October Newsletter 2014
Weight control controversy… continues as the science of weight control is far from ‘settled’. In 2007, news was released about soda causing metabolic syndrome. Research implicated that drinking just one can a week (regular OR diet) seemed to correlate with weight gain. A four-year study was done involving 2,400 middle-aged subjects who consumed more than one soda per day. The subjects ended up showing a 48% higher risk of developing metabolic syndrome than non-soda drinkers, whether or not the soda consumed was regular or diet. Metabolic syndrome includes symptoms like excessive abdominal fat, high blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, high blood triglycerides and low levels of high density lipoprotein. The conclusion being that drinking any kind of soda increased the chance of weight gain by 31%. It has long been assumed that eating a large number of calories will cause weight gain, and conversely, that eating fewer calories will result in weight loss. Thus, it was concluded that diet soda could not possibly contribute to weight gain. Research showed otherwise, but it was not clear why. The producers of artificial sweeteners said what we’ve come to expect from such entities. Susan Neely, president and chief executive of the American Beverage Association said, “The assertions defy the existing body of scientific evidence. As well as common sense… It is scientifically implausible to suggest that diet soft drinks, a beverage that is 99% water, cause weight gain or elevated blood pressure.” The sweetener industry tried to defend themselves with these arguments: maybe people who drank sodas had a more sedentary lifestyle, maybe they ate less fiber, and maybe they consumed unhealthy things overall. Researchers responded by stating that they had controlled for those factors in diet and lifestyle, and “even after all that, we still found this increased risk”. Considering the large sample population and length of time they were studied, these findings are difficult to refute. Theories abound as to why the increased risk, but nothing conclusive. All possibilities must be explored, starting with dismissing all assumptions. Now, seven years later to the month I read a possible explanation and have an amazing story to report.
A study conducted by Eran Elinav, a physician and immunologist at Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science shows that zero-calorie sweeteners such as saccharin, sucralose and aspartame can alter the population of bacteria in the gut, and maintains that artificial sweeteners can raise the blood sugar level instead of reducing it. Researchers offer the change in intestinal flora as an explanation, stating that this can trigger unwanted changes such as higher blood glucose levels, a risk factor for diabetes. Mice that were fed artificial sweeteners had significantly higher blood-glucose levels, as well as very different bacteria in their gut, than those that were given sugar or no sweeteners at all. A correlation between the consumption of artificial sweeteners and susceptibility to glucose intolerance was also noted. To test the idea that the artificial sweetener caused the metabolic change, researchers altered the balance of microbes in the guts of the mice by transplanting bacteria from mice that were fed artificial sweetener into other mice that were bred not to have any gut bacteria of their own. These mice without any gut bacteria had also never consumed any sweeteners. After the transfer, a measured rise in the blood sugar levels in the transplant recipients suggests that the transferred gut microbes triggered the increase. Next, Dr. Elinav’s study further examined gut bacteria by measuring it in various metabolic states, using 380 human subjects who were not diabetic. Findings showed that the gut bacteria of the subjects who regularly ate artificial sweeteners were notably different from those who didn’t. The same correlation of susceptibility to glucose intolerance was also evident. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, but these findings have started an eye opening avenue of research. The importance of gut bacteria, microbes, and how they affect our physiology is not yet fully understood. Microbes are like tiny plants, and it’s possible that the chemical nature of artificial sweeteners is the altering factor causing a chain reaction that brings on metabolic syndrome, having nothing to do with calories. This research has the attention of both scientists who study diabetes, and companies that produce and sell artificial sweeteners. Expect some poorly done, small sample studies to counter this research in the near future. When questioning research that “‘proves something” - follow the money.
Since the invention of the calorimeter and the advent of labeling foods with calorie content, dieting has typically been about counting calories. In the 1960’s dieting was all about calorie counting until Dr. Atkins started his high-protein, low-carbohydrate approach. The Atkins diet involved eating protein, fat and vegetables while only counting carbohydrates. Ridiculed by the medical world, case studies revealed that over 160,000 people had lost significant weight, their blood pressure decreased and their cholesterol normalized, even eating a lot of fat. At the same time, people who followed the typical low-calorie, low-fat, calorie-counting diet did not have those kinds of consistent results. Even though the facts were evident, most scientists ignored Dr. Atkins and even fought him. Another study says, “Go Ahead and Enjoy Eating Fat: It’s Better than Carbs”, by Janet Allon on AlterNet.com. A book I recommend on the subject is by Gary Taubes, Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It. It even researches diet plans hundreds of years ago, which is quite eye opening.
Cold laser therapy…is our October monthly special! Get a free L.A.S.E.R. (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) treatment. Lasers are now commonplace, and are being used for many purposes, ranging from utilitarian to medical applications. Light is scientifically described in terms of waves, length and frequency. Each color of the light in the rainbow has its own wave length. The colors at the end of the spectrum are where the waves are the strongest and longest in length. Laser light waves do not spatter out in all directions, the crests and troughs of their waves are orderly and all go in the same direction. This consistency allows engineers to control the light and use the energy in various ways (www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/lasers/index.htm). How is it used for healing? Cold laser therapy is also called photo-bio-modulation, laser bio-stimulation, low level laser therapy (LLLT) or phototherapy. The skin absorbs the photons in a photo-chemical effect. There is no heat, although on tender areas some people can feel warmth. The intense light can penetrate the body to effect improved cell repair and pain relief. This physiology is still being researched. Some sources say the photons stimulate the mitochondria to increase production of ATP (energy) and another source said they excite the red blood cells to better deliver oxygen and nutrients to that part of the body.
Laser can help prevent the formation of scar tissue, aid the healing of recent injuries, prevent or reduce swelling of long standing chronic injuries, increase range of motion and reduce pain. Light can penetrate up to two inches into the body, but the research is only claiming 5cm. The FDA approved it for use in treating carpel tunnel syndrome in 2002, while other uses for it that can be billed to insurance are limited. I have used it to heal open sores that would not heal even in the mouth, reduce blistering in shingles and other skin eruptions, reduce edema, and reduce range of motion restrictions after breast cancer treatments. One treatment is usually not enough to significantly alter a long standing problem, but this will offer a sample of what it might do. Normally, people are treated 3X/week for two weeks to see if it will help with a chronic problem. Some people get a laser treatment for a chronic sore area when they come in for an adjustment (even only monthly) and they say it helps the adjustment last longer.
A study conducted by Eran Elinav, a physician and immunologist at Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science shows that zero-calorie sweeteners such as saccharin, sucralose and aspartame can alter the population of bacteria in the gut, and maintains that artificial sweeteners can raise the blood sugar level instead of reducing it. Researchers offer the change in intestinal flora as an explanation, stating that this can trigger unwanted changes such as higher blood glucose levels, a risk factor for diabetes. Mice that were fed artificial sweeteners had significantly higher blood-glucose levels, as well as very different bacteria in their gut, than those that were given sugar or no sweeteners at all. A correlation between the consumption of artificial sweeteners and susceptibility to glucose intolerance was also noted. To test the idea that the artificial sweetener caused the metabolic change, researchers altered the balance of microbes in the guts of the mice by transplanting bacteria from mice that were fed artificial sweetener into other mice that were bred not to have any gut bacteria of their own. These mice without any gut bacteria had also never consumed any sweeteners. After the transfer, a measured rise in the blood sugar levels in the transplant recipients suggests that the transferred gut microbes triggered the increase. Next, Dr. Elinav’s study further examined gut bacteria by measuring it in various metabolic states, using 380 human subjects who were not diabetic. Findings showed that the gut bacteria of the subjects who regularly ate artificial sweeteners were notably different from those who didn’t. The same correlation of susceptibility to glucose intolerance was also evident. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, but these findings have started an eye opening avenue of research. The importance of gut bacteria, microbes, and how they affect our physiology is not yet fully understood. Microbes are like tiny plants, and it’s possible that the chemical nature of artificial sweeteners is the altering factor causing a chain reaction that brings on metabolic syndrome, having nothing to do with calories. This research has the attention of both scientists who study diabetes, and companies that produce and sell artificial sweeteners. Expect some poorly done, small sample studies to counter this research in the near future. When questioning research that “‘proves something” - follow the money.
Since the invention of the calorimeter and the advent of labeling foods with calorie content, dieting has typically been about counting calories. In the 1960’s dieting was all about calorie counting until Dr. Atkins started his high-protein, low-carbohydrate approach. The Atkins diet involved eating protein, fat and vegetables while only counting carbohydrates. Ridiculed by the medical world, case studies revealed that over 160,000 people had lost significant weight, their blood pressure decreased and their cholesterol normalized, even eating a lot of fat. At the same time, people who followed the typical low-calorie, low-fat, calorie-counting diet did not have those kinds of consistent results. Even though the facts were evident, most scientists ignored Dr. Atkins and even fought him. Another study says, “Go Ahead and Enjoy Eating Fat: It’s Better than Carbs”, by Janet Allon on AlterNet.com. A book I recommend on the subject is by Gary Taubes, Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It. It even researches diet plans hundreds of years ago, which is quite eye opening.
Cold laser therapy…is our October monthly special! Get a free L.A.S.E.R. (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) treatment. Lasers are now commonplace, and are being used for many purposes, ranging from utilitarian to medical applications. Light is scientifically described in terms of waves, length and frequency. Each color of the light in the rainbow has its own wave length. The colors at the end of the spectrum are where the waves are the strongest and longest in length. Laser light waves do not spatter out in all directions, the crests and troughs of their waves are orderly and all go in the same direction. This consistency allows engineers to control the light and use the energy in various ways (www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/lasers/index.htm). How is it used for healing? Cold laser therapy is also called photo-bio-modulation, laser bio-stimulation, low level laser therapy (LLLT) or phototherapy. The skin absorbs the photons in a photo-chemical effect. There is no heat, although on tender areas some people can feel warmth. The intense light can penetrate the body to effect improved cell repair and pain relief. This physiology is still being researched. Some sources say the photons stimulate the mitochondria to increase production of ATP (energy) and another source said they excite the red blood cells to better deliver oxygen and nutrients to that part of the body.
Laser can help prevent the formation of scar tissue, aid the healing of recent injuries, prevent or reduce swelling of long standing chronic injuries, increase range of motion and reduce pain. Light can penetrate up to two inches into the body, but the research is only claiming 5cm. The FDA approved it for use in treating carpel tunnel syndrome in 2002, while other uses for it that can be billed to insurance are limited. I have used it to heal open sores that would not heal even in the mouth, reduce blistering in shingles and other skin eruptions, reduce edema, and reduce range of motion restrictions after breast cancer treatments. One treatment is usually not enough to significantly alter a long standing problem, but this will offer a sample of what it might do. Normally, people are treated 3X/week for two weeks to see if it will help with a chronic problem. Some people get a laser treatment for a chronic sore area when they come in for an adjustment (even only monthly) and they say it helps the adjustment last longer.
