| |
So it’s the “Ides of March” – a
term that invokes such a foreboding feeling…did you
know that it really just means “March 15th” from
the time of Ceasar? See, we just alleviate anxieties
all over the place here at Oöna. So, as my grandfather
used to say, “Stick with me kid”.
This month, we’ll report some more interesting news
out recently about HRT, and unfortunately, it doesn’t
get better. Then, I hope, even if you are not pregnant
or trying to get pregnant that you are getting plenty of
folic acid – a recent study has shown that this valuable
nutrient cuts the risk of high blood pressure. Finally,
did you notice my timing last month?... just when I was beginning
to write about all the sweetners, a big controversy arose
about Splenda. Since it’s part of my series,
I may as well cover that one next.
HRT AND INCONTINENCE
I’m surprised that
this finding didn’t receive more play in the press
as most women heading into menopause fear two symptoms the
most -- any kind of incontinence or weight gain. To this
day, HRT is being prescribed for women who experience incontinence.
Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA) and written by WHI researchers (part of the study
that pulled women off HRT a couple of years ago they looked
at any symptoms of urinary incontinence occurring within
one year of initiating HRT vs. placebo. Data from 23,300
women, ages 50 to 79 were looked at. Taking estrogen
alone is the culprit. Developing stress incontinence
(coughing, laughing, lifting) DOUBLED, urge incontinence
(involuntary contraction of the bladder) increased 32% and
overall or mixed was 79%. If women took both estrogen
plus progestin, there was no increase in incontinence but
no decrease either, it was the same as placebo. There
are a lot of options besides HRT that a woman can use to
address incontinence of varying from behavior therapy to
a device – for more information to about what can be
done, go to http://www.nafc.org/about_incontinence/
For more info on the study go to:
http://health.ivillage.com/gyno/0,,wbnews_7drp3jpx,00.html?arrivalSA=
1&cobrandRef=0&arrival_
freqCap=1&pba=adid=14301812
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/8/935
FOLIC ACID IS LIKE EXERCISE
Only because it’s
going to be on every “Top 10” list to improve
your health. Personally, I’m a big fan, I’ve
been taking a prenatal vitamin now for about 5 years or so,
just for the high amount of folic acid. If it’s
1mg. (1000 mcg.) or more, it must be a prescription. I
could have supplemented with folic acid on top of a multi – but
fewer the bottles, the better. (Don’t go above
2,000 mcg. – 5,000-10,000 mcg. is dangerous) We know
the benefits for women who are trying to get pregnant and
women who are pregnant (prevents birth defects of the brain
and spine), and we know that it’s a nutrient for the
heart as it lowers homocysteine levels. High levels of homocysteine
impair blood pressure. It may also help people who
suffer from depression as people who are depressed have high
homocysteine levels as well. Now JAMA has confirmed
that in women, folic acid cuts the risk of high blood pressure – although
it’s only data from a large observational study. In
other words, there hasn’t been a double blind control
study yet.
There were two large groups looked
at, both from the Nurses’Health
Study. A total of 150,000 women one group was aged
26 to 46 (“Younger Women”) and the other 43 to
70 (“Older Women”).
Bottom line – the “Younger Women” who
took 1,000 mcg. a day had a 46% reduction in risk compared
to the same age group who took 200 mcg. a day. Taking
800mcg. (mircrograms) of folate a day, reduces the risk 29%. For “Older
Women” who took more than 1,000 mcg. a day the reduction
in risk was 18% -- at 800 mcg. a day the reduction in risk
was13%. (also compared to those less taking than 200 mcg.
a day) Between 200 and 800mcg. there was some extra
benefit, but not enough to report for either group.
No one is sure why younger women benefit so much more than
older women but it could be that younger women develop hypertension
for different reasons.
So start taking it now! (Doctors/Researchers
are not recommending this, but I am!) The reason this is
so important is that hypertention is the “silent
killer”,
meaning that it strikes without symptoms.
Foods rich in folate include Citrus fruits and fruit juices,
leafy green vegetables, beans, asparagus, peanuts, wheat
germ, sunflower seeds and there are breakfast cereals and
breads that are “fortified” or “enriched” with
folate.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=41548
http://health.yahoo.com/news/43693
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/3/320
http://www.nutritional-supplement-info.com/folic-acid.html
IS SPLENDA SO SPLENDID?
I have to admit, when I first
heard of it, I thought it was a natural product. I
was at a Natural Product “Ingredient Show” about
3 years ago and the Splenda people were there. I got
the standard line from the person in the booth, “It’s
made from sugar” – and at a Natural Food “ingredient
show”, I assumed it was a natural product. They had
a big jar of gum balls and I thought they were great! (I
had no use professionally for this ingredient, so I wasn’t
equipped to ask the “tough questions”, but personally
I was curious) I later found out that none of the natural
markets like Whole Foods or Wild Oats were carrying Splenda,
so I figured something was up. I haven’t seen
them back at the show, (I was looking for the gumballs!!),
it may not have passed the muster for those who do use this
kind of ingredient – regardless, they’ve managed
to capture 50% of the artificial sweetner market. That’remarkable
considering the tough competition from NutaSweet. That’s
what got the press last month – their competitors are
complaining about false advertising – that they imply
it’s a natural product. (it’s a Johnson & Johnson
product with a big ad budget) I fell for it…and we
know I’m a genius…but probably like most of
us – I knew on some level that it sounded far fetched
that Splenda was “natural” -- but if was ½ natural
that’s better than what we got! Well, it’s
a big ‘ol mix of chemicals like the other ones – but
is it safer at all?
If you read their web site, it is
very convincing. There’s
no known side effect, not toxic, no bioaccumulation, non-carcinogenic,
no effects on fetal or neonatal development, no calories
or carbs. Splenda is a compound called sucrolose, derived
from sucrose or sugar. They go on to explain that most
ingested sucralose passes through the digestive system unchanged
without any gastrointestinal side effects. The small
amount that is consumed, it is toxicologically insignificant
and is rapidly excreted in urine. The ingested sucralose
is excreted unchanged in the feces. It’s safe
for people with diabetes because it’s not recognized
as a carbohydrate.
What they don’t tell you is how on their website,
is how it’s made, which is a little suspicious that
they don’t mention it. Basically, what they do
is replace hydroxyl groups in sugar or sucrose with chlorine
atoms. In the end, it really doesn’t resemble
sugar at all. Being derived from sugar doesn’t mean
it resembles sugar. There are a couple of things that
are “at issue” here. The first is that sucralose
is a cholorocarbon – and chlorocarbons are known toxic
chemicals. (DDT is a cholorocarbon, although Splenda people
relate it to salt) Of course the FDA has looked into
this and came to the conclusion that these particular chlorocarbons
are not absorbed by the body.
However, that goes to the next issue,
which is how much is really absorbed by the body. The FDA says that 11%
to 27% is absorbed in humans (which kind of contradicts the
first statement that it’s not absorbed), the Japanese
say as much as 40% is absorbed. The absorbed sucralose
has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney and gastroestinal
tract. It is broken down into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose,
a chemical that has not been adequately tested in humans. Which
leads us to the final big issue that “nay sayers” have
about Splenda and that is that just about all of the tests
have been conducted by the company that sells it or will
profit from it and there are no long term human trials. The
biggest concern is whether sucrolose decreases thymus weight,
which would ban it forever. In rats, thymus weight
decreased 40% and the FDA addressed this concern claiming
that these effects would not be seen in humans at recommended
doses.
In spite of all this, it does have
a lot of support. Not
only is it sold in over 27 plus countries (although not in
Europe) it is approved by the World Health Organization,
American Council on Science and Health, among others like
the Health Ministries of Canada and Australia. It’s
also been in use since 1991 but has not been as widely used
as it has been in the last few years.
I personally have high hopes for
Splenda but I think the FDA has shown lately who it really
works for and I don’t
feel confident it’s for us. In the meantime,
I will use it but, like salt, sparingly and not all the time. If
I was a diabetic, I wouldn’t use it at all, yet.
As for Whole Foods and them, read
for yourself what they have to say and why they don’t
carry it. They
also give the most balanced review I think. http://www.wholefoods.com/healthinfo/sucralose.html
Other sites:
http://www.splenda.ca/en/about/safety2.asp
http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm#
http://www.wnho.net/splenda.htm
http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/resources/faqs.html#8
That's it for this month! As always,
check out our website for lots more information at www.oonahealth.com. In
Good Health,
The Oöna Team
Questions or comments? Write valerie@oonahealth.com
|
