Oh really ... ya think!!!

Scientists again raise possibility of fructose obesity link

12/8/2005- Researchers have again raised the controversial claim that fructose intake could be linked to rising obesity rates. By tricking people into thinking they are hungrier than you should be, scientists at the University of Florida believe that fructose, found in fruit, honey, table sugar and in many processed foods, could play a role in making people fatter.
Studies in animals have revealed that fructose plays a role in a biochemical chain reaction that triggers weight gain and other features of metabolic syndrome - the main precursor to type 2 diabetes.

In related research, the UF scientists also prevented rats from packing on the pounds by interrupting the way their bodies processed this simple sugar, even when the animals continued to consume it.
The researchers are now studying whether the same mechanism is involved in people.
"There may be more than just the common concept that the reason a person gets fat is because they eat too many calories and they don't do enough exercise," said Richard Johnson, professor of nephrology and chief of nephrology, hypertension and transplantation at UF's College of Medicine.
"Our data suggest certain foods and, in particular, fructose, may actually speed the process for a person to become obese."

The findings, reported in the December issue of Nature Clinical Practice Nephrology and in this month's online edition of the American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology, add to a growing amount of literature that implicates fructose in the obesity epidemic.
For example, a recent University of Cincinnati study asserted that the body processes high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) differently than other sugars due to the fructose content, leading to greater fat storage.
And last year, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health claimed in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that there was a link between consumption of refined carbohydrates and type 2 diabetes.

However Corn Refiners Association managing director Audrae Erickson told FoodNavigator earlier this year that scientists are wrong to draw a direct comparison between experiments on rats and human consumption of fructose in products such as soft drinks.
And Robert Earl, director of nutrition policy at the US National Food Processors Association, has said in the past that it is incorrect and misleading to suggest the consumption of a specific food or food ingredient was the cause of obesity and the rise of type 2 diabetes. Last year, the US-based Center for Food and Nutrition Policy (CFNP) at Virginia Tech said that there was no reason to believe that humans absorb or metabolize high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), used in beverage applications, any differently than sucrose.

However, the new UF research implicates a rise in uric acid in the bloodstream that occurs after fructose is consumed. That temporary spike blocks the action of insulin, which typically regulates how body cells use and store sugar and other food nutrients for energy.
If uric acid levels are frequently elevated, over time features of metabolic syndrome may develop, including high blood pressure, obesity and elevated blood cholesterol levels.
UF researchers are now studying the uric acid pathway in cell cultures in the laboratory, in animals and in people, and are also eyeing it as a possible factor in the development of cardiovascular and kidney diseases because of its effects on blood vessel responses.
"We cannot definitively state that fructose is driving the obesity epidemic," said Johnson. "But we can say that there is evidence supporting the possibility that it could have a contributory role - if not a major role."


Comment: I think we should believe the Corn Refiners, they haven't anything to lose, right.
The evidence is clear to me, and I have been talking about it, blogging about it for a very long time. For more information on how sugar, corn syrup, and high glycemic fruits, grains, and vegetables can cause you to become fat and diseased, click here.

CW

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.

Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

Could Alzheimer's Disease be a form of Metabolic Syndrome?

New study Suggests Brain insulin levels fall as the disease progresses ...
By Steven Reinberg, HealthDay Reporter

Could Alzheimer's be a form of diabetes?

That's the tantalizing suggestion from a new study that finds insulin production in the brain declines as Alzheimer's disease advances.
"Insulin disappears early and dramatically in Alzheimer's disease," senior researcher Suzanne M. de la Monte, a neuropathologist at Rhode Island Hospital and a professor of pathology at Brown University Medical School, said in a prepared statement.
"And many of the unexplained features of Alzheimer's, such as cell death and tangles in the brain, appear to be linked to abnormalities in insulin signaling. This demonstrates that the disease is most likely a neuroendocrine disorder, or another type of diabetes," she added.
The discovery that the brain produces insulin at all is a recent one, and de la Monte's group also found that brain insulin produced by patients with Alzheimer's disease tends to fall below normal levels.

Now her group has discovered that brain levels of insulin and its related cellular receptors fall precipitously during the early stages of Alzheimer's. Insulin levels continue to drop progressively as the disease becomes more severe -- adding to evidence that Alzheimer's might be a new form of diabetes, she said.
In addition, the Brown University team found that low levels of acetylcholine -- a hallmark of Alzheimer's -- are directly linked to this loss of insulin and insulin-like growth factor function in the brain.

The report appears in the November issue of the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease.
In its study, de la Monte's team autopsied the brain tissue of 45 patients diagnosed with different degrees of Alzheimer's called "Braak Stages." They compared those tissues to samples taken from individuals with no history of the disease.
The team analyzed insulin and insulin receptor function in the frontal cortex of the brain, a major area affected by Alzheimer's. They found that as the severity of Alzheimer's increased, the levels of insulin receptors and the brain's ability to respond to insulin decreased.
"In the most advanced stage of Alzheimer's, insulin receptors were nearly 80 percent lower than in a normal brain," de la Monte said.

In addition, the researchers found two abnormalities related to insulin in Alzheimer's. First, levels of insulin dropped as the disease progressed. Second, insulin and its related protein -- insulin-related growth factor-I -- lose the ability to bind to cell receptors. This creates a resistance to the insulin growth factors, causing the cells to malfunction and die.
"We're able to show that insulin impairment happens early in the disease," de la Monte said. "We're able to show it's linked to major neurotransmitters responsible for cognition. We're able to show it's linked to poor energy metabolism, and it's linked to abnormalities that contribute to the tangles characteristic of advanced Alzheimer's disease. This work ties several concepts together and demonstrates that Alzheimer's disease is quite possibly a Type 3 diabetes," she said.

One expert believes declining insulin levels may be an important feature of Alzheimer's, but not the whole story.
"There is now increasing evidence primarily from observational studies that diabetes, its predecessor metabolic syndrome, and insulin resistance are implicated in increasing risk for Alzheimer's disease," said Dr. Hugh C. Hendrie. He is a professor of psychiatry and co-director of the Center for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Neuropsychiatric Disorders at Indiana University Center for Aging Research, in Indianapolis.
This study adds support to these biological hypotheses and has perhaps treatment implications for the use of certain types of anti-diabetes drugs that influence insulin resistance, Hendrie said.
"There are many other factors also implicated in Alzheimer's disease, such as hypertension and inflammation, so I think it's a bit of a stretch at the moment to describe Alzheimer's disease as an endocrinological disorder like diabetes," he said.

Another expert thinks that insulin and insulin-like growth factors may be the key to slowing the progression of Alzheimer's.
"We have shown that insulin-like growth factors regulate learning and memory," said Douglas N. Ishii, a professor in the Department of Biomedical Sciences at Colorado State University in Fort Collins. "We had shown that by blocking insulin-like growth factors in the brain you block learning and memory."

When Ishii's group treated rats with insulin-like growth factors, the researchers found that the intervention prevented the loss of both learning and memory. "In addition, we showed that insulin normally regulates brain weight in adults," he said.
"The clinical potential is that by injecting insulin-like growth factors into patients, one might be able to prevent the loss of learning and memory," Ishii said. "In particular, we have a paper coming out showing that insulin-like growth factors can not only prevent the loss of learning and memory, but prevent the loss of a protein in the brain. This may lead to the slowing down of the progression of C."

Comment: This is an important study as it may indicate that Metabolic Syndrome or Hyperinsulinemia could be the underlining cause Alzheimer's. The author does not make that connection totally, because they say that Hypertension & Inflammation were also present. The cluster of diseases that are implicated by Metabolic Syndrome are many and include these 2 issues. Here is a list of diseases that I know to be caused or influenced by Hyperinsulinemia: Obesity, High Blood Pressure, High Cholesterol, High Triglycerides, Fluid Retention, Heart Disease, Arteriosclerosis (calcium deposits), Atherosclerosis (fat deposits), Acid Reflux, Polycystic Ovarian Disease, Increased Inflammation, Pre-Mature Aging, etc.

For more information on what causes Metabolic Syndrome or Hyperinsulinemia, click here.

CW

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.

Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

Paleolithic diet and alpha-lipoic acid for glaucoma

TUCSON, ARIZONA. It is estimated that about 3 million Americans are affected by glaucoma, the second leading cause of blindness (after macular degeneration). The main risk factor for glaucoma is an elevation of intraocular eye pressure (IOP) with an IOP of greater than 21 mm Hg being considered indicative of a future risk of glaucoma. Chronically elevated glucose levels, such as found in diabetics, increase the risk of not only glaucoma, but also of cataracts and age-related macular degeneration. There is now evidence that adhering to a Paleolithic diet (lean meat, fish, non-starchy vegetables and nuts with little or no grains, dairy products and potatoes – or other high glycemic index vegetables) can reduce the risk of diabetes and its precursor, Syndrome X. There is also evidence that alpha-lipoic acid, a powerful antioxidant, can reduce glucose levels by facilitating uptake and sensitizing insulin.
Jack Challem, a medical editor in Arizona reports two cases where patients diagnosed with IOPs over 21 mm Hg were able to lower their IOPs to normal levels by switching to a Paleolithic diet and/or supplementing with alpha-lipoic acid. The first patient, a 45-year-old man, switched to a Paleolithic diet and began taking 380 mg/day of alpha-lipoic acid as well as several other supplements (magnesium citrate, chromium, vitamin-E, vitamin-C). In September 1997 his fasting glucose level was 111 mg/dL. By November 1999 this had been reduced to 85 mg/dL and by September 2000 his IOP was 16 mm Hg in both eyes.
The other patient with elevated IOP, an 84-year-old man, began supplementing with alpha-lipoic acid (200 mg 3 times daily after meals) and in less than a year had reduced his IOP to 20 in both eyes. Although anecdotal evidence only, these observations point to the possibility that following a Paleolithic diet and supplementing with alpha-lipoic acid may be helpful in warding off not only glaucoma and other eye diseases, but diabetes as well.Challem, Jack J. Natural therapies for reducing intraocular eye pressure: Rationale and two case reports. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol. 17, No. 4, 4th quarter, 2002, pp. 209-12

Comment: For more information on what the perfect diet looks like click here.
For more information on low glycemic foods click here.

CW

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

Ignorance is bliss for this Registered Dietitian

How to get more cancer-fighting nutrients?

Essential vitamins should come from a healthy diet, not supplements
By Karen Collins, R.D.

Updated: 8:38 a.m. ET Dec. 2, 2005

The latest report card on the nutritional composition of the American diet tells us a lot about the food choices we have been making. If we reshape our eating patterns, we could improve our nutrient intake and lower our risk of cancer and other health problems.
The new publication, which details our nutritional shortcomings, is called What We Eat in America: NHANES 2001-2002. It was based on a federal dietary survey of almost 9,000 people. Almost all of the shortfalls identified in this report can be corrected by eating a balanced, mostly plant-based diet recommended in both the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the American Institute for Cancer Research's cancer prevention guidelines.
Results of the survey show that almost a third of us get too little vitamin C, almost half get too little vitamin A, more than half get too little magnesium, and at least 92 to 97 percent get too little fiber and potassium.
Since vegetables, fruits and beans are major sources for these nutrients, to end any deficiency we might have, most of us should try to eat three-and-a-half to five cups of vegetables and fruits a day. The survey indicates that all of us need to expand our produce choices and learn to enjoy more dark green and orange vegetables and more fruit.
These particular nutrients are important because they help lower the risk of our major health problems: cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. When we expand the amounts and variety of vegetables, fruits and beans we eat, we get a wide range of natural phytochemicals, along with these nutrients, that seem to keep blood vessels healthy and block several steps in the cancer development process.
By including more whole grains in our choice of breads, cereals, rice and pasta, we can also get more magnesium, potassium and fiber. If we aim for three or four servings of whole grains a day, we can still include a few of the refined grain products that we find hardest to give up. Too many refined carbohydrates can mean too many calories that challenge weight control.
Supplements not a good optionAccording to the survey, vitamin E consumption falls below recommended levels for 93 percent of us. Getting enough of this vitamin poses a challenge, because its major sources are high-fat, high-calorie vegetable oils, nuts, and seeds, although some can be found in dark green leafy vegetables. You can use soft tub margarine and canola or olive oil to add vitamin E to your diet without too much saturated fat. However, people who are trying to cut back on calories may have difficulty getting enough vitamin E this way without exceeding their calorie limit.
Vitamin E supplements aren't a good option, however. New studies confirm past findings that these supplements don't protect against heart disease or cancer. Furthermore, some researchers suggest that the gamma-tocopherol form of vitamin E, which is more abundant in nuts and seeds, may lower cancer risk. Supplements with the alpha-tocopherol form should be considered carefully, because they can reduce blood levels of the gamma form. If you wish to take vitamin E supplements, you should use one with mixed tocopherols.
The only other common nutritional deficiencies found in the survey that can't be fixed by taking the steps above are shortages of calcium and vitamin D. To remedy these shortcomings, from the age of nine onward we need three daily servings of dairy or calcium-fortified juice, cereal, or soymilk. These servings provide the calcium linked with sturdy bones, blood pressure control and possibly less colon cancer. For the elderly and anyone else who is advised to aim for the highest intake levels of vitamin D, a supplement may be needed.
But you shouldn't think immediately of using supplements when you hear about common nutritional problems. By eating a mostly plant-based diet that's recommended for lower cancer risk, your food choices will supply most of the nutrients that are often missing.
Nutrition Notes is provided by the American Institute for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C.

Comments: She gives a great argument on how deficient we are, but concludes we do not need to supplement. Maybe she needs to go back to 1936 and read what the government concluded in Senate Document No. 264 74th Congress 2nd Session, 1936 :

" Do you know that most of us today are suffering from certain dangerous diet deficiencies which cannot be remedied until the depleted soils from which our foods come are brought into proper mineral balance?
The alarming fact is that foods, fruits and vegetables and grains, now being raised on millions of acres of land that no longer contains enough of certain needed minerals, are starving us--no matter how much of them we eat!
This talk about minerals is novel and quite startling. In fact, a realization of the importance of minerals in food is so new that the text books on nutritional dietetics contain very little about it. Nevertheless, it is something that concerns all of us, and the further we delve into it the more startling it becomes.
You'd think, wouldn't you, that a carrot is a carrot--that one is about as good as another as far as nourishment is concerned? But it isn't; one carrot may look and taste like another and yet be lacking in the particular mineral element which our system requires and which carrots are supposed to contain.
Laboratory tests prove that the fruits, the vegetables, the grains, the eggs, and even the milk and the meats of today are not what they were a few generations ago (which doubtless explains why our forefathers thrived on a selection of foods that would starve us!)
No man of today can eat enough fruits and vegetables to supply his stomach with the mineral salts he requires for perfect health, because his stomach isn't big enough to hold them! And we are running too big stomachs.
No longer does a balanced and fully nourishing diet consist merely of so many calories or certain vitamins or a fixed proportion of starches, proteins and carbohydrates. We know that our diet must contain in addition something like a score of mineral salts.
It is bad news to learn from our leading authorities that 99% of the American people are deficient in these minerals, and that a marked deficiency in any one of the more important minerals actually results in disease. Any upset of the balance, any considerable lack of one or another element, however microscopic the body requirement may be, and we sicken, suffer, shorten our lives.
We know that vitamins are complex chemical substances which are indispensable to nutrition, and that each of them is of importance for the normal function of some special structure in the body. Disorder and disease result from any vitamin deficiency. It is not commonly realized, however that vitamins control the body's appropriation of minerals, and in the absence of mineral's they have no function to perform. Lacking vitamins, the system can make some use of minerals, but lacking minerals, vitamins are useless."
--Written and printed by the 74th US Congress

Maybe she should have read a little from this giant, before she made such a ignorant conclusion:

In the 1960's, Professor Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes, proved that there are over 60 deficiency diseases, some as debilitating as arthritis, others as well known as osteoporosis, which can be traced to vitamin & mineral deficiencies alone.

Your choice, listen to the advice of someone who develops hospital diets, (Jello being one of their favorite foods choices) or listen to expert scientists like Linus Pauling... Gee, I think I'll follow Linus.

cw

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

Fish oil or Omega 3's can shrink cancerous tumors

In 2000, a 78-year-old man was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and told by his doctor he had only a few months to live.

Tumors Down to 10 Percent
Today, the cancerous tumors in his lungs have shrunk to 10 percent of what they were in 2000, according to last year's computed tomography scans. What caused this was not a common medical treatment such as chemotherapy or surgical excision.

An Omega-3 Diet
How is this possible? His neighbor, Ron Pardini, a professor of biochemistry and associate director of the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, told him to drastically increase his intake of omega-3 fatty acids, which are often found in fish oil or golden algae oil.
He began to take a high dose of fish oil and golden algae oil capsules daily, while at the same time reducing corn-based foods. Corn contains omega-6 fatty acids, which have been found to increase cancer growth.

Fights Cancer in Mice
Pardini's research showed that omega-3 fatty acids significantly depress the growth of human mammary, ovarian, colon, prostate and pancreatic cancer cells that were injected into mice. His studies also demonstrated that fish oil consumption can improve a mouse's responsiveness to chemotherapy.

Fish oil research began when it was observed that Inuit Eskimo populations suffer from fewer breast and prostate cancer deaths. So far, though, most studies have been limited to animal models.

Medical News Today November 11, 2005

Omega 3 EPA/DHA

CW

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

The harm from a bad diet extends over generations

This may offer new insight into today's insulin resistance etc.

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)President, Gordon Research Institute

Not only can food effect genes, but the effects can cross generations ...

Type 2 Diabetes May Begin With Grandma's DietAn innovative study published online in The Journal of Physiology in Press provides the first evidence that the insulin resistance typical of type 2 diabetes can be "programmed" across two generations by poor nutrition during a grandmother's pregnancy and lactation. The study, from The University of Texas Health Science Center at SanAntonio and the Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition in Mexico City, showed that grandsons and granddaughters of female rats fed an inadequate diet during pregnancy and/or lactation were more likely to become obese and insulin resistant than grandchildren of females fed an adequate diet. The research dramatically extends previous findings that poor maternal nutrition during pregnancy and lactation predisposes the first generation of offspring to diabetes. The study is the first to show that the adverse effects can be passed to adult grandchildren across two generations.Peter W. Nathanielsz, M.D., Ph.D., professor and director of the newCenter for Pregnancy and Newborn Research at the Health Science Center, explains: "These new findings stretch the unwanted consequences of poor nutrition across generations. It offers us important clues about the origins of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Knowledge of the origins of type 2 diabetes has the potential to improve the health of millions as well as deliver very significant economic savings."The granddaughters were more affected when their maternal grandmothers were undernourished during pregnancy. The grandsons, however, were more affected when their maternal grandmothers were undernourished during lactation. Thus, there are gender differences in the effects on the grandchildren, according to the time of exposure to a poor diet during their grandmothers' own development."Other researchers who have explored the issue have not tried to teaseout the effects of poor nutrition in pregnancy in distinction to lactation. Dr. Nathanielsz said the finding is important because it re-emphasizes the need to provide better maternal care and advice to women about good nutrition both during pregnancy and lactation.Dr. Nathanielsz, who joined the Health Science Center in 2004 from New York University Medical School, is the author of several books, including "Life in the Womb: the Origin of Health and Disease" (Promethean Press, 1999) and "The Prenatal Prescription" (HarperCollins Publishers, 2001). He is a widely quoted authority on fetal and early development. He said the finding that the diets of grandmothers can affect the health of grandchildren is "the confluence of nature and nurture -- it's one of the hottest health care stories there is."

CW

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

Paradigms and Paradoxes about Vitamin D

Reprinted from...
John Cannell, MD The Vitamin D Council


Last month, Dr. Armin Zittermann, of Ruhr University in Germany, published the best vitamin D paper of the month. He reviewed the mounting evidence that vitamin D deficiency is a major cause of heart disease.
Br J Nutr. 2005 Oct;94(4):483-92.

Before we start, let’s talk about paradigms and paradoxes. A paradigm is a set of assumptions, concepts, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality. The current paradigm is that heart disease is caused by a combination of genetics, hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol, smoking, obesity, inactivity, and diet. A paradox is a fact that contradicts the paradigm.

The Framingham Risk Equation is an attempt to use the most reliable risk factors in the paradigm to predict who will get heart disease. When they applied it to British men for ten years, they found 84% of the heart disease occurred in the men classified as low risk! Furthermore, 75% of the men classified as high risk were still free of heart disease ten years later. It seems the equation is missing a few variables.
BMJ. 2003 Nov 29;327(7426):1267.

There are several interesting heart disease paradoxes. How well do you know them? Good time for another quiz.

1. The French Paradox is the observation that cardiovascular disease is relatively low in France, despite high intakes of saturated fats.

A. True
B. False

True. Perhaps the best known of the cardiovascular disease paradoxes, the most common explanation is that the French love red wine and the antioxidants it contains. It was first described in 1987, before the dermatologists scared the French out of their bikinis. The rates of cardiovascular mortality in France are much lower in the South and West than in the North. One of the world’s best vitamin D researchers, Dr. Marie Chapuy, found that vitamin D levels of healthy adults in France follow that same pattern, with a mean level of 38 ngs/ml in the sunnier and drier South and West, but less than half that (17ngs/ml) in the colder, rainier, and more polluted, North.
Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1987 Apr;80 Spec No:17-21.
Hypertension. 2005 Oct;46(4):645-6. Epub 2005 Sep 12.
Hypertension. 2005 Oct;46(4):645-6. Epub 2005 Sep 12.
Osteoporos Int. 1997;7(5):439-43.

2. The Israeli Paradox is the observation that cardiovascular disease is high in Israel despite a high consumption of polyunsaturated omega-6 fats.

A. True
B. False

True. According to the current paradigm, polyunsaturated fats contained in vegetable seed oils are supposed to lower the risk of heart disease. However, high consumption of these oils doesn’t appear to prevent the Israelis from dying from heart attacks. Israel does, despite its sunny weather, have a high incidence of vitamin D deficiency. Average vitamin D levels among healthy adults in Lebanon, right next door, are only 9.7 ngs/ml - dangerously low. Healthy Jewish mothers, especially orthodox ones, have low vitamin D levels. (If you are wondering how the pro-inflammatory omega-6 oils could ever help heart disease, one possibility is these oils dissociate vitamin D from its binding protein, making more free vitamin D available. Apparently, the Israelis don’t have enough vitamin D in their blood to dissociate).
Isr J Med Sci. 1996 Nov;32(11):1134-43.
Isr Med Assoc J. 2004 Feb;6(2):82-7.
J Bone Miner Res. 2000 Sep;15(9):1856-62.
Isr Med Assoc J. 2001 Jun;3(6):419-21.
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1992 Sep;42(8):855-61.

3 The Italian Paradox is the observation that a population of heavy smokers has a low incidence of cardiovascular disease.

A. True
B. False

True. The overall death rate from cardiovascular disease in Italy, a country of heavy smokers, is relatively low. Before you say it is the olive oil and wine, ask yourself where olive trees and grapevines grow – in the sun. However, at least two good studies show vitamin D levels in Europe are a paradox, the closer a European lives to the equator, the lower their vitamin D level. Nevertheless, an Italian study showed healthy Roman blood donors had robust vitamin D levels of 48 ngs/ml in the summer. Even average postmenopausal Italian women reached 36 ng/ml in the summer. Anyone who has traveled in Italy, know that most Italians love the sun. As the old Italian proverb points out: “Where the sun does not go, the doctor does.”
QJM. 2000 Jun;93(6):375-83.
Br J Nutr. 1999 Feb;81(2):133-7.

4. The Northern Ireland Paradox is the observation that a population with a very high incidence of coronary heart disease does not have high rates of the expected risk factors.

A. True
B. False

True. In fact, the age adjusted mortality for coronary artery disease was more than four times higher in Belfast than in Toulouse, France, despite almost identical coronary risk factors. There were 761 deaths per 100,000 in Belfast compared to 175 in Toulouse. This is hard to explain, given the current paradigm of heart disease. Of interest, Belfast is at 54 degrees latitude, at sea level, and has 257 rainy days per year. Toulouse is eleven degrees closer to the equator, its altitude is 500 feet closer to the sun, and Toulouse only has 74 rainy days per year. Lots more vitamin D in Toulouse!
QJM. 1995 Jul;88(7):469-77.
QJM. 1998 Oct;91(10):667-76.
Weatherbase, Belfast
Weatherbase, Toulouse

5. The Indian Paradox is the observation that a high prevalence of coronary artery disease in urban Indians is associated with low saturated fat intake.

A. True
B. False

True. Researchers found that a low saturated fat diet did not prevent heart disease in the citizens of the brass-works-polluted city of Moradabad in northern India. The authors did not mention that air pollution dramatically lowers vitamin D levels.
J Am Coll Nutr. 1998 Aug;17(4):342-50.
Arch Dis Child. 2002 Aug;87(2):111-3.

6. The Swedish Paradox is the observation that the strong association between cold weather and heart disease in Sweden is not explained by the usual risk factors.

A. True
B. False

True. Researchers tried to explain why higher annual cardiac mortality is associated with residence in colder regions of Sweden. Try as they might, the authors could not support the current paradigm for heart disease. They failed to mention that cold weather is a marker for low vitamin D levels, as outdoor activity in cold weather is both curtailed and requires extensive clothing.
Scott Med J. 1991 Dec;36(6):165-8.

The point of these six paradoxes is simple. Our current paradigm for understanding heart disease is incomplete. One or more major causes of heart disease remain unknown. One theory - the theory that vitamin D deficiency is a major cause of heart disease – may explain these paradoxes.

7. Robert Scragg, Associate Professor in Epidemiology at the University of Auckland, first proposed that vitamin D deficiency plays a role in cardiovascular disease.

A. True
B. False

True. For the last 25 years, Dr. Scragg has been trying to convince anyone who would listen that vitamin D explains many of observations about heart disease. These include the facts that heart disease is higher at higher latitudes, lower altitudes, in the winter, in African Americans, in older, inactive, and in more obese patients. Remember, vitamin D blood levels are lower at higher latitudes, lower altitudes, in the winter, in African Americans, in older, inactive, and in more obese patients. Altitude is the least known of these associations. The age adjusted mortality for heart disease in the USA showed a striking inverse correlation with altitude in 1979, before the sun scare. American populations at the highest altitude had about half the heart disease of sea level populations. Thirty-five years ago, Leaf observed that most of the long-lived populations in the world reside at high altitude.
Int J Epidemiol. 1981 Dec;10(4):337-41.
J Chronic Dis. 1979;32(1-2):157-62.
Sci Am. 1973 Sep;229(3):44-52.

8. Dr. Scragg showed that higher vitamin D levels are associated with lower risk for heart attack.

A. True
B. False

True. In 1979, the Tromso Heart Study found corrected vitamin D levels showed the same thing.
Int J Epidemiol. 1990 Sep;19(3):559-63.
Br Med J. 1979 Jul 21;2(6183):176.

9. Dr. Scragg is such a good scientist, he then published a study which seemed to disprove his theory.

A. True
B. False

True. He discovered that a single oral dose of 100,000 units of vitamin D had no effect on risk factors (serum cholesterol or blood pressure) five weeks later. This seemed to disprove his theory, but he published the data anyway, always a mark of a good scientist. We now know that 100,000 units are a small dose and that such “stoss” therapy is not physiological. Such a small single dose will raise vitamin D levels for a month or two, but then they rapidly fall towards baseline and would have little physiological effect five weeks later.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1995 Sep;49(9):640-6.

10. Zittermann points out that vitamin D reduces vascular smooth muscle proliferation, reduces vascular calcification, decreases parathormone levels, reduces C reactive protein (CRP) and other markers of inflammation, and decreases renin, all of which should prevent or treat heart disease.

A. True
B. False

True. He discusses most of the evidence that exists, tying heart disease to vitamin D deficiency. A vitamin D theory of heart disease explains the excess cardiovascular deaths at high latitude, low altitude and during the winter. Furthermore, it explains the higher incidence of heart disease in African Americans, older, inactive, and obese individuals as these groups have significantly lower vitamin D blood levels.
Br J Nutr. 2005 Oct;94(4):483-92.

11. In 2003, Zittermann discovered that patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) have very low levels of vitamin D.

A. True
B. False

True. Furthermore, he found that a protein (NT-proANP), which is a predictor of CHF severity, was inversely associated with vitamin D levels.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Jan 1;41(1):105-12.

12. Blood cholesterol measurements are worse at higher latitudes, lower altitudes and in the winter.

A. True
B. False

True. The effects of latitude on cholesterol seen in the first study are quite remarkable. In the Greek study, total serum cholesterol for both men and women were significantly lower at higher altitude in spite of similar diets. The seasonal variations in cholesterol are well known and not explained by seasonal dietary changes.
QJM. 1996 Aug;89(8):579-89.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Apr;59(4):274-8.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(7):679-89.
Chronobiol Int. 2001 May;18(3):541-57.

13. Blood pressure is higher at higher latitudes, lower altitudes, in the winter, in African Americans, in the aged, and in the obese.

A. True
B. False

True. High blood pressure is one of the strongest predictors of heart disease. Here, six facts about hypertension can be explained by one theory: vitamin D.
Hypertension. 1997 Aug;30(2 Pt 1):150-6.
Ann Hum Biol. 2000 Jan-Feb;27(1):19-28.
Harv Health Lett. 2005 Sep;30(11):8.

14. Diabetes is more common at higher latitudes, at lower altitudes, in African Americans, in the aged and the obese. Both blood sugar and hemoglobin A1C are higher in the winter.

A. True
B. False

True. Six final facts that can be explained with one theory: vitamin D.
Eur J Epidemiol. 1991 Jan;7(1):55-63.
Nutrition. 2001 Apr;17(4):305-9.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2005 Aug;69(2):169-74. Epub 2005 Jan 12.
Diabetologia. 1982 Apr;22(4):250-3.
Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Mar 15;161(6):565-74.

15. Two studies show vitamin D significantly reduces C reactive protein (CRP), which may be a better predictor of heart disease than LDL cholesterol.

A. True
B. False

True. The Belgian study found a significant effect on CRP even though their high-dose vitamin D group only got 500 units a day.
QJM. 2002 Dec;95(12):787-96.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Oct;88(10):4623-32.

16. The risk for total mortality is significantly lower in subjects with high vitamin D levels.

A. True
B. False

True. However, the study is in Finnish and has not been translated into English (author communication).
Seppanen R, Marniemi J, Alanen E, Impivaara O, Jarvislo J, Ronnemaa T, et al. Ravinnon ja seerumin vitamiinit ja kivennaisaineet vanhusten kuolleisuuden ennustajina. Suom Laakaril 2000;42:4255-60 [Finnish]. Reported in Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2005 Jun;15(3):188-97.

17. It is now a proven scientific fact that vitamin D both prevents and treats heart disease.

A. True
B. False

False. Like so may other fields of vitamin D research, we lack the definitive interventional trials that would settle the point. It would be simple for the National Institutes of Health to fund a study giving physiological doses of real vitamin D (5,000 units of cholecalciferol) to heart disease patients for a year and see if CRP, proinsulin, blood pressure, cholesterol, body weight, heart attacks, or death rate decreases.

We will have to wait years for science to find out if vitamin D prevents and/or treats heart disease. While you are waiting, you have a choice. You can wait vitamin D deficient (levels less than 40 ngs/ml) or you can wait vitamin D sufficient (levels around 40-60 ngs/ml). The choice is yours - another Pascal’s Wager - this time you are betting your heart.

Also, while you wait for more studies, remember that vitamin D should be obtained daily, not monthly or weekly. It should be obtained physiologically, not in an all-then-none manner, as would happen if you took 100,000 units one day a month and nothing the other 29 days. It appears likely that high blood levels followed by low blood levels may do harm. The reason is that falling blood levels reset the enzymes maintaining intracellular levels of activated vitamin D, resulting in low intracellular levels.
Int J Cancer. 2004 Sep 1;111(3):468; author reply 469.

Vitamin D should be consumed the way the human genome consumed it during its evolution in subequatorial Africa, a steady amount every day. If you live down south, you can go in the sun for a few minutes every day. If you live up north you can sun in the warmer months and use a sunlamp or take real vitamin D (cholecalciferol) in the winter. Adults in the north could take one 5,000 unit capsule a day in late fall, winter, and early spring, less in the late spring and early fall, and none in the summer months - depending on your sunning habits. Children over 50 pounds need two of the 1,000 unit capsules every day in the colder months while children under 50 pounds need about 1,000 units in the colder months. Few people need to take oral vitamin D in the summer unless you are a sunphobe. Get enough vitamin D every day to maintain stable vitamin D blood levels (25-hydroxy-vitamin D) around 50 ngs/ml, year-around.

Last question: should patients dying from heart disease be allowed to die vitamin D deficient? According to the current paradigm, the answer is yes. At least, none of the cardiologists I know even bother to check a vitamin D level. Given the scientific literature, that’s a bit paradoxical.


Comment: Don't wait for final proof, do it...

Vitamin D3

CW

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

Changing diet will cut cancer deaths

Changing diet will cut cancer deaths perhaps in half:

18/11/2005- More than a third of the world's cancer deaths can be blamed on nine modifiable risk factors, including diet and obesity, shows a new study out today. The report, published in tomorrow's issue of The Lancet (vol 366, no 9499), estimates that 2.43 million, or 35 per cent of the 7 million deaths from cancer in 2001 were caused by a lifestyle that could have been changed.

The Harvard University researchers based their findings on a comprehensive review of scientific studies and other sources such as government reports.
Smoking, alcohol use, and low fruit and vegetable intake were the leading risk factors for death from cancer worldwide and in low-and-middle-income countries.
In high-income countries, smoking, alcohol use, and overweight and obesity were the most important causes of cancer.

The charity Cancer Research UK estimates that around half of all cancers in the UK could be prevented by changes to lifestyle.

Comment: While I believe this information is true, there is more that people can do besides just changing diet. Bruce N. Ames, professor of molecular and cell biology at UC Berkeley says that DNA damage from micro nutrient deficiencies is likely to be a major cause of cancer. A deficiency of any of the micro nutrients: folic acid, Vitamin B12, Vitamin B6, niacin, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, iron, or zinc, mimics radiation in damaging DNA by causing single- and double-strand breaks, oxidative lesions, or both. For example, the percentage of the US population that has a low intake (<50%>20%. A level of folate deficiency causing chromosome breaks was present in approximately 10% of the US population, and in a much higher percentage of the poor. Folate deficiency causes extensive incorporation of uracil into human DNA (4 million/cell), leading to chromosomal breaks. This mechanism is the likely cause of the increased colon cancer risk associated with low folate intake. Some evidence, and mechanistic considerations, suggest that Vitamin B12 (14% US elderly) and B6 (10% of US) deficiencies also cause high uracil and chromosome breaks. Micro nutrient deficiency may explain, in good part, why the quarter of the population that eats the fewest fruits and vegetables (five portions a day is advised) has about double the cancer rate for most types of cancer when compared to the quarter with the highest intake. For example, 80% of American children and adolescents and 68% of adults do not eat five portions a day. Common micro nutrient deficiencies are likely to damage DNA by the same mechanism as radiation and many chemicals, appear to be orders of magnitude more important, and should be compared for perspective. Remedying micro nutrient deficiencies should lead to a major improvement in health and an increase in longevity at low cost.

CW

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.

Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

Supplementation could improve life and save Billions...

Study concludes omega-3, lutein/zeaxanthin supplement use could help seniors maintain independence, save billions... From Life Extension Foundation

Readers of Life Extension Update may recall the September 27 2004 issue which reported the conclusion of the Lewin Group that consumption of certain dietary supplements by Americans could save the U.S. billions of dollars. In a new Lewin Group report dated November 2, 2005, it was revealed that the regular intake of omega-3 fatty acids and the combination of lutein with zeaxanthin could help older individuals maintain their independence and save an estimated 5.6 billion dollars over a five year period.
The Lewin Group was commissioned by the Dietary Supplement Education Alliance (DSEA) to review research publications for validity, impact and applicability of the findings for omega-3 fatty acids and lutein and zeaxanthin as associated with producing health care savings and maintaining independence for men and women over the age of 65. Several hundred studies dating back nearly thirty years concerning omega-3 fatty acid use among older adults were reviewed, along with studies dating back fifteen years for lutein and zeaxanthin.
The impact of taking 1800 milligrams omega-3 fatty acids per day on coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention was estimated by the Lewin Group to have the potential of avoiding 384,303 hospitalizations and saving 3.1 billion dollars in hospital and physician service fees over five years. For lutein with zeaxanthin, taking 6 to 10 milligrams per day could prevent the loss of independence resulting from visual impairment due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) of 98,219 individuals, while saving 2.5 billion dollars.
The authors observed, “As the population lives longer, reducing the level of disability caused by age-related diseases is becoming ever more important . . . Potential savings could be achieved through a reduction in hospitalizations and physician services for CHD, and a reduction in the transition to greater dependency from loss of central vision due to advanced AMD.”

CW


Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.

Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

Another study supporting the benefits of higher intakes of Vit D

Vitamin D appears more important than high calcium for bones...
09/11/2005-

Consuming more than 800 mg of calcium per day may be unnecessary for bone health if the body has enough vitamin D, say Icelandic researchers. Using food consumption records from more than 900 adults, the researchers determined that sufficient vitamin D levels can ensure an ideal level of parathyroid hormone (PTH) - a measure of calcium metabolism - even when calcium intake is less than 800 mg per day.
But consuming more than 1200 mg of calcium daily is not enough to maintain ideal PTH if the vitamin D status is insufficient.
The study is part of a growing body of work that points to the important role of vitamin D, and not just calcium alone, in bone health.
Bone health is a growing concern as the numbers affected by osteoporosis continue to rise, and an increasing elderly population suggests that these will grow further in the future. In Europe, osteoporosis causes around 1.1 million fractures each year.
In light of recent research, and predicting future health problems, some researchers have called for recommended intake of vitamin D to be raised but the adequate amounts needed in the diet are still not known.
The new study, published in today’s issue of JAMA (vol 294, no 18, pp2336-2341), underlines the need to do further work on the RDA for this vitamin.
Nevertheless, the authors, Dr Laufey Steingrimsdottir and colleagues from Landspitali-University Hospital in Reykjavik, write that "there is already sufficient evidence from numerous studies for physicians and general practitioners to emphasise to a much greater extent the importance of vitamin D status and recommend vitamin D supplements for the general public, when sun exposure and dietary sources are insufficient".
The team's findings were derived from nutrient intake data obtained from 944 healthy Icelandic adults recruited between 2001-2003.
The participants were divided into groups according to calcium intake (less than 800 mg/d, 800-1200 mg/d, and greater than1200 mg/d) and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level (less than 10 ng/mL, 10-18 ng/mL, and greater than 18 ng/mL). Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D is a generally accepted indicator of vitamin D status.
After adjusting for relevant factors, the researchers found that serum intact PTH was lowest in the group with a vitamin D level of more than 18 ng/mL but highest in the group with a vitamin D level of less than 10 ng/mL.
An inverse relationship between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and serum PTH is well established. PTH is a major hormone maintaining normal serum concentrations of calcium and phosphate and is itself regulated through levels of calcitriol and serum calcium. An insufficiency of vitamin D or calcium is generally associated with an increase in PTH.
But the researchers also observed that in people with a calcium intake of more than 1200 mg per day, there was still a significant difference in PTH between the lowest and highest vitamin D groups.
The researchers added: "The significance of our study was demonstrated by the strong negative association between sufficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and PTH, with calcium intake varying from less than 800 mg/d to more than 1200 mg/d."
“Our results suggest that vitamin D sufficiency can ensure ideal serum PTH values even when the calcium intake level is less than 800 mg/d, while high calcium intake (greater than 1200 mg/d) is not sufficient to maintain ideal serum PTH, as long as vitamin D status is insufficient," they write.
The authors said that although this cross-sectional study is not sufficient to demonstrate causality, “the association between vitamin D status, calcium intake, and the interaction between these two with serum PTH levels is a strong indication of the relative importance of these nutrients”.
Vitamin D may have a calcium sparing effect, explained the researchers, and as long as vitamin D status is ensured, calcium intake levels of more than 800 mg daily may be unnecessary for maintaining calcium metabolism.
Some countries, such as the UK and Denmark, have recently begun recommending that specific groups of the population take vitamin D supplements to ensure adequate vitamin D status during periods when there is little exposure to sunshine.
But data on the market for bone health supplements shows that the vitamin is still considered to have minor importance for this application. With a mere 4 per cent share of the overall vitamins market, vitamin D comes a long way behind calcium in bone supplement sales, according to a recent Frost & Sullivan report.


CW


Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.

Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

Vit D may help you and your family survive the Bird Flu Pandemic, when it comes...

I receive a newsletter from an organization called The Vitamin D Council. This is a periodic publication, from a non-profit group trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency.

I have reprinted the whole article for you here, but it is very long and scientific in nature, so I will put the most important points in bold so you can read all or part as you have time, but I have been researching vit D for many years and I know that most Americans are low in this inportant nutrient, so please take this information to heart.

cw

HERE IS THE ARTICLE:

As we wait for this year’s influenza epidemic, keep in mind we are also waiting for the big one, the pandemic (pan: all, demic: people). A severe pandemic will kill many more Americans than died in the World Trade Centers, the Iraq war, the Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina combined. Perhaps a million or two in the USA alone. Such a disaster would tear the fabric of our society. Our entire country would resemble New Orleans after Katrina.
Also, it’s only a question of when it will come, not if it will come. Pandemics come every 25 years or so, severe ones every hundred years or so. The last pandemic, the Hong Kong flu, occurred in 1968, killing 34,000 Americans. In 1918, the Spanish flu killed more than 500,000 Americans. So many millions died in other countries, they couldn’t bury the bodies.
The Influenza Pandemic of 1918

Young healthy adults, in the prime of their lives in the morning, drowning in their own inflammation by noon, grossly discolored by sunset, were dead at midnight. An overwhelming immune response to the influenza virus - macrophages releasing large amounts of inflammatory agents called cytokines and chemokines into the lung of the afflicted - resulted in millions of deaths in 1918.
Nature. 2004 Oct 7;431(7009):703-7.

Keep in mind, that the Germans recently discovered that vitamin D is intimately involved in reining in the macrophages, holding their cytokine production back, so they don’t overshoot, and kill their owner along with the invader.
Blood. 2005 Aug 23; [Epub ahead of print]

Your annual flu shot won’t help when the big one hits, the antigenic shift one. Once the pandemic starts, a new vaccine, specific to the new virus must be manufactured and that takes time. You can and should get some antiviral drugs from your doctor in advance. Once the pandemic starts –this year, or ten years from now - the supply of antivirals may be limited and the lines will be long.
It may surprise you that influenza remains an enigma. Current theory holds that influenza infects like measles, one person gets it, gives it to others, in a chain of infectious events. That theory has some problems. For example, Dr. Carolyn Buxton Bridges, of the CDC, recently published a review paper on the transmission of influenza. She noted, "Our review found no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza."
Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Oct 15;37(8):1094-101

Most experts also think pandemic strains originate in birds or other animals. Dr. Ann Reid and Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology recently wrote, "it is important to recognize that the mechanisms by which pandemic strains originate have not been explained yet." Furthermore, there is a persistent theory that influenza lies dormant in humans, not birds or swine, where it mutates into a killer strain.
J Gen Virol. 2003 Sep;84(Pt 9):2285-92.
Vaccine. 2002 Aug 19;20(25-26):3068-87.

So, get your flu shot for this year’s flu, stock up on some antivirals, and let’s go looking for some ignored facts that might improve your family’s chances when the pandemic comes. Last month we saw that aggressive treatment of vitamin D deficiency prevented children from getting infections. Dr. Rehman didn’t differentiate between viral and bacterial infections but most of the illnesses vitamin D prevented were probably viral.
J Trop Pediatr. 1994 Feb;40(1):58.

When looking for ignored facts, one should always start with epidemiology, the detective branch of medicine. Epidemiologists look for clues, clues that lead to theories, theories that can be tested, and, if true, save your family’s lives. One of the world’s pioneering epidemiologists died recently, R. Edward Hope-Simpson. He used meticulous, and solitary, detective work to discover that the chickenpox virus was reactivated in adults, causing shingles. Dr. Hope-Simpson became famous.
Proc R Soc Med. 1965 Jan;58:9-20.

In 1979, he turned his attention to influenza A. He studied two remote populations, one in Wales and the other in England. He found that most affected households had only one case of influenza. Furthermore, no serial time intervals could be identified in cumulative household outbreaks, that is, different families didn’t get sick one after another, but around the same time. He discovered other facts that just didn’t fit with the theory that influenza A is primarily spread by person-to-person transmission of this year’s virus.
J Hyg (Lond). 1979 Aug;83(1):11-26.

Then he spent the rest of his life trying to alert us to one of the basic facts of influenza. It is distinctly seasonal. All theories about its transmission must take into account its seasonality. Hope-Simpson reminded us what Davenport said, "Epidemiological hypotheses must provide satisfactory explanations for all the known findings – not just for a convenient subset of them."
Going back to 1945, he discovered that influenza epidemics above 30 degrees latitude in both hemispheres occurred during the six months of least solar radiation. Outbreaks in the tropics almost always occur during the rainy season. Hope-Simpson concluded, "Latitude alone broadly determines the timing of the epidemics in the annual cycle, a relationship that suggests a rather direct effect of some component of solar radiation acting positively or negatively upon the virus, the humans host or their interaction." That is, something may be regularly reducing our immunity every fall and winter.
J Hyg (Lond). 1981 Feb;86(1):35-47.

In 2003, researchers confirmed that influenza epidemics in the tropics occur, with few exceptions, during the rainy season - when vitamin D levels should be falling.
Paediatr Respir Rev. 2003 Jun;4(2):105-11.

Furthermore, in his 1981 paper, Hope-Simpson wondered how the same virus could cause influenza outbreaks at exactly the same time (middle of winter) over a six-year period (1969 - 1974) in two widely separated areas (Prague, Czechoslovakia, and Cirencester, England). Surely, during the middle of the Cold War, infected people did not arrive at two locations hundreds of miles apart, in the middle of winter, for five years in a row to infect the well people. On thing Prague and Cirencester do have in common, they are both at 50 degrees latitude.
In 1990, researchers confirmed a relative lack of country-to-country transmission, by looking at two countries with heavy tourist traffic between them.
J Hyg Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol. 1990;34(3):283-8

Hope-Simpson rejected the theory that this year’s virus is only transmitted from actively infected persons to well persons, concluding instead the facts were more consistent with transmission by symptomless carriers who become contagious when the sun is either in the other hemisphere or obscured by the rainy season. He theorized that annual movement of the sun caused a "seasonal stimulus that reactivates latent virus in the innumerable carriers who are everywhere present, so creating the opportunity for epidemics to occur in the wake of its passage." And thus the celebrated scientist committed heresy.
Everyone knows influenza transmission is direct; the ill people infect the well people. The accepted theory of pandemics is that the virus first spreads in birds, perhaps jumps to a mammal (pigs in 1918), then jumps to humans already infected with a common influenza strain. There it combines and mutates (reassortment) to a hybrid virus in the index case and that single person spreads it to others who spread it to others, etc. No, said Hope-Simpson, the epidemiology just does not fit that theory. Heresy, said the experts.
Hope-Simpson practiced medicine in a small village in southwest England, Cirencester. He went back and looked at 16 years of his medical records and found evidence of 20 influenza outbreaks, spaced over those 16 years. In every outbreak, he found young children were the most frequently affected but in none of the 20 outbreaks did the children appear to be major disseminators of the influenza virus. Furthermore, all ages seemed to get sick around the same time. He concluded, "Such age-patterns are not those caused by a highly infectious immunizing virus surviving by means of direct transmissions from the sick, whose prompt development of the disease continues endless chains of transmissions."
J Hyg (Lond). 1984 Jun;92(3):303-36.

No one listened. Everyone knew, and still knows: influenza only occurs when sick people infect well people, who in turn infect other well people. I don’t think so, said Hope-Simpson. In search of more evidence, he went to all the parishes in Gloucestershire, separated by many miles. He looked at burial records for the last 500 years and found evidence of repeated influenza epidemics. He concluded, "In each century, influenzal excess mortalities in Gloucestershire parishes coincided with the date of the relevant influenza epidemic as recorded from widely different parts of Britain." That is, long before modern rapid transit, everyone in Britain got the flu around the same time! How could one person come down with the flu, infect others, etc, when everyone in Britain got sick at the same time, long before modern rapid transit?
J Hyg (Lond). 1983 Oct;91(2):293-308.

In fact, after studying influenza epidemics in schools, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also decided that direct spread by infected children could not explain what was happening. They theorized that influenza viral precursors were reaching earth from outer space!
Nature. 1987 Jun 25-Jul 1;327(6124):664.

Content to stay on earth, Hope-Simpson published a detailed theory of influenza’s infectivity in 1987, based on the facts he observed. Right or wrong, Hope-Simpson’s paper is wonderful reading for anyone interested in influenza. Here is a great mind at work. He noted any theory of influenza must explain a number of facts:
"Vast explosions of disease which may attack 15% or more of a large community within six weeks and then cease,"
"Successive outbreaks of type A influenza in small relatively remote communities often coincide closely season after season with those of the country as a whole and, although the virus changes, the identical strains of virus appear contemporaneously in the two situations,"
"Cessation of epidemics despite abundant available non-immune subjects,"
household outbreaks occur all at once, not one after another,
"Low secondary attack rates within households,"
"epidemic patterns of influenza have not changed in four centuries . . . and does not seem to have altered with the increasing speed and complexity of human communications."
Epidemiol Infect. 1987 Aug;99(1):5-54.

Hope Simpson proposed that symptomless carriers became infective in response to a seasonal stimulus and then infect others causing simultaneous explosions of disease in widely different areas. Furthermore, he concluded that those who got sick were not particularly contagious. He proposed that the stimulus for infection "is dependent on variations in solar radiation, an extraterrestrial influence unaffected by the rapidity of human travel. The rapidity of influenza spread was as rapid in previous centuries as it is at present because it does not depend on case-to-case transfer."
He added, "The primary agency mediating seasonal control remains unidentified." That is, something is weakening our immune system, every year, as regularly as changing of the leaves and declining vitamin D levels, but he didn’t know what it was. Hope-Simpson’s 1987 paper was his last. In 1992, he compiled all his work on influenza into a book. He died in 2003, at the age of 95.
The Transmission of Epidemic Influenza (The Language of Science)

I wish Hope-Simpson could have lived a while longer, to read Dr. Colleen Hayes and her colleagues from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is one of the brightest vitamin D researchers out there. In 2003, she reviewed the profound effect vitamin D has on the immune system, including the role vitamin D plays in fighting infections.
Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2003 Mar;49(2):277-300.

Yes, as regularly as the flu season, vitamin D levels plummet in the fall and winter. Yes, vitamin D has profound effects on the immune system. Yes vitamin D may be involved in the epidemiology of influenza. But is there any direct evidence?
Two animal studies showed vitamin D prevents the flu and one showed it does not. Nothing after 1956. If you obtain and read the first citation below, you’ll see the very first animal paper indicting vitamin D protected rats from influenza was published in Japan during World War II, apparently part of Japan’s biological weapons research. The CIA confiscated the paper after the war.
Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1949 Dec;72(3):695-7.
Virology. 1956 Jun;2(3):415-29.

One last thing, when you give flu shots to hemodialysis patients, those taking activated vitamin D develop significantly better immunity.
Nephron. 2000 Sep;86(1):56-61.

Will normal vitamin D levels protect your family against the flu? No one knows. It would be nice if we had a report from a big hospital, were some patients were on vitamin D and some who weren’t and see what happened when the flu struck the hospital. Were the patients on vitamin D less likely to get the flu?
In the meantime, it seems to me the smart thing to do is to take enough real vitamin D (cholecalciferol) or get enough UVB light to get and keep your 25-hydroxy-vitamin D level at about 50 ng/ml. Of course, it is a good idea to keep your level around 50 ng/ml year around even if you don’t fear the coming influenza pandemic. 50 ng/ml is the normal human level and protects the owner from a myriad of chronic diseases.
J Nutr. 2005 Feb;135(2):317-22.
Eur J Clin Invest. 2005 May;35(5):290-304.

Also, don’t depend on high levels in the summer being stored and used in the winter. Vieth believes that the intracellular kinetics of vitamin D metabolism means that declining vitamin D blood levels may cause rapidly declining intracellular levels. That is, declining levels in the autumn may be as dangerous as low levels in the winter.
Int J Cancer. 2004 Sep 1;111(3):468

Professor Robert Heaney believes healthy blood levels may require up to 4,000 units a day for those with no sun exposure. Most people need to take more in the winter than the summer. Big people need more than little people. African Americans need more than whites. Sunphobes need more than those who enjoy God’s invention.
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Jul 15

Children over 50 pounds need up to 2,000 units a day. Under 50 pounds, about 1,000 units a day. There is no way to know for sure how much you need without a blood test, called a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. That test should be conducted in the late winter, when your levels are the lowest, and at the beginning of fall, when your levels are the highest. Then you can figure out how much you need to take to keep stable levels. Or adults can simply take 4,000 units a day, every day, except for those late spring, summer, and early fall days when you go into the sun.
It might be a good idea to keep pharmacological doses (50,000 units) of vitamin D next to your antivirals and take a 50,000 unit capsule at the first sign of the flu, although there is not one study to support such a practice. It might help tame those unchained macrophages and save your life or it might not help at all. You can buy 50,000 unit capsules from Bio-Tech-Pharm . Single administrations of ten times that amount have repeatedly been found to be safe and are routinely used in Europe as stoss therapy.
So, maybe vitamin D will help your family survive the coming influenza pandemic, maybe not. Let’s gamble. Ever heard of the vitamin D variation of Pascal’s wager ?

"If you erroneously believe vitamin D helps influenza, you lose nothing, whereas if you correctly believe vitamin D helps influenza, your family may live. But if you correctly disbelieve in vitamin D, you gain nothing, whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in vitamin D, your family may die."
John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

Vitamin D3

CW

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.

Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

Get up, get out, and for goodness sake, walk...

Study: Walking As Good As Jogging

By NATALIE GOTT, Associated Press Writer

There's no need to run. Just going for a brisk walk — in the park, around the block or on a treadmill — may be enough to help keep your heart healthy, a small study suggests.
The study, which indicates roughly two to three hours of mild exercise a week at a moderate intensity can significantly cut the risk of cardiovascular disease, supports earlier research.
The findings may encourage people who are reluctant to exercise, said Brian Duscha, the lead author of the research published in the October issue of the journal Chest.

"The classic question always is: What's the minimum amount I need to do to enjoy the benefits of it," Duscha said. "If you just walk 12 miles a week at a brisk pace, it's scientifically proven now that you will get some benefits."

The conclusions are based on a study at Duke University Medical Center of 133 middle-aged overweight sedentary men and women who were at risk for heart disease.
Broken into four groups, the volunteers either did not exercise, walked briskly for 12 miles a week at a moderate intensity, walked briskly or jogged slowly 12 miles a week at a vigorous intensity, or jogged 20 miles a week at a vigorous intensity.

The researchers studied two measurements of fitness — time to exhaustion and oxygen consumption. The better shape a person is in, the more oxygen can be consumed and used, Duscha said.

All the exercise groups saw fitness improvements. And when the two groups that walked 12 miles at differing intensity levels were compared, there wasn't a significant difference in peak oxygen consumption. There was an improvement for those who jogged vigorously 20 miles a week, an indication that the amount of exercise can be important.
As to the exercising volunteers' minimal weight loss — an average of 3 pounds over the eight-month study period — Duscha said that didn't matter. People who don't exercise and maintain the same diet will gain up to 4 pounds a year, according to an earlier analysis of the same study participants.

Even if you think you aren't gaining any benefits because you aren't losing weight, "don't stop exercising," Duscha said.
Dr. Robert Eckel, president of the American Heart Association, said the study supports what already is known: Moderate activity is certainly better than no activity. But, he noted that "even being more fit may have a better outcome long-term."

A large study based on medical records and questionnaires of more than 40,000 men middle-aged men a few years ago also suggested moderate exercise helps the heart.
Dave Brady, manager of Hyde Park Gym in Austin, Texas, said the findings from the Duke study weren't new but "absolutely right on." Walking 12 miles a week is a good start for people who are overweight and haven't done any exercise, he said.

"If people would just start walking they will get some type of benefit," said Brady.

CW

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.

Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

What is the Number 1 Cause of Death in America...

Commentary by CW 10-22-05:

This is a very important question. Why, because if we could know in advance what the number 1 killer of people in America was, maybe, just maybe we could stop ourselves from becoming a statistic that would end in our premature demise.

I have long been a follower of medical statistics. They tell me a lot. For example, in 1962, 1 out 16 people were getting Cancer, today it is more like 1 in 2 or 3. It helps me to know this, so when I hear the statement "we are winning the war on Cancer", I can look at the reality and say to myself... Really? Actually I say... Liar, liar, pants on fire, or something like that.
The annual cancer death rate for 2001 was, 553,251.

So is Cancer the number 1 cause of death in America? Nope. It is gaining on us though.

What about Heart Disease? It use to be that Heart disease was the number 1 killer in America. Right now, 1 out of 2 of us will become a statistic of Heart Disease and the 2001 heart disease annual death rate was 699,697.

So, is Heart Disease number 1? Nope. But its getting a lot of us.

What about type 2 Diabetes? Well it's fast becoming number 3 with a 32% increase of this disease in just the last 20 years. But it's not number 1, yet.

So what is the leading cause of death in America, with the total number of deaths for 2001 being 783,936.

Are you ready?

I think you will be surprised.

Doctors, hospitals, drug interactions or what is called Iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] killed the most people in 2001.

Here is just a little of the stats:

According to Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, and Dorothy Smith PhD "a definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics in 2001 shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good".

"The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics".

"The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million".

"The total number of iatrogenic deaths is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States".

"The enumerating of unnecessary medical events is very important in our analysis. Any medical procedure that is invasive and not necessary must be considered as part of the larger iatrogenic picture. Unfortunately, cause and effect go unmonitored. The figures on unnecessary events represent people ("patients") who are thrust into a dangerous health care system. They are helpless victims. Each one of these 16.4 million lives is being affected in a way that could have a fatal consequence. Simply entering a hospital could result in the following (out of 16. 4 million people):
2.1 percent chance of a serious adverse drug reaction (186,000)
5 percent to 6 percent chance of acquiring a nosocomial [hospital] infection (489,500)
4 percent to 36 percent chance of having an iatrogenic injury in hospital (medical error and adverse drug reactions) (1.78 million)
17 percent chance of a procedure error (1.3 million)
All the statistics above represent a one-year time span. Imagine the numbers over a 10-year period.
Working with the most conservative figures from our statistics we project the following 10-year death rates would be 7,841,360 (7.8 million) "

I could give you a lot more examples, but here is just one that I noticed the other day. This is modern medicine trying to help us with our type 2 Diabetes epidemic.

Study finds higher cardiac risks from new diabetes drug:
By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY, Fri Oct 21, 7:16 AM ET

A powerful new diabetes drug on the brink of being approved appears to double the risk of death, heart attacks or strokes, researchers reported Thursday.
The drug, muraglitazar, is a prototype of a new class of drugs that can reduce blood fats and blood sugar, a valuable combination for the 18 million diabetics who have a high risk of heart disease.
The study was carried out by the same Cleveland Clinic researchers who first reported the heart risks posed by the arthritis drug Vioxx, which has been taken off the market. They used data the diabetes drug's maker, Bristol-Myers Squibb, gave the Food and Drug Administration.
Their analysis involved data from 2,374 patients who took muraglitazar, to be sold as Pargluva, and 1,351 who took either a rival drug called pioglitazone, sold as Actos, or a placebo. Death, heart attacks and strokes occurred in 35 of the muraglitazar patients and nine of the control patients.
"Ten of 1,000 patients would die, have a heart attack or a stroke," says lead author Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic.
When the researchers factored in heart failure and mini-strokes, Nissen says, they found that patients' risk of catastrophic events increased nearly threefold.
Nissen and his co-authors published their results two days after the FDA pronounced muraglitazar "approvable." But the FDA asked Bristol-Myers to address the drug's heart-disease risk profile.
The Journal of the American Medical Association rushed the study onto its website Thursday, citing a compelling need to make the information public.
"It's a very important and interesting finding," says Richard Kahn of the American Diabetes Association. "I'm confident that the FDA will pursue this to the end to make sure the drug is safe."
Tony Plohoros, a spokesman for Bristol-Myers, says: "At this point, we're anxious to begin discussions with FDA to address this issue." Merck, which is marketing the drug with Bristol-Myers, echoed that response in a joint statement.
Laura Alvey, an FDA spokeswoman, issued a statement that said the agency was aware of the latest findings on muraglitazar but that it couldn't comment further on the drug because its application for approval is still pending.
James Brophy of McGill University in Montreal wrote in a JAMA editorial that the analysis "should focus serious attention" on the drug's cardiovascular risks.
On Sept. 9, an FDA advisory committee voted 8-1 to recommend the drug's approval as a treatment for type 2 diabetes. During that meeting, the FDA's analysts reported evidence of cardiac risk. But they didn't flag the risk as significant, except when the drug was used with other treatments. Bristol experts concluded there was no significant rise in heart risk.
Brophy, in his editorial, cited the gulf between the two interpretations of the data. He asked: "The question now is, which safety message will the FDA buy?"

Is it no wonder that I have dedicated myself to learning alternative approaches to dealing with disease. What happened to Medicine. Hippocrates, the founder of modern medicines said, "I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel..." He was also quoted as saying "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food".

Need I say any more...

Also I would like to say that America is number 1 in the world for Emergency Medical and Surgical care. If I were in a car accident, broke my leg or needed surgery, I would have the best care in the world here, but when it comes to the treatment of Chronic Degenerative Diseases, I personally find Alternative Medicine a smarter choice, when chosen properly.

CW

Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.

Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html

High fat diet eases Alzheimer’s?

17/10/2005-

Exploring how dietary components can interact to influence the metabolic state of the body, scientists show that a high fat, low carbohydrate diet eases Alzheimer's disease in mice.
The authors of the study believe that insulin and the related hormone, insulin related growth factor-1 (IGF-1), are the key players in reducing the brain protein amyloid-beta, an indicator of Alzheimer's disease.

"You might say that fat is the bomb, and insulin (from carbohydrate) is the fuse, says Richard Feinman, editor of Nutrition and Metabolism, that published the study this week.
The research, by Samuel Henderson at US pharma firm Accera, runs counter to previous studies suggesting a negative effect of fat on Alzheimer's disease.
Feinman explains why this latest research has thrown up a new angle.
" Most studies of the deleterious effects of fat have been done in the presence of high carbohydrate. If carbs are high, dietary fat is not oxidised (Burned as fuel)and is instead stored as body fat."
When carbohydrates are very low and fat is high, compounds called ketone bodies are generated (ketosis, and these compounds may play a role in the observed reduction in amyloid-beta.
In association with a group from the University of Washington led by Dr. Suzanne Craft, Henderson has previously shown cognitive improvement in patients with mild AD who were given a diet that raised ketone bodies.
"Although it is too early to tell how the results will fit into the treatment of AD, the implication for diet in general is also important," underlines Feinman.
The primacy of insulin as a control element is the basis of popular weight-loss diets based on carbohydrate restriction, he adds.
Such diets, he adds, allow dieters to regulate fat and calorie intake by appetite alone as long as carbohydrate intake remains minimal.
"Henderson's effort is one of several recent studies that point the way to understanding metabolism beyond the issues surrounding simple fat reduction, " says Feinman.
There are nearly 18 million people with dementia in the world and the most common cause of this dementia is Alzheimer's disease. By 2025 this figure is expected to rise to 34 million, with 71 per cent of these likely to live in developing countries.
Today research continues to investigate how the diet may slow down, or prevent, the development of dementia.
Several studies have found an association between intake of omega-3s, the fatty acid found in high quantities in oily fish and reduced risk of dementia, although a recent trial failed to link the presence of these fats in the diet with slower cognitive decline.
This trial, on elderly men and women living in Chicago, did find however that those who reported eating fish at least once a week had a slower decline in mental function than peers who did not eat fish as often, about 10 per cent less per year.

Comment: This study is consistent with what my research has been telling me for many years. The only time fats are not burned as energy, is when your Insulin levels are too high and your body is being told to store fat for a rainy day. Ketosis is when the body burns fats that are consumed or stored as body fat, and apparently may help remove Amyloid Plague associated with Dementia. Everyone should read and study these portions of my website if you want to remain free from chronic disease and weight gain...

Hyperinsulinemia... and Weightloss that works - long term...


CW


Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.

Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com

Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html