Cancer Cells Like a Bland Diet

Some like it hot, but new research bolsters the evidence that cancer cells do not – at least in the diet.   It is well documented that people who eat a diet high in turmeric (the bright yellow spice found in most curry dishes from India) have a lower incidence of breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers.   Research with mice back in 2005 identified curcumin, as the component in turmeric with the cancer fighting properties.   It’s no wonder.  Cancer is an inflammatory disease and curcumin is a powerful anti-inflammatory with anti-tumor, anti-oxidant and anti-arthritic properties.

Curcumin has been and is currently being studied in the treatment of a number of diseases including cervical cancer, pancreatic cancer, malaria, HIV infection, Herpes simplex infection and Alzheimer’s disease.

The latest research out of Brittain shows curcumin’s effectiveness in killing cancer cells in the esophagus.  The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, found that curcumin started to kill the cancer cells in as little as 24 hours after exposure and once the cancer cells were altered by the spice, they began to “digest themselves” according to a BBC News report.

Turmeric, the spice that contains curcumin, is a member of the ginger family and while being mild in flavor, can taste bitter.  This combined with turmeric’s connection with spicy Indian food can lead many Americans to avoid using it in cooking.   While there are commercially available curcumin supplements available, Dr. Andrew Weil recommends consuming the whole turmeric because of the potential synergy between all of the compounds found in the spice.   Dr. Weil recommends brewing the turmeric into a tea and drinking it cold and unsweetened.

While I certainly like ginger tea, I’ve never tried turmeric tea.  We do use it occasionally in cooking and we are always looking to more ways to use it in recipes.  So maybe some tea might be worth a try, especially now that there’s a fall chill in the air.

But either way, for improved cancer prevention, add a little spice to your diet.

- Paul Kulpinski, LMT

Sources:

BBC News

Dr. Weil.com

Wikipedia

The Real Fear of Halloween

There’s been so much fear circulating around these days, from the economy to terrorism to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that I’m feeling a bit overdosed with it. Now comes Halloween, one of those holidays that strikes fear into the hearts of most parents as their little one’s go out into the night taking candy from strangers! Well, let’s put this into perspective and see what there really is to fear this Halloween.

First, I hope that most of your neighbors are not strangers. I hope that you at least know their names and could recognize them at the grocery store. If not you have something to be concerned about not only at Halloween, but also on the other 364 days of the year. If this is the case for you, start by getting to know your neighbors.

Many parents today were trick-or-treaters themselves during the 70’s and early 80’s during the candy tampering scare that panicked the country. As a result, many of today’s parents believe that this is still something to fear. The reality is that there has never been a case of a child becoming ill or dying from tampered candy obtained during trick-or-treating at Halloween – or any other holiday for that matter. So what started the candy scare in the 70’s? While the exact origin is uncertain, there seems to be a watershed event that happened in Pasadena, Texas in 1974. A father, who recently had taken out a life insurance policy on his 8-year-old son, put a cyanide laced Pixy Stix in his son’s candy bag.  The boy died and the father was quickly caught, tried and in 1984, executed for murder.  If you’d like a complete history of the candy scare, read more about it in this Wikipedia article.

Another Halloween fear stems from the perception that child molesters are more likely to use trick-or-treating as a lure for unsuspecting children.   While this seems plausible, the truth is that there is no increase in sex crimes around Halloween.  In fact, sex crimes against children are at their highest during the summer months.  Researchers at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida studied crime statistics over a 9 year period found that the number of sexual related crimes against children remained unchanged  during the Halloween season.

The real reason to fear Halloween is in the increase of auto accidents with pedestrians.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of child aged pedestrian deaths increases four times on Halloween compared to the same time period (4pm – 10pm) on any other day of the year.   The reasons for this according to the CDC includes the small physical size of children making them difficult to see, compounded with dark costumes that further decrease their visibility.  Additionally, children trick-or-treating during Halloween will tend to cross streets at the shortest route rather than at the safest route.  Likewise, the costume itself can reduce a child’s peripheral vision making hazards like moving vehicles unnoticeable – not to mention uneven walking surfaces that might cause a stumble and fall.  Finally, Halloween can invoke a kind of “magical thinking” that can create feelings of protection and invincibility that can cloud decision-making.

So to be safe this Halloween, make sure your younger children are supervised by an adult during their outings.  For your older trick-or-treaters, make sure they have flashlights, review traffic safety rules and your expectations of their behavior.  Ensure that there are not potential costume problems like long drapes that might cause them to trip, or masks that block their vision while walking.    Finally, let them be scary.  Research has shown that when children are able to pretend to be scary, they can develop an improved sense of confidence in confronting their own fears during the rest of the year.

Maybe some of us adults could use a little of that confidence for ourselves this Halloween.   I’m thinking I’ll dress up as Frankenstein this year.  How about you?

- Paul Kulpinski, LMT

Sources:

Wikipedia

Halloween Safety Myths

Free-Range Kids

The Palm Beach Post

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Breast and Prostate Cancer Screenings Under Review

October is widely associated not only with the orange of Halloween, but also the pink of National Breast Cancer Awareness.    National Breast Cancer Awareness Month was first founded in 1985 by the international pharmaceutical company AstraZenica, the manufacturer of breast cancer drugs Arimidex and Tamoxifen, to promote mammography  as the most effective weapon in the fight against breast cancer.    Over the past 25 years the breast cancer awareness movement has gained support from such influential groups as the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in promoting annual mammograms for all women over the age of 40.

A new analysis, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, is sure to bolster the critics of this shotgun screening for all approach marketed through National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.   In the analysis, researchers from the University of California, San Francisco and the University of Texas, San Antonio found that after 20 years of breast and prostate cancer screening, there has been a 40% increase in diagnoses of these cancers, but only a 10% reduction in the effective treatment of the late-stage cancers of the breast and prostate that are most often fatal.   The researchers point out that if the screenings were being effective, there should be a corresponding decrease in the percentage of deaths, but that’s not what their finding show.

The analysis points to the fact that the increase in the number of diagnosed cases of breast and prostate cancers are tumors that would never had spread or caused significant health risks if left untreated.  The ensuing attention on these inocuous tumors, researchers say, siphons off attention and resources needed to treat the faster growing and deadly tumors that are not being impacted by our current thinking in breast and prostate cancer treatment.

The publishing of these findings, according to the New York Times, is causing the American Cancer Society to rethink its position and recommendations about breast cancer screening.   In the October 20, 2009 Times article, Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer for the cancer society says, “I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening.  The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.”

Yet, until this new position on breast cancer screening is published – sometime early next year – the current literature and promotion on the ACS website still advocates for annual mammograms for all women over the age of 40.

In regards to prostate cancer screening, both the American Cancer Society and the Prostate Cancer Foundation have dropped their recommendation for screening of all men for some time now.  The Prostate Cancer Foundation says on its website:  “Because a decision of whether to be screened for prostate cancer is a personal decision, it’s important that each man talk with his doctor about whether prostate cancer screening is right for him.”

In light of this new report, this advice now seems appropriate for the ladies as well.

- Paul Kulpinski, LMT

Sources:

Journal of the American Medical Association

The New York Times

San Jose Mercury News

Health Beat

Breast Cancer Action

Prostate Cancer Foundation

American Cancer Society

Breast Cancer Advocate

Simple Solutions to Prevent the Spread of Flu Virus

The current buzz in the media and around the water cooler is about the upcoming flu season, especially the H1N1 strain of influenza – or the “Swine Flu”.   While the main focus of the discussion centers around getting immunized, there are some simple habits around good personal hygiene that are key to keeping the spread of virus in check.

First it’s important to remember that viruses, like all flu strains, are transmitted in airborne water particles usually launched by a cough or a sneeze from the person with the infection.  Being in the vicinity of that cough or sneeze, you might inhale those water particles, or get some on your clothing or hands then touch your mouth, nose or eyes.  Any of which will easily accept the water particle carrying the virus.  Now, let’s get real.  “Water Particles” is a nice way of saying mucus or saliva.  That’s what you’re really breathing in or putting into your mouth from the other person, along with that flu virus.  Yuck!

You don’t even need to be all that close to the person sneezing or coughing.  The sneeze or cough can launch those mucus particles several feet and many of the micro-droplets will stay airborne for some time.   Typically, these droplets are so fine that we don’t even see them, so we don’t have an awareness of their impact, until it’s too late and we’ve come down with the flu.  Here’s a good video to explain an experiment by Ruth Carrico of the University of Louisville, designed to teach health care workers about the impact of a cough or sneeze from a patient.  Watch it here.

The first thing that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends is to stay home when you are sick to avoid spreading the virus.  Secondly, they teach the practice of “covering your cough”.   This is done by covering your cough or sneeze with a tissue.  If a tissue is not available, they recommend using the crook of your arm (elbow) to block the cough or sneeze.  This is different from when we were taught to cover your cough with your hand.  The reason is (and the video shows this clearly) that all of the mucus particles and the virus are now on your hands when you cover your sneeze with your hand.  When you then touch something, like a doorknob, a computer keyboard, or someone’s hand in a handshake, you’ve just transmitted that virus.  You are less likely to transmit the mucus droplets via your elbow.  Finally, if you do use a tissue, throw it away.  Don’t reuse it.  Then wash your hands.  More on that later.

For those of us who use a handkerchief, while the CDC doesn’t specifically address them, handkerchiefs are reused through out the day and are more likely to spread virus as those moisture laiden “snot rags” are fermenting away in your pocket.   While I always carry one, it’s probably a better idea to use a disposable tissue during flu season.

The CDC also recommends washing your hands regularly during the day, especially after coughing or sneezing, after using the restroom, before preparing and/or eating food, the list goes on.  The see the complete list, click here. When washing your hands, use warm water to wet your hands.  Then lather with soap and rub all of the surfaces of your hands:  the palms, back of your hands, and especially the fingernails.  Continue rubbing for at least 20 seconds.  Then rinse with warm water and dry your hands with a paper towel.

If soap and water are not available, the CDC recommends using an alcohol based hand sanitizer by applying it to one hand then rubbing both hands together covering the surfaces of both hands and fingers with the product.  Continue rubbing until your hands are dry.

Finally, keep your immune system supported with plenty of sleep, regular physical exercise, nutritious foods, plenty of water and manage your stress with regular massage therapy, meditation, yoga or tai chi.

Sure go ahead and get the flu shot, but you’ll still need to practice these simple personal hygiene techniques to keep yourself and those around you protected.

Sources:

CDC:  Seasonal Influenza

CDC:  Clean Hands Saves Lives

How Far Can A Cough Spread Germs?

University of Louisville Cough Simulation Video

Discovery Channel News:  Coughing Robot Spews Flu Germs

The Paradox of Dehydration

A friend recently commented that she resumed her workout routine of running but found that every time she exercised, her nose began to run and she sneezed constantly for hours afterward.   I explained that the problem might be that she was dehydrated.   This created a paradox for her.   Why would a body that was dehydrated eliminate more water?  The answer lies in the body’s water management system.

The human body contains on average about 70% of it’s weight in water.  For the average adult, that’s about 10 – 12 gallons.   Water is the medium through which all of the functions of your body’s systems operate.  Water transports nutrients, hormones and enzymes through out your body.  It conducts the electrical currents that run through your nervous system.  It lubricates joints, moistens the respiratory system and regulates body temperature.   Water is so essential to life that we can’t survive without it for much more than three to six days.  That’s because we lose about 3-4 quarts a day through the normal process of sweating, elimination through urine and bowel movement as well as normal breathing.  All of that water needs to be replaced each day.

Most people expect the water loss through sweating and urinating, but breathing is often overlooked.  We lose about 1-2 quarts of water a day just from breathing!  If you doubt this, think of the cloud your breath produces on a winter day.  Or the fog that you create on a cold mirror when you breathe on it.  That’s water vapor from your body!   As the body becomes dehydrated (after about 2% of your water content has been lost), the body begins to activate its water management system:  kidneys begin to slow the elimination of waste products, thereby conserving water in the blood stream, digestion slows, body temperature rises and the nose will begin to run.

This leads us to the paradox.  If the body is trying to horde water, why would the nose begin to run?  Remember we lose at least a quart of water during the day just from exhaling.  That water is transferred out of the body through the lining of the nose, bronchial tubes and alveoli of the lungs as vapor.  If the body covers the respiratory tract with a mucus coating, which is thicker and more viscus than the water vapor, it can reduce much of the water lost during respiration.  The water lost by the dripping nose is inconsequential to the potential loss through vapor during exhalation.  It’s a trade off that is worth it in the long run.    So that’s why my friend’s nose begins to run.  But what about the sneezing?

The primary mechanism of the body’s water management system during dehydration is the neurotransmitter histamine.  Histamine is integral to the body’s immune system and triggers inflammatory responses when needed.  Inflammation is basically the re-distribution of the body’s water to a localized area to create swelling.  This might sound familiar, since many people routinely take anti-histamines to suppress the inflammatory responses to pollens and dust that create an allergic reaction.

When the body is dehydrated, more histamine starts circulating in the blood stream trying to manage the remaining supply of water.  This sets up the body to become hyper-sensitive to any trigger (like a grain of pollen or spec of dust) that would cause an allergic over-reaction – like the continuous sneezing that my friend mentioned she experiences.

So my recommendation to her is to increase her daily water intake to 1/2 of her body weight in ounces per day.  This is a good rule of thumb for the average person at an average activity level.  Someone who exercises more or lives in a dryer climate (like Flagstaff) might require even more daily water.  But this is a good place to start.  If the symptoms persist after a day or two at this increased level of water intake, then dehydration as a source has been eliminated and other sources need to be explored.  But there’s not harm in ruling out dehydration first.  Best of all, water is free!

Sources:

Digital Naturopath

Pure Inside Out

Natural News

PeterFox.com

Water Cure

Wikipedia

To Floss or Not To Floss?

I’ve always had good teeth.  So much so that when I was about 16, my dentist told me that I’d never have to worry about flossing.  Well, those words were like a license to kill!   Since then, I’ve rarely flossed.  Oh yeah, in my recent years there were the fleeting attempts of developing a new habit after visiting the hygienist who would scold me about not flossing, even while admitting that I had great teeth.  Of course, I’d brush twice a day, but flossing for me never caught on.  I’d hear my old dentist say “you’ll never need to floss” and I’d lull myself back into complacency.  Over the years, what I’ve come to learn is that flossing is not about your teeth, but rather it’s about your gums.  No matter how good your teeth are, if your gums are unhealthy say good-by to those great teeth.

Here’s why.  There are over 600 types of bacteria in your mouth.  If left alone, they form a film on your teeth called plaque.  The bacteria produce acids and other toxins that eat away the enamel on your teeth causing cavities and irritate the gums causing gingivitis.  Over time, the bacteria that is irritating your gums migrates further and degrades the bone that hold your teeth in place (periodontis).   Even worse, the same bacteria has also been linked to heart disease, heart attack and stroke.   So not only can you lose your teeth by poor oral hygiene, but you can also lose your life!

Earlier this month I once again found myself in the hygenist’s chair for my 6 month cleaning having the same conversation about flossing and why I don’t.   I got to thinking about short cuts around the flossing issue while still preserving my gums, teeth and life.  Eureka!  The solution was mouthwash!  After all, if all I need to do was kill the bacteria, there’s nothing better than some Listerine to flow into all those hard to reach places even places that floss can’t get!  I was saved!

Well not so fast.  Here’s what my hygienist explained to me.   It’s not only about killing the bacteria.  It’s more about removing the rough surfaces that the bacteria like to hide in.  You see, the bacteria create the film that creates the plaque that the bacteria like to hide in.  It’s kind of like a coral reef, where  the organisms create some calcium that starts the reef that attracts more organisms that lays down more calcium and so the coral reef grows.  That’s kind of like what plaque is:  a coral reef growing on your teeth and gums.  Mouthwash might wipe out some of the fish and plants growing on the coral, but it doesn’t remove the coral.  So by morning you have a fresh colony of plants and new schools of fish swimming across the plaque reef in your mouth.  When it comes to your mouth, you’ve got to knock down the coral so there are fewer places for the bacteria to hide and grow – then you can kill them with mouthwash!  That’s what brushing and flossing does.

Brushing gets the plaque that has built up on the surface of your teeth.  But these bacteria are tiny and live in between your teeth and also below your gum line.  That’s where the floss come in.  It really doesn’t take a whole lot of effort either.  In fact too much effort with a toothbrush or floss can be as bad as too little.   The goal with flossing is to simply break the bond between your teeth and gums that was created by the plaque.  This brings in oxygen and allows the mouthwash to penetrate and kill the bacteria.  With a little practice, this can be done very quickly.

So from that conversation at the dentist’s office, I decided to try a little experiment.  I’ve changed my daily oral hygiene process to incorporate not only my usual brushing, but also some new brushing techniques, some mouth wash and yes, some floss.  Here’s my method.

Morning:

1.  Floss between all teeth starting below the gum line and up toward the top of the teeth.

2. Dry brush the surface of my teeth with firm but gentle pressure using a soft bristle toothbrush.   This removes the plaque on the surface of the teeth.  I check for its effectiveness by running my finger over my teeth and listen for a squeak.  If the squeak is weak, I’ll brush that area a little longer.

3. A gentle application of toothpaste (only about the size of a small pea) on the toothbrush.   The goal here is not vigorous brushing, but rather applying the toothpaste onto the tooth as kind of a polish to protect the surface of the teeth.

4.  Apply a little bit of mouthwash to the toothbrush and gently brush along the gum line.  I’ll also include the surface of my tongue because most of the bacteria that causes bad breath lives on the tongue.

5.  Finally a quick rinse with the remaining mouthwash and I’m finished for the morning.

Evening:

1.  Brush with a pea sized amount of toothpaste as normal.

Actually, the morning routine doesn’t take as long as you might think.  It lasts only about 2-3 minutes which is just the right amount of time for good oral hygiene, according to dentists.  So far, I’ve noticed that my mouth feels fresher longer into the day, even when I eat breakfast after I’ve done the ritual.  I think that’s a good sign.  But the final test will be in six months when I go back to the dentist for my next cleaning and see if there has been noticeably less plaque buildup for the hygienist to scrape off and if she notices that my great teeth also have equally great gums!  I’ll let you know in March.

Sources:

WebMD

WikiAnswers

Dentist.net

Wikipedia

About.com Video:  How to Floss Properly

Having Short Eyelashes is Now a Disease

It was one of those rare days earlier this week when I sat down to watch a bit of television.  I was amazed at how pharmaceutical companies now dominate advertising for the evening news.   After a few minutes, I came to accept this observation as the new cultural norm, much the same way in watching a football game you expect to see commercials for beer and trucks.  But then I was blown away by a commercial for Latisse featuring Brooke Shields.

In case you don’t know, Latisse is a product manufactured by Allergan – the same company that brought you not only contact lens solution but also Botox, Juvederm and the Lap-Band surgical weight loss system.   So what does Latisse do?  Well, it treats the debilitating disease of having short eyelashes!    In fact in the commercial Allergan even reinforces this condition as a disease in calling it by name:  hypotrichosis.  If we can give a condition a name, we can prescribe a drug to solve it.  I don’t know about you, but to me that seems to be the modus operandi of the medical/pharmaceutical industry these days.   So what is hypotrichosis?

According to the American Hair Loss Association, hypotrichosis “is the term dermatologists use to describe a condition of no hair growth“.  The emphasis on no hair growth is mine, because that’s the important piece.    Their description of hypotrichosis make a distinction between hair loss – which is a condition called alopecia – and the condition where there wasn’t any hair growth to begin with or hypotrichosis.   Hypotrichosis is the result of one of hundreds of potential genetic defects that affect people from birth and is usually associated with more severe physical or mental problems beyond a lack of hair.  It’s not having thin hair.  It’s no hair.

This reminded me of a girl I knew in my high school chemistry class.  She must have had hypotrichosis because she didn’t have any eyelashes from birth.  Not only that, she didn’t have any eyebrows either.  I wondered how she must feel being compared to the under performing eyelashes of Brooke Shields.   Really, I’ve never known Brooke Shields to be inadequate in the hair department – just look at the woman’s full eyebrows!   So I find it troubling that Allergan is using the condition of hypotrichosis to legitimize their marketing of what is fully intended to be a cosmetic product.

Here’s why Allergan is doing this.   The ingredient in Latisse that grows hair is a drug called bimatropost (also known by Allergan’s brand name Lumigan) which is a prostiglandin (a type of hormone) used to treat glaucoma.  The hair growth was discovered as a side effect of the drug when used by glaucoma patients.  That’s when Allergan realized the cosmetic potential for this drug.  But since it’s a drug, it’s regulated by the FDA and needs a condition to treat – hence the expanded definition of hypotrichosis to include the “cosmetically impaired”.

I bring this up not only because I have serious misgivings about the medical-pharmaceutical complex, but because in the debate over the future of health care, drug companies are a key stakeholder along with doctors and insurance companies.  Yet, this is a classic example of how the lines are increasingly blurred between health care, health insurance, wellness and now cosmetics which confuses any rational discussion on solutions to the problem.   How can we define what we want from a health care system in any form if our concept of what is disease is what is cosmetic are being blended together?  Perhaps the real disease that needs a cure is vanity.

- Paul Kulpinski

Watch the TV ad here:
LATISSE® Advertising | Pause For a Commercial Break

Sources:

Latisse

All About Vision

Wikipedia – Bimatroprost

Wikipedia – Hypotrichosis

American Hair Loss Association

Treating Those at Risk for Being At-Risk for Pre-Osteoporosis

It sounds like classic disease  mongering.  Some experts believe that it is.  That’s the case with the diagnosis and treatment for Osteopenia or pre-Osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is a condition in bone tissue where the Bone Mineral Density (BMD – the amount of bone tissue per cubic centimeter) is significantly reduced.   It is the result of a major imbalance in the amount of bone that is naturally re-absorbed in the body and the bone that is naturally produced.  In other words, more bone is being re-absorbed than the body is producing to replace it.   Osteoporosis is an abnormal condition and is classified as a disease.  In 1994, the World Health Organization (WHO) with the support of the major drug manufacturers defined the disease as being present in women who have a bone mineral density of 2.5 standard deviations below the peak bone mass of a healthy 20-year old.  Previously, the Osteoporosis diagnosis had only been used in elderly patients who had broken a bone.

At the same time, the group also created the definition for Osteopenia.  They decided that Osteopenia would be the condition for women who had bone mineral density of 1.0 standard deviations below a healthy 30-year old.  However unlike Osteoporosis, the conditions defined as Osteopenia are a sign of normal aging and not every woman who displays signs of Osteopenia will develop Osteoporosis, yet doctors are prescribing Osteoporosis drugs to also treat Osteopenia.  Since 2003, the sale of Osteoporosis drugs have doubled to $8.3 billion per year.   This is cause for alarm, according to some experts.

Researchers at the Iberoamerican Cochrane Center in Barcelona, Spain, published a critique of these practices in the January 2009 British Medical Journal.   In the article, the researchers argue that proponents of the treatment of women with slightly lowered bone mineral density with Osteoporosis drugs are exaggerating the benefits and understating the risks.  They found that the treatments for Osteopenia were largely ineffective yet carried with it risks for stroke and other cardiovascular complications, neurological abnormalities, gastrointestinal complications and even Osteonecrosis of the Jaw which is a severe disease of the jaw bone.  The critique highlighted conflicts of interest in the drug trials, showing that the analysts and authors of the studies were employees or consultants of the manufacturers of the Osteoporosis drugs.

Not only are drug manufacturers making  more drugs available to treat thinning bones, they are also funding the manufacturing and installation of more bone-density measuring devices and tests in doctor’s offices, clinics and even health clubs.  It’s estimated that based on the definition of Osteopenia, about half of the world’s population of post-menopausal women would be candidates for drug treatment.  At a cost of up to $1800 per year per patient for the drugs, that’s big money for the big pharmaceutical companies.  It’s no wonder that they want more and more women to have a bone density test.

Yet, even with a slightly reduced bone mineral density and the associated label of Osteopenia, experts recommend that women educate themselves on the risks before agreeing to treatment.  After all, it is your body and you have the final say as to what you do to it or have done to it.

Sources:

The British Medical Journal

Wikipedia

WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool

The New York Times

The Brain on Sugar Substitutes

The number of sugar substitutes has proliferated over the past few years as Americans desire the sweet taste but fear the calories.  While the debate on the impact of whether artificial sweetners actually help people lose weight is still under fierce debate, new research shows the difference to how the brain perceives artificial sweetners and sugar even though the taste buds may be fooled.

This new researches comes from the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands.   Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to visualize how the brain responds to the different sweetners.  Subjects drank two orange flavored drinks, one sweetened with sugar, the other sweetened with a mix of the artificial sweetners aspartame, acesulfame K, cyclamate and saccharin.

The mix of artificial sweetners were formulated to match the real tast of suger as closley as possible.   The subjects were also given the different drinks during different days to reduce the subjects ability to taste the difference.

What they found was that both drinks stimulated the amygdala, the brain region that triggers the sense of pleasure.  But only the drink with sugar activated the caudate, the part of the brain that senses the intake of calories and operates independently from the sensation of taste.

This supports research dones at the University of Birmingham in Britan that showed improved muscle performance from athelets who meerly rinsed their mouths with sugar water, compared with no improvement when athletes did the same with artificially sweetened water.

What the research is pointing to is the possibility that the artificial sweeteners are whetting the body’s appetite for calories.  When the calories don’t arrive, the brain stimulates a stronger hunger response which may lead a person to actually consume more calories as a response then they would have if they simply consumed sugar.

One solution may be to skip the artificial sweetners and in the case of drinks, sip the drink slowly.  Other research showed that when subjects drank a sugary drink, they naturally drank less when their sip size was smaller.   That reminds me of the advice my grandmother gave me as a kid:  eat (and drink) slowly and chew your food so your brain can catch up with your stomach.

Additional Links:

Los Angeles Times

Wikipedia

Stress Reduces Good Decision Making

Stress, as I like to define it, is the reaction of the body to a perceived threat or expected outcome.   This response is hard wired in all living organisms – the “fight or flight” response as it is popularly called.   By now we’re all familiar with the complications of chronic stress including increased risk of heart disease, higher blood pressure, suppressed immune system and so on.   This is the result of the sympathetic nervous system, that jolts us with a rush of adrenaline, constricts blood flow to the digestive tract and moves it into the legs and arms to fight, or run like a madman.  A healthy sympathetic response is short lived and after we deal with the threat, the para-sympathetic nervous system kicks in to balance the blood flow, lower respiration, restart digestion and absorb the remaining adrenaline.

But our ancient stress reaction does not fit into our modern times where the bears that chase us are inescapable because they are our job, our spouse, our life.  They never go away and we’re always running.  Running.  Running, creating a rut of repeated and habitual action that always leads to the same outcome – more running.  The para-sympathetic response never activates to break the cycle.  We’re stuck in a rut.  If this sounds like you, you’re not alone.   So much so that researchers at the University of Minho in Portugual wanted to know how this happens.

The researchers set up experiments with some chronically stressed rats which had developed habitual responses to problems and demonstrated rote behaviors like compulsively eating even when they weren’t hungry.  (Sound familiar?)   The scientists created the condition in the rats by inflicting repeated stress for about 4 weeks.  After that time, in addition to behavioral changes, researchers notice that the brain circuity of the rats actually changed as well.  Areas of the brain responsible for big picture decision making and goal directed problem solving atrophied and showed reduced function while the habit forming parts of the brain enlarged.

What this indicated to the researchers is that under chronic stress, the rats were now neurally primed to keep repeating the habitual behaviors and less likely to be able to break the habit.  A negative feed-back loop had formed that trapped the rats from self-induced recovery.  While perseverance can be a valuable skill (you remember “if at first you don’t succeed…. try, try again”) this state of perseverance is one that’s turned into obsession.  Unhealthy by any stretch.

The good news is that when the researchers removed these over-stressed rats from their office cubicles and plopped them down on a sandy beach in Hawaii with an umbrella cocktail in hand, their conditions reversed after about another 4 weeks.  (Well, who wouldn’t after a 4 week vacataion!)    The point is that during that vacation time, the unhealthy rat brains re-wired themselves and the atrophied problem solving parts of the brain re-sprouted and the habit forming section was reduced – to the point that the brains of the formerly stressed out rats were indistinguishable from the control rats who had a balanced lifestyle all along.

So, the solution is first not get yourself in that situation by creating a lifestyle of balance – like the control rats in the experiment.  Secondly, have some means of assistance to help pry you out of the rut by first assisting you to recognize the rut and then to create a change – maybe with a vacation,  a massage, or some exercise that will break through the rut and help rewire your brain to restore your wits.

So, if you didn’t get a chance to take a vacation this summer, there’s still time to make one more good decision before the rut eclipses your ability to decide to take one.  Massages are also available today!