ONE SMART COOKIE

Heres something I found that might interest a few that use artificial sweetners.




There's a new artificial sweetener on the block and it is already in some even sold in health food stores and manufactured by nutritionally-oriented companies. But is it proven safe? Does it provide any benefit to the public? Does it help with weight loss? Are there any long term human studies? Has it been shown to be safe for the environment? The answer to all of these questions is unfortunately a resounding NO.

The artificial sweetener sucralose, which is sold under the name Splenda™, is one of the up-and-coming "next generation" of high-intensity sugar substitutes. It is non-caloric and about 600 times sweeter than sucrose (white table sugar), although it can vary from 320 tp 1,000 times sweeter, depending on the food application. The white crystalline powder tastes like a lot like sugar, but is more intense in its sweetness. How it is Manufactured

Sucralose is produced by chlorinating sugar (sucrose). This involves chemically changing the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups.

History

Sucralose was discovered in 1976 by researchers working under the auspices of Tate & Lyle Ltd., a large British sugar refiner. In 1980, Tate & Lyle arranged with Johnson & Johnson, the world's largest health care company, to develop sucralose. Johnson & Johnson formed McNeil Speciality Products Company in 1980 to commercialize sucralose.


In 1991, Canada became the first nation to approve the use of sucralose.


In April, 1998 the US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for sucralose to be used in Diet RC cola was the first US product with sucralose, introduced in May 1998.


Sucralose is not yet approved for use in most European countries, where it is still under review.

Safety Concerns

Few human studies of safety have been published on sucralose. One small study of diabetic patients using the sweetener showed a statistically significant increase in glycosylated hemoglobin (Hba1C), which is a marker of long-term blood glucose levels and is used to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. According to the FDA, "increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control of diabetes.

Research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems in rats, mice, and rabbits, such as:

• Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)
• Enlarged liver and kidneys.
• Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus
• Increased cecal weight
• Reduced growth rate
• Decreased red blood cell count
• Hyperplasia of the pelvis
• Extension of the pregnancy period
• Aborted pregnancy
• Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights
• Diarrhea

According to one source concerning the significant reduction in size of the thymus gland, "the manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses and that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands.

[Toxicologist Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked in rats fed on sucralose. While the animals' growth rate was reduced by between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent. (New Scientist 23 Nov 1991, pg 13)"

A compound chemically related to sucrose, 6-chloro-deoxyglucose, is known to have anti-fertility and neurotoxic effects, although animal studies of sucralose have not shown these effects.

According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, "Sucralose was weakly mutagenic in a mouse lymphoma mutation assay." The FDA aslo reported many other tests as having "inconclusive" results.

Just how few studies currently exist on sucralose is an issue. Endurance News provides the following table illustrating this fact:

Sweetener	# of Studies*
Saccharin	2374
Aspartame	598
Cyclamates	459
Acesulfame-K	28
Sucralose	19

*Number of studies determined by MEDLINE search.

In terms of safety, it is not just the original substance (sucralose) that one needs to worry about. As the FDA notes, "Because sucralose may hydrolyze in some food products...the resulting hydrolysis products may also be ingested by the consumer."

Is There Any Long-Term Human Research?

None. According to the Medical Letter on Drugs & Therapeutics, "Its long-term safety is unknown." the "Manufacturer's '100's of studies' (some of which show hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use."

Is Sucralose Absorbed or Metabolized?

Despite the manufacturer's claims to the contrary, sucralose is significantly absorbed and metabolized by the body. According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed.

Plasma sucralose has been reported to have a half-life of anywhere from 2 to 5 hours in most studies, although the half-life in rabbits was found to be much longer at about 36 hours.

About 20% to 30% of absorbed sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in urine. The absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract,sucralose is broken down "into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequtely tested in humans."

Chlorinated Pesticides


According to Consumers Research Magazine "Some concern was raised about sucralose being a chlorinated molecule. Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as D.D.T., and accumulate in body fat. However, Johnson & Johnson emphasized that sucralose passes through the body unabsorbed."


Of course, this assertion about not being absorbed is complete nonsense. As shown above, a substantial amount of sucralose is absorbed, so the argument is not valid.


According to the HAD, "The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research."

Contaminants

The FDA acknowledges that sucralose "is produced at an approximate purity of 98%." While that may sound pretty pure, just what is in that other 2%? It turns out that the final sucralose product contains small amounts of potentially dangerous substances such as:

• Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead)
• ****nic
• Triphenilphosphine Oxide
• Methanol
• Chlorinated Disaccharides
• Chlorinated Monosaccharide

Although manufacturing guidelines do specify limits on these substances there is no guarantee that such limits will always be met.

Environmental Concerns

Despite the fact that a portion of sucralose is metabolized into some chemicals of questionable safety, a majory of the consumed sucralose is excreted unchanged in the feces and urine. While that may be good for the person using the product, it may not be so great for the environment.

Although sucralose is being flushed down toilets wherever sucralose is approved for sale, what happens to it next is simply a matter for speculation. I know of no studies showing what happens to the chemical when the raw sewage is treated and then released back into the environment.

• Does it remain stabile or react with other substances to form new compounds?
  
• Is the sucralose or any resulting chemicals safe for the environment?
  
• How will this chemical affect aquatic life such as fish, as well as other animals?
  
• Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supplies, just as some drugs are beginning to be found.

Of course, we will likely not know the answers to these questions for many years, if at all. One of the main reasons for this is that the FDA did not require an Environmental Impact Statement for sucralose, because in their words, "the action will not have a significant impact on the human environment."

One study did find that sucralose is metabolized by microrganisms in both the water and soil (Labare 94). However, the ecological impact of this new chemical being introduced into the environment is unknown.

Is There a Benefit for Consumers?

According to Consumers' Research Magazine, sucralose provides some benefits for the corporations making and using it, but not for consumers. They state:

But are such foods truly beneficial and desirable? Diabetics, weight watchers, and the general public might make better food choices by selecting basic, rather than highly processed foods; for example, apples, rather than turnovers; or plain, rather than sweetened, dairy foods.

They note that non-caloric artificial sweeteners are not replacing, but rather supplementing conventional sweeteners. They note that as of 1990 Americans were consuming an average of 20 pounds (sugar sweetness equivalency) of artificial sweeteners, and as consumption of sugar-substitutes has risen so too has consumption of sugar.

Does Sucralose Help with Weight Loss?

According to Consumers' Research Magazine "There is no clear-cut evidence that sugar substitutes are useful in weight reduction. On the contrary, there is some evidence that these substances may stimulate appetite."

Where is Sucralose Found?

In the United States, the FDA has granted approval for the use of sucralose in 15 food and beverage categories:

• Baked goods and baking mixes
• Chewing gum
• Confections and frostings
• Fats and oils (salad dressings)
• Fruit and water ices
• Jams and jellies
• Processed fruits and fruit juices
• Sweet sauces, toppings and syrups
• Beverages and beverage bases
• Coffee and tea
• Dairy product analogs
• Frozen dairy desserts and mixes
• Gelatins, puddings and fillings
• Milk products
• Sugar substitutes

Comparison to Other Sweeteners


Its promoters cite several benefits over other sweeteners, such as:

• Unlike saccharin, sucralose leaves no bitter aftertaste.
• Unlike other artificial sweeteners, it remains stable at high temperatures.
• Unlike sugar, it does not raise blood glucose levels

As a comparison to sucralose's 600-fold sweetness increase over sugar, consider the other artificial sweeteners on the market:

• Saccharin (Sweet-and -Low) - 300 to 500 times sweeter
• Aspartame (NutraSweet and Equal) - 150 to 200 times sweeter
• Acesulfame K (Sunette) - 200 times sweeter.

Big Business

A 1998 report in Chemical Week states that the high-intensity sweetener market is about $1.5-billion/year. About 70%-80% of that market is made up of soft drink sweeteners, of which aspartame has a near monopoly. They note that although sucralose is 50% sweeter than aspartame, it will be difficult to persuade many soft drink producers to give up NutraSweet (aspartame) since it is widely accepted by consumers.

Is Anyone Monitoring Post-Approval Reactions?

Apparently not. With no established system for monitoring and tracking post-approval adverse effects, how can it ever be established whether large-scale and long-term consumption of sucralose is safe?

Technical Information

Sucralose is made from sucrose by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups to yield 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. This is accomplished in a five-step process.

Prolonged storage, particularly at high temperatures and low pH, causes the sucralose to break down into 4-chloro-4-deoxy-galactose (4CG) and 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxyfructose (1,6 DCF),

The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number (CAS Reg. No.) for sucralose is 56038-13-2.

Science Behind Sucralose Toxicity

Here are some of the specific biochemical reasons why you will want to give serious consideration to consuming sucralose.

Much of the concern is related to the fact that the manufacturer of sucralose claims that it is derived from sugar that contains the monosaccharide sucrose.

Look at the chemical name of sucralose: 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. One would have expected that a product "made form sugar" as they say on the box, would be called: 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-glucopyranoside.

Why does this molecule contain a chlorinated galactose moiety rather than a chlorinated glucose moiety if it is made from sucrose? When the molecule is hydrolyzed, chlorinated monosaccharides are produced from the product. Could it be that sucrose is not used due to the toxicity of chlorinated glucose?

Should Sucralose be Avoided?

• Pre-approval tests indicated potential toxicity of sucralose.
• There are no *independent* controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 15 years ago for aspartame).
• There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects.
• There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed.

Do Products with Sucralose Carry Any Warning Labels Or Information Statements?


No. The regulatory agencies and scientific review bodies that have endorsed the safety of sucralose have not required any warning information to be placed on the labels of products sweetened with sucralose.

Conclusions

While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from Monsanato's aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders.

The Consumer's Research Magazine concludes that:

As Americans continue to choose ever-increasing amounts of such foods and beverages, sweeteners may soar to higher consumption levels. The long-range health effects from such escalation need careful evaluation. Do additional approved sweetening agents truly contribute to good health? Do they really meet special dietary needs? Or, do they merely further encourage poor dietary choices?

---

ONE SMART COOKIE

By Don Harkins
From the November 2000



Most people are by now aware that the artificial sweetener aspartame becomes formaldehyde, a dangerous toxin for which neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency has identified a safe level of ingestion for humans. James Bowen, M.D., a physician who has dedicated a tremendous amount of time and resources to the study of aspartame, has identified the neurotoxin to be a catalyst for polychemical hypersensitivity syndrome (PCS).

PCS is a condition that effects increasing numbers of people who experience varying degrees of allergic reactions to chemical exposure.

According to Dr. Bowen, “The Persion Gulf Syndrome is largely PCS from the massive NutraSweet [aspartame] exposure experienced by our men in combat units in the Persian Gulf.”

The Pentagon has repeatedly denied such allegations since they claim that PCS does not exist. The fact that nothing in orthodox medicine seems to help soldiers stricken with Gulf War Illness (GWI) is an indication to orthodox doctors that GWI symptoms are psychosomatic.

“This illustrates the highly significant feature of aspartame poisoning; that it is an extreme hypersensitization agent which is highly reactive with other chemicals -- especially toxic ones like the nerve gas and nitrogen mustard gas to which our troops were exposed in the gulf when our government tried to destroy the stockpiles of these gases they had previously supplied to Saddam Hussein. This is a very poignant part of the NutraSweet issue because those who had problems with NutraSweet will now experience recurrences of those same problems when exposed to even the most minute doses of various toxic agents,” explained Dr. Bowen.

Dr. Bowen's findings are supported by government studies regarding formaldehyde sensitivity that were conducted many years ago. It was found then that, once a person becomes hypersensitive to the toxin, he can experience a violent physical reaction to a formaldehyde exposure of as little as one billionth of a gram.

If Dr. Bowen's thesis is correct, the millions of Americans who habitually drink sodas and eat foods artificially sweetened with aspartame are not only vulnerable to all the complications which range from impotence, hair loss, obesity and chronic irritability to death, they are leaving themselves open to a lifetime of multiple chemical sensitivity. “The reason I feel it's so important to publish this information is that those who have been victimized by aspartame really don't have a good shot at enjoying the health they had before unless they recognize the problem and know how to deal with it,” Dr. Bowen concluded.

The saddest joke on the American consumer is that aspartame-sweetened sodas are marketed as “diet” soft drinks. The truth is that aspartame suppresses the production of serotonin, which makes them crave carbohydrates which, in turn, causes them to gain weight.

John

read Cookie, very interesting stuff.

__________________
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

winger

Damn I eat 6 packs a day of that stuff in my coffee.:( Watch Cookie post some stuff on coffee............lol

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

hackskii

Dammit Cookie.
How am I going to sweaten my Coffee now?
When doing Atkins I use Splenda:(...............................Not anymore!

Thanks alot cookie, you just ruined my day.............................Just kidding, You made it

__________________
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." - George Carlin


Scott


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ONE SMART COOKIE

Here you go winger an article on coffee,raflmao

Health Issues associated with Coffee and Caffeine

There are four main health issues caused by coffee and the over-consumption of caffeine:

1) Exhausted Adrenal Glands: Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant. It causes the adrenal glands secrete adrenaline, the hormone your body depends on in emergencies to elevate your heart rate, increase your respiration and blood pressure for a rapid flight-or-fight response. When you overuse stimulants, the adrenals become exhausted. If your caffeine sensitivity has diminished or you’re one of those who claims you can drink 3 shots of espresso and go right to sleep, guess what? Your adrenals have given up responding. This means you have less resistance to stress, which leaves you vulnerable to health hazards such as environmental pollutants and disease pathogens.

As we age, the adrenals become more and more important to us as the production center of the essential youth and sex hormones including DHEA, pregnenolone, progesterone, testosterone and estrogen. Many people in their forties find they can no longer tolerate the same level of caffeine consumption as they could in their twenties and thirties. The multiple effects of aging become apparent in the forties and the body frequently shows an increased variety of reactions to the toxicity of coffee and caffeine.

The adrenals can be considered the storage center for the vital force, your inherited reservoir of energy. They need nourishing to keep them in optimal health. Think of your adrenals as a bank account. If you continue to make withdrawals without any deposits, you will hit bottom with a looming overdraft in the form of depleted energy and health.

2) Severe Blood Sugar Swings: Caffeine forces the liver to release glycogen into the blood stream. The pancreas responds to the sudden rise in blood sugar by releasing insulin, the hormone which causes excess carbohydrates to be stored as fat. Within the span of an hour or two, the result is a sharp blood sugar drop resulting in a state of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). That’s when you think it’s time for another cup of coffee and the whole cycle starts up again.

As Barry Sears advises in his book, The Zone, achieving a hormonal balance and blood sugar stability allows you to maintain your natural weight and optimal energy level. He counsels that the breakdown of caffeine causes the pancreas to release too much insulin, thus creating a climate in which excess carbohydrates are stored as fat and are unavailable for use as energy by your brain. Although caffeine is a metabolic stimulant, the ultimate effect is to increase your appetite and contribute to weight gain and thus caffeine should be avoided by anyone working to reduce body fat.

3) Acid Imbalance: Over 208 acids in coffee can contribute to indigestion and a wide variety of health problems resulting from over-acidity associated with arthritic, rheumatic and skin irritations. Many people experience a burning sensation in their stomach after drinking coffee because coffee increases the secretion of acid in the stomach. Optimal health calls for an alkaline pH balance in the body.

Caffeine breaks down into uric acid, which the body excretes through the kidneys. An excess of uric acid taxes the kidneys and can cause kidney stones and gout. Additionally, men have to be concerned about prostate conditions that may be aggravated by coffee consumption.

4) Essential Mineral Depletion: Coffee inhibits the absorption of some nutrients and causes the urinary excretion of calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron and trace minerals, all essential elements necessary for good health. Women need to be concerned about osteoporosis as menopause sets in. Studies show that women who drink coffee have an increased incidence of osteoporosis compared to non-coffee drinkers. Men are not immune to osteoporosis either.

*There are a number of health conditions for which doctors advise their patients to eliminate coffee and all caffeine from their diet.

Acid indigestion
Anxiety, irritability and nervousness
Candida or yeast problems
Colitis, diverticulitis, diarrhea and other irritable bowel symptoms
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and other auto-immune disorders
Diabetes or hypoglycemia (low blood sugar)
Dizziness, Meniere’s syndrome or tinnitus (ringing in the ears)
Gout (Elevated Uric Acid levels)
Heart disease or heart palpitations
High blood pressure
High cholesterol
Insomnia and interrputed or poor quality sleep
Liver disease and gallbladder problems such as gallstones
Kidney or bladder problems including kidney stones
Migraines or other vascular headaches
Osteoporosis
Skin irritations, rashes and dryness
Ulcers, heartburn, and stomach problems such as hiatal hernias
Urinary tract irritation
Female Health Issues: Women in particular need to be concerned about their caffeine intake during pregnancy because caffeine crosses the placental barrier to the fetus and studies show higher incidence of miscarriage, infertility and low birth weight in those women who drink too much caffeine. PMS symptoms and fibrocystic breast disease are both aggravated by caffeine. Hot flashes and other symptoms caused by hormonal fluctuations during menopause also are aggravated by caffeine. Coffee causes the body to excrete calcium and other minerals. Women at risk for osteoporosis need to eliminate their intake of caffeine and coffee.

Male Health Issues: Coffee is an irritant to the urinary tract and bladder. It is also a diuretic that aggravates conditions associated with frequent urination. Eliminating coffee and caffeine often relieves symptoms associated with frequent urination due to enlarged prostate glands.

winger

Osc, ok I drink water too..............lol

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

hackskii

Oh, now you have really done it.
I cant have my splenda for my Atkins.
Now, I cant even have one of me few lugsuries (sp).
Next thing you are going to post up the ill effects of beer.
Wow, do that and I will have to pack it all in.

__________________
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." - George Carlin


Scott


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ONE SMART COOKIE

As you asked for it winger a water article,lol,& no fish.......raflmao


13 Million in US at Increased Cancer Risk Due to ****nic in Water

By Katharine Q. Seelye

The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that ****nic is so dangerous in drinking water that stringent levels set by the Clinton administration and later suspended by the Bush White House were justified but perhaps not strict enough.

Details of a report by the academy that were made available by government officials, give the Bush administration little latitude in which to maneuver on this sensitive issue, one that even President Bush has acknowledged was a public relations disaster for his administration.

For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency set an acceptable ****nic level of 50 parts per billion in drinking water. But recent studies suggested that this level was too high and increased the risk of bladder and lung cancer.

A report by the National Academy of Sciences in 1999 said the standard should be made stricter "as promptly as possible." President Bill Clinton ordered the limit to be lowered to 10 parts per billion in 2006.

The Bush administration suspended the Clinton ruling on March 20, drawing a wave of protest that it was more sympathetic to the chemical industry than to consumers. Officials said they were reevaluating the levels and would wait for the new report by the academy before determining whether to set the level at 3 parts per billion, or 5, 10 or 20.

A senior administration official said tonight that the report found an increased risk of cancer if the level was above 10 parts per billion.

"We are not considering anything higher than 20," this official asserted. And another said: "We may be looking at something lower than 10, but we have an awful lot to look at. It's not inconceivable."

The officials said that Christie Whitman, the administrator of the E.P.A., would make a ruling by February of next year.

By signaling that a prudent level might be lower than 10, the report, which was based on a review of 300 recent ****nic studies, will put enormous pressure on the administration to stay at that level or below.

"It boxes them in," said Joan Mulhern, legislative counsel for the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund. "With the public and the Hill, there is tremendous political pressure already to adopt the standard of 10 or something more strict. If this is what the National Academy is saying, it pretty much closes the door on the administration doing anything higher than 10."

The House passed a bill earlier this year saying the limit should be no higher than 10.

The Senate did not specify a number but said that the administration needed to set a standard immediately that protected sensitive populations like children and the elderly.

The 10 parts per billion standard for drinking water set by the Clinton administration was the same as the one set by the World Health Organization and most European countries.

Some 13 million people in the United States routinely drink water with more than 10 ppb of ****nic. Most of them are in small towns and rural areas but some in cities as large as Albuquerque.

The ****nic decision by Ms. Whitman in March was among the most explosive of the administration's early days and one that even President Bush has acknowledged was part of a chain of events that made the administration appear tone-deaf on environmental issues.

"I think we could have handled the environmental issue a little better," Mr. Bush said in an interview last month with ABC News, pointing in particular to the ****nic decision. But he defended Ms. Whitman's suspension of the Clinton standard, saying she had "pulled back a rushed piece of legislation to look at it, to make sure the science was sound, and therefore we got labeled for being for ****nic in water."

Ms. Whitman has said she regretted the decision.

"Politically, if I'd been smart, I would have never changed it," Ms. Whitman told USA Today last month. "I never would have gone back. I would have let the courts decide. We were going to be sued anyway by the Western states and a bunch of water companies, and I should have just left it there."

The Clinton decision to lower the level to 10 parts per billion was challenged by several Western states, utilities and the mining industry. Municipalities that would have to correct their water systems have argued that the cost to them would far outweigh the benefits to the public in cleansing ****nic, which occurs naturally, out of drinking water.

****nic is a common byproduct of mining operations, so stricter standards for its content in drinking water would translate into stricter standards for many mining sites.
The wood products industry had supported the Bush administration's ruling suspending the Clinton ruling because ****nic is used to pressure-treat lumber.

The report by the academy examined only the public health consequences of ****nic and did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis for water suppliers.

ONE SMART COOKIE

And just for you hackskii

Drinking Alcohol Increases Allergic Reactions

Scientists in Spain are reporting a link between moderate alcohol consumption and antibodies found at high levels in people prone to developing allergies.

The antibodies, known as IgE antibodies, cause allergic symptoms by overreacting to generally harmless substances inhaled from the air such as pollen, mold or animal dander.

In patients allergic to house dust mites, regular alcohol intake was associated with increased (blood) levels of specific IgE against these mites.

The findings are more likely to offer clues on how the immune system functions with regard to allergies than to provide new strategies for allergy treatment.

If you drink moderate alcohol you are more likely to develop an allergic reaction to something.

Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research January 2002


Oxidant Stress Key To Liver Damage From Alcohol

Investigators have identified a key process by which alcohol likely damages the liver in people who drink heavily. Investigators also showed that high doses of vitamin C could partially reverse this process, which may open up new therapeutic opportunities to treat alcohol-induced liver disease. Tests carried out in a third group of patients who had been admitted to hospital with acute alcohol poisoning also revealed "astronomical" levels of oxidant stress, he added.

When investigators then introduced high-dose antioxidant therapy in the form of 2,500 mg a day of vitamin C for 10 days, biochemical markers of oxidant stress in patients with alcohol-induced liver disease decreased by approximately 50%. Oxidant stress is important in other diseases such as cancer and heart disease.

Journal of Clinical Investigation September 15, 1999


If You Drink You Are 2,300% More Likely to Gamble

Although it has long been known that problem drinkers may also be problem gamblers, a new study shows an especially strong link. The researchers found that US adults who have a current dependency on alcohol are 23 times more likely to have a current gambling problem than those who did not drink.

Moreover, survey respondents with a higher socioeconomic status who had a drinking problem were even more likely to have a gambling problem as well.

If you're in trouble with alcohol, the odds you're also in trouble with gambling increase enormously. Most of that correlation is that problem behaviors tend to cluster in the same people.

Gambling is more common among lower socioeconomic people, blacks and Hispanics, than among whites. That's not true of alcohol and drug pathology necessarily. It's a demographic pattern that's unique to gambling.

The rate of current gambling pathology was seven to eight times as high among black and Hispanic men and women compared with white men and women.

The report also suggested there may be a slight increase in the prevalence of pathological gambling across the United States. It's becoming a more interesting and important issue because of the expansion of legal gambling opportunities.

Overall, more than 80% of men and women reported gambling in the past year.

The survey found the rate of Americans who were currently pathological gamblers to be closer to 1% to 2%, while around 5% were judged to currently be problem gamblers, a slightly looser definition. The lifetime prevalence of problem gambling was estimated to be from 4.8% to 11.5%.

Journal of Studies of Alcohol 2001

GoldenArrow

Lol @ ****nic (ar5enic)

__________________
I had to up my calories to over 7000 a day before I started seeing gains again. If you think that's easy, think again. And if you think you'll make gains (with or without gear) without eating a decent amount of food, think again. Also if you don't train your legs or back, you'll never reach your potential.

hackskii

Thanks alot cookie, now I have a gambling problem too.
That does it. I give up.
Now I am going to give up alcohol and coffee and go strait to steroids for good health

I like that antioxidant therapy for the liver. That was really interesting and I do happen to have 2 huge bottles of Vitamin C handy that I bought on sale.

__________________
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." - George Carlin


Scott


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.