you could use stevia or Luo Han, both of which are safe natural sweeteners. That said, if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would likely benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.
Last but not least, if you experience side effects from aspartame or any other artificial sweetener, please report it to the FDA (if you live in the United States) without delay. It's easy to make a report — just go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number for your state, and make a call reporting your reaction.

 http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2014/08/15/drinking-diet-soda.aspx


Thursday, August 14, 2014

Vitamin K Shot at Birth -- The Controversy Reignites

Doctors' Office Tower at Monroe Carell, Jr. Ch...
Doctors' Office Tower at Monroe Carell, Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



By Dr. Mercola
The controversy surrounding vitamin K shots at birth recently surfaced when physicians at Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt reported seeing a rise in late-onset vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) in young infants.1
The rise is blamed on increasing numbers of parents declining to have their babies receive a vitamin K shot at birth—a routine practice in the US since 1961.2
In a Pediatric Neurology3 article, the researchers call for a state and national tracking system to monitor how many infants are getting the vitamin K shot at birth.
Writing for Mother Jones,4 Chris Mooney cites an article I wrote in 2010 in which I recommend giving oral vitamin K instead of an injection form. The article in question was actually an interview (at top of page) with Cees Vermeer, PhD, who is generally recognized as the leading vitamin K expert in the world.
Mooney goes on to lambast me for raising questions about the safety of vaccinations, and weaves together a picture in which parents who are cautious about vaccines—courtesy of my awareness-raising campaign—also take issue with vitamin K injections.
His tone doesn't surprise me. What many people probably don't know is that Chris Mooney is a well-documented skeptic who worked for the Center for Inquiry,5 an organization whose founder has even been critical of their practices, stating "I consider them atheist fundamentalists.

For those who are not aware, the 'skeptics' are a small but well-organized group that appear to despise alternative medicine and consider it to be similar to a religion where belief trumps science.  They have been quite aggressive in attacking doctors who practice alternative medicine for many years.

The CFI founder goes on to say, "They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good."6
Theoretical physicist Peter Higgs has expressed similar criticism against another 'skeptic', biologist Richard Dawkins, calling Dawkins' vitriolic stance against those expressing religious views "embarrassing," saying Dawkins is "almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind."7
Mooney's podcast8 is very dogmatic, some comments in the resulting storm have gone so far as to say I'm guilty of infanticide and should be in jail—all because I suggest vitamin K is likely to be better given orally instead of via injection.

Is Vitamin K Injection the Best Way to Prevent Vitamin K Deficient Bleeding?

Vitamin K is not a blood coagulant in and of itself, as Mooney incorrectly states, but it is an important catalyst in the coagulation cascade. Without vitamin K, the coagulation cascade stops before the clot forms.
When this occurs in an infant, they can develop uncontrolled bleeding anywhere in their body, including the brain. There are three basic categories of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB), classified according to age at onset:9
  1. Early onset: Within the first day of life. Early VKDB is exceedingly rare, and is typically related to medicines used by the mother that inhibit vitamin K activity
  2. Classic: Within the first week of life. This is the most common form, occurring in 0.25-1.5 percent of infants who have not received vitamin K at birth
  3. Late onset: From the second week of life up to six months of age. Occurs in 5-7 out of every 100,000 infants not given prophylactic vitamin K, and is indicative of inadequate intake of vitamin K, malabsorption issues, and/or impaired utilization due to an underlying liver disorder
While vitamin K is important to prevent brain bleeding in newborns, I strongly believe there are safer and non-invasive ways to normalize an infant's vitamin K levels that don't require a potentially traumatic injection given in massive mega dose quantities.
It's well worth noting that the amount of vitamin K injected into newborns is 20,000 times the newborn's typical level at birth.10 It seems most odd that conventional medicine repeatedly warns against mega dosing vitamins in adults, yet doesn't raise any questions at all about the practice of giving a massive dose of a synthetic vitamin to an hours-old infant.
Also, infants are more or less universally born with low vitamin K levels. Is it then really reasonable to categorize it as a true deficiency state? Might there be a fundamental biological reason for being born with an initially low vitamin K level?
The truth is, we don't know. Researchers determined that giving vitamin K at birth worked to virtually eliminate hemorrhaging, and that more or less marked the end of the thought process.
Besides the question of whether or not a one-time mega-dose is the most appropriate route, the vitamin K injection also contains potentially toxic additives like aluminum. Many experts believe that aluminum is more toxic than mercury.
The injection is also loaded with preservatives,11 such as polysorbate 80 (known as Tween 80, which has estrogenic effects) and propylene glycol (a skin irritant).
As explained by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, the introduction of toxins in combination with poor gut flora (which is a problem that affects a great number of infants born these days) can lead to developmental problems. It doesn't matterwhere these toxins come from—ideally, you'd want to avoid exposing your infant to any.

Synthetic Vitamin K Injection Is Not Risk-Free as Claimed

As noted in a 2001 article in Pediatric Pharmacotherapy,12 the standard practice in the US is to administer an intra-muscular injection of 0.5-1 milligram (mg) of phytonadione within one hour of birth. Phytonadione is a fat-soluble synthetic vitamin K1 analog.
Ironically, the phytonadione13, 14 drug insert warns that it can cause severe, sometimes fatal, allergic reactions when injected into a muscle or vein,15, 16 and is ideally taken by mouth or injected under the skin. Signs of an allergic reaction include hives, trouble breathing, swelling of the face, lips, tongue, or throat.
One recent PLOS ONE study17 looking into this issue found that allergic reactions appear to be linked to the preservatives in the vitamin K1 injection:
"[S]erious anaphylaxis-like symptoms appeared in beagle dogs after the administration of vitamin K1 injection for the first time. The plasma histamine concentration increased, and blood pressure decreased sharply. After sensitization, dogs were challenged with vitamin K1 injection and displayed the same degree of symptoms as prior to sensitization. However, when the vitamin K1 injection-sensitized dogs were challenged with a vitamin K1-fat emulsion without solubilizers such as Tween-80, the abnormal reactions did not occur...
Our results indicate that the adverse reaction induced by vitamin K1 injection is an anaphylactoid reaction, not anaphylaxis. Vitamin K1 injection induces the release of inflammatory factors via a non-IgE-mediated immune pathway, for which the trigger may be the solubilizer."
Even more ironic, pregnant women are warned that it is not known whether taking phytonadione might harm their baby if taken during pregnancy or while breast feeding.18 The recommended daily allowance (RDA) for infants 0-6 months is 2 micrograms (mcg) per day, so they are receiving a dose that is 5,000 times the RDA.
The RDA for adult women is 90 mcg/day. If you're an adult suffering minor bleeding due to warfarin use, a one-time dose of 2.5-5 mg is recommended. If an adult overdoses on phytonadione, they're advised to call Poison Control. And yet newborn babies are given a 1 mg injection whether they in need of it or not. This is a highly irrational approach anyway you look at it. It's simply not supported by the science in any way shape or form.

The Case for Longer-Term Oral Vitamin K1 Supplementation

As noted in Pediatric Pharmacotherapy:19
"Oral vitamin K administration would appear to offer several advantages for routine VKDB prophylaxis... It has been suggested that longer regimens of oral vitamin K would prevent late VKDB while avoiding the concerns with IM [intramuscular] use. In 1992, The Netherlands adopted a regimen of 1 mg oral vitamin K at birth, followed by daily doses of 25 mcg from 1 week to 3 months of age in breastfed infants.
Surveillance data collected on infants receiving this regimen have revealed no cases of late VKDB.
Another alternative regimen now used in Switzerland consists of weekly 1 mg oral doses for two or three months with the Konakion MM® preparation. The primary disadvantages of these methods are the reliance on parent compliance. Giving an oral vitamin should not be looked at as so difficult, especially with the frequency of pediatric visits."
The paper also notes that: "It is clear that oral administration of vitamin K produces adequate serum concentrations for the prevention of classic VKDB. While no oral liquid preparation is available in the United States, the injectable product has been found to be safe and effective when given by the oral route." In case you missed the yellow highlight above, there were zero, not one single episode of VKDB in infants given the oral dose. The concerns that Mooney brings up about the increase in VKDB are clearly related to noncompliance with the oral route, not to its efficacy.
To me, it appears obvious that if the US made an oral vitamin K1 supplement to be taken for the first three months of life, that would be the safest method to avoid vitamin K deficient bleeding in infants. Not only should vitamin K1 be given orally, but vitamin D and vitamin K2 as well, since most parents are so adamant about shielding their children from the sun. As a result of this widespread sun-phobia, most children are vitamin D deficient from birth.20 According to one recent study,21 breastfed infants should ideally begin receiving vitamin D supplementation at birth. The study supports using a dose of 400 IUs of vitamin D per day for the first nine months of the baby's life.

Why Are American Doctors so Clueless?

The infant mortality rate22 in the US is absolutely abysmal, ranking in 34th place after countries like Singapore, the Czech Republic, South Korea, Croatia, and Cuba. This despite having "the best" medicine in the world—and spending more than any other country on health care to boot. It's quite clear that Americans have a lot to learn with regards to what makes for a healthy baby.
Long-term health does not at all appear to be correlated with getting an abundance of injections. We're missing something, and I believe that something is really fundamental and basic. Many Americans do not trust their bodies to do what nature intended their bodies to do. The human body is imbued with the power to self heal, if given adequate support.
Enormous damage was done when physicians used forceps to pull babies out of the womb. And for quite some time physicians were (and some still are) vehemently opposed to breastfeeding—the perfect food for an infant! Eventually, mainstream medicine was forced to acknowledge the dangers of forceps however, and admit the benefits of breastfeeding. Kangaroo Care is the current hot button.

There is progress, however. Some hospitals offer a less brutal C-section that allows the baby to stay with the mother and breastfeed sooner. The benefits to mother and baby are astounding. Yet most hospitals still refuse to allow it because it's time consuming and requires a change in staffing practice. I believe the ramifications of this attitude of "efficiency first" is taking its toll and showing up in our infant mortality rates.

Keeping It Simple and Natural Goes a Long Way

I believe simple strategies like having a natural birth, not cutting the cord too soon, immediately holding your baby with skin-to-skin contact, and giving your child oral vitamin K1, K2, and D for the first several months could make an important difference in the US infant mortality statistics. Recent research23 has shown that vaginal birth actually "triggers the expression of a protein in the brains of newborns that improves brain development and function in adulthood." The expression of this protein is impaired in the brains of children delivered by caesarean section.
Caesarean delivery is also associated with a greater risk of autoimmune dysfunction, diabetes, allergies, and other childhood diseases,24 revealing the importance of vaginal delivery to transfer health-promoting bacteria from mother to child. Other studies25, 26 have found that delaying the clamping of the cord, and allowing blood to flow between the placenta and the child for at least one minute after birth, significantly raises the child's iron and hemoglobin level. If there is a benefit to cutting the umbilical cord before the cord stops pulsing, I have not found it. As noted in a Committee Opinion paper by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:27
"Physiologic studies in term infants have shown that a transfer from the placenta of approximately 80 mL of blood occurs by 1 minute after birth, reaching approximately 100 mL at 3 minutes after birth. This additional blood can supply extra iron, amounting to 40–50 mg/kg of body weight. This extra iron, combined with body iron (approximately 75 mg/kg of body weight) present at birth in a full-term newborn, may help prevent iron deficiency during the first year of life."
The video below is from the article "What's the Hurry? The Benefits of Waiting to Cut the Umbilical Cord After Birth" published by Bastyr University.28 Again, it comes down to NOT doing what's convenient for the doctor, but what's in the best long-term interest of the mother and child... It's also worth noting that since children are born with low vitamin K1 levels, it is important to make sure that the birth is as easy and non-traumatic as possible. Use of forceps, vacuum extraction, and drugs such as epidurals and spinal anesthesia all raise the risk of bleeding in your baby, thereby necessitating the use of vitamin K right upon birth. Circumcision is also a risk factor that can lead to excessive bleeding, if done too early.

Closer Attention Must Be Paid to Mother and Child's Gut Health

We also need to pay closer attention to gut health, both in the mother and the infant. Part and parcel of raising a healthy child is to breastfeed for at least six months or longer, if at all possible. Research29 has repeatedly demonstrated that breastfed babies have very different bacteria in their guts compared to formula-fed babies, and the colonization of these health-promoting bacteria helps support strong immune function. The same applies to breastfeeding, which is known to colonize your baby's gut with beneficial bacteria. Ideally, the breastfeeding mother should be eating plenty of fresh organic vegetables, which are loaded with vitamin K1.
Studies30, 31, 32 have shown that adults raised on formula rather than breast milk during the early months of life have higher rates of chronic inflammation. Even an occasional bottle of formula has been shown to have a detrimental effect by raising C-reactive protein. 

A Complex Issue That Has a Number of Simple Solutions

The question is not if it is important to optimize your baby's vitamin K1 because it is necessary to prevent infants dying from brain bleeds. The real question is how this is best achieved. In my view, there are strong arguments against injecting an hour-old infant with a potentially allergenic substance, when you can safely administer the vitamin orally. Oral administration also appears to be quite comparable in terms of effectiveness.
One Cochrane systematic review34 found that: "A single oral compared with a single intramuscular dose resulted in lower plasma vitamin K levels at two weeks and one month, whereas a 3-dose oral schedule resulted in higher plasma vitamin K levels at two weeks and at two months than did a single intramuscular dose." Since vitamin K is non-toxic, there is no danger of overdosing or having a bad reaction when administered orally. Oral doses can range from 1 mg per week to 250 mcg (quarter of 1 mg) every day.
I also believe your lifestyle before and during pregnancy can have a lot to do with raising or lowering your child's risk of VKDB and other health problems, not to mention the method of delivery itself. It makes sense that using drugs and methods that are "rough" on your baby will increase the likelihood of your child suffering trauma and subsequent bleeding, raising the necessity for vitamin K. Ideally, you'd want to work with a compassionate midwife or doctor who is willing to work around your baby's schedule rather than their own.
Last but not least, unless environmental toxins such glyphosate are now causing children to be dangerously deficient in vitamin K, there's reason to believe that Nature has a plan—there's some reason why babies are born with low vitamin K stores, and why the level slowly rises. Also, remember that you can safely and naturally increase your infant's vitamin K levels if you are breastfeeding by increasing your own vitamin K levels. Vitamin K1 is found in green vegetables. Of equal importance is to optimize your gut health and vitamin D levels. Vitamin K2 is produced by certain gut bacteria, and works synergistically with vitamin D to optimize your and your baby's health (both while in utero, and during breastfeeding).