Saudi Arabia the world’s third most lazy country, new study finds


A report, based on data from the World Health Organization, suggests that “the couch potato lifestyle” kills about five million people worldwide a year, making inactive lifestyles comparable to smoking in terms of the effect on health.
The study defines inactivity as not performing any of the following three sorts of activities: 30 minutes of moderate activity such as brisk walking at least five times a week; 20 minutes of vigorous activity at least three times a week; or an equivalent combination of the two said activities.
Inactivity has largely been blamed on wrong social trends, such as spending more time in cars and in front of computers.
·

SERIOUS HEALTH RISKS FOR COUCH POTATOES 

·

by AL ARABIYA

·

A new study by the Lancet Medical Journal has found that Saudi Arabia’s population is the third most slothful in the world with 68.3 percent of adults failing to get any exercise.

Only in Malta and Swaziland are adults even more inactive than in Saudi Arabia. (more…)

Advertisements
Published in: on 23/07/2012 at 5:11 pm  Comments (4)  
Tags: ,

Artificial Sweeteners Are BAD News! [1 of 2]


Nowadays, many individuals turn to artificial sweeteners as a substitute for their sugary counterparts. What most of us aren’t aware of, however, is how dangerous these chemicals have been demonstrated to be in countless scientific studies. Aside from the many neurological implications brought about by these artificial sweeteners, a surprising finding is the fact that they can actually cause you to GAIN weight – rather than lose it. If this is so, then that would defeat the purpose of consuming these zero-calorie sweeteners in the first place.
·

THE BAD, BAD, AND THE UGLY!

·

by Yuri Elkaim, BPHE, CK, RHN

·

Nowadays, many individuals turn to artificial sweeteners as a substitute for their sugary counterparts. What most of the public isn’t aware of, however, is how dangerous these chemicals have been demonstrated to be in countless scientific studies.

Aside from the many neurological implications brought about artificial sweeteners, a surprising finding is the fact that can actually cause you to GAIN weight – rather than lose it.

If this is so, then that would defeat the purpose of consuming these zero-calorie sweeteners in the first place.

But before we jump into the negative consequences of artificial sweeteners, let’s have a quick look at how rampant they’ve become in our food supply…

·

THIS FIRST GRAPH REPRESENTS THE GROWING GLOBAL MARKET FOR ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS  (in US $billions)

·

·

THIS SECOND GRAPH SHOWS THE “SWEETENERS” MARKET SHARE IN RELATION TO SUGAR…

·

·

THIS NEXT GRAPH SHOWS THE RACE BETWEEN THE BIG 3 ZERO-CALORIE SWEETENERS

·

·

WEIGHT GAIN – AN UNKNOWN ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER SIDE EFFECT

 Contrary to popular belief, replacing blatant sugar with artificially sweeteners like splenda, aspartame, or others won’t necessarily not help you lose weight. A 2008 study from  PurdueUniversity compared rats eating yogurt that had been sweetened with glucose (simple sugar), compared to rats eating yogurt sweetened with a zero-calorie substitute called saccharin.

The study showed that the rats consuming the zero-calorie substitute gained more body fat, more overall weight, and that even after cessation of the saccharin intake, they were unable to make up for this weight gain.

The question that this brings to mind for most people is how does something that contains zero calories cause you to gain more weight than something loaded with sugar?

The answer lies in how the intake of these sneaky chemicals confuses your body’s sensory systems. Normally, sweet foods provide a “salient orosensory stimulus” that strongly predicts that you are about to take in a lot of calories.

Ingestive and digestive reflexes gear up for that intake but when false sweetness (such as by using artificial sweeteners) isn’t followed by lots of calories, the system gets confused. Thus, people may eat more or expend less energy than they otherwise would.

The researchers in the Purdue study stated that by breaking the connection between a sweet sensation and high-calorie food, the use of saccharin changes the body’s ability to regulate intake, and that this change is heavily dependent on experience.

Problems with self-regulation might explain in part why obesity has risen in parallel with the use of artificial sweeteners. It also might explain why research on the human use of artificial sweeteners is inconclusive, with various studies finding evidence of weight loss, weight gain or little effect.

Because people may have different experiences with artificial and natural sweeteners, human studies that don’t take into account prior consumption may produce a variety of outcomes.

Nonetheless, in this particular, the authors concluded that…

“The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with a higher-calorie sugar.”

And even though this study was done on rats, they noted that their findings match emerging evidence that people who drink more diet drinks are at higher risk for obesity and metabolic syndrome, a collection of medical problems such as abdominal fat, high blood pressure and insulin resistance that put people at risk for heart disease and diabetes.

Though an increase in appetite is one contributing factor to the weight gain caused by artificial sweeteners, the chemical imbalances and confusion they create inside your body work in other ways as well.

For instance, frequent consumption of zero-calorie artificial sweeteners can impair your body’s normal metabolic response to food intake. Since your body begins to realize it can no longer predict with accuracy when it is getting foods with calories, as opposed to foods that only taste like they do, the typical metabolic boost you get from eating food (ie. thermic effect of food) decreases. This makes it harder to expend more calories from dietary intake.

Needless to say, there are studies that show weight loss is possible when substituting artificial sweeteners for sugar but in many cases these studies have been influenced or funded by corporations with a vested interested in their results (more on this later).

ASPARTAME – THE CONTROVERSIAL ORIGINS OF THE  “SUPER” ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER

·

·

Aspartame, which is by far the most prominent artificial sweetener currently used in diet products, is also the most controversial of them all (you’ll see in the next section). Its origins are questionable, to say the least. Many claim it never should have been allowed on the market. The few who argue it is safe, have very little ground to stand on for those educated on how it became approved.

Many of the studies done to determine the safety of aspartame, in the process of its approval as a food additive, have had severe conflicts of interest mainly due to inappropriate by Searle, the very same company that produces NutraSweet (their “street name” for aspartame).

Dr. Robert Walton investigated the claims made that Searle essentially bought their way into the market. The results he found were quite shocking. In the 166 studies that he found to have relevance in regards to human safety, 74 of those studies had been funded by Searle. The 92 remaining studies were funded independently.

Unsurprisingly, of the 74 studies that were funded by Searle, 100% of them claimed that aspartame was safe for human use. As far as the independently funded studies, 92% of them found health concerns in regards to aspartame, and found it to be unsafe for human consumption.

Even before aspartame had come to this point, it encountered numerous legal, political, ethical, and moral barriers. Aspartame was inadvertently discovered back in 1965, by a chemist working on an ulcer medication. The timeline between when aspartame was discovered to when it was released on the market is blemished with countless actions of deception from Searle.

One of the earliest tests, done by the University of Wisconsin in 1967 by Dr. Harold Waisman, had been conducted on monkeys who drank milk which contained aspartame. Of the seven monkeys being fed the mixture, one died and five others experienced grandular seizures. Despite these early warning signs, Searle pushed on.

In 1971, a neuroscientist by the name of Dr. John Olney, conducted several studies which showed that the aspartic acid found in aspartame, caused holes in the brains of baby mice. Later, one of Searle’s own researchers, conducted a similar study and concluded the same results as the ones demonstrated by Dr. Olney. Again, Searle pushed on.

In 1976, an FDA investigation of Searle was initiated, sparked by the many concerns that Searle’s personal studies on aspartame were inconsistent with research from independent studies.

The investigation results found Searle’s tests were not only full of inaccuracies, but also manipulated data. An investigator involved was quoted as stating they “had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing.”

Shortly after the investigation, the FDA sent a formal request to the U.S. Attorney’s office to begin grand jury proceedings. Not surprisingly, one of the most significant events of this procession saw Samuel Skinner, the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, resigning from the attorney’s office and taking a position within Searle’s law firm, allowing Searle to buy themselves out a bad situation.

In spite of the fact that 75% of all health complaints are related to the use of aspartame, its use continues.

And if this hasn’t scared you enough, then consider that the “G.D. Searle and Co” (mentioned as Searle above) became the pharmaceutical unit of Monsanto in 1985 – one of the most criminal and monopolist agricultural companies in the world.

It should come as no surprise then that the Searle pharmaceutical division was responsible for the development of one of the biggest pharmaceutical disasters of our time – Celebrex.

Just something to think about next time you’re deciding how to sweeten your coffee or tea.

Next: Artificial Sweeteners Are BAD News! [2  of 2]

Page 1 2

Related Posts:

1. Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World 2.Diet Coke & Diet Pepsi, Should we take, should we not?

Source, Title image
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ‘Wonders of Pakistan’. The contents of this article too are the sole responsibility of the author(s). WoP will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this post.

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.
We at Wonders of Pakistan use copyrighted material the use of which may not have always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” only. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Published in: on 18/04/2012 at 9:06 pm  Comments (5)  

Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World


iframe>

Sweet Misery is a close examination into what many in the medical community have voiced over the last few decades on the safety of Aspartame. Is there a connection with Aspartame and illnesses? Did the government (including Donald Rumsfeld) push the approval of the sweetener and suppress key data? This film delves into the FDA’s process and the various reports of health risks associated with the widely used sweetener.
·

BEWARE! EQUAL, CANDEREL, NUTRASWEET & SUCH SIMILAR STUFFS COULD BE DANGEROUS

·

Filmmakers Cori Brackett and J.T. Waldron explore the issue of aspartame toxicity   in a documentary that implores viewers to consider the potentially damaging effects of the common food additive. A sugar substitute that is found in commonly marketed products such as Equal, Canderel, NutraSweet and many common diet drinks. Aspartame is alleged to cause toxic reactions in the human body that can result in a wide variety of physical and mental ailments. In stating their claim that aspartame toxicity is perhaps the most insidious representation of corporate negligence since tobacco, Brackett and Waldron offer compelling evidence about a potentially deadly phenomenon.

Sweet Misery is a close examination into what many in the medical community have voiced over the last few decades on the safety of Aspartame. Is there a connection with Aspartame and illnesses? Did the government (including Donald Rumsfeld) push the approval of the sweetener and suppress key data? This film delves into the FDA’s process and the various reports of health risks associated with the widely used sweetener.

*

Related article:

1. Diet Coke & Diet Pepsi, Should we take, should we not?

Source
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ‘Wonders of Pakistan’. The contents of this article too are the sole responsibility of the author(s). WoP will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this post.

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.
We at Wonders of Pakistan use copyrighted material the use of which may not have always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” only. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Published in: on 03/04/2012 at 6:37 pm  Comments (3)  

A severe lack of toilets and lost treasure



According to the U.S. State Department, the WHO, and UNICEF, the world’s greatest infectious killer is not malaria, AIDS, or TB, but poop that goes into drinking water where open defecation is common practice due to non availability of toilets.. An estimated 2.6 billion people, about 40% of the world’s population, including 1 billion children, have no access to toilets of any kind and must practice open defecation. The result is a continual pandemic of intestinal afflictions that kill 2 million people a year.
·

DOES INDIAN BELIEF SYSTEM CARE ABOUT ITS PEOPLE??

·

by Ted Twietmeyer
·

A few days ago, a cable channel aired a Vanguard documentary about the lack of toilets in India. It was graphic and disgusting to see people defecating outside. This isn’t their fault as these people are born into the caste system at the lower levels and destined under 5,000 year old Indian culture to live a hellish life. A lack of toilets for miles won’t stop nature’s call. Clearly the Indian government has shown little regard for the health and well being of its own people, but we’ll see that so have temple priests, too.

In the Vanguard documentary, an Indian doctor stated there are 1.6 billion people in India with 600 MILLION having no access to a toilet.

(more…)

Is Sugar Toxic?


Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]. Photo Illustration by Kenji Aoki for The New York Times

·

IS SUGAR TOXIC?

·

by Gary Taubes

·

May 26, 2009, Robert Lustig gave a lecture called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” which was posted on YouTube the following July. Since then, it has been viewed well over 800,000 times, gaining new viewers at a rate of about 50,000 per month, fairly remarkable numbers for a 90-minute discussion of the nuances of fructose biochemistry and human physiology.

Lustig is a specialist on pediatric hormone disorders and the leading expert in childhood obesity at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, which is one of the best medical schools in the country. He published his first paper on childhood obesity a dozen years ago, and he has been treating patients and doing research on the disorder ever since.

The viral success of his lecture, though, has little to do with Lustig’s impressive credentials and far more with the persuasive case he makes that sugar is a “toxin” or a “poison,” terms he uses together 13 times through the course of the lecture, in addition to the five references to sugar as merely “evil.” And by “sugar,” Lustig means not only the white granulated stuff that we put in coffee and sprinkle on cereal — technically known as sucrose — but also high-fructose corn syrup, which has already become without Lustig’s help what he calls “the most demonized additive known to man.”

It doesn’t hurt Lustig’s cause that he is a compelling public speaker. His critics argue that what makes him compelling is his practice of taking suggestive evidence and insisting that it’s incontrovertible. Lustig certainly doesn’t dabble in shades of gray. Sugar is not just an empty calorie, he says; its effect on us is much more insidious. “It’s not about the calories,” he says. “It has nothing to do with the calories. It’s a poison by itself.”

If Lustig is right, then our excessive consumption of sugar is the primary reason that the numbers of obese and diabetic Americans have skyrocketed in the past 30 years. But his argument implies more than that. If Lustig is right, it would mean that sugar is also the likely dietary cause of several other chronic ailments widely considered to be diseases of Western lifestyles — heart disease, hypertension and many common cancers among them…

This brings us to the salient question: Can sugar possibly be as bad as Lustig says it is?

RTFA. It is several pages in length, packed with content. If you care to research further, there are suggestions. Set aside some time to watch Lustig’s lecture.

I haven’t an opinion other than what I believe is supported by paleo-anthropology. As we evolved, sweetened substances were necessary to life’s maintenance. The amount of sugars, though, was miniscule compared even to the amount consumed in workingclass communities a century ago – much less the avalanche of sweet stuff made possible and profitable by modern packaging since WW2.

Read further. The lives of people who listen to you are part of your consideration, you know.

SourceTitle image
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ‘Wonders of Pakistan’. The contents of this article too are the sole responsibility of the author(s). WoP will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this post.

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.


Published in: on 19/04/2011 at 12:11 am  Comments (1)  
%d bloggers like this: