For many decades dedicated professionals in medical science have worked tirelessly to discover the underlying causes of autism. The primary reasons a child may be born autistic are too numerous to count and it is thought that many complex genetic and environmental factors are involved in its development. In 90% of cases the conditions and circumstances that contributed to the disorder simply can’t be identified.
With the immeasurable resources and talent dedicated to uncovering the mysteries of autism occasional breakthroughs are made that contribute to our prosaic understanding of this incurable malady. With each study new pieces of the autism puzzle are being uncovered and a picture of mental health is being revealed.
Recently science was able to determine that there is a significant correlation between how far apart pregnancies occur and an increased risk of autism. Researchers in California found that children conceived less than two years after their firstborn siblings face 1 to 3 times the risk of falling within the autism spectrum. Additionally those born to mothers after an interval between pregnancies of six years or more faced similar risks.
The study defined a pregnancy interval as the time between the birth of the first child and the conception of the second. A database of more than 45,00 children born between 2000 and 2009 were included, with researchers focusing specifically on the second born children.
During the study researchers controlled a number of variables as they sorted through the data. They uncovered that the mother’s weight, whether or not the firstborn child had autism and other factors such as premature birth did not affect their findings at all.
Previous research had linked preterm birth and low birth weight to pregnancies happening in close intervals and very far apart already. Although no solid answers about the reason for these phenomena were uncovered researchers did speculate that it is possible that women need at least two years to recover essential nutrients such as folic acid between births.
Heralding the study as “impressive” and “eye-opening” Deborah Bilder the associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Utah stated, “No one is going to question now whether this is associated with autism- it is.” Concluding that, “Now we need to understand why.”
Even without illuminating answers about how autism is caused or what can be done to prevent it, Bilder noted that the revelations of this study gives future researchers a definitive place to look for answers and future interventions. She explained that this discovery is a strong reminder of the “importance of starting those prenatal vitamins before [women] plan on getting pregnant and as soon as [they] know they are pregnant.
Cholesterol. Simply saying the word elicits all sorts of negative and often disgusting imagery. Perhaps one of the greatest boogeymen conceived by misguided scientists this compound found in most body tissues has received the brunt of the blame for heart disease. Since heart disease is the leading cause of death amongst Americans the negative press surrounding cholesterol is mountainous. But is all this hate and vitriol against it justified?
For nearly sixty years research has repeatedly demonstrated that there’s no correlation between high cholesterol and the plaque formation that leads to heart disease. Yet despite an equally high precipice of information proclaiming that cholesterol is indeed a very important constituent of cell membranes and a precursor to other steroid compounds the terrible saturated fat/cholesterol myth has persisted.
Dr. Fred Kummerow, a scientist of nearly 100 years in age has led the fight to redeem cholesterol from its horrid public perception. He has researched the science of lipids, cholesterol, heart disease and nutrition for nearly eight decades and has a great deal to say about his findings. Dr. Kummerow was in fact the very first researcher to identify which fat really is to blame for all the clogged arteries for which saturated fats became a scapegoat.
His work carefully demonstrates that it is not cholesterol that causes heart disease but was actually trans fats all along. He first made these now very famous associations all the way back in 1957.
In the mid 1950’s the consumption of trans fat radically increased because at that time it was touted as a safer and healthier alternative to saturated animal fat. According to Dr. Kummerow the consequences were dire. Heart disease rates steadily rose for decades afterwards. Fortunately the science showing trans fats to be far more harmful than saturated fats is finally getting the recognition that it deserves.
Dr. Kummerow was a key player in getting the US Food and Drug Administration to finally address the growing health hazard. In 2009 he filed a citizen petition with the FDA calling for the ban of all synthetic trans fats. He says the following in the petition; “Trans fat leads to the reduction of prostacyclin that is needed to prevent blood clots in arteries. A blood clot in any of the coronary arteries can result in sudden death.”
When the FDA failed to address his petition Dr. Kummerow filed a lawsuit against them. Shortly thereafter the FDA announced that they would consider removing partially hydrogenated oils (the primary source of trans fat) from the list of ingredients, which are generally recognized as safe.
The question must be asked. What are trans fats and what do they do? A trans fat is a synthetically produced fatty acid. They are not naturally present in either animal or vegetable fats. Trans fats prevent the synthesis of prostacyclin, which is essential for blood flow. When arteries stop producing prostacyclin blood clots inevitably form and sudden death may follow.
The reality is clear. Trans fat is responsible for heart disease.
Dr. Kummerow states, “You have prostacyclin that keeps your blood flowing and thromboxane that clots your blood. You have to be very careful about the ratio, the amount of each in the blood. That’s the simple explanation for what causes heart disease. In 2011 325,000 people died from sudden death… and we’re going to keep seeing people die of sudden death unless trans fats are removed from our diet.
In 1958 I showed that if I fed a rat trans fat and then took it out of the diet in a month the trans fat is… metabolized out. There’s no more trans fat in the body. If today the FDA decided that no more trans fat should be in the diet, next month, people who have been eating this fat will have lost the trans fat. It would have been metabolized. There would be- next year and the year after- less death from sudden deaths.”
So what is the easiest way for the public to protect their hearts? Simple, they should avoid eating processed foods where trans fats are most prevalently found. The body’s ability to metabolize trans fat in a month is extremely encouraging. However the unfortunate truth is that nearly all foods in the American diet is processed. If people can replace their current diet with fresh vegetables, healthy fats and animal proteins in appropriate amounts they would be far less likely to contract heart disease.
There are many sources of healthy fats and the list includes some of the following:
-Avocados
-Butter
-Raw Dairy
-Egg Yolks
-Coconut and Coconut Oils
-Nut Oils
-Raw nuts such as almonds, pecans and macadamia
-Grass fed meats
In addition to eating well, healthy ratios of calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium need to be taken. Fortunately all of these are typically abundant in a whole foods diet. The following facts demonstrate how the body uses these nutrients to support heart health, by analyzing vein composition. Dr. Kummerow reveals that individuals who undergo heart bypass surgery generally have 40 to 60% of something called sphingomyelin in their arteries. A part of five phospholipids, sphingomyelin surrounds the arterial cells and protects them.
When half the artery was now sphingomyelin, the salt in the blood causes it to have a negative charge; the calcium in the arteries has a positive charge. The calcium then adheres to the wall of the artery and gradually causes the coronary artery to become calcified," he explains.
"It's well-known now that calcification is involved in heart disease, to the point where the blood can no longer flow through that coronary artery. The heart doesn't get the blood supply it needs, and it begins to ache. Of course, then you go to a physician, and get saved through a coronary bypass operation. There are 300,000 of them now a year in this country. So, it's important to keep your artery free of calcification. You can do that by not eating oxidized fats. That's what causes that.
Of course, the other thing I mentioned is that if you don't eat trans fats, you will not interfere with the flow of your blood. The trans fats will have no influence because if you don't eat them, they're not going to be there. That's the other reason for heart disease. If you don’t eat trans fat… you won’t have heart disease”
San Francisco was the first in the nation to pass a controversial warning labels law for all sugary drink advertisements. The move drew fiery condemnation from soft drink and sugary beverage manufactures and sparked an intense political debate. County Supervisors supporting the legislation compared sugary drinks to cigarettes saying soft drinks also need warning labels to protect the public’s health. The American Beverage Association doesn’t appreciate the comparison and has slapped the city with a lawsuit.
The lawsuit charges that the City of San Francisco is crowding out the market place of ideas and that is “in violation of the first amendment”. The City of San Francisco has not issued a statement on the American Beverage Association’s case. The city’s Board of Supervisors unanimously passed the law requiring all soft and sugar drink ads to contain the advisory, “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”
The original proposal came from Supervisor Scott Wiener, whb vowed, “These health warnings will help provide people information they need to make informed decisions about what beverages they consume.” soft drinks, sports beverages, vitamin waters, ice teas and all of their advertisements fall under the mandatory labeling law.
Wiener’s new law does not apply to beverages with less than 25 calories per 12 ounces from sweeteners. Zero calorie drinks such as Coca-Cola Zero would not be affected. The law wouldn’t apply to milk or beverages made from natural fruit or vegetable juice either. Further provoking the ire of soft drink corporations, San Francisco Supervisors also banned soft drink advertisements on public property such as bus stops, and also forbade public funds from being used to purchase them.
Last year, Supervisor Wiener attempted to pass a 2 cents soda task measure, but voters rejected it at the ballot box. No word if he will try again. It did pass in Berkeley, California—a first of its kind.
New York City once approved a hotly debated limit on the size of soda cups sold in convenient stores only to have it stuck down by the courts. New York’s loss at the docket informs us little as to the future of San Francisco’s warning label law. The suit is treading unknown legal waters given that a soda labeling law is completely unprecedented. Only time will tell the future of such laws.
Whether or not the law suit stands or not, the undeniable fact remains that drinking too much sugary drinks is unhealthy. Nielsen Holistic encourages beverage manufactures to find better ways to strike the balance between taste and nutrition. Yet ultimately it is consumers who must inform themselves and make responsible choices.
Judging by the number of antidepressants prescribed each year the average Americans happiness seems to be on a serious decline. One in twenty citizens report some form of depression and eleven percent of the population over the age of twelve has been prescribed drugs to combat those feelings. Yet there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that not only do antidepressants not work, but they may also exacerbate mental illness.
For many years it was thought that having low serotonin levels lead to depression. Called a chemical imbalance, drugs were then manufactured to help the body correct this issue by producing more. In reality the low serotonin theory was never actually proven, but the hypothesis created a healthy market of products designed to help people generate this hormone.
In 1983 health journalist Robert Whitaker investigated whether or not individuals suffering from depression had low serotonin levels. After exhaustive research no evidence could be found that suggested that the serotonergic system of depressed patients wasn’t working correctly. His finding were published in the National Institutes of Mental Health.
Further evidence that supported this conclusion came out in 2009 when this study (I,2) found strong indications that depression actually begins in a different part of the brain and that medication has only focused on the effect and not the actual cause.
As reported by Medical Daily (3) Dr. Tomas] Furmark and Dr. Mats Fredrikson, another professor of psychology at Uppsala University, questioned the underlying hypothesis of treating patients with SSRIs: What molecular role, exactly, does serotonin play in social phobia?
To discover the truth, they used brain scanning technology, PET scans, to measure serotonin in the brains of volunteers with social phobia...
Communication within the brain works like this: Nerve cells release serotonin into the space between nerve cells. Then, serotonin attaches itself to receptor cells. Following this, serotonin is released from the receptor and returns to the original cell.
The researchers discovered patients with social phobia were producing too much serotonin in the amygdala. This brain region, tucked deep inside our skulls, is the seat of our most primitive emotions, including fear. The more serotonin produced in this area, then, the more anxious people feel in social situations."
Prior studies have shown that increased nerve activity in the amygdala plays a significant role in the underlying causes of anxiety and depression. This discovery points an additional finger at an increased serotonin level being the mechanism by which these disorders are created.
Given these finding combatting depression without drugs seems to be a more viable option. What is known is that the body and mind of a person are interrelated. A person’s general lifestyle and their diet are major contributing factors in mental health and changing both could be the solution to combatting depression and anxiety related disorders.
Here are a few essential lifestyle choices that will help reduce symptoms of depression.
Decrease your consumption of sugars.
Sugary and starchy carbohydrates lead to excessive insulin release. Over time the receptors in you cells develop a resistance to the insulin and that has terrible consequences on blood sugar levels. This in turn can make a person hypoglycemic. Hypoglycemia causes your brain to secrete glutamate in levels that can seriously affect mood. Agitation, anger, depression and anxiety are all consequences of this condition
Get adequate vitamin B12
Many studies have shown that a B12 deficiency is a major contributing factor to depression and affects as many as one in four people.
Get plenty of vitamin D
Spending time outdoors doing recreational activities tends to alleviate a person’s bad feelings. In addition to being a healthy distraction the primary reason for this is that exposure to the sun creates vitamin D. Individuals with the lowest levels of vitamin D were found to be 11 times more likely to suffer from depression than those with normal levels. If you take vitamin D orally remember to also increase your vitamin K2.
Eat food plentiful in Omega 3 fatty acids.
The human brain is constituted of 60% fat. Getting animal based omega 3 fat is crucial to proper brain function and overall mental well being. A twenty percent reduction in anxiety was reported among medical students taking omega 3s. (4)
Check your salt intake.
A deficiency in sodium can create symptoms of depression.
Exercise
Though an obvious solution, exercise has consistently proven to elevate mood.
Get adequate sleep.
If a person doesn’t’ sleep well depression typically follows. In fact the relationship between the two is so closely linked that sleep disorders are a part of the definition of the symptom complex that gets the label of depression.
A new study form the American Journal of Epidemiology is making the fascinating claim that religion could advance “sustained happiness” more than any other form of social participation. Mauricio Avendano, the study’s lead author, stated that religion may instill a “sense of belonging and not being socially isolated.” Humans are naturally social animals and thrive in social settings. Social isolation is extremely detrimental for mental and emotional health.
The study doesn’t attempt to create or debunk any a direct link between religion and combating depression although it does allude to it. Other studies, however, suggested a possible link. Researchers wrote in the Cambridge Journal, “People with high levels of general religious involvement, organizational religious involvement, religious salience, and intrinsic religious motivation are at reduced risk for depressive symptoms and depressive disorders.”
The philosopher Karl Marx referred to religion as the “opiate of the masses”. It seems the clergy may have gotten the last laugh. Research from Manchester University says there is a possible connection between frequent visits to religious sites and lower levels of illicit drug abuse. Frequenting spiritual settings is also possibly related with less crime rates, shoplifting, and even oddly enough, illegally downloading music.
Social scientists hypothesize that religious teachings reinforce “moral and behavioral norms” at good citizenship while placing parishioners in a positive environment with other like minded individuals.
Exercise has also shown great promise in helping treat depression. We have also written on the mental health benefits of meditation even though it is not a standalone treatment. We also recommend ESR (Emotional Stress Release) for properly addressing emotional issues. Check our Facebook events page to see when the next ESR seminar will be put on.
The effects of depression upon a person’s life are very well understood. Fatigue, disinterest, exhaustion, a lack of sleep, and an inability to work and focus are all common symptoms. What hasn’t been understood until recently is how depression affects the brain. Those that suffer from continual bouts of melancholy may be experiencing the effects of a physical issue tangentially related to the life events that are typically blamed for their recurring sadness.
Damage to an area of the brain called the hippocampus may in reality be the actual culprit of their emotional problems. The elongated ridges on the floor of each lateral ventricle of the brain are thought to be the center of emotions, memory and the autonomic nervous system. Science has seemingly identified that recurring depressive episodes may actually reduce the size of this important part of the brain.
If the hippocampus withers it isn’t merely memory that would be affected. Behaviors linked to a person’s sense of self would also be altered. The shrinking of the hippocampus would cause a general loss of emotional and behavioral function. Fortunately there is good news. The damage caused to the hippocampus is very likely reversible, but to do that a person must find the strength through their sadness to positively change their life.
Scientists have begun to use magnetic brain resonance imaging to map the brain. In a recent study using this technique, data was gathered from nearly 8,930 people from around the world. Researchers did in fact confirm that those who experience recurring depressive states do have smaller hippocampi than the average person. (1,2,3) This finding applied to roughly 65% of all their depressed patients. Those individuals who had only just begun to experience depression for the first time did not show evidence of this reduction.
Generally people who had their first bout with depression before the age of 21 were among those most likely to have experienced damage to the hippocampus. This finding stresses the importance of access to mental health resources for teenagers.
Although previous studies were able to link hippocampal shrinkage to depression before this study, the question of what came first had been left unanswered. Was it a damaged hippocampus that led to a predisposition of depression or did depression itself cause the damage? These new findings clearly demonstrate that depression precedes brain damage.
The author of the study elaborates:
"[The] more episodes of depression a person had, the greater the reduction in hippocampus size. So recurrent or persistent depression does more harm to the hippocampus the more you leave it untreated.
This largely settles the question of what comes first: the smaller hippocampus or the depression? The damage to the brain comes from recurrent illness...
Other studies have demonstrated reversibility, and the hippocampus is one of the unique areas of the brain that rapidly generates new connections between cells, and what are lost here are connections between cells rather than the cells themselves.
Treating depression effectively does not just mean medicines. If you are unemployed, for example, and then sit in a room doing nothing as a result, this can shrink the hippocampus. So social interventions are just as important, and treatments such as fish oils are also thought to be neuro-protective."
As stated earlier the damage to the hippocampus can actually be reversed through lifestyle changes. What’s important is to not allow depression to overcome the will to be well. Those who suffer from recurring bouts of dejection can too often become convinced that despair is simply their way of life. Don’t allow despondency to become a crutch or an excuse to not improve yourself or the situations you find yourself in. Change begins internally and perspective informs how reality is interpreted.
Firstly cut out all the sugar from your life. Often individuals with recurring mood management problems have developed an insulin resistance and have actually become hypoglycemic. Secondly take vitamin B12 supplements. A lack of B12 has been shown to be a major contributing factor in depression. Thirdly spend time outdoors. Not only will recreation distract you from upsetting thoughts but also being out in the sun will produce vitamin D. Those with the lowest levels of vitamin D tend to be the most depressed. Lastly get plenty of exercise and sleep. When the body isn’t being cared for the wellbeing of the mind declines.
After making all of these changes there are a few additional things a person can do to influence their mood. Science has recently proven that there is a profound connection between a person’s microbiome and their brain function. The vagus nerve is the primary route that gut bacteria uses to transmit information to the brain. Changing a person's diet and promoting their gut health may very well be a primary tool in treating mental illness. The fascinating reality is that gut bacteria actually produces mood-boosting neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine in concentrations even greater than in the brain.
Understanding the profound connection between a person’s microbiome and their brain function may very well be the future of psychiatry. Science has established that the vagus nerve, the primary route that gut bacteria uses to transmit information to your brain, plays a significant role in regulating mood enhancing hormones. The intricate interconnectivity of mental health and good bacteria comes with the new waves surrounding the discovery of epigenetics .
There are now numerous examples that demonstrate this interesting phenomenon. Recent research has revealed that fermented foods help curb social anxiety disorders in young adults. In a related experiment mice engaged in obsessive repetitive behaviors were pacified when given a strain of the bacterium bacteroids fragilis. Additionally gut bacteria actually produces mood-boosting neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine in concentrations even greater than in the brain.
Because of these discoveries scientists are now focusing on diet as a primary method of treating mental illness and are seriously considering the possibility that it may play a primary role in causing mental illness. Through these new realms of research, a number of food ingredients have now been shown to exacerbate depression. The number one culprit is refined sugar and processed fructose, both of which feed pathogens in the gut enabling them to overpower beneficial bacteria.
The link between sugars and chronic inflammation are already clear. When sugar is consumed a cascade of chemical reactions in the body follow, which disrupt both the immune system and the brain.
There are of course numerous other processed foods that can contribute to depression including artificial food additives and in some cases even gluten. A few studies have actually been able to correlate gluten sensitivity to serious mental health problems like schizophrenia.
When considering the microbiome it’s important to remember that bacterial cells outnumber the cells in the body ten to one. All of them have specifically evolved to assist our body’s in performing their vital tasks. Consequently eating foods that promote their health will in turn promote the health of the body and mind.
With mounting evidence that the microbiome plays a significant role in mental health the foundations of psychiatric care are being challenged. Where antidepressants have been the standard model used to treat emotional illness it may actually be an holistic approach which will ultimately prove more effective in the fight against depression.
The new focus on gut health is a welcome departure from synthetic drugs. The New York Times said the following:
“Anxiety, depression, and several pediatric disorders, including autism and hyperactivity, have been linked with gastrointestinal abnormalities. Microbial transplants were not invasive brain surgery, and that was the point: Changing a patient’s bacteria might be difficult but it still seemed more straightforward than altering his genes. When Lyte began his work on the link between microbes and the brain three decades ago, it was dismissed as a curiosity.
By contrast, last September, the National Institute of Mental Health awarded four grants worth up to $1 million each to spur new research on the gut microbiome’s role in mental disorders, affirming the legitimacy of a field that had long struggled to attract serious scientific credibility... It seems plausible, if not yet proved, that we might one day use microbes to diagnose neurodevelopmental disorders, treat mental illnesses and perhaps even fix them in the brain.”
All of this should make it clear that diet has an incredible impact on both the body and the brain. Perhaps time will vindicate the claim that eating whole foods is the best and most natural way to support mental health.
Pepsi is now betting its chips on aspartame free after discovering that its use of the controversial artificial sweetener has been hurting sales. When consumer surveys revealed it was the main reason Americans are drinking less diet cola, Pepsi executive became nervous and decided to switch sweeteners.
The embattled soft drink company is loudly proclaiming its departure from aspartame even going as far as to touting in on their soda can and bottle labels. They are even launching an ad campaign and sponsoring the NFL in an effort win back consumers.
Pepsi will now be using other type of artificial sweeteners, sucralose and acesulfame potassium. The 2 sweetening agents are less controversial products probably because they are less well known. That doesn’t mean they are healthier. It is a common misconception that artificial sugars are more nutritious than can sugar simply because they have fewer calories.
As we have written in the past, artificial sweeteners are probably the worst food product on the market today. They increase carbohydrate cravings, stimulate fat storage and can cause weight gain. Aspartame is the worst of the bunch. It is linked to strokes in females and cancer. That doesn’t mean sucralose and acesulfame potassium are much better for you.
Besides avoiding artificial sweeteners, we recommend eating less processed foods and foods with artificial colors. When you have a sweet tooth, reach for a refreshing piece of fruit. The initial transition may be difficult, but the health dividends will pay off long down the road.
Those who frequent medical sites on a regular basis have almost certainly read the phrase ‘publication bias’ in the past. The concept may in fact skirt the borders of many articles they’ve read and inform a number of the issues that pervade the studies they research. With the dawn of the Internet age an interested public is finally pursuing knowledge and empowerment for themselves as medical studies have become more and more available to them.
Exposure to new research has invariably raised concerns about fraud from those who seek scientific information out and not without excellent reason. Publication bias is the practice of selectively publishing trial results that serve an agenda and this rather devious ploy from medical research companies represents a nearly intentional systematic flaw for the scientific basis of medicine.
For many, science is regarded as something pure and undefiled, the results of noble men and women tirelessly observing the natural world. In their minds scientists build upon an altruistic foundation and a real desire to help people. In reality this may rarely be the case. Fraud can occur anywhere. Even at the very best scientific institutions.
Just because a drug or treatment has been “scientifically proven” that simply isn’t a guarantee that it will be either safe or effective. Conversely if a treatment has not been published in a medical journal and the paper the research is based on hasn’t been peer reviewed doesn’t mean it is unsafe or ineffective. There’s much to be said about ancient tried and true remedies even if that haven’t been subject to the rigor of the scientific method and modern research techniques.
One of the important questions to answer is what gets published, what doesn’t and why? The scientific method is a powerful tool when applied appropriately and therein lies the heart of the matter. In order to qualify in the first place the research must be unbiased, unprejudiced and free from any significant conflicts of interest. When dealing with people from any walk of life, especially scientists this level of objectivity is often difficult to achieve.
In the field of modern medicine, bias, particularly when it comes to drug research is the rule instead of the rare exception. Examples of publication bias pervade all fields of medicine. Here are a few of the common tactics used to propel research forward even if the science doesn’t add up.
-Positive results are often published without the negative ones seeing the light of day.
-Retractions to claims made in studies are frequently not published and therefore prescribers, researchers and academia go without an alert that a study has been retracted due to fraud or other wrongdoing that would render a study unreliable.
-Almost invariably the source of the funding affects the outcome of the clinical trial.
For example half of all clinical trials ever completed on medical treatments currently in use have never been published in medical literature. Positive results are published two times as often as negative results and this applies to both academic research and industry studies.
Unsurprisingly some of the top medical industry researchers find themselves unable to reproduce the results contained in trial papers. Former drug company scientist Glenn Begley looked at 53 papers in the world’s top journals and found that neither he nor his team of scientists could replicate 47 of the 53 published studies they investigated. Shockingly every one of these studies were considered valuable research for cancer treatment. (1)
A comparison of industry funded studies to independent studies in 2010 yielded tremendous concerns. Out of 500 trials 85% of industry funded studies produced positive results while the independent studies were only able to replicate those findings 50% of the time.
In 2007, researchers identified all published trials of cholesterol lowering drugs known as statins. In total 192 of the trials were discovered in which either two statins were compared against each other or a statin was compared to an entirely different treatment. The results were disheartening. The industry-funded studies were 20 times more likely to favor the drug test compared to the independent study.
The take home message of these off putting statistics is simple; the medical industry does not pay for negative results. The key question to ask oneself when investigating a study is who paid for it. It is well-established fact that the primary source of funding can dramatically skew research for favorable results. Why is that? The simple answer is that the people who pay for the study want to be benefited for it financially. A stronger case cannot be made for following the money!
Truly independent research that is not funded or executed by any one person or group with a financial stake or interest in the result is by and large the most trustworthy. Still don’t take that fact as an excuse to take off your sleuthing hat. Diligence in searching out for truth is always the best way to expose hidden ties and agendas.
The real problem with publication bias is easily stated. Lives are endangered by fraudulent research. Studies do not exist in a vacuum. They have real, legitimate and very important uses. Doctors and health agencies use them as a basis for making recommendations and writing prescriptions. How can anyone make an informed decision about treatment when the facts are so tragically skewed?
The solution for those who uncover these truths is for them to take control of their own health. It’s important to understand that our current medical system has been masterfully built by the drug companies to give their public the perception of science when in reality they’re conclusions are manipulated and often outright manufactured for profit. Drug makers have become masters of publicizing the findings they want you to know while keeping their dirty laundry hidden from both the public and medical community.
Remember that not all research is published. Don’t be surprised that drug studies funded by private pharmaceutical companies will suppress every negative conclusion they find. Because of this, sometimes scouring medical literature will not provide dissenting opinions. Most importantly know this; consensus is not science. Use all the recourses you have available to you to make informed decisions, including your own common sense and reason.
The Scottish government officially announced that they will abolish the growing of all GMO crops. They will be using a European Union new rule allowing them to opt out of already approved genetically engineered foods. A recent government statement read that Scotland would “shortly submit a request that Scotland is excluded from any European consents for the cultivation of [GMO] crops…”
Rural affairs secretary Richard Lochhead strongly asserted there was no demand for GMOs in Scotland and allowing their cultivation would only hurt Scotland’s “green and clean” brand. The new ban will not have any effect on current research on GMOs. Critics at the Financials Times savaged the ban saying it is “rejecting technology” and “smacks of anti-science”.
The policy is unlikely to face any challenges from the UK because in the past few years Britain has been steadily increasing Scotland’s local autonomy. In a derisive piece, Politico mockingly wrote that Scotland’s ban means little at least for the now. Even Lochhead admitted that “there are currently no [GMo] crops grown in Scotland”. Most of Europe’s GMOs are cultivated in Spain and Portugal.
There is no shortage of controversy over GMOs in the European Union. Not only does the European Union allow member countries to ban the cultivation of genetically engineered foods, but it allows them to ban their importation. These moves have angered farmers who argue their GMO products are perfectly safe. Anti-GMO activists aren’t happy either, contending that the ban doesn’t go far enough.
The French government banned the GMO maize MON810 only to have the ban overturned in court. The Council on Foreign Relations writes that GMO policy in Europe is “highly contentious” and “politicized”; however, unlike in the US, GMO labeling is mandatory in the EU.
At this point any GMO ban or mandatory labeling laws are unlikely to be passed in the US. Big agriculture and biotechnology companies like Monsanto who produce GMO products have a large lobbying presence in Washington. Organic companies and activist groups are basically non-existent in D.C. even the giant Whole Foods Market appears to be M.I.A. A few states have required GMO labeling laws, but Congress is moving overturn those laws and make them voluntary.
Nielsen Holistic calls upon all food producers to voluntarily label their products because their valued consumers have the right to know what is on their plate. There will be a few who won’t. In this case, consumers use the rule of thumb and assume whatever isn’t labeled “organic” is probably a GMO.
The human brain is the absolute pinnacle of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection and evolution. A crowning achievement in nature, there is simply nothing in the world that can compare to the abilities of our intellects. We do not merely observe our world in motion we also understand it. Through our ability to comprehend, calculate and plan, we have built societies and civilizations and created better lives for ourselves.
Not only do our minds find the incredible interconnections in those things that are external to us but we also possess introspection and a powerful desire to know who we are and what ultimately drives us. The mediums through which we evaluate our behavior and desires have not just changed over time but have expanded as our knowledge of science has grown with us.
Countless individuals have searched out the answers to these imminent questions and entire establishments are built primarily to know how the human brain actually works. Pioneers in psychology in the early 19th century studied behavior and society to answer these questions. Specifically they turned their attention to individuals with mental illness, thinking that it may explain key concepts in how we develop.
The desire was not just to help those suffering from emotional disturbances, but to also uncover the organization of the mind and all of its complex components. All kinds of therapies and sciences sprang from the newly founded field of psychology and the academic study of the self became an institution.
There is however a serious issue with allowing these fields to wield so much power in society. The problem is, the mind is too fluid, with too many covert variables to be truly understood. Experiments by and large are not repeatable, controlling conditions isn’t possible and there are many analysis paradoxes. Added to that is the moral and ethical dilemmas of experimenting on people. However fascinating the field may be its foundations as an actual science are questionable.
To put that plainly, suggesting that a default treatment or therapy plan will have a predictable result in the same way science can predict the reaction between sodium and water when the two make contact is total nonsense. Yet there are many who will leave their emotional wellbeing entirely within the hands of professionals who may very well suggest that such a thing is possible.
The desire to understand the human condition isn’t merely limited to counselors, therapists, doctors and scientists but is innate within everyone. However most people don’t have the ability to devote their lives to the study of the mind and many simply don’t have a powerful capacity for introspection or self-evaluation.
Therefore they turn to individuals who do, completely trusting in the altruistic trappings of practiced health care. Never once does it occur to them that whenever money becomes involved and industry is born the potential for abuse and fraud dramatically multiplies.
Because there is an entire multi-million dollar industry devoted to helping people with emotional issues their is a desire held by many in the field of psychology to give rote answers to people seeking help and outwardly deny that mental health is as complex or as poorly understood as it actually is. This has led to profoundly negative consequences. An ever-expanding list of mental illnesses and easy treatments is evolving into a health crisis. Perfectly healthy people are now being diagnosed with problems they may not have and are given treatment when none is necessary.
What this does for the business end of mental health is create new candidates for gratuitous prescriptions of mind-altering medications. What began, as a legitimate desire to help people has become a self-perpetuating fad of psycho-diagnosis that results in over-diagnosis and over-treatment.
At the heart of the problem is the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic bible known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders. Contained within its pages is a myriad of questionable diagnoses that has the potential to turn virtually anyone experiencing human life challenges and emotions into a mental health patient.
Here’s an example: “Somatic Symptom Disorder” characterizes an individual who has spent six months or more thinking and being anxious about pressing medical issues. Such a diagnosis could be used to describe absolutely anyone with chronic pain, irritable bowel syndrome, allergies, or serious injuries that require months to heal.
Another superfluous condition contained within this book is called “Internet Use Disorder” which merely describes individuals who spend a lot of time on the web and experience “withdrawals” from not using it.
By making these conditions certifiable mental illnesses, it becomes treatable by drugs and billable through insurance companies. Such is the genesis of the business of mental health. Millions suffer from chronic physical health problems and hundreds of millions use the Internet for many hours a day. The potential for profit by calling these issues disorders is overwhelming.
The lengths psychology has gone to redefine the human experience is staggering. Have you recently lost a love one? Are you experiencing grief and mourning their passing? According to the DSM you may actually suffer from an “Adjustment disorder” related to bereavement if: (1)
"Following the death of a close family member or close friend, the individual experiences on more days than not intense yearning or longing for the deceased, intense sorrow and emotional pain, or preoccupation with the deceased or the circumstances of the death for at least 12 months (or 6 months for children). The person may also display difficulty accepting the death, intense anger over the loss, a diminished sense of self, a feeling that life is empty, or difficulty planning for the future or engaging in activities or relationships."
Don’t those symptoms sound like normal reactions to the death of a loved one? Nearly 2.5 million Americans die each year and the number of aggrieved is far higher than that. Think of the market that the psychology business stands to create from exploiting those who have experienced death.
The ultimate problem is how incredibly subjective all of these scenario’s and behavior variations have the potential to become. For an unscrupulous doctor finding a reason to write a prescription and create an involved treatment plan has become all too easy. Ultimately the industry has been creating illnesses to fit their drug development programs instead of working from the other way around.
Fabricating an unending cycle of mental health problems is the ultimate Ouroboros (the snake eating its own tail). Constantly redefining the human mind for profit will create an eternal return of diagnostic treatment and prescriptions. How will such an endeavor shape society? If all of us rely upon an establishment, which points to itself as the answer to our most intimate questions about life, we’ll lose the opportunity to sit down and ponder them for ourselves and never have anymore insight than the money we’re willing to spend to find out.
Here’s a common scene: A man has to go to the post office and afterwards run a few more errands before he can return home and enjoy his relaxing Saturday. Unfortunately after a cursory search of his pockets he discovers that his keys are not where they usually are. “No matter”, he says, “I’ll just look in yesterday’s pants.” Then he jets off to the hamper only to find his unyielding grass stained shorts.
The man begins to become agitated and randomly walks through room after room glancing at every object and table surface, ultimately finding nothing. After a few minutes of aimless wandering in his home he begins to feel a little desperate. All he wanted to do was relax. He had so little to accomplish. His wife had asked him to do only a few things and he wanted to please her… or at least prevent her nagging. But darn it those keys were nowhere to be found.
Finally the man storms to the unsuspecting couch thinking at last that the keys must have slipped out of his pockets and into the folds of the ottoman or something. He never liked the tacky color and his butt was never able to make a comfortable groove on the cushions. This is war! In a flurry of violence pillows, blankets and that awful afghan his mother in law knitted fly across the living room. He’s aghast, there’s nothing there.
In a fit of adolescent rage he lifts that ugly piece of furniture and upends it putting the ghastly upholstery out of its misery. He never did like those cross-stitched flowers on the arms of the chair.
Finally he’s able to look underneath the couch. There are no more secrets between them. But to his unending chagrin the keys are not there. The sunflower on the arm cover beams back at him knowingly, smiling at his miserable failure.
Out of ideas and nearly in tears, the man stumbles out to his car and sits on the hood to ponder the meaning of his wasted life. “Wait”, he says quietly to himself… “My rear end is warm. The car is still running!” Eureka. Now he knows why his children call him “Hero.”
For many years medical professionals believed that brain function peaked during early adulthood and from there steadily declined as old age began to set in. Lapses in memory are thought to be common, but occur more and more as people age.
Modern science has uncovered that lifestyle plays a significant role in contributing to cognitive deterioration. There are many factors that influence our memory and range from our exposure to toxins and chemicals to having a poor diet, a lack of sleep, stress and indeed many other things. Fortunately living a healthy lifestyle can support brain health and even encourage the brain to grow new neurons. That process is called neurogenesis. The tricks to having a healthy brain are doable by everyone.
1. Eat Right
Naturally what you eat and don’t eat can play a pivotal part in shaping your ability to remember. Three key foods contribute to a healthy brain: Fresh vegetables, healthy fats, and grain carbohydrates. In addition increasing animal based omega 3 fatty acids promotes brain health. If you’re trying to improve your memory avoid sugar and steer clear of omega 6 fatty acids
2. Exercise
The brain functions at optimum capacity when the body is engaged in rigorous hard work. Exercise stimulates nerve cells and causes them to multiply strengthening their interconnections and protecting them from damage. Challenging the body releases proteins known as neurotropic factors which trigger many chemical reactions in the brain that promote overall neural health.
3. Stop multitasking
Years ago there were definitely fewer things to keep people occupied. Now there are literally dozens of ways to be engaged. Consequently there are now an equal number of ways to become distracted. Doing multiple things at once may seem like the optimal way to get things done but research has begun to show that it slows work down, makes you prone to errors and ultimately makes us more forgetful.
The human mind needs approximately eight seconds to commit a piece of information to memory. So if you’re talking on your phone and carrying in groceries you may forget where you put your keys…
The opposite of multitasking is mindfulness and clear and attentive focus. If you concentrate on a single task your memory capacity begins to be maximized. Students who are mindful of their work show improved reading comprehension, higher test scores and experience fever distracting thoughts. (1)
4. Get a Good Night’s Sleep
This should go without saying, but people who don’t sleep well tend not to think clearly until they do. Research from Harvard has demonstrated that people are 33% more likely to infer connections among distantly related ideas after sleeping. Sleep is also known to enhance memories and help the practice of and improvement in challenging skills. (2)
5. Play Brain Games
The principles of self-improvement are built upon challenging oneself. When a person introduces their brain to new, exciting and surprising information brain capacity improves dramatically. Unsurprisingly the more lethargic a brain is, the greater the mental deterioration will be. Provide your brain with empowering stimulus and you can counteract degeneration. An investment of only twenty minutes a day can vastly improve a person’s memory.
6. Master a new skill
Being purposeful is a great way to achieve and approaching meaningful and stimulating activities never before tried is an ideal way to improve neurological systems and counter the effects of stress related disease. Constantly learning and mastering new tasks is one of the best ways to reduce the risk of dementia. Plus it enhances overall well-being and physical health. (3) However, know that the tasks you engage in must be important and stimulating because if it doesn’t hold your attention all of the effects it can potentially have will be lost.
7. Use Mnemonic Devices
A mnemonic device is a memory tool that helps a person remember words, information and concepts. They help to organize information in an easy to remember format. Try using acronyms and rhymes. Create visual symbols for tasks to accomplish in a day, like imagining a tooth to remember a dentist’s visit.
A growing number of youth diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) are erroneously being prescribed antipsychotic pharmaceuticals a drug which has not been approved for the treatment of the disorder. The percentage of teens now on these drugs has risen from 1.10% in 2006 to 1.19% in 2010. Approximately 74 million minors under the age of 18 are now medicated with antipsychotic medication .
The most common medications prescribed are Abilify (aripiprazole), Risperdal (risperidone), Seroquel (quetiapine), and Zyprexa (olanzapine). These wrongfully administered drugs are intended for the treatment of severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. A scientist from Policylab at the children’s hospital of Philadelphia said the following, “Increasingly, many youth are receiving these medications to treat behavior problems in the absence of a more severe psychiatric illness.”
There are treatments for hyperactivity disorders that don’t involve medications. A change in diet alone can make a world of difference. Artificial food dyes and flavoring can provoke hyperactivity in children and even adults. Hyper behavior can also be a result of consuming too much sugary foods. The simplest remedy is to limit or completely cut out processed and packaged foods from one’s diet and exchange them for healthy, natural and whole foods.
A healthy diet is free of harsh side effects that accompany the use strong medication. In addition to curbing hyperactivity it also helps with weight loss, heart health and preventing diabetes. Before you allow a doctor to put your child on harsh psychiatric pharmaceuticals make sure you get a second opinion and try a healthy lifestyle adjustments.
Every parent wants their babies to learn lifelong habits that will ensure their health and vitality. Few of them however recognize just how vitally important an infant's first few years are in the development of their personality. Although debates have raged on ad nauseam about nature vs. nurture science is very clearly coming down on the side of nurture.
Complex behaviors that are exhibited by children as they grow seem to be irrevocably linked to things that they’ve learned from infancy to adolescence. While genetics may play a small role in how a child thinks, everything that they see, hear and feel, physically and emotionally, has a far larger impact on their emerging sense of self. It isn’t merely behaviors; values and interests that are ultimately determined during what are perhaps their most formative years, but also their sense of taste.
What follows in this article is an object lesson about the impact simple, everyday experiences have on a child’s growing mind and how these seemingly mundane experiences can shape an individual and ultimately determine their true potential.
In a recent Australian study it was determined that toddlers who ate a range of fruits and vegetables can learn to enjoy healthy eating, as they grow older. Researchers found that 14-month-old babies that were regularly given fruits and vegetables were more likely to eat them with less fuss, as they became toddlers.
Think about this. Contact with many different kinds of foods at an early age determined not only a sense of taste in these young children, but also had an impact on their behavior. The babies learned a powerful lesson through a simple tactile experience. Not only were they able to develop an individual preference, but they also assimilated the idea that their nourishment can come from a variety of sources. Therefore later in life they were more apt to be comfortable eating many more kinds of food without having a tantrum if they didn’t like something given to them.
The study determined that children could learn to like some foods, particularly vegetables, through repeated, neutral exposure to it. A lesson can be garnered from this statement. Namely that a child will develop a natural interest in the world around them, through continual reinforcement if what they are experiencing is edifying to them.
In the study researchers compared the dietary habits of 174 children whose mothers received nutrition counseling and a 165 who did not. Dietitians and psychologists counseled the mothers in six and a half hour interactive group sessions every two weeks. Data on the babies was collected at birth, at 4 months of age, at 14 months of age and with a follow up at 2 years and at 3.7 years.
Both groups of mothers had about the same number of fussy kids at the age of 14. However the children who tried a greater number of fruits and vegetables liked these foods more at four years of age than those who hadn’t eaten them when they were younger.
What can be learned from this? The ultimate determining factor in the development of these children came as a direct result of the parents receiving an education on how best to raise them. Because a parent actively sought out knowledge and information they were best empowered to create positive examples for their children. Ultimately the character of their child was determined by what he or she saw their parents do and by how their parents encouraged them to have uplifting experiences.
According to a fascinating new case study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a gluten-free diet has relieved “Chris” from all symptoms of his mental illness. The study was a bit narrow and only features one subject but still raises important questions. At the tender age of 8, Chris began to suffer visual and auditory hallucinations. At the time, it didn’t negatively impact his day-to-day life, but matters took a dramatic turn for the worse during his teenage years.
Tragically, Chris was hospitalized after he turned 15. His became depressed, withdrawn; his grades declined and he would often talk to himself. His heart rending diagnosis was a major depressive disorder with psychotic features. Puzzlingly, MRI and EEG scans on his brain showed nothing was wrong.
Doctors prescribed antipsychotic pharmaceuticals (aripiprazole) and antidepressant drugs (escitalopram) to no avail. The recurring nightmare of untreatable mental illness only continued for Chris and his family. Chris was hospitalized 3 subsequent times. By the age of 16, Chris began to cut himself and have horrifying homicidal urges prompted by the voices in his head.
As the situation grew worse, Chris was eventually diagnosed with schizophrenia. Doctors continued their attempts to medicate the problem, putting Chris on a new series of antidepressants and antipsychotics. He was given venlafaxine and risperidone. Switching the brand names did Chris little good.
However hope seemed to spring from an unlikely source. An assay determined Chris was allergic to gluten. Chris’s mother, a licensed dietician, placed him on a gluten-free diet. What happened next was nothing short of astounding, a miracle for Chris’s long suffering family.
Dr. William Eaton, PhD, writes, “After the dietary change, the intensity of Chris’s auditory hallucinations declined dramatically and the violent element diminished, and he was discharged [from the hospital] after 9 weeks.” His dosage of risperidone was gradually tapered off and eventually phased out. He returned to school, and his academic performance rebounded. He even began to participate on several school athletic teams.
Chris’s parents associate his recovery with the gluten-free diet. This study does not prove or disprove that hypothesis. To definitively establish any link, more participants would have been required. This case study was narrow but raises important points.
Ignoring a gluten allergy is unhealthy and unwise. Your symptoms may not have been as drastic as Chris’, but they won’t be pleasant. The answer for our maladies isn’t always prescription medication. Many times the solution is as simple as a lifestyle or diet change.
Another take away is that gluten simply isn’t for everyone despite the fact that is major part of the food pyramid. Though Chris’s study didn’t establish or disassociate the relationship between mental illness and consuming gluten, it demands our attention and warrants further study.
Have you heard of the fruit and vegetable prescription program? It’s a quite a remarkable idea. The program aims to provide under served communities with fresh fruits and vegetables by allowing consumers to exchange healthcare provider-generated “prescriptions” for local fresh fruit and vegetables at participating local farmer’s markets.
Established by the company Wholesome Wave, their goal is to bring greater access to produce to at risk consumers who live in food deserts. What is a food desert? It is an urban area in which it is difficult to buy affordable or good quality foods.
Knowing that there are many communities where the only available options for nourishment are fast food establishments Wholesome Wave decided that it was time not just to educate people about eating healthfully but to finally enable them to have access to food products they might not otherwise be able to afford.
Wholesome Wave’s effort worked like gangbusters. More than 90% of families that came to the program continued to shop at the farmer’s markets and 70% reported a greater understanding of the health benefits of fruits and vegetables. Even better, 40% of the children who were a part of the program actually lost weight. This success story is a clear indication that greater effort needs to be made to create and support endeavors just like this one. Clearly with a little love and care an incredible difference can be made.
The reality of the American diet is rather sad. Based on the success of Wholesome Wave’s program it can be deduced that a large part of the problem comes from both a lack of education and a lack of access to healthy choices. The latest data shows that nearly 23% of Americans report that they eat fruit and vegetables less than one time daily. Certainly this is a rare case where the miniscule size of a number is staggering in its breadth and consequences.
Medicine firmly holds that people need to consume large amounts of fresh high quality vegetables every day to have the high level of health that they all deserve. Because vegetables are not calorie dense they represent a wonderful opportunity to allow for them to be eaten in gigantic portions and actually constitute the bulk of a person’s diet.
Plant chemicals, called phytochemicals, have such an extraordinary number of health benefits and volumes of books have been written on the subject. In reality the majority of the supplements sold by Nielsen Holistic is comprised of extracts taken from the huge variety of vegetables from around the world. Their incredible uses range all the way from reducing inflammation to actually eliminating carcinogens! Others have the ability to regulate the rate at which cells reproduce and maintain DNA.
People who consume large quantities of vegetables are much healthier than those that don’t. Vegetables lower the risk of stroke, high blood pressure, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and heart disease. They improve cognitive function, reduce the risk of kidney stones and bone loss, raise antioxidant levels and lower biomarkers for oxidative stress. On top of all that, research suggests that eating a lot of vegetables can cut a person’s risk of dying prematurely by nearly half.
Those individuals that eat seven or more portions of vegetables and fruit a day had a 42% lower risk of dying from any cause. The statistical significance of that statement simply shouldn’t be ignored.
As discussed earlier sometimes eating vegetables in as large a portion as is being suggested can be cost prohibitive. With that said, the good news is that the best vegetables for you are actually the least expensive. Take cabbage for example not only is it very cheap but it can actually be used as a base to ferment other vegetables. Fermenting is one of the best ways to make a vegetable as healthy a food as it can be.
During the culturing process, many beneficial microbes are produced that will actually reinforce your microbiome. And as science is beginning to demonstrate the microbiome is one of the foundations of our health.
When fermenting vegetables either use a starter culture or simply allow the natural enzymes in and on the vegetables to do the work. Additionally a starter culture can be used which will provide a more diverse base of species and produce high levels of the vitamin K2. This can all be done for mere dollars.
So the question becomes, what are the best vegetables a person can eat? Obviously you should first find vegetables that you like. If the experience of eating vegetables isn’t pleasant why would a person do it? Other factors include matters such as freshness and specifically eating vegetables with low carbohydrate content. After considering all of these things take a look at our list of the best vegetables that can be bought.
They include-
-Asparagus
-Escarole
-Beet Greens
-Fennel
Green and Red Cabbage
-Bok Choy
-Kale
-Broccoli
-Kohlrabi
-Brussels Sprouts
-Lettuce
-Cauliflower
-Mustard Greens
-Celery
-Onions
-Chicory
-Parsley
-Peppers
-Chives
-Colored Greens
-Turnips
-Cucumbers
-Spinach
-Zucchini
Still for many, eating vegetables can be a difficult task. To encourage a better diet in the family a number of steps can be taken that will seriously help matters. First educate yourself about the benefits of having a healthy diet and then lead by example. Change your own diet if you expect members of your family to follow suit. Secondly encourage your family to make better choices by using edifying language. Don’t berate or belittle people for their mistakes or use their weight against them.
Finally don’t use food as a reward for good behavior, instead let healthy food be available in the home at all times, without the threat of punishment or the promise of reward. Access is key to instigating the necessary change.
For years, soda companies marketed aspartame as a fitting replacement for sugar in their diet drinks. Their campaign saw marked success and over the years Americans began to guzzle the apparently healthier sugar substitute in record quantities. Believing that with aspartame all of the negative effects of soda could be avoided, approximately 5,250 tons of it began to be ingested annually. 86% of that figure comes from diet sodas alone.
Over the years the profoundly negative consequences of aspartame have slowly trickled into the American consciousness from the health science community. However many have ignored the startling claims that link aspartame to a growing deluge of terrible side effects. Now known to be a key factor in the growing obesity and diabetes epidemics scientists have now connected the consumption of aspartame to cancer.
A study published at the beginning of 2012 has linked the sugar alternative with an increased risk of lymphoma and leukemia. Conducted by the Channing Division of Network Medicine, the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Harvard Medical School the study was a follow up after a 22 year period of data collection that included frequent dietary and health check ups of the study groups.
According to the data as little as a single 355ml can of diet soda can greatly increase the risk of cancers in men and women. Surprisingly the data shows greater risk for men who are more prone to multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Few studies have been as comprehensive as this one and the need to research the effects of aspartame is becoming dire.
Over 2 million person years were tracked in the study giving the scientists involved a huge pool of data to draw their conclusions from. The researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were involved in the gigantic analysis. The thoroughness with which the study monitored aspartame intake was unprecedented.
Every two years participants were given extensive dietary questionnaires and the details of their diets were released every four years. Previous studies, which had failed to discover a link between aspartame and cancer, only assessed participant’s aspartame intake at one point in time and not over a lengthy period.
Ultimately the results presented unfathomed concerns. Men and women who regularly drank diet sodas showed a 42 percent increase in their risk for leukemia. Additionally there was a 102 percent higher risk of multiple myeloma and a 31 percent higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men only. These results were based on a multi-variable risk models compared to participants who drank no diet soda.
Past studies have been oft criticized for their short duration and too inaccurate in assessing long term aspartame intake, but this research resolves both issues. Studies conducted on animals have yielded startlingly similar results but none have been able to find links in humans. Now that a link has been positively made between aspartame and cancer the sugar substitute must be given up.
