Scientists Figure Out How Alcohol Lowers Blood Sugar

Patrick Totty


Swedish scientists have found that alcohol lowers blood sugar by redirecting blood within the pancreas and sending massive amounts of it to the islets.

The finding by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, is the first to show how alcohol is able to lower blood sugar levels. What happens is that by sending more of the pancreas's internal blood flow to the islets, alcohol spurs insulin production, which in turn lowers glucose levels.

The scientists injected rats with ethanol alcohol and noted that blood flow to the islets increased fourfold. The alcohol did not affect the amount of blood reaching the pancreas, only the distribution of blood within it.

The study also found that alcohol induced the changes in blood flow by affecting nitric oxide, a chemical compound that medical studies suggest is instrumental in glucose transport and the actions of insulin. Alcohol also affected the vagus nerve, which descends from the brain and into the abdomen and, among other things, signals organs there to secrete.

Source: Endocrinology, January 2008

RAW MILK - GOD'S MIRACLE CURE!

by Tom Cowan, MD

As I'm sure most of you know by now, there are very few subjects as emotionally charged as the choice of one's diet. Sexual relations, marriage and finances come to mind as similarly charged subjects and, like diet, we are all sure we know all we need to know about each of these subjects. The subject of milk, as I have discovered during the past four years, when properly viewed will challenge every notion you currently have about what is good food and what isn't. The story of milk is complex and goes something like this.

Back in the preprocessed food era (that is before about 1930 in this country) milk was considered an important food, especially for children. Not only was there an entire segment of our economy built up around milk but, as I remember, each house had its own milk chute for the delivery of fresh milk directly to the house. It was unquestioned that milk was good for us and that a safe, plentiful milk supply was actually vital to our national health and well-being. It was also a time (now I'm referring to the early part of the century) when many of the illnesses which we currently suffer from were rare. As an example, family doctors would often go their whole careers without ever seeing a patient with significant coronary artery disease, breast or prostate cancer, whereas current doctors can hardly go one month without encountering a patient with such an illness. Furthermore, as scientists such as Weston Price, DDS discovered, there were pockets of extremely healthy, long-lived people scattered about the earth who used dairy products in various forms as the staple of their diets — further evidence that milk and its by-products were amongst the most healthful foods man has ever encountered.

If we fast forward to the 1980's, we now find an entirely different picture. For one thing, there have been numerous books written in the past decade about the dangers of dairy products — the most influential being a book by Frank Oski, MD, the current chairman of pediatrics of Johns Hopkins University and perhaps the most influential pediatrician in this country. It's called Don't Drink Your Milk. In it Oski pins just about every health problem in children to the consumption of milk, everything from acute and chronic ear infections, constipation, asthma, eczema, and so on. Secondly, just about all patients I have now in their initial visit proudly announce that they have a good diet and that, specifically, they don't eat dairy (which they pronounce with such disdain).

One might well ask where the truth in this picture. Perhaps the experiments of Dr. Francis Pottenger in the 1940's can help to solve this mystery. In these experiments Dr. Pottenger fed one group of cats a diet consisting of raw milk, raw meat and cod liver oil. Other groups were given pasteurized milk, evaporated milk or sweetened condensed milk instead of raw milk. The results were conclusive and astounding. Those that ate raw milk and raw meat did well and lived long, happy, active lives free of any signs of degenerative disease. Those cats on pasteurized milk suffered from acute illnesses (vomiting, diarrhea) and succumbed to every degenerative disease now flourishing in our population, even though they were also getting raw meat and cod liver oil. By the 3rd generation a vast majority of the cats were infertile and exhibited "anti-social" behavior — in short, they were like modern Americans.

Since the 40's the "qualities" of milk have been extensively studied to try to find an explanation for these dramatic changes. Studies have shown that before heating, milk is a living food rich in colloidal minerals and enzymes necessary for the absorption and utilization of the sugars, fats and minerals in the milk. For example, milk has an enzyme called phosphatase that allows the body to absorb the calcium from the milk. Lactase is an enzyme that allows for the digestion of lactose.

Butterfat has a cortisone-like factor which is heat sensitive (destroyed by heat) that prevents stiffness in the joints. Raw milk contains beneficial bacteria as well as lactic acids that allow these beneficial bacteria to implant in the intestines. All of these qualities are destroyed during pasteurization. Once heated, milk becomes rotten, with precipitated minerals that can't be absorbed (hence osteoporosis), with sugars that can't be digested (hence allergies), and with fats that are toxic.

Raw milk has been used as a therapy in folk medicine — and even in the Mayo Clinic — for centuries. It has been used in the pre-insulin daysto treat diabetes (I've tried it — it works), as well as eczema, intestinal worms, allergies, and arthritis, all for reasons which can be understood when we realize just what is in milk — such as the cortisone-like factor for allergies and eczema.

Another way we ruin milk is by feeding cows high protein feed made from soybeans and other inappropriate foodstuffs. Rarely is anyone truly allergic to grass-fed cow's milk.

Fresh raw milk, from cows eating well-manured green grass is a living unprocessed whole food. Compare this to the supposedly "healthy" soy milk which has been washed in acids and alkalis, ultrapasteurized, then allowed to sit in a box for many months.

The Pottenger cat studies provide a simple but profound lesson for all Americans: Processed, dead foods don't support life or a happy well-functioning society. We must return to eating pure, wholesome, unprocessed foods, including whole raw milk from pasture fed cows.

In my practice I ALWAYS start there — I encourage, insist, even beg people to eat real foods— no matter what the problem. Often with just this intervention the results are gratifying. SO, find a cow, find a farmer, make sure the cow (or goat, llama, or whatever) is healthy and start your return to good health!

Toxic glue used in supermarket food packaging 'poses severe risk to health'

Supermarket food is at risk of being contaminated by a 'highly toxic' chemical found in the glue of packaging labels.

The chemical, which is in the same class of toxicity as mercury, asbestos and hydrochloric acid, can seep through and contaminate food, according to a study.

It has been found in high levels on some of the sticky labels attached to packages of fresh meat, vegetables and tubs of sauce.

Toxic: A chemical used in the packaging of supermarket food can  seep through and contaminate meat and vegetables, according to a study  (posed by model)

Toxic: A chemical used in the packaging of supermarket food can seep through and contaminate meat and vegetables, according to a study (posed by model)

It could pose a 'particularly severe risk to health' as highly toxic chemicals can cause organ failure and even death in high doses.

The study follows previous research that found chemicals in a wide range of products that may cause infertility in women, cancer, immune system disorders and even neurological problems.

Strict EU safety regulations mean that certain materials can not come into direct contact with food, but there are no rules about the chemicals in label adhesives.

The study, published today in the Royal Society of Chemistry's 'Journal of Materials Chemistry', showed that toxic compounds on four label glues can seep through paper and plastic packaging and contaminate the food inside.

The researchers from the University of Zaragoza, Spain studied four different acrylic adhesives commonly used on food labels.

They examined in detail 11 compounds found in the glues, four of which seeped through the packaging.

Three of these had low toxicity while the remaining compound belonged to the highest risk category.

Valerie Guillard, an expert in food technology and packaging at the University of Montpellier, France, said: 'This work brings significant breakthroughs in the study of compliance with regulations of food-contact materials.'

Are Your Friends Really Having More Sex Than You Are?

There's always that one couple at the dinner party that can't keep their hands off of each other, pawing, smooching, calling each other "sweetie" and "baby," while the other wives and husbands try to keep from ogling and turn their attention to the latest neighborhood gossip.

We roll our eyes and snicker, but, really, we envy the love birds. Admit it, you do, too.

And, come on, wouldn't you just love to know how much sex your married friends are really having?

Well, now we have some insight, thanks to an iVillage survey of 2,000 American housewives between the ages of 18 and 49. So, try throwing out these stats at your next adult gathering: 23 percent of women reported having sex one to three times a month, while a close 21 percent say they have sex more than 10 times monthly.

Don't fret if your numbers lag a bit, just be happy you're not one of the 9 percent who reported not having sex at all in the past year.

Frequency, however, doesn't seem to be the only determining factor when it comes to satisfaction, since 77 percent of women surveyed reported they were happy with their sex lives, and 48 percent rate their husband as the best sex partner of their life. All great news.

But here's the bad news: 63 percent of women would rather be sleeping, watching a movie or reading than having sex. Maybe it's a matter of that same old, same old: An overwhelming 81 percent of married women rate their sex life as predictable.

MORE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Study: Statins Can Cause Kidney Failure

People using cholesterol-lowering statins have higher risks of liver dysfunction, kidney failure, muscle weakness, and cataracts, and such side effects of the drug should be closely tracked, doctors said on Friday.

In a study covering more than 2 million people in Britain, researchers from Nottingham University found that adverse side effects of statins, which are prescribed to people with high levels of cholesterol to cut the risk of heart disease, were generally worst in the first year of treatment.

Read More>>>>>>

Viagra associated with hearing loss



by Madison Park
CNNhealth.com writer/producer

Oh Viagra.

Sure, Pfizer’s wonder pill has side effects such as headaches, facial flushing, upset stomach, erections lasting more than four hours, bluish or sudden loss of vision. There’s one more risk to the pill that grants erections: Hearing loss.

Research published this week in Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery showed an association between long-term hearing loss and Viagra.

This side effect is already acknowledged by Viagra - especially after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration forced this labeling changes for oral erectile dysfunction medicines known as PDE5 inhibitors in 2007.

The research conducted at the University of Alabama at Birmingham looked into the data based on 11,525 men. Men who self-reported hearing problems were twice more likely to indicate that they used erectile dysfunction medication.

While it’s difficult to establish cause and effect in an observational study, these findings indicate that the FDA labeling was warranted, said study author Gerald McGwin, a professor of epidemiology at the UAB School of Public Health, in a taped news release.

The association was present for long-term hearing loss after using Viagra, and to a lesser extent other ED drugs such as Cialis and Levitra. The sample sizes for the two latter drugs were smaller.

Since Viagra increases blood flow to the penis, perhaps the drug increases blood flow to the ear causing damage, McGwin hypothesized.

For more facts about Viagra

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

Processed Meat Is Real Health Threat

Eating bacon, sausage, hot dogs, and other processed meats can raise the risk of heart disease and diabetes, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that identifies the real bad boys of the meat counter.

9 Nutrients to Boost Your Memory

Ginkgo biloba. Numerous studies have found that ginkgo biloba improves mental alertness, clarity, and memory. Standard capsules contain 24 percent ginkgo flavonoids and 6 percent perpene lactones. Follow label recommendations, and check with your doctor first if you take blood thinners.

Ginseng. A Chinese study found that a compound in ginseng boosted memory in scores of people suffering from dementia, and a British study found that combining ginseng with ginkgo biloba produced even better memory-boosting results. Check labels for dosage recommendations.

B vitamins. While the entire complex of B vitamins is important for a top-notch memory, inositol and choline are particularly effective at reducing stress and jump-starting memory. In addition, B6 reduces levels of homocysteine in the blood, which causes brain aging. Many experts recommend a B complex supplement of 50 to 100 mg daily.

Omega-3 oils. These oils come from fatty fish such as salmon, and also from flaxseed oil. Omega-3 oils contain fatty acids essential for a healthy brain and also for fighting depression. A study from Louisiana State University found that eating fish helps protect the brain from problems associated with Alzheimer's disease, and a study from Australia's Aberdeen University found that fish oil slows the aging process while helping the brain to work faster. Many experts suggest eating two portions of fish each week or taking a 1,000 mg supplement three times a day.

Vitamin C. Vitamin C is an antioxidant that helps control the free radicals that damage brain cells and help improve the flow of oxygen through the brain. Experts recommend 1,000 mg daily.

Turmeric. A laboratory study at the University of Illinois found that anti-inflammatory compounds in the spice turmeric protected cells from damage caused by beta-amyloid, a main component of the plaques in the brains of Alzheimer's victims. The compounds in turmeric, called curcumin, can be part of a spicy diet (typically found in Indian food) or can be taken in pill form. Follow instructions on supplement bottles.

Ginger. The anti-inflammatory properties of ginger help protect the brain against memory-robbing diseases. Research has shown that ginger, in addition to increasing the supply of nutrients to the brain, can block the creation of inflammatory chemicals, such as prostaglandins, which are associated with Alzheimer's.

Hawthorn. Rich in bioflavonoids, this herb is a great antioxidant that fights free radicals as well as increases oxygen supply to the brain to carry important nutrients vital for the functioning of neurotransmitters. It's often combined with ginkgo.

Gotu kola. Sometimes called "food for the brain" this Asian herb improves concentration and memory. Oregon Health & Science University researchers found it supports brain function and memory retention.

Losing weight quickly is key to staying slim

People who lose up to1.5lbs a week are up to five times more likely to keep the weight off than those who manage to shed only half a pound a week, found the study.

Nutrition experts have been divided over whether losing weight quickly or slowly is the best approach to long-term weight control.

The latest research, by a team from the University of Florida, examined whether losing weight at a slow rate initirally resulted in larger long-term weight reduction than losing weight at a fast initial rate.

The authors analysed 262 middle-aged overweight women who had followed a six-month lifestyle programme encouraging them to cut their calorie intake and increase physical activity.

The aim of the programme was to achieve an average weight loss of 1lb a week.

Researchers split the women into three groups according to how much weight they lost in the first month of the trial.

Women in the fast weight-loss group shed almost 1.5lbs per week, those in the moderate weight-loss group lost between half a pound and 1.5lbs a week and those in the slow weight-loss group lost less than half a pound per week.

The authors then looked at the womens' weight loss after six months and 18 months, as well as any weight regain, and found those who lost weight quickly to begin with fared best.

Women in this group lost more weight overall, maintained their weight loss for longer and were less likely to put weight back on than the more gradual weight losers.

They were five times more likely to achieve the clinically significant figure of 10 per cent weight loss after 18 months than those in the group who lost least weight to begin with.

The study was reported in the Journal of Behavioural Medicine.


SOURCE

Cancer's sweet tooth becomes a target

A DRUG that blocks the way cancer cells generate energy could lead to a new class of cancer treatments.

The first human trial of the drug, published this week, is reported to have extended the lives of four people with an aggressive form of brain cancer.

The result is preliminary, but it suggests that, as an approach, tackling "cancer metabolism" is sound. "We are still a long way from a treatment, but this opens the window on drugs that target cancer metabolism," says Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who led the trial.

Elsewhere, researchers have started experimenting with a host of other molecules that might target cancer metabolism. "It's about identifying which target is best," says Lewis Cantley of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, whose company Agios Pharmaceuticals is screening for such targets.

Most of these efforts stem from an observation dating back to the 1930s - that cancer cells generate energy via glycolysis. This is different to the way cells normally make energy, through aerobic respiration in specialised chambers called mitochondria. Ordinary cells do use glycolysis but only if they are short of oxygen, as it is hugely inefficient, gobbling up large amounts of glucose for very little energy (see diagram).

At the time, it was assumed that the switch to glycolysis was a product of the cell becoming cancerous, rather than the other way around. "It was seen as a follower, not a leader or driver," says Ronald Evans of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California.


MORE