You may or may not have heard about the latest recommendations from the government advisory board, the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. News headlines over the past two days have read: women who are postmenopausal should not take vitamin D and calcium for bone health – these supplements do not prevent fractures. Did the IOM get this right?

The IOM states that, “Vitamin D and calcium supplements do not prevent fractures in adult men or women, according to a report published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.” Side note: statin drugs do not lower the risk of heart attack or frequency of heart attack and yet, I have heard no such recommendation to remove statin drugs. But yet, I do digress.

The topic of bone health is an important one for women and men. The often conflicting recommendations made regarding what to take and what not to take on the evening news, simply increase consumer confusion. To best manage your healthcare, find a health care practitioner that you feel is a partner in your health. The two of you will decide the right course of action.

I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by Dr. Michael McClung in Portland last year, speaking on bone health “Current Issues and Conventional Treatment Updates in Osteoporosis.” Dr. McClung is a member of the global advisory board on osteoporosis and bone health.

It was an interesting lecture. He spoke to a large group of naturopaths, nutritionist, etc (all grouped as ‘alternative practitioners’). It is always interesting comparing the approach of MD versus ND. I personally have a pet peeve regarding my certification being lumped under ‘alternative practitioner.’ If all practitioners addressed clinical nutrition needs, we would have far less need for medications.

Dr. McClung’s view point was an interesting one; made even more interesting after I heard of this latest recommendation from the advisory board. During his presentation he made the following points:

1. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) states that 20ng/ mL Vitamin D levels are adequate in the body.
2. Cautions about going over 30ng/ mL
3. Most labs report ’20-30ng/ mL’ as standard adequate range
4. Studies looking at vitamin D levels have not focused above 30ng/ mL. The max seen in the studies is 22ng/mL (*note this level, this is an important point in this discussion). The studies used 200-800IU (800IU max) vitamin D as a daily supplement level to bring levels to 20ng/mL and called this a ‘repleted’ level.

I asked Dr. McClung a question, ‘What level of vitamin D do we see in surfers and farm workers (those out in the sun constantly).’ His reply, ’50-80ng/ mL.’ So, why the shortfall? Why not consider 40-50 ng/mL as a more ideal range for vitamin D levels versus 20ng/mL? His reply to me, ‘We are talking about supplementing and not getting this from the sun.’ This last answer didn’t sit very well with me. If someone is iron deficient, we bring their iron levels back up with supplements. If B12 deficient, we offer shots or supplements to bring their levels back up. We are simply not in the sun as much as we once were. Sun screen is in makeup and is overused whenever the sun makes an appearance (however brief) and we are working more and more hours indoors. In the Northwest, there are 2.5 months during the year that we can absorb and convert vitamin D from the sun’s rays. These all reduce our chances of building adequate levels of vitamin D.

So, when you hear these new recommendations to stop taking calcium and vitamin D because they do not improve bone health or reduce factures, it has to be put into context. The doctors that made this recommendation are looking at 20ng/ mL of vitamin D – nowhere near the level of vitamin D that the body would naturally prefer to regulate itself at 50-80ng/mL (if offered adequate sun exposure).

“Everyone wants vitamin D to be the new magic bullet to prevent all kinds of chronic disease, but the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive at this time to warrant levels beyond our recommendations,” says Harvard’s JoAnn Manson, PhD, MD, and member of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) vitamin D and calcium committee. Interesting side note: well-known Harvard physician Dr. Walter Willet, wrote a rebuttal to the IOM findings, stating that their calcium recommendations were too high (we’ll get to this in a minute) and the recommended vitamin D levels were too low.

Vitamin D levels with respect to mortality are mapped as a ‘J curve.’ If a person’s vitamin D levels are under 20ng/mL their risk for mortality goes up. If over 80mg/ mL their risk for mortality goes up. It simply does not make sense that we would assume that at 20ng/mL a person is repleted. This may be the very, very low range of repletion and yet not the optimal range, which is likely closer to 40-50ng/ mL.

If you remember back in 2010, this same advisory group recommended an increase in the daily vitamin D dose from 200IU to 400IU. Again, in context, this makes sense. The majority of studies done in this area are looking at 200-800IU of vitamin D and 20ng/mL as a repleted level. Why are they doing this? Dr. McClung said that they came to this conclusion, that 20ng/mL was a repleted level, because, “this is the current average vitamin D levels for Americans.”

So, if we are all depleted, this is the new standard that we compare to? How scientific is that?

The new IOM recommendations for vitamin D:

1. Ages 1-70: 600 international units (IUs) per day. Older than 71: 800 IUs. The IOM previously said 200 IUs was adequate for people aged 50 and younger, 400 IU for people aged 51-70, and 600 IUs for people older than 70.
2. The tolerable upper limit (UL) is 4000 IUs for ages 9 and above (up from 2000 IU in the IOM’s previous guidance).

To note, the IOM committee has made this recommendation to postmenopausal healthy women with respect to bone health and fracture risk. One glaring issue here is the huge body of evidence that shows the important role of vitamin D in the body beyond its role in whether it prevents facture risk (at 20ng/mL vitamin D). The body makes vitamin D when exposed to sunlight. But the IOM committee didn’t factor that into the recommendations, because many factors (including, skin color, and geographic location) affect that process. Nor did the committee make any recommendations regarding supplements. To put this all into perspective, your body can produce 10,000IU units of vitamin D per hour from unobstructed sun exposure.

There has been evidence that higher vitamin D levels increase bone density. In the very large population-based NHANES analysis, bone density increased with higher vitamin D levels far beyond 50 nmol/l (20 ng/ml) in younger and older adults. This is further evidence that the IOM threshold recommendation is too low for optimal bone health in adults.

The IOM’s findings are controversial among many medical doctors. In his book, The Vitamin D Solution, Michael Holick, PhD, MD, author and vitamin D researcher, recommends an upper limit of 10,000 IUs for adults and 5,000 IUs for children. Robert Heaney, MD, a vitamin D researcher and Creighton University professor, agrees with the IOM for raising the upper limit of vitamin D from 2,000 to 4,000IU but would like to see it even higher, stated, “I am delighted the upper limit for vitamin D has been doubled to 4000 IUs per day, although this is a conservative level, considering the body of scientific evidence indicating it should be 10,000 IUs,” Heaney says. “However, few people need more than 4000 IUs, which will meet the needs of most healthy people, give physicians confidence to recommend supplementation, and allow research at higher vitamin D levels.” This last point is important. Just like vitamin E in the alpha-tocopherol from is the form most often used in studies (based on guidelines laid down by government advisory boards) so too are the levels of vitamins used in studies. Meaning that, the bulk of studies will not look beyond using 2,000IU of vitamin D if the IOM states that the upper limit of vitamin D per day is 2,000IU. Now that it has been raised to 4,000IU, larger doses of vitamin D will be used in studies.

Let’s talk calcium…

The new recommendations of the IOM call for a calcium:

1. 700 milligrams (from all sources, mainly food) for children ages 1 to 3 up to 1,200 milligrams for women 51 and older.
2. Compared to the last IOM report, calcium recommendations remained largely the same with a small reduction for men age 50 to 70 to 1,000 from 1,200 milligrams per day. The panel confirms a safe upper limit of 2,000 to 3,000 milligrams of calcium per day for adults.

This is in contrast to what you heard on the news.  The headline that I led with in this article is the same headline that all the major news casts led with: “Women who are postmenopausal and looking to improve bone health should not take vitamin D and calcium – these supplements do not prevent fractures”

At the conference in Oregon, Dr. McClung made these following points about calcium:

1. If vitamin D deficient and taking calcium supplements, there is an increased risk of side effects (heart attack among them)
2. The max calcium intake per day should be around 1200mg/ day (including food)
3. If a person is dairy free, assume they are getting 300 mg/ day calcium from their current food sources
4. So, The max calcium intake from supplements per day should be 500-600mg

I do agree with Dr. McClung’s recommendations for calcium supplementation. I feel that the IOM’s recommendations are too high. We do get some calcium from food. Instead of looking at large single nutrient supplementation, we need to first consider food sources (what the person is getting from food), second consider focusing on food sources (so they can increase their intake of the nutrient from natural sources) and third, consider the blend of nutrients that will best support health. Nutrients are rarely consumed in large single doses. There are 19 key nutrients in bone building – calcium is just one among them.

For example, the type of vitamin E in most supplements is ‘alpha-tocopherol.’ There are many forms of vitamin E. Alpha-tocopherol, beta-tocopherol, delta-tocopherol and gamma-tocopherol are among them. When vitamin studies are done, vitamin E in its alpha-tocopherol form is used. When alpha-tocopherol is given in large doses, one effect is that gamma-tocopherol levels decrease in the body. Gamma-tocopherol inhibits platelet aggregation (when platelets form in an artery, plaque buildup occurs). So, studies based on vitamin E (alpha- tocopherol form) are shown to increase instances of plaque buildup in the arteries, which increases heart attack rise. The conclusion is: ‘Vitamin E increases plaque buildup and risk for heart attack.’ When, in reality the study design that was flawed. Vitamin E should rarely be taken in one form. When taking a vitamin E supplement, the best choice is to take a ‘mixed tocopherol vitamin E;’ one that contains all forms of vitamin E.

This same point holds true for the flawed nature of supplement studies; those on calcium included. Based on flawed analysis, one meta-analysis concluded that calcium supplements increase heart attack risk by 27%. Excluded from these studies were people who took vitamin D, magnesium or other nutrients typically found in bone protection formulas. In other words, calcium-supplemented study subjects (who the analysis claims suffered higher heart attack rates) may have been deficient in vitamin D and magnesium — two essential nutrients that protect against heart attack.

The doctors who compiled this analysis also dismissed two major clinical trials showing that those with higher calcium intake had significantly lower cardiovascular rates (NHANES analysis referenced earlier in this article). I do want to emphasize, however, the need to supplement with other nutrients when taking calcium for optimal effect.

As we age, the body’s internal regulators of calcium deposition become less efficient. New studies have uncovered a deficiency of vitamin K as being a factor that enables calcium to infiltrate the inner lining of arteries to cause arterial calcification. Consider the person on a typical American diet who is taking large doses of calcium, say 1500mg/ day and who is not getting in adequate magnesium (nuts and seeds), vitamin D (lack of sun) and vitamin K (dark leafy greens). This person may be at higher risk for arterial calcification AND be at greater risk for osteoporosis because there are 19 synergistic nutrients that work to support bone health in the body (most of which are not going to be provided in a typical American diet).

By ensuring optimal vitamin K status, calcium is directed to the bone and away from the arterial wall. With new studies showing the effectiveness of K2, vitamin K (in the form of K2) should be added to a therapeutic regimen. In a previous FORUM posting on osteoporosis, you may have noticed that I recommended a supplement protocol that included K2 (vitamin K), calcium/ mg in a 2:1 ratio (600 mg calcium: 300mg magnesium), and 2000IU vitamin D3.

Magnesium is a critical nutrient for bone and cardiovascular health. Of interest, magnesium is considered a natural calcium-channel blocker that supports endothelium-dependent relaxation of blood vessels. For optimal bone AND cardiovascular health, a combination calcium, magnesium, K2 and vitamin D offers a balanced support.

Optimal bone health and protection against atherosclerosis requires a multifactorial approach that involves far more than taking only calcium in large doses. The recently published meta-analysis, does offer one valuable lesson – large doses of single nutrients (vitamins OR minerals) do not often evoke the desired response and may even be harmful.

Angela Pifer, Certified Nutritionist with Nutrition Northwest. Seattle Nutritionist

www.NutritionNorthwest.com

Here is my radio interview with KIRO radio reporter Bill Radke. He titled it ‘How to Look Good in a Bathing Suite.’ I’d call it ‘Top Three Ways to Be Healthy!’

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=9943137

“What is detoxification?”

“My doctor says detoxification is quackery.”

“Aren’t the levels of toxins too low to cause harm?”

These questions come up with increasing frequency in conversation and the media. The truth is, we live in a toxic world that impacts our health on a daily basis.

A patient’s story

(June 2012) — Ron first came to me when he was in his late 40s. He was a big guy, six feet tall and 40 pounds overweight. He described his health as being “very good” except for headaches.

He already had consulted a neurologist who found nothing wrong and prescribed a pain pill for the headaches. Ron didn’t like the “mind-numbing” effects of the pain pill but often used over-the-counter medications, such as aspirin and ibuprofen.

It didn’t take long for some careful questioning to reveal the cause of Ron’s symptoms: mold growing in his basement office. The treatment consisted of clearing his sinuses and removing the mold. Case solved. Or was it?

A few years passed and Ron returned to consult me about some new issues. He had started experiencing heart palpitations and a cardiologist discovered Ron also had developed high blood pressure, glucose and cholesterol. These had been normal three years earlier.

The reason I chose to write about Ron in this article about detoxification is that he was eating well and exercising, yet was in some serious trouble health-wise. For no apparent reason he’d become a walking disaster waiting to go downhill quickly. Why?

The missing link — the reason for his decline — was toxins. Testing showed Ron was high in lead, mercury, pesticides and plastics.

The other reason I chose to highlight Ron’s story is that there was nothing obvious about his toxic exposure. He was born in a small town and spent much of his adult life in Seattle where he worked as the director of a nonprofit advocacy group. This was not a life story that would raise a red “toxic
exposure” flag. But exposure is only half the equation. The other half is the body’s ability to detoxify.

You can put two people in the same toxin-filled space and see one of them become seriously ill while the other has no notable health problems. The difference is their bodies’ abilities to clear the toxins. This is determined both by genetics and diet.

I suspect Ron’s exposure to mold three years earlier had tipped the balance, adding just enough additional toxic accumulation to trigger his signs and symptoms.

We initiated medical detoxification — fortifying the liver’s detoxification pathways and assisting the bowels, kidneys and skin with elimination.

Over the following six months Ron described himself as feeling “worlds better.” He was excited about his renewed energy and ability to concentrate at work. His blood pressure started dropping within the first few weeks of the detox and kept going down, along with his weight.

He eventually settled in at his high school weight. Note that he was not on a weight-loss program per se, but rather a health-gain program.

Ron’s blood sugar became normal within weeks and he was off his medications for high blood pressure and cholesterol within three months. His palpitations took six months to completely resolve.

Is Ron’s story unusual? Not at all.

Toxic world

Ron is the typical man or woman slowly deteriorating due to the effects of environmental toxins. Lead and mercury disrupt function and have been found to cause palpitations, headaches, high blood pressure and a long list of other nerve-related disorders.

Plastics tend to cause hormonal disruption, resulting in such things as thyroid and fertility problems. Solvents poison energy systems resulting in fatigue. Many pesticides first were used as nerve poisons during World War I and that’s what they’re still doing, to bugs and humans.

It’s clear from the scientific literature that we all are contaminated by a plethora of toxic substances. When blood, hair, urine and breast milk samples are measured, toxic accumulation is found, and not just in New York City, but even in remote locations such as Mongolia and seemingly pristine countries, such as
New Zealand. Some of these are natural substances, such as lead, mercury and arsenic, that have been concentrated and released for industrial purposes.
Others are manufactured chemicals.

In the 1860s the first synthetic chemical was produced from coal tar. Today we live in a world where more than 85,000 of these unnatural chemicals are in use.
Whereas 100 years ago the pollution problem was coal dust, now it’s off-gassing of new carpets, adhesives, solvents, pesticides, food additives, electromagnetic radiation from wireless technology, and plastics in cars, appliances, CDs, packaging and cookware.

A healthy daily lifestyle …is the best way to detoxify your body

Reduce exposure to toxins

Organic foods

Low-processed foods

Safe cleaning products

Organic protein-rich foods

Vitamin C-rich foods (berries, fruit fresh greens)

Antioxidant-rich foods: Deep-colored fruits and vegetables

Selenium-rich foods, such as nuts and seeds

Sulfur-rich foods: beans, cruciferous vegetables, garlic and onions

Fiber: 25 grams/day

Water: 1/2 body weight in ounces

Saunas, Epsom salt baths and sweat-inducing exercise

The physiology of detoxification

More controversial than the existence and dangers of environmental toxins is the question of what to do about them. There are those who call detoxification
quackery. On the other extreme are those hocking questionable detox treatments, such as foot pads, foot soaks, and “detox” diets and supplements.

For those who are skeptical, ask if they breathe in only oxygen but never exhale carbon dioxide, or if they take in food and drink but never visit the toilet.
Detoxification is the body’s way of taking out the trash. Far from quackery, detoxification is necessary for life. Medical detoxification is the use of nutrients to augment detoxification pathways.

For those trying to sell potions and gadgets, ask for scientific verification of effectiveness. TV-promoted foot pads have not been tested scientifically. Footbath detoxification gadgets recently were found not only to fail to remove toxic substances, but to increase exposure to contaminating metals.

Most of the products I see for sale are cleansing/eliminating, but not detoxing. Cleansing/eliminating refers to the removal of waste by way of the bowels, kidneys and skin.

Detoxification, on the other hand, takes place primarily in the liver, where metabolic pathways
identify toxins by attaching chemical markers (phase 1 detoxification). These marked toxins are then neutralized (phase 2) and shunted into the elimination pathways (phase 3). While  cleansing and elimination are important parts of the process, they are not the same as detoxification.

Unsupervised fasting and “cleansing” diets can be dangerous because they accelerate the release of toxins stored in fat tissue without supporting liver function. Yes, detoxification by fasting has been practiced by most cultures for thousands of years, but we live in a very different world full of toxins
that didn’t exist until the last 150 years.

Strategies

Useful detoxification strategies fall into two categories: prevention and active detoxification.

Prevention means avoiding exposure to toxins. This is easier when you consciously choose not just organic food but also the safer body care and housecleaning products from PCC. Stress reduction and healthy bowel function also reduce circulating toxins.

Active detoxification involves supporting detoxification pathways. Think saunas, mud
baths, sweat lodges, and foods and herbs that stimulate liver function and waste removal.

A mixed organic diet high in vegetables and with adequate protein provides a complex group of amino acids and antioxidants necessary for deactivating toxins. Foods such as onions, garlic and beans provide sulfur, which is essential for liver detoxification.

High sulfur, plus fiber, may be why a World Health Organization study found that populations that eat beans have a lower incidence of cancer. In addition to nutrients, detoxification is aided by exercise, massage, yoga and other physical activities.

Medically supervised detoxification programs start with pre-testing for specific toxins
as well as indicators, such as oxidative stress, then prescribing specific blends of amino acids, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, herbs and other food factors to enhance removal. This  should be done under medical supervision to ensure success and avoid releasing but not eliminating toxic chemicals.

Any “detox” program that causes headaches, rashes or other undesirable symptoms should be avoided as it is not removing, only redistributing toxins.

While removing all toxins from your body is probably impossible given the current state of environmental exposure, a one-two punch of prevention and active detoxification can lower your overall toxic load. This strategy can mean the difference between chronic ill health and a reinvigorated life.

www.NutritionNorthwest.com

I just did an interview with Kiro Radio reporter Tim Haeck on the health benefits of coconut water. Here is the article:

Here is the article link: http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=695196

Tim Haeck, 97.3 KIRO FM Reporter

Gatorade has been around for years, a staple on sports sidelines from Little League to the NFL. Vitamin water made a push a few years back. Now the big drink craze is coconut water, but is it really all that?

Distributors promote the benefits of drinking coconut water, not just for hydration but for cooling the body, elevating metabolism, promoting weight loss and maintaining the proper balance of  electrolytes. Marketers have seized on the electrolytes.

Certified nutritionist Angela Pifer, in Bellevue, says her clients often mention electrolytes when she asks why they drink coconut water.

“I usually pop back very quickly – Are you working out more than two hours? And are you working out in a very hot, humid space? Then you’d need an electrolyte replacement. But most people don’t need an electrolyte replacement.”

Pifer says most of us won’t realize any special benefit from coconut water.

“I hear this offered a lot as a sports replenishment, but the typical person that is drinking this is maybe going to the gym for 45 minutes or an hour, and even if they’re doing a spin class for an hour, you still don’t need an electrolyte replacement,” says Pifer. “We really can get all the replacement and replenishment that we need from just water.”

Coconut water might not have great health benefits, but it won’t hurt you. But Pifer does cautions about the processed version of the product.

“I’d say that when you’re looking at a beverage that’s been pasteurized, and now flavors are added, and we’re seeing preservatives added, it’s starting to kick into more of a commercial food product and not an actual food,” says Pifer.

Pifer thinks coconut water is overpriced and overhyped.

“They’re over-promising benefits and under delivering,” says Pifer. “They are expensive. They definitely are. I think for people trying to watch their money right now they could just drink water. It would be
great.”

Lots of people swear by coconut water. In fairness, it contains two key minerals, sodium and potassium, but you can get that stuff in your normal diet.

—

I would also like to add, that fresh, raw young coconut and water is a healthy addition to a meal plan. BUT, the issue I have with this food item is that it is becoming too commercialized and is now a processed beverage. Here is the nutrient breakdown of raw coconut (most processed beverages do not reflect this nutrient breakdown and they have added sugars).

Seattle Nutritionist Angela Pifer

——–

Yesterday, both the FDA and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) dropped policy “bombs” on those of us who use dietary supplements. It is no mere coincidence that both were released on the Friday before a holiday weekend.
By timing the introduction of their anti-supplement legislation and regulatory guidance this way, the FDA and Sen. Durbin are both hoping to evade negative publicity. We think it is better to keep American citizens fully informed, and with your help, we will get the word out. Please send this communication far and wide.

First, the FDA has issued draft guidance for complying with the New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) notification protocols contained by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). As you may recall, DSHEA said that supplements already on sale prior to the passage of the act were “grandfathered” in, and did not have to be reviewed by the FDA. New supplements developed after the Act have been in a kind of limbo
waiting for the FDA to spell out the procedures to be followed.

These new supplements have always been at risk because of the uncertainly surrounding their regulatory status. And many of these new supplements are extremely important for our health. We won’t name them, because to do would be to put a bull’s-eye on them for the FDA to shoot at, but you would recognize many of them and may be currently taking them.  DSHEA was passed in 1994. The FDA has thus taken seventeen years to provide regulatory guidance for these new supplements. Now a draft version of guidance is here, and it isn’t good. It is just another effort by the FDA to suffocate the supplement industry so that everything—supplements and drugs alike—will go through the vastly expensive drug approval process, a process that pays for FDA salaries. We have said it before and we will say it again. Supplements cannot usually be patented. No non-patentable substance can be taken through a drug approval process that on average costs a billion dollars. If supplements are treated like drugs, there simply won’t be any supplements. The FDA knows this perfectly well.

The new draft guidance is written in the usual regulatory non-English, but buried within it are definitions of “new supplements” that will make more and more supplements subject to the new rules. The rules themselves are designed to make it harder and harder to market new supplements, all of which will need to submit notification to an agency that is fundamentally hostile to the supplement industry. Not only does each supplement require its own notification, a separate notification must be submitted by each company that offers it. Additionally, notification must be submitted again if the supplement is reformulated in any way or offered in combination
with any other supplement or ingredient. Based on what the FDA has done in the past, many more applications will be rejected than accepted and the cost of the whole process will be high.

The FDA is required to give us 90 days to comment on their proposed guidance. Our experts are busy analyzing the proposal in all its detail and we will report on it again and provide an Action Alert in our next newsletter right after the holiday. We already know this needs to be stopped. With your help we will do everything we can to change it. Your ability to use supplements not already documented as having been on the market under
the same exact name and formulation prior to 1994 will depend on it.

As we mentioned above, Sen. Durbin’s much-feared Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2011 (S.1310) has been formally introduced in Congress. The language is not available online yet, but the draft procured by ANH-USA yesterday reaffirmed the analysis we sent you earlier this week. Look for our in-depth article and Action
Alert on S.1310 in our newsletter on Tuesday, July 5th!

The Alliance for Natural Health USA
1350 Connecticut Ave NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
www.anh-usa.org

Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s icon and its recently released dietary guidelines ask Americans to limit their intake of sweeteners and fat- and cholesterol-heavy products, including meat and dairy, and to eat more fruits and vegetables. But more than 60 percent of agricultural subsidies in recent history have directly and indirectly (corn production for feed) supported meat and dairy production. Less than 1 percent goes to fruits and vegetables.

Angela Pifer – Certified Nutritionist

Offices in Bellevue, Woodinville and Seattle

Created by local celebrity nutritionist Angela Pifer, whose videos and articles have been featured on MSN Health, Kashi.com and Livestrong.com – the 28 Day Online Vegan Challenge is being featured on Groupon for $49 (reg $249, $200 OFF!) TODAY!! Grab your friends, give this as a gift and you can breeze through the extra cookie, stuffing and wine frolicking with peace of mind. You’ll be doing something about it in 2011!

You must go to Groupon to purchase the deal!

This effective 4 Step Food Based Det0x Program offers you a practical way of ridding your body of toxins.You pick your start date! Group Programs start in 2011: February 15, April 15 and June 15:

Week One: Seven Day Prep!

• Each day you’ll be instructed to read a step in the 28 Day Vegan Challenge Manual.
• By completing a few simple actions during your 7 day pre-cleanse you’ll greatly increase your success in this program.

Week Two and Three: The Challenge is On!

• Experience and explore how good it feels to go vegan! 
• Get daily support through the member only website, personally led by Angela Pifer, which will provide you the motivation to cross the finish line!

Week Four: Veganism Meets Reality

• For many people veganism isn’t a lifelong reality. The goal here is to identify the aspects of the program that you love and learn how to combine old and new styles of eating to create a lifelong eating plan.

Corn Sugar – doesn’t this sound harmless, unprocessed and natural? In fact the corn industry has already started marketing with this term by creating a new website and has commercials saying, “High fructose corn syrup HFCS — corn sugar — has been used in the food supply for more than forty years to make high fiber foods palatable, maintain freshness and enhance flavors in foods and beverages. Additionally, high fructose corn syrup keeps our foods affordable.” Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, says that the new name would help people understand the sweetener. Really?

I am not sure how renaming this product will help people better understand it. Instead the industry should take the time to educate people on the difference between HFCS and sugar. Both compounds contain two simple sugars, fructose and glucose. The difference between these two compounds is that sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. HFCS is made up of 55% fructose, 42% glucose and the remaining 3% are higher saccharides, larger sugar molecules. The fructose in HFCS is more easily absorbed and utilized because it is free and unbound (in sucrose, every fructose is bound to a glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized in the body). When fructose is quickly absorbed and metabolized, it is done independent of insulin. Though this may sound like a good thing, it is not. If insulin is not signaled and released then leptin is not signaled and released (a key signaling hormone that regulates food intake and body weight). When this signaling system is bypassed, the body will continue to crave food. Studies have shown that beverages with added sweeteners may enhance caloric overconsumption.

The industry should offer statistics on the amount of HFCS people consume and its availability:

• On average, Americans consume 60 pounds of HFCS per person per year.
• HFCS accounts for 40% of caloric sweeteners in the United States.
• The consumption of HFCS increased more than 1000% between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in intake of any other food or food group.
• The increased use of HFCS in the United States mirrors the rapid increase in obesity.

Instead of starting a new site and using the name corn sugar (prior to approval by the FDA) they should start a site that talks about recent studies published on HFCS. Until now, the majority of studies have been short term studies and the results have been mixed. A new study from Princeton researchers published in February 2010 looked at both short term and long term affects of HFCS on body weight, body fat and triglycerides. The study showed that over the course of 6-7 months mice that had 24 access to an 8% HFCS “drink” and mice chow gained significantly more body weight (specifically adipose fat in the abdominal region) and had elevated triglyceride levels. Previous studies from Princeton has firmly established that if you give rats access to a 10% table sugar “drink” in addition to their normal feed (mice chow), they do not gain additional fat. In other words, their bodies are able to metabolize the extra calories without creating more weight.

The take home message? Sucrose is not ‘better’ than HFCS, other than it is natural and we can metabolize it. If weight loss is your goal, keep all natural sugar intake to a minimum and remove every bit of HFCS from their diet. Limit the intake of natural sweeteners like honey, agave nectar and real maple syrup.

How to spot added sugar on food labels

Sugar is easy to spot on an ingredient label. Look for words ending in ‘ose’ (flucose, fructose, lactose), this indicates sugar. The following terms also indicate added sugar:

• white sugar
• brown sugar
• icing sugar
• invert sugar
• corn syrup
• high fructose corn syrup
• maple syrup
• honey
• molasses
• brown rice syrup
• cane juice
• evaporated cane juice
• all fruit juice concentrates, including apple and pear

Angela Pifer, CN Seattle Nutritionist

Seattle Weight Loss Programs – Get Results!

If you have high cholesterol, chances are you were instructed to reduce your intake of total fat, specifically animal fats, from your diet, become more active and to work on weight loss. What you weren’t told is that you should also address your sugar intake. A new study published in the Journal of American Medical Association looked at the blood profiles and sugar intake of more than 6,100 adults (whose demographics were representative of the American population). On average, study participants consumed 21.4 teaspoons of sugar a day (24 teaspoons equals ½ cup!). Those who took in more sugar had lower levels of HDL (‘good’) cholesterol and higher levels of triglycerides. It seems that the message is clear, added dietary sugar is connected with poor lipid profiles.

This is the first study to look at the connection between how much added sugars and ‘empty’ calories people consume and the effect on blood lipid profiles. Some factors for heart disease, like family history, cannot be changed. By identifying added dietary sugars as a contributor for a poor lipid profile people at risk can now begin to address what can be changed.

In addition, the study found that:

• On average, people consumed 10.6% more calories from sugar a day than they did in the 1970’s.
• The higher the intake of added sugar, the lower the person’s HDL (“good”) cholesterol. Participants consuming 10% of total calories from added sugar had three times the risk of having low HDL than someone who took in half that much sugar.
• Participants with a higher intake of added sugar tended to have higher triglyceride levels as well.
• **Women who took in more added sugar also had higher LDL (“bad”) cholesterol.

How much Added Sugar is Too Much Sugar?

To make matters more confusing, medical and health organizations do not agree on a current recommendation. Depending on whom you ask the daily consumption of added sugars should fall below:

• 25% , according to the Institute of Medicine
• 10%, according to the World Health Organization
• 6% or 7%, according to the American Heart Association

The Type of Sugar Matters

Though it would seem that Americans are eating a lot more sugar now than they did forty years ago, they are not. Sugar calories are up just 10% over those consumed in the 1970’s. What is different is the type of sugar people are consuming. In the 1970’s people consumed on average 343 calories a day of refined cane and beet sugar and only 2 calories from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). High-fructose corn syrup has now risen to 41% of Americans total sugar intake. It is also the single most consumed caloric nutrient for the American Population.

The Cost of Calories

One of the reasons Americans are eating more calories from high-fructose corn syrup today than in the 1970’s is due to government incentives on corn production and tariffs on sugar. It is simply less expensive to produce HFCS than it is to produce cane or beet sugar.

A person might expect that added sugars, along with other food groups, have increased equally over time in response to inflation. That person would be wrong. The inflation-adjusted cost of added sugars has dropped by half since 1970. This change can be credited to the steep rise of low-cost ‘foods’ containing high-fructose corn syrup over the last thirty years.

Over the past forty years, the price of added sugars has dropped significantly more than the purchase price of each food group:

• Fruit sources: 30% increase
• Vegetable sources: Unchanged
• Grain sources: 29% decrease
• Dairy sources: 38% decrease
• Fat sources: 38% decrease
• Protein sources: 50% decrease
• Sugar sources: 50% decrease

What Can You do?

• Read nutrition labels and take note of how much added sugar you consume.
• Reduce or replace foods containing corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, cane or beet sugar or sucrose.
• Replace soda with water, sparkling water or mineral water.
• Choose whole foods whenever possible. Fruit is a perfectly healthy addition to your eating plan. Eat frequently across the day and incorporate into green salads and grain dishes.
• Be patient. As you move away from sugar added foods it will take some time for your taste receptors to lower for perceived sweetness. Whole foods may taste a little bland at first, but as your taste receptors begin to adjust you will be able to taste the sweetness in real whole foods.

Angela Pifer, MSN CN Seattle Nutritionist

Seattle Weight Loss Programs that Get Results!