Now, What Are We Going to Eat For Breakfast?

Reinforces Chapter 6: The Seeds of Ill-health

You may have read recently that, because of the use of recycled newspapers being used in the manufacture of cardboard used to make breakfast cereal boxes the boxes pose a serious cancer risk.

How times have changed.

I remember, many years ago, reading a study conducted on rats, which tested the relative nutritional merits of different breakfast cereals. In this study, the rats were divided into groups and each group was given a different breakfast cereal to live on. Then the last group was fed on the chopped-up cardboard breakfast cereal boxes.

Guess which group lived longest.

I expect you chose correctly: Yes, it was the group that ate the chopped up cereal boxes.

I regret that I can't find the reference for this study now, but the American consumer advocate, Robert Choate, quoted the study to a U.S. Senate subcommittee in Washington in 1970 as an example of the woeful nutritional inadequacy of breakfast cereals.

So this latest news must have come as something of a bombshell to the masses. Now, it seems, the only healthy thing about breakfast cereals you could rely on - the cardboard boxes they come in - can no longer be trusted either.

Oh dear! What on earth are we going to eat now? some will cry.

Me? I'll stick to my scrambled eggs for breakfast.

HFCS Name Sanitized to Boost Flagging Sales

A rose by any other name?

The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) has been trying for years to make high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which I prefer to call the ‘Corn Refiners Association Product’ (CRAP), as acceptable as all other forms of sugar. As more and more studies show that CRAP (HFCS) is a major cause of the recent dramatic increases in obesity, diabetes and other ‘metabolic diseases’ in the US, UK and other westernised countries, consumers are getting the message and are abandoning CRAP laden foodstuffs in their droves.

Does the CRA give up? No sirree! The CRA think that if they change its name, the gullible public won’t notice. According to the Associated Press, CRA is now petitioning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow it to change the name of the highly-processed, controversial sweetener to ‘Corn Sugar’, which they fervently believe will make it more acceptable.

No matter how you look at it, CRAP (HFCS) is a highly-processed, unnatural form of refined sugar that inflicts a heavy burden on the liver. Besides being derived from corn, most of which is genetically-modified (GM), HFCS is linked to metabolic syndrome, heart disease and type-2 diabetes. If that weren’t bad enough, a study last year also found that much of the HFCS contains high levels of toxic mercury caused by the chemical refining process necessary to produce the HFCS. Nearly a third of the HFCS-containing breads, cereals, sodas and other consumer foods tested as part of the study showed up positive for mercury.

Despite the overwhelming evidence showing that HFCS is harmful to health, the CRA is determined to change its image. With millions of acre of corn to get rid of somehow, they can’t afford not to. Consumption of HFCS has reached a 20-year low, and shows no sign of picking up. So the CRA have a new marketing slogan which claims that ‘whether it's corn sugar or cane sugar, your body can't tell the difference. Sugar is sugar’.

Oh yes it can – otherwise our bodies wouldn’t get sick from eating it!

The best forms of sugar are those which occur naturally, and in their whole form. That said, the main cause of sugar’s adverse effects on health lie in the fructose content, not the glucose. So it is better to cut down on even very sweet fruits and honey which are fructose (levulose) rich. If you must sweeten anything, use stevia leaf extract. Better still learn to like the naturalness of foods without adding sweetener.

So whether it’s called High Fructose corn Syrup or Corn Sugar, it’s the same thing, with the same results. As Shakespeare wrote: ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet’. Similarly, HFCS by any other name will still be CRAP.

Another Huge Study Finds Little Benefit From '5-a-day'

Supports Chapter 8: Why 'Five Portions'?

You may have heard on the news today about this latest study, which didn't find much benefit from forcing five portions of fruit and veges down. I was not surprised as all the ones before it are detailed in Chapter 8 of Trick and Treat. But it was good of the media to report it. 'Bad news' like this is generally missed.

There have been several studies since the '5-a-day' message was first trumpeted. None so far has found much, if any benefit from eating so much vegetation. This latest one is by far the biggest - but its findings are much in line with the earlier studies.

Wouldn't it have been better if the diet dictocrats had thought to do a study before they told us all to eat so much!

The abstract to the latest study is below.

I have written a full article explaining why it's NOT a good idea to eat 5-a-day.

* * * * * *

Paolo Boffetta, et al. Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Overall Cancer Risk in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) JNCI 2010 [e-pub ahead of print]



ABSTRACT
Background: It is widely believed that cancer can be prevented by high intake of fruits and vegetables. However, inconsistent results from many studies have not been able to conclusively establish an inverse association between fruit and vegetable intake and overall cancer risk.

Methods: We conducted a prospective analysis of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort to assess relationships between intake of total fruits, total vegetables, and total fruits and vegetables combined and cancer risk during 1992–2000. Detailed information on the dietary habit and lifestyle variables of the cohort was obtained. Cancer incidence and mortality data were ascertained, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariable Cox regression models. Analyses were also conducted for cancers associated with tobacco and alcohol after stratification for tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking.

Results: Of the initial 142 605 men and 335 873 women included in the study, 9604 men and 21 000 women were identified with cancer after a median follow-up of 8.7 years. The crude cancer incidence rates were 7.9 per 1000 person-years in men and 7.1 per 1000 person-years in women. Associations between reduced cancer risk and increased intake of total fruits and vegetables combined and total vegetables for the entire cohort were similar (200 g/d increased intake of fruits and vegetables combined, HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96 to 0.99; 100 g/d increased intake of total vegetables, HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97 to 0.99); intake of fruits showed a weaker inverse association (100 g/d increased intake of total fruits, HR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.00). The reduced risk of cancer associated with high vegetable intake was restricted to women (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97 to 0.99). Stratification by alcohol intake suggested a stronger reduction in risk in heavy drinkers and was confined to cancers caused by smoking and alcohol.

Conclusions: A very small inverse association between intake of total fruits and vegetables and cancer risk was observed in this study. Given the small magnitude of the observed associations, caution should be applied in their interpretation.


CONTEXT AND CAVEATS

Prior knowledge

The association between high intake of fruits and vegetables and reduction in overall cancer risk is not conclusively established.

Study design

European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort study was conducted between 1992 and 2000. Diet and lifestyle data were self-reported by the participants. Cancer incidence and mortality data were obtained from country-specific national and regional registries. Association between overall cancer risk and high intake of total fruits, total vegetables, and total fruits and vegetables combined was assessed. Estimated cancer risks were adjusted for smoking, alcohol consumption, and many other variables.

Contribution

High intake of vegetables, and fruits and vegetables combined, was associated with a small reduction in overall cancer risk. The association was stronger in heavy alcohol drinkers but was restricted to cancers caused by smoking and drinking.

Implications

This study reveals a very modest association between high intake of fruits and vegetables and reduced risk of cancer.

Limitations

The inverse association between overall cancer risk and high intake of fruits and vegetables was weak. Errors inherent to self-reported dietary habits may have resulted in bias.

But weren't we told that statins didn't have side effects?

Supports Chapter 1: Trick to Treat

This short article was published in the Daily Mail today. It's a long time since I blogged, so I thought I'd include it for your enjoyment.

The statin manufacturers have always denied that their products have side effects. They have been so convincing that many doctors have simply refused to hear their patient's complaints.

Now there is a new cholesterol-lowering drug in the offing. I don't propose to discuss the merits or otherwise of lowering cholesterol; I'm sure you kmnow my feelings on that. I just want to show you how this new drug is being promoted: "free of the side-effects associated with statins."

So after denying that statins had side effects, the fact that they have is going to be used to launch this new drug.

I wonder what side effects this new drug will have. There are always some.

Here' the article:

11/03/2010
Daily Mail
By: Presswatch
New 'statin' without the side effects
Cholesterol levels declined by a third in patients taking eprotirome tablets, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The drug was free of the side-effects associated with statins, including muscle and liver problems, depression, loss of libido and difficulty sleeping. Eprotirome, which is still several years away from the market, is unlikely to replace statins. But it could be given to the hundreds of thousands who cannot tolerate the drugs. It also lowers levels of other harmful blood fats that are not combated by statins, but are known to raise the risk of heart disease.

What a waste!

Supports pretty much all of Trick and Treat

This has got to be one of the best studies I have ever seen - as a demonstration of how to waste time and money. As well, no doubt, as providing 'evidence' to frighten the less knowledgeable of the populace into cutting down on saturated animal fats to prevent obesity and osteoporosis (NOTE: Corn oil is not an animal fat and is not saturated - but I doubt that will stop someone using it as 'evidence' against them.)

I have never been a fan of extrapolating animal dietary studies to Homo sapiens. We have quite different reactions to foods. As you can read, these 'scientists' obviously share my views. But, after admitting that animal studies like this don't mimic human conditions, these 'scientists' conduct a trial on mice which, they say, serves as a model for humans!

Can anyone, please, tell me:
1. In what way does it have any relevance to anything other than, perhaps, female C57Bl/6J mice?
2. Do female C57Bl/6J mice even suffer from osteoporsis?
3. Should we care??
4. How on earth they get this cr*p published??

The abstract is below (I've got a PDF of the whole paper if anyone would like it)

Barry

Ganesh V. Halade, M. Rahman, Paul J. Williams and Gabriel Fernandes. High fat diet-induced animal model of age-associated obesity and osteoporosis.The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry February 2010, [Article in Press, Corrected Proof]

Abstract
Osteoporosis and obesity remain a major public health concern through its associated fragility and fractures. Several animal models for the study of osteoporotic bone loss, such as ovariectomy (OVX) and denervation, require unique surgical skills and expensive set up. The challenging aspect of these age-associated diseases is that no single animal model exactly mimics the progression of these human-specific chronic conditions. Accordingly, to develop a simple and novel model of post menopausal bone loss with obesity, we fed either a high fat diet containing 10% corn oil (CO) or standard rodent lab chow (LC) to 12-month-old female C57Bl/6J mice for 6 months. As a result, CO fed mice exhibited increased body weight, total body fat mass, abdominal fat mass and reduced bone mineral density (BMD) in different skeletal sites measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. We also observed that decreased BMD with age in CO fed obese mice was accompanied by increased bone marrow adiposity, up-regulation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ, cathepsin k and increased proinflammatory cytokines (interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor α) in bone marrow and splenocytes, when compared to that of LC fed mice. Therefore, this appears to be a simple, novel and convenient age-associated model of post menopausal bone loss, in conjunction with obesity, which can be used in pre-clinical drug discovery to screen new therapeutic drugs or dietary interventions for the treatment of obesity and osteoporosis in the human population. (Emphasis added)

Barry

Millions of people 'waste their time by jogging'

Supports Chapter Twelve: Exercise care

When I wrote my first book, The Calorie Fallacy, in 1993, I included a chapter about the lack of weight loss benefit from such exercises as jogging. Apart from my Fluoride book, all of my books since then have included a chapter about the lack of evidence that exercising has much significant benefit to health. Even though I like to think of myself as an athlete, I recognise the difference between being 'fit' and being 'healthy'. Many people seem to think of the two words are synonymous, but they aren't. You can be fit enough to run a marathon, but drop dead of a heart attack walking to the start. The classic example is Jim Fixx, who started the jogging craze with his book, The Complete Book of Running, in 1977. He died of a heart attack while jogging!

Now, according to a study reported in the Daily Telegraph, the secret is out: "millions of people who strive to keep fit by jogging, swimming or going to the gym are wasting their time."

The article says: Researchers have discovered that the health benefits of aerobic exercise are determined by our genes - and can vary substantially between individuals.

Around 20 per cent of the population do not get any significant aerobic fitness benefit from regular exercise, according to an international study led by scientists at the University of London.

For these people, regular jogging and gym work will do little to ward off conditions like heart disease and diabetes which aerobic exercise is generally thought to resist.

Researchers say they would be better off abandoning their exercise regime and focusing on other ways of staying healthy - such as improving their diet or taking medication.

Read the rest of the story here

EU Health Chief calls swine flu pandemic scare 'one of greatest medical scandals of century'

Supports Chapter One: Trick to Treat

In the first chapter of Trick and Treat, I talked about how the ‘health industry’, and the pharmaceutical industry in particular, invented scares and ‘diseases’ so that they could capitalise on selling 'treatments' for those conditions.

The latest scam,‘The Swine Flu Pandemic’ scare, was one of the greatest medical scandals of the century, and was engineered to increase the profits of the drug companies, says the European Council's health chief, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg.

The council is to begin an investigation into the role of the drug companies, and how they influence ‘independent’ authorities such as the World Health Organization, after they passed a resolution from Wodarg, chairman of the Council’s health committee. Dr Wodarg, who is an epidemiologist and former health director in Germany, has followed the swine flu (H1N1 virus) pandemic story unfold. “It is one of the greatest health scandals of the century,” he says. “We have had a mild flu – and a false pandemic.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the virus a pandemic last year, and health authorities around the world ordered in huge stocks of vaccines. The UK's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, predicted 65,000 deaths in the UK, and convinced the government to place a £1bn order for swine flu vaccine. In the event, a mere 251 people in the UK have died from the virus, and the government is now desperately trying to offload vast stocks of the redundant vaccine.

Wodarg claims that governments have sealed contracts with drug companies that are triggered when a virus is classified as pandemic. “In this way the producers of vaccines are sure of enormous gains without having any financial risks. So they just wait until the WHO says ‘pandemic’ and activates the contracts.” As things stand with the contracts with the drugs companies, governments have no choice but to pay up.

And what do we do with all the unwanted, useless, vaccines? We give them to third-world countries - who are very unlikely to have a need for them!
(Source: www.wodarg.de/english/3013320.html)