Vitamin D deficiency during early pregnancy is associated with an almost two-fold higher rate of language impairment in the offspring, a study from WA has shown.

In a long term follow up study of children born between 1989 and 1991, researchers found that maternal serum vitamin D levels at 18 weeks of pregnancy were related to language difficulties in the children at five and 10 years. However, contrary to other studies, vitamin D insufficiency during pregnancy was not linked to offspring behavioural or emotional problems at any age, according to the findings published in Pediatrics (online Feb 13).

Researchers from the Telethon Institute for Child Health in Perthsay one of the intriguing findings from their research was the suggestion of a threshold for serum vitamin D levels. Rather than a dose-response relationship, they found that there was a cutoff level of 50nmol/L for circulating 25 (OH)-vitamin D levels, below which the language impairment was seen.

This threshold effect was similar to that seen for vitamin D levels and other health outcomes such as bone density and colorectal cancer risk, they note. They say the developing fetus is completely reliant on maternal vitamin D stores, and vitamin D performs a number of physiological and endocrine roles fundamental to neurodevelopment. “Maternal vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may reduce the risk of developmental language difficulties among their children,” they conclude.

ATMS Board Member David Stelfox shares his response:

Dwyer’s approach has always been to present the illusion that all Complementary and Alternative medical approaches are without research-based evidence while all conventional medical treatments are supported by strong research-based evidence for their efficacy.

Prof Dwyer obviously doesn’t read his own science and medical journals – otherwise he’d be aware of the existence of considerable research-based evidence for the effectiveness of natural therapies – most is published in the mainstream science and medical journals. But what about the evidence base for conventional medicine? And are the University-based conventional medicine programs really evidence-based anyway??

Perhaps not:

In 1978 The US Congress initiated an investigation into the efficacy and safety of conventional medical practices. The US Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, in it’s report to Congress found that only between 10 and 20% of all practices and treatments used by medical doctors at that time were scientifically validated. When you consider that, according to research, the placebo response is responsible for the efficacy of up to 50% of the efficacy of medical interventions, conventional medical care in the ‘70s wasn’t all that evidence-based!

OK, but that was over 30 years ago right? And things have surely changed since then with all the focus on evidence-based practice?? Well, maybe not:

In 1998, The Journal of the American Medical Association published an analysis of Cochrane Collaboration reviews of conventional medical practices and procedures. Just 38% of conventional medical treatments were supported by sound research-based evidence! And the evidence for the other 62% of treatments suggested that they were either negative in their effect or that there was no  evidence for their efficacy.

Then there’s the British Medical Journal (another journal that Professor Dwyer either doesn’t read or perhaps doesn’t subscribe to…) which, every six months, publishes an update of it’s findings on which medical treatments work and which one’s don’t. Here are its most recent findings.

Of 3,000 selected conventional medical treatments that have been evaluated in research:

· 11% are beneficial
· 23% are likely to be beneficial
· 7% are as likely to be harmful as beneficial
· 5% are unlikely to be beneficial
· 3% are likely to be ineffective or harmful

And the remaining 51% of medical treatments…….have unknown effectiveness.

Make up your mind about which form of medicine is safe and effective!

Here’s an article from Grant Cameron that appeared in the Sunday Mail on page 15 on the 15.1.12:

CHEESE! THESE HEALTHY FACTS ARE HARD TO DIGEST

Cheese has just been officially declared the most stolen food in the world. Not surprising really, given that most of us love it, and a wedge of Edam is easier to shove up your jumper than a hand of bananas or a side of beef.

If you’re a fan, too, you may be dismayed to read that milk products may not be as good for you as we’ve been led to believe. And, the news isn’t any better for red meat eaters. 

Harvard University in America had made these claims based on nothing but the latest scientific information on food and nutrition. The university said it needed to do that because “Powerful agricultural interests’ appeared to have had significant influence on new food guidelines released recently bu the US government. According to those guidelines, a hot dog on white bread with fries and a milkshake was given similar nutritional value to healthy protein, wholegrain bread, vegetables and low-fat yogurt.

At a time when our indulgent lifestyles are creating massive increases in cases of obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related illnesses, it’s outrageous to think that the financial viability of vested interests would be given priority over the health interests of the population at large.

You would certainly hope that our Government, or any of its agencies, wouldn’t allow sections of the agricultural lobby here to caress the facts about diet and nutrition for no other reason than financial gain?

Mind you, I do seem to remember the CSIRO taking some heat a few years back because the meat and dairy industry provided some of the funds for a popular diet book  that, coincidentally, featured plenty of recipes featuring red meat and milk products.

I really care about what I eat, and I don’t like to think Im being told something is good for me, bad for me, then good for me again based on what may be unproven information provided by someone with a product to flog.

Which brings me back to the science – and cheese.

Harvard researchers say dairy at every meal is too much and there’s little evidence that high dairy intake has any impact on osteoporosis.

The science also shows the best diet is one that’s rich in vegetables, whole grains, healthy fats, and healthy protein such as fish, chicken, bean and nuts.

Red meat hardly gets a look-in. When he reads this, I’ll expect a “lambasting” from Sam Kekovich. 

For expert advice on which diet is right for ‘You’ – Consult your Naturopathic Physician.

Yours In Great Health,

Sara Rooney BHSc., ND., DC., DASc., GDSc. (Hons), MATMS

Naturopathic Physician & Research Health Scientist

Earth Medicine ^TM

A.  P.O. Box 543 Strathalbyn, SA 5255 (Australia)

T:  (08) 85362933

W: www.EarthMedicine.com

E.  info@earthmedicine.com

Join Sara on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/people/Sara-Rooney/1334716867

AUSTRALIAN researchers are again calling for better labelling of caffeinated energy drinks after a study showed an alarming rise in cases of caffeine toxicity, which presents a risk of serious cardiac or neurological complications, and was responsible for one death in 2009. The retrospective observational study of NSW Poisons Information Centre data examined phone calls regarding energy drink exposures over the seven years to 2010.

Some 297 exposures to energy drinks were reported, increasing annually from 12 in 2004 to 65 in 2010. The median number of energy drinks consumed in one “recreational” session was five units, and the median age of exposure was 17 years, with 57% of consumers male. A third of users co-ingested other substances including alcohol and other caffeinated products or amphetamines.

Commonly reported symptoms included palpitations, agitation, tremor and gastrointestinal upset. More serious cardiac or neurological toxicity was reported in 21 subjects, including hallucinations, seizures, arrhythmias and cardiac ischaemia.

Over 128 subjects required hospitalisation related to the side effects of energy drinks.

Of concern were the 62 children with a mean age of 38 months (nine requiring hospitalisation) reported to have accidentally ingested energy drinks, with the most common symptom being hyperactivity.

While a typical can of energy drink may contain up to 300 mg of caffeine (just 50 mg can induce tachycardia and agitation), the caffeine dosage from all sources may be higher than the label indicates, and different brands of energy drinks contain varying levels of caffeine. Researchers caution that consumers are unlikely to be aware of variations in chemical composition and caffeine dosage in different drinks, leading to confusion over suggested maximum daily doses.

The researchers concluded that “reports of caffeine toxicity from energy drink consumption are increasing, particularly among adolescents, warranting review and regulation of the labelling and sale of these drinks”.

The negative health effects of energy drink consumption have been raised over many years, with critics blaming them for eroding dental health in teenagers, increasing blood pressure, and causing a recurrence of psychosis in schizophrenia patients, and calls have been made for a ban on selling energy drinks to children.

Estimates are that the energy drink industry spent nearly $15 million on marketing in Australia in 2009. The regulation of caffeinated energy drinks is currently under review by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council.

MJA 2012; 196(1):46-49

Do you think that children should be able to drink Energy drinks? What are your thoughts?

Warm regards,

In the wake of the market withdrawal of propoxyphene in November 2010, prescribers this year had to decide which analgesics were the best alternatives to the “Worst Drug in History” 

‘Physicians Say Good Riddance to ‘Worst Drug in History’

An estimated 10 million patients have used the pain reliever propoxyphene and were sent scrambling to doctors’ offices when it was recently pulled from the market. Many physicians are still dealing with the aftermath of the product, first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1957.

“Propoxyphene is the worst drug in history,” Ulf Jonasson, doctor of public health, from the Nordic School in Gothenburg, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News. The researcher played a role in the decision to stop the pain reliever in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and later in the entire European Union.

“No single drug has ever caused so many deaths,” Dr. Jonasson said. Propoxyphene was banned in the United Kingdom 5 years ago because of its risk for suicide.

It was taken off the market in Europe in 2009 over concerns about fatal overdoses and now in the United States for arrhythmias.

“I agree that propoxyphene is among the worst drugs in history,” Eduardo Fraifeld, MD, president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, said in an interview. “I’m surprised it stayed on the market so long. It’s addictive, in my experience not very effective, and toxic.”

“I’d probably add Demerol to the list too,” Dr. Fraifeld said. “It’s toxic and sedating, and my personal opinion is it should not be used at all.” Also known as pethidine, Demerol was the first synthetic opioid synthesized in 1932 as a possible antispasmodic agent. Its analgesic properties were recognized later. For much of the 20th century, pethidine has been the opioid of choice for many physicians treating acute and chronic severe pain.

“The writing has been on the wall for both of these drugs,” Dr. Fraifeld said. “With adverse events, prescription abuse increasing, and questionable effectiveness, this isn’t innocuous.”

Burden on Prescribers and Patients

A growing number of products are entering the US market, Dr. Fraifeld noted. “It’s unrealistic to expect regulators to be able to closely track every single one.” Prescribers and patients must therefore pay close attention to any emerging side effects, he said. “Unfortunately, clinicians are not using adverse event reporting systems adequately,” Dr. Fraifeld added. “I think it’s fair to say that many physicians have no idea how to even use the system, and this is a problem.”

Propoxyphene was first developed by Eli Lilly and later sold to Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, which marketed the drug under the brand names Darvon and Darvocet.

Clinicians are now prescribing analgesic alternatives to propoxyphene.

Since 1978, the FDA has received 2 requests to remove propoxyphene from the market. In January 2009, an advisory committee voted 14 to 12 against the continued marketing of propoxyphene products. At that time, the committee called for additional information about the drug’s cardiac effects.

In terms of benefit to risk ratio, “I would say, little ‘b’, big ‘r’ for this drug . And that’s unsettling,” committee member Ruth Day, PhD, from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who voted to remove propoxyphene, said at the time. The drug is a narcotic opioid. “It looks like it offers placebo benefits with opioid risks,” added committee member Sean Hennessey, PhD, an epidemiologist from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Later in 2009, the FDA decided to allow continued marketing of propoxyphene, but with a new boxed warning added to the drug label alerting of the risk for fatal overdose.

That came to an end in November 2010, when regulators disclosed new study results, combined with epidemiologic data, and medical examiner reports prompting the drug’s market removal.

New study results showed propoxyphene puts patients at risk for potentially serious or even fatal heart rhythm abnormalities.

Should FDA Have Acted Sooner?

Gerald Dal Pan, MD, director of the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, said in November that regulators did not feel there was sufficient evidence earlier. “The new information on the effects of the electrical activity on the heart was the final piece to the puzzle,” he said.

“Long-time users of the drug need to know that these changes to the heart’s electrical activity are not cumulative,” Dr. Dal Pan added. “Once patients stop taking propoxyphene, the risk will go away.”

Although most say they are glad to see propoxyphene finally off the market, there are those who found it useful. “In 20 years, I can’t recall a single problem,” cardiologist Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, from TJ Samson Community Hospital in Glasgow, Kentucky, told  Medscape Medical News. “I was not a huge prescriber of propoxyphene meds, preferring other options, but when I did, it was Darvocet N-100.” Dr. Shirley is forum moderator for theheart.org. She questioned the regulatory action in a recent blog. “The FDA decided to withdraw the medication after 53 years on the market but provided little in the way of data to help us understand its decision, undermining the confidence of the lay public in the FDA, the prescribers, and the pharmacists who have served them for their entire adult lives.”

Dr. Fraifeld said he had a very small number of patients in his practice taking propoxyphene. “I never liked the drug but had some patients I had inherited from other practices who were taking propoxyphene and were reluctant to change when I suggested it. I’ve prescribed alternatives, such as acetaminophen or other opioids, and everyone has transitioned quite well.”

Table. Pharmaceutical Analgesic Alternatives to Propoxyphene

Analgesic Adverse Events

Acetaminophen:  Hepatotoxicity, serious allergic reactions

Aspirin:  Gastrointestinal bleeding, tinnitus, hypersensitivity, and asthma

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatorydrugs: Gastrointestinal bleeding, serious cardiovascular events, renal injury, liver injury, serious skin reactions

Tramadol: Respiratory depression, seizures, nausea, vomiting, serotonin syndrome

Codeine in combination with acetaminophen: Respiratory depression, constipation, sedation, nausea, vomiting, hepatotoxicity, serious skin reactions

Hydrocodone in combination with acetaminophen: Respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, constipation, sedation, addiction, hepatotoxicity, serious skin reactions

Schedule II opioids: Respiratory depression, central nervous system depression, sedation, nausea, vomiting, constipation, addiction

“It’s so important that we don’t become complacent and continue to closely monitor patients,” Dr. Fraifeld said. “It can be tough because chronic pain patients are often complaining, and some of their concerns may get overlooked. We have to stop, pay attention, and, if something seems off, we have to take a look because we never know what could be the next propoxyphene.”

Sar Rooney’s Naturopathic Philosophy on Taking Analgesics:

As a Naturopathic Physician I believe that when the body has pain – there is always a reason. Therefore, I feel it is the duty of the practitioner to assist their patient by identifying the cause of their pain and treating it, rather than just suppressing their pain symptoms. The body is wonderful at showing us that something is wrong and out of balance and requires attention. If we ignore the warning signs that pain is providing us, more serious illness will often develop.

Examples of this include regular migraines or headaches that are never investigated for their underlying cause (even though there is always a cause!); Women putting up with PMS symptoms such as uterine cramping and thinking its normal and just popping a pill to stop the pain; Menopause symptoms such as hot flushes are often endured or ‘treated’ with generic ‘one-size-fits-all’ synthetic hormone therapy – despite hot flushes being a sign of an underlying hormonal imbalance which may be putting the patient at risk of osteoporosis, breast cancer or other serious problems. Further examples of people just suppressing their pain and not treating the underlying causes include men and women taking a tablet to halt reflux, indigestion or heartburn; people taking medications for sinusitis and never identifying the real causes; Painful gums that bleed when you brush so instead of treating the periodontitis (which untreated can lead to heart disease) - you just use a toothpaste for ‘gum disease’ that stops the bleeding and leave it at that; Mothers giving their babies ‘Children’s Pain Killers’ instead of finding out what’s really wrong and treating the cause; and the list goes on.

If you suffer from regular pain or know someone who does – I recommend you consult a Naturopathic physician or a good doctor that is knowledgeable in the comprehensive screening of possible underlying causes of your health problems; knows how to treat your underlying problems with safe and effective treatments (preferably evidence-based herbal or other naturopathic treatments) and is willing to spend the time with you while they get to the bottom of all of your problems.

Warm regards,

On the ABC show, Catalyst (16/08/2007), they ran a story titled ‘Natural HRT – magic bullet or clever con?’ This story illustrated the dangers of these so-called ‘natural’ hormones know as ‘Bio-Identical’ hormones. The story recognized that the general public are being led to believe that these bio-identical hormones are totally natural and safe –but it seems this could not be further from the truth. So let’s take a look at the results of this investigation:

One doctor that prescribes these so-called “natural alternatives” stated that the word ‘bio-identical’ just means that the hormones used are the same shape and structure as the ones that we produce in our bodies. However, if these hormone treatments are synthesized from chemicals and are not 100% derived from plant sources, how are they ‘all natural’?

So What Exactly Are ‘Bio-Identical’ Hormones?

They are chemical substances that have been derived from molecules taken from plant sources, such as soy or yams (Dioscora composita), but they are then biochemically converted to molecules that are supposedly identical to human hormones. The term “natural” is actually based on the chemical structure of the molecules – not their source. In other words, although one stage of the manufacturing process involves deriving molecules from plants, the rest of the process does not – and the industry does not seem to be very forthcoming with information about the rest of the chemical processes involved with the synthesis of these hormone therapies. It seems misleading that the general public would believe that they were receiving a naturopathic or herbal treatment when in fact it appears to be nothing of the sort.

The claims from those involved in the ‘Bio-Identical’ hormone industry are that they are much safer than synthetic hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which has been proven to increase the risk of heart disease, strokes and cancer. However, one lady that was interviewed on Catalyst (16/08/2007), doesn’t believe that ‘Bio-Identical’ hormones are safe at all – in fact she almost died from taking these so-called safe and natural hormones:

“I was a code blue” (which means that a patient is close to dying). “I remember they cut my beautiful nightgown off. There was a nurse kneeling on the bed holding an oxygen bottle to my face.” Without warning, a large blood clot in this lady’s groin exploded sending hundreds of tiny clots through her body and causing her lungs to collapse. The explanation given by the doctor for this woman’s collapse was due to the massive doses of testosterone that were in the tablets she was taking (which were ‘Bio-Identical’ hormones).

One doctor interviewed on Catalyst believed that these situations are inevitable given the lack of testing of these hormones. He stated that  “There’s no independent regulated quality control, such as the therapeutic goods administration of the hormones coming in – or of the actual compounding”. The doctor was also concerned about the concentrations of the hormones and mixtures that have never been tested for their safety and long-term efficacy, and therefore felt that they were dangerous.

Catalyst explained that ‘Bio-identical’ hormones aren’t pre-packaged like most drugs. They’re individually made up in compounding pharmacies. The question was asked about whose job it was to monitor the use of these unapproved hormones:

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) says it’s their job to set standards for drug companies, however, compounding pharmacies don’t need to comply with these standards.

The doctor on Catalyst stated that “It’s very disconcerting that we don’t have adequate TGA regulation. This industry is based on pseudo-science and monetary gain at the disadvantage of menopausal women. I believe it is a scam”. He went on to say that “They make incredible claims that I feel they’re completely un-validated. It’s very important to know that the bio-identical hormones have not been tested in legitimate double blind randomised controlled trials that we would expect of any product”.

The doctor also commented that “The main scientific societies around the world including the International Menopause Society, the American Menopause Society and the Australasian Society are all very concerned about the safety and efficacy of bio-identical hormones and they advocate that women should not use them”. The doctor also said “I think it’s very important that women who have been taking bio-identical hormones ask themselves, were they informed fully that there were the same risks for this type of hormone therapy as conventional hormone therapy and were they told that the actual products they’re using have not been fully tested”.

Catalyst also pointed out that late last year the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched action against the ‘Menopause Institute of Australia’. They admitted to making around 75 medical claims about “natural” hormones that were misleading and deceptive. However, others are still making false statements and therefore, many people continue to mistakenly believe that they are receiving a herbal or naturopathic hormone treatment.

An article in The Sydney Morning Herald (Chantal Rumble, August 16, 2006) also slammed the so-called ‘natural Bio-Identical’ hormone therapy industry:

This is an extract from the article:

Fears over hand-made hormones

THOUSANDS of menopausal women are being prescribed dangerous hormone therapies that have not been approved for use and may contain banned substances.

Women are being urged to avoid so-called natural hormone replacement therapy (NHRT), also known as bio-identical hormones, because of safety fears.

Two cases of uterine cancer in women taking NHRT have been referred to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in the past year by Dr John Eden, director of the Sydney Menopause Centre.

Dr Eden said the “hand-made hormones” were prepared by pharmacists known as “compounding chemists” without scrutiny. Although the process is legal, it is beyond the regulatory control of the TGA and state-based pharmacy boards. “There’s a whole stack of women being treated out there with hand-made hormones. It’s untested hormone replacement therapy,” he said.

“Many women think they are getting a herbal treatment and are shocked to learn they are getting a hormone treatment.”

Other women using NHRT have suffered elevated hormone levels. Side effects can include excessive bleeding, increased cancer risk and blood clots………..

And an extract taken from Oprah Winfrey’s website includes the following:

Official Statement from the FDA on Bio-Identical Hormones

“The FDA respects a healthcare provider’s decision that his or her patient should receive a pharmacy-compounded hormone replacement drug, but the FDA also wants to assure that women and their healthcare providers understand the risks and benefits of those drugs. The FDA has seen claims that compounded bio-identical hormone drugs avoid the risks of FDA-approved treatments for the symptoms of menopause, and that these drugs can prevent or reduce the risk of serious illnesses such as heart disease, stroke and breast cancer. The FDA knows of no credible scientific evidence supporting these claims”.

“Some bio-identical hormone replacement drugs contain an ingredient called estriol. The safety and effectiveness of estriol has not been credibly proven and the FDA does not condone estriol use for compounding without an FDA-sanctioned investigational drug application”.

If you have been taking bio-identical hormones or standard, synthetic HRT and you are looking for safer alternatives, I recommend that you consult a qualified naturopathic physician that specialises in balancing the hormonal system naturally. Naturopathic physicians that specialise in hormonal imbalances will aim to identify the underlying causes of your hormonal imbalances and will let you know which hormones your body needs to be taking, as well as which specific herbs and nutrient therapies can help your body to increase these hormone levels naturally, safely and effectively.

I have been specialising in naturopathic endocrinology (hormonal system) balance for many years so if you are seeking professional alternative advice on how to balance your hormonal system naturally, I look forward to assisting you.

CONSUMER trust in pharmacists has taken a significant hit following the recent reporting of deals with pharmaceutical manufacturers involving payments for health advice and product recommendations.

Researchers surveyed over 300 consumers who were aware of recent media reports about deals such as the now scrapped scheme that was to have seen pharmacy staff spruik the Blackmores companions range of supplements when completing customer prescriptions.

Further reports revealed a deal between the Pharmacy Guild and Pfizer involving payments to pharmacists who alert patients who may be eligible to participate in support programs for a number of drugs made by the company when prompted by GuildCare dispensing software.

Of those surveyed 62% said they had less trust in pharmacists as the result of their knowledge of the deals, while just 27% said the reports had not shifted their opinions toward pharmacy.
The survey was completed by Essential Research after being commissioned by a coalition of groups including the Consumers Health Forum (CHF) and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.

CHF CEO Carol Bennett said the results were an “alarming” indication of the negative impact of the commercial deals on consumer confidence in pharmacy. Ms Bennett called for broader discussion between the government and the pharmacy sector than its regular private negotiations with the guild.

“This is about the lack of transparency that applies to some of the arrangements that are being done,” Ms Bennett told MO.

“[The guild] has a vested interest of having an exclusive deal done with the government to provide professional pharmacy services to Australian taxpayers who are footing the bill to the tune of $15 billion.

“Yet they are squandering the reputation of professional pharmacists and in the process undermining the confidence that consumers can have in the professional services that are being provided by pharmacy.”

Comment was being sought from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia at the time of press.

What do you think about pharmacists charging for health advice and for profitting from recommending specific products from certain manufacturers? Tell us what your thoughts are.

Previous studies have indicated children are at risk of obesity if both parents are overweight or obese. However a new study by University of Newcastle researchers found that having a fat dad made a child four times more likely to be obese by age eight or nine than those with healthy dads. But only having an obese or overweight mum in the family did not have the same effect.

Lead researcher Dr Emily Freeman said it was unclear why overweight dads had such a big impact on their children’s girths. One theory was a father’s eating and exercise habits could be influencing what his children eat and how much physical activity they do. “We think it’s most likely to be because dads are being models of poor eating and exercise,” Dr Freeman said.

“You hear lots of stories about how mums do all the grocery shopping and cook the dinners, and women in general tend to be more knowledgeable about weight, diet and exercise. “So we are not exactly sure what’s going on there.”

The researchers based their findings on data collected as part of a longitudinal study of 3000 Australian families between 2004 and 2008. They looked at the weights of children when they were aged four to five and then again when they hit eight and nine. Those who had an overweight or obese dad were four times as likely to follow in their father’s footsteps than children with a dad in the healthy weight range.

Dr Freeman said 25 per cent of Australian children were overweight or obese and helping fat dads lose weight could make a difference to the youngsters. She said a pilot program was underway in the NSW Hunter Valley to help dads shed some extra kilos. The results would be analysed to understand the impact of the program on their children.

“We are using the program to understand these mechanisms a bit better,” Dr Freeman said. The researchers’ study was published recently online by the International Journal of Obesity

Drinking two or more sugar-sweetened beverages a day may boost a woman’s risk for developing heart disease and diabetes — even if this habit isn’t causing her to pack on extra pounds, a new study says.

Sugary sodas and other sweetened beverages are frequent targets in the war on obesity. Many efforts, such as taking these drinks out of vending machines in schools, are aimed at reducing exposure to these beverages and the empty calories they provide. However, the new study suggests that the risks posed by sugar-sweetened sodas and flavored waters may be independent of weight gain.

Middle-aged women who drank two or more sugary beverages a day were close to four times as likely to have high levels of dangerous blood fats called triglycerides and impaired blood sugar levels (known as “prediabetes’), when compared with women who drank less than one sugar-sweetened beverage a day. What’s more, women who drank two or more sodas a day also had more belly fat, but not necessarily more weight. Belly fat, or abdominal obesity, poses greater health risks than fat in other areas of the body because it lies deep inside and can produce hormones and other substances that negatively affect blood pressure, cholesterol and insulin production. Add these perils together and you’ve got so-called metabolic syndrome, a cluster of risk factors that has been linked to heart disease, diabetes and stroke. The study findings were presented Sunday at the American Heart Association’s annual meeting, inOrlando,Fla.

A related study presented Sunday found that people with heart failure who have low levels of vitamin C fare worse than their counterparts who get enough vitamin C from foods.

In the beverage study, Christina Shay, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, and her colleagues assessed the drinking habits of nearly 4,200 women and men aged 45 to 84 from various ethnic groups via questionnaires. None of the participants had heart disease when the study began in 2002. The researchers measured weight gain, waist circumference, cholesterol levels, triglycerides and glucose (blood sugar) during three follow-up exams conducted over a five-year span. They also looked to see who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during this time frame.

Women who drank more than two sugary drinks a day had more risks for heart disease and diabetes than women who drank less than one soda or sweetened beverage each day — even in the absence of weight gain. The same findings were not seen among men. There’s no consensus on why sugar-sweetened beverages did not affect men in the same way, but it may be that women require less energy for metabolism than men, Shay said. “They have smaller bodies, less muscle mass and need fewer calories than men,” she said, adding that a 130-calorie soda accounts for a bigger chunk of a woman’s daily energy than it does for men. “It is possible that men need more sodas to see an effect,” she said. The bottom line is that cutting back on sugar-sweetened beverages is an easy way to improve health, said Dr. Stacey Rosen, the associate chairman of cardiology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y. “Our soda habit is something we have total control over,” Rosen said. “There are a lot of things that keep us healthy that are hard work and difficult, but cutting back on sweetened drinks isn’t one of them. We are not talking about doing an hour of exercise or buying expensive organic foods.” “Simple dietary choices can have a critical role in determining risk for cardiovascular disease,” she added. “And remember — women often make food choices for their entire family, so the impact of this may be more widespread.

In the vitamin C study, people with heart failure who had low levels of vitamin C were 2.4 times more likely to have higher blood levels of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), a marker of inflammation that has been linked to heart disease risk. And those people with low vitamin C and high hsCRP levels were nearly twice as likely to be hospitalized or die from heart failure when compared to counterparts who had higher levels of vitamin C and lower levels of hsCRP.

The study included 212 people with heart failure who were 61 years old, on average. They were asked to keep a food diary for four days, and their diary entries were verified by a nutritionist. Researchers analyzed vitamin C intake using a computer program. The study participants were also asked to take a blood test to measure their hsCRP levels. An hsCRP level greater than 3 milligrams per liter of blood was considered elevated, the researchers said.

Vitamin C, a potent antioxidant, may help cool inflammation in the body, while a lack of the nutrient may allow inflammation levels to go unchecked, study author Grace Song, an assistant professor in the department of nursing at the University of Ulsan in Korea, told reporters at the meeting.

Vitamin C is plentiful in many healthful fruits and vegetables, including bell peppers, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, lemon juice, oranges, papaya, and strawberries. Studies have shown that adding supplements of vitamin C or other antioxidants does not improve outcomes in people being treated for heart failure, said American Heart Association President Dr. Gordon F. Tomaselli.

(Editors note: There have been a large number of studies done that show various nutrient supplements can benefit heart health including reducing cholesterol, decreasing high blood
pressure and reducing inflammation – which are key markers for the progression of heart disease).

But people who eat diets rich in vitamin C foods may be healthier than those who don’t, said Tomaselli, chief of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University. “Vitamin C in the diet may be a marker of a healthy lifestyle,” he said. Dr. Clyde W. Yancy, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, urged caution before jumping to any conclusions about vitamin C, however. “There is a benefit to a heart-healthy lifestyle, but it is not clear if vitamin C is independently associated with better outcomes among people with heart failure,” he said. Yancy agreed with Tomaselli that eating a diet rich in vitamin C may help contribute to healthy lifestyle, which includes better adherence to heart-failure treatment regimens. Research presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The study found that some supplements, particularly iron (when taken in excess of 200mg/per day), could be harmful to older women’s health whereas they found that calcium supplementation may reduce their risk of mortality. However, none of the data can be taken seriously.

The study was totally dependent on older women relying on their memory to complete questionnaires about their diet and nutrient intake over the past 19 years. Furthermore, it was not a double blind, placebo controlled study (which is the gold standard in scientific research) and twice the amount of supplement takers in the study were also taking Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), compared to the non-supplement takers – and HRT has known risks of increased mortality through breast cancer, heart attacks and strokes. In addition, the researchers admitted that their study could not distinguish whether the participants were taking supplements to fight diseases they already had or not. As many people only begin taking supplements in response to the symptoms of illness such as fatigue or other signs of disease, it is highly likely that the elderly supplement-taking participants were already suffering from ill-health. Indeed, the researchers themselves admit that the results may be due to pre-existing underlying health conditions rather than the supplements themselves – making this research totally unreliable.

There are also a number of other significant flaws with this study such as the absurdly high levels of iron supplementation that participants were taking (which was far higher than the Recommended Dietary Intake) and there was also no reference to the quality of the supplements being taken (whether they were cheap, synthetic products filled with harmful additives and in forms that were not bio-available or beneficial to the body); whether the women self-prescribed the supplements or whether
they sought expert advice (to determine what their biologically-unique body required); and many other factors that make this study unreliable.

 The research does not provide reliable evidence of the effects of nutrient supplementation at all. As Dr. David Herber, Director of the UCLA Center for Human Nutrition said “I wouldn’t recommend anyone change what they’re doing based on this study.”

The Research                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     The research was called ‘The Iowa Women’s Health Study’ and was published in the Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1625-1633. The study involved researchers analyzing data from questionnaires that were completed by older female participants which relied on their memory regarding their dietary and supplement intake. The average age of the women was 62yo at the start of the 19 year study and over 81yo by the end of the study.  The study conclusions were that there ‘may’ be a slightly increased risk of mortality in older women taking certain nutrient supplements especially iron (but only if taking more than 200mg per day) but calcium supplementation seemed to decrease the risk of mortality by 9% in older women. There was no mention of the scientifically-proven health benefits of fish oils, probiotics, Vitamin D supplementation or other nutrient supplementation despite there being a vast amount of clinical trials proving that these supplements can prevent and treat certain chronic disease.

Why This Research Is Questionable:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Besides the large number of issues with this research described above, one of the main problems with the study is the high intake of iron supplementation. The results of the research indicated that iron was the main culprit (out of all the supplements reviewed) when taken at levels higher than 200mg per day but the study showed there were no negative health effects when taken at 200mg per day or less. Of course it is potentially harmful to take more than 200mg per day of iron! In fact, I have no idea why anyone would take that much. Added to that, there was no mention whether it was organic iron or inorganic (The latter is well known to be harmful to the body as it is more likely to be stored rather than utilized). As a practitioner for over 18 years, if I prescribe iron to a client as a result of determining they have a deficiency (and after ruling out the client does not have Hemochromatosis – which the researchers failed to check), I only ever prescribe iron at a dose of 100mg per day (equivalent to 20mg per day) and I only prescribe a totally organic (plant-based) source of iron. I have never recommended more than 200mg of iron per day to anyone so it concerns me that these are the levels that the researchers are basing their results on as I don’t imagine too many people are taking such excessive amounts of iron. I can only assume that the women taking such large doses of iron were self-prescribing their own supplements and dosages and did not seek expert advice. Furthermore, the researchers admit that they “Cannot rule out the possibility that the increase in mortality rate was caused by illnesses for which use of iron supplements is indicated,” they wrote. “Chronic disease, major injury, and/or operations may cause anemia, which is then treated with supplemental iron”. In addition, if any of the participants had Hemochromatosis (which largely goes undiagnosed), their body accumulates iron (rather than utilizes it) until it builds to dangerously high levels and causes serious disease. This was not taken into consideration in this study. Copper can also accumulate in those with Wilson’s syndrome but again, this was not considered by the researchers. Note: This is why it always best to consult a trained Naturopath to find out which nutrients you should be taking to prevent disease and which ones you need to avoid.

A Summary of Why This Research Was Flawed     

1) The study was not a double blind, placebo controlled study which is the gold standard in scientific research and interestingly is also the standard that the medical field demand when it comes to the complementary medicine field providing evidence of the benefits of natural remedies. Footnote: There are thousands of independent scientific research trials that have demonstrated the effectiveness of certain herbal medicines and nutrient therapies.

2) The study was totally reliant on older women (from 62yo to over 81yo) filling out questionnaires. Therefore the study only showed an association – not cause and effect – which is not scientifically reliable especially as it was reliant on the memory of the elderly participants.

3) The researchers admitted that their data cannot distinguish whether the women they studied were taking supplements to fight  diseases they already had or simply to maintain health. This is a significant  flaw as many people that suffer from illness start taking supplements in  response to the fatigue or other symptoms that clinical disease causes. The researchers acknowledged that the slight increases in death risk (which were  extremely small and may not even be clinically meaningful) – may have actually  been due to pre-existing underlying health conditions rather than the supplements themselves – making this research totally unreliable.

4)  Twice the amount of  supplement takers in the study were also taking Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), compared to the non-supplement takers. As HRT has known risks of increased mortality through breast cancer, heart  attacks and strokes, this could account for the results in the increased  mortality risk in older women.

5)  It is not known whether the supplement-taking participants only took supplements that were self-prescribed (i.e. Not prescribed by a health professional) and therefore may not have been required by their body.  Good Naturopaths always recommend individual health screening to determine which nutrients each person requires based on their unique, biological requirements.

6) It is not known whether the study participants only took cheap and/or  inorganic, synthetic supplements which are known for their toxicity, their  cheap harmful fillers and additives and their lack of health benefits (Which is why trained Naturopaths never recommend nutrient supplements from health food shops, pharmacies, supermarkets or other retail outlets).

7) The study was carried out by the nutrition department  at Iowa university which means the researchers quite possibly had a bias towards proving that food should be enough for good health and that  supplements are not required (which is what most nutritionists believe). While believing that we can derive all the nutrients we require from food alone is a nice idealistic philosophy – it’s not consistent with logic when you consider that a vast amount of clinical research has shown that the majority of humans have multiple nutrient deficiencies and that long-term nutrient deficiencies result in (preventable) disease. From over 18 years of clinical practice and testing a vast number of clients for nutrient deficiencies, even those eating a healthy, organic diet almost always still lack certain nutrients. Studies in agriculture are also showing the dramatic decline in nutrient values in modern foods so how do dieticians propose that the average person derives sufficient amounts of a variety of nutrients from food alone?

8) The researchers admit that their study was limited by the possibility of residual confounding (confusion), the inability to exclude the chance that some supplements were taken in response to pre-existing symptoms or clinical disease, the lack of data on nutritional status, any details on the supplements used or changes in supplement use during the study (Yes, I don’t suppose any of the participants took the same supplements every day for 19 years and no doubt wouldn’t have remembered what they did actually take over that length of time!).

In conclusion, in my opinion, this research is neither scientifically reliable nor useful but it does point out the need for people to seek expert health advice when it comes to individual nutrient supplementation. Instead of  ‘self-prescribing’ or purchasing supplements just because a celebrity on the TV said they were a good idea or accepting advice from untrained staff in health
food stores and other retail outlets or being sold supplements from pharmacists or their staff – who have very limited training in nutrient supplementation you may want to consult a
qualified Naturopathic Physician who has studied health and nutritional science for many years, is trained in appropriate testing to determine which nutrients you really need (rather than being
sold something that could be harmful), who understands the pathology underlying chronic disease, who will spend an extended amount of time with you to find out what your individual requirements are so you can achieve optimum health and prevent disease and will prescribe you nutrient supplements that are of the highest grade possible and have proven effectiveness – not inferior, sub-standard products that may not offer you any benefits at all or worse, could be dangerous to your health.

Yours In Health,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Sara Rooney BHSc., ND., DC., DASc., GDSc. (Hons), MATMS                                                                                                                                                                                                      Naturopathic Physician  & Research Health Scientist

Earth Medicine ^TM

www.EarthMedicine.com                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               info@earthmedicine.com

Please see your health practitioner for advice.