Soaring Insulin Prices have Patients Terrified and Pharmacists Scrambling.  The title of an article from the July 31, 2018 issue of the American Pharmacist Association

Is The Pharmaceutical Industry Focused On Curing Diseases, Or Just Treating Symptoms?  The title of a December, 2017 issue of Forbes

In the midst of widespread clamoring for "free" Universal Insurance, there's this tiny little problem of the skyrocketing cost of caring for sick people in a nation of increasingly sick people.  Nothing gives us a better glimpse into the hopelessness of this phenomenon than DIABETES.  Not only do approximately one in ten American adults have diabetes, but according to the ADA, 85 million have PRE-DIABETES (aka metabolic syndrome), which many would argue is functionally the same. 

As many have already figured out, the drugs for treating diabetes and its ilk are expensive and don't work very well (HERE).  Sure; they do an "OK" job of doing what they were designed to do --- lower blood sugar.  But as far as doing the heavy lifting that's claimed (decreasing death, strokes, heart attacks, etc) --- it's not happening.  As is often the case, THE DRUGS affect surrogate endpoints (in this case blood sugar), while morbidity and mortality run wild.  What's arguably worse is that our government is subsidizing this disease on multiple fronts.

They subsidize the corn (NOT TO MENTION OTHER GRAINS) that is the source of HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP.  They are directly subsidizing the FOOD BUDGETS of the people most prone to being diagnosed (1 in 7 of those living inside our borders are on government food assistance).  And they heavily subsidize corporate healthcare --- the system that's slowly taken over American medical care.  After revealing that diabetes is costing over 325 billion dollars per year, the ADA went on to explain just how much of this burden is being covered by the American taxpayer.  "Most of the cost for diabetes care in the U.S., 66%, is provided by government insurance (including Medicare, Medicaid, and the military). The rest is paid for by private insurance or by the uninsured."

Not only has this made healthcare as we know it --- no matter whose funding plan you promote --- completely UNSUSTAINABLE, but now we have big pharma and the medical community themselves to contend with.  That's because if there is one thing we know for sure, it's that MEDICAL GUIDELINES cannot be trusted.  Just how little they can be trusted can be seen in a paper published in last March's issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Trending Cardiovascular Nutrition Controversies); a paper that started out by trumpeting a fact that they should have been ashamed of.

"Contemporary guidance by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health and Human Services is issued now as food-based dietary patterns with accompanying specific nutrient recommendations."

I've already shown you how corrupt the AHA/ACC is (HERE is a great short example), but in this paper they are worse, touting SOYBEAN OIL, continuing to pan coconut oil (HERE), and even going back to ancient recommendations not to eat eggs because they are high in cholesterol (HERE).  They even had the gall to quote the NLA thusly.  "The National Lipid Association concluded that there is no evidence of any health benefit of coconut oil" ---- this from an organization with more ties to industry than DONALD RUMSFELD, HERE). 

Furthermore, the chief function of the USDA is, as stated on their website (it was first on the list), "to promote agriculture production....."  Don't forget that it was the USDA who brought us one of the single most detrimental and destructive governmental recommendations this nation has ever seen; the FOOD PYRAMID.  And as for DHHS, among other things, they administrate the FOOD & NUTRITION SERVICES (FOOD STAMPS) program --- a program frequently run the way a five year old would fill the grocery cart if you let them.

The point to today's post is this --- we are not quite halfway through the first month of 2019.  You've already bailed on your NEW YEARS RESOLUTIONS and are realizing that this year is going to be just another rung on the ladder to unmanageable pain, weight gain, and chronic diseases (plural).  But it doesn't have to be like this.  Sit down today and create your own PERSONALIZED EXIT STRATEGY (I'm even giving you THIS RESOURCE completely free). 

As I've mentioned numerous times, the vast majority of chronic health conditions begin with blood sugar issues.  Fortunately there are a group of rogue scientists out there who have provided you with a dietary blueprint that actually makes sense for those of you coping with T2D (HERE).  Just do it already!  And if you have friends or loved ones who could similarly benefit, FACEBOOK is still a nice resource for reaching them.

I've said for a very long time that if you give me just a little time, tying THE HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE to almost every disease process you can name is a piece of cake (pun intended).  Let's take a slightly different look at a topic we've covered on several previous occasions --- INFERTILITY AS RELATED TO BLOOD SUGAR.  A brand new study from BJU International (Undiagnosed Prediabetes is Highly Prevalent in Primary Infertile Men...) concluded, as you might expect from the title, that "About 15% of primary infertile men had criteria suggestive of undiagnosed prediabetes. A prediabetic status was associated with a greater risk of hypogonadism, higher DFI values and iNOA status."  What does this mean in English?

For starters, although there can be a number of reasons for hypogonadism (the condition where the body does not make enough testosterone; frequently known as "LOW T"), OBESITY and DIABETES, sometimes referred to as 'diabesity,' are unarguably the number one reason, which is probably true of SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION as well (it is definitely true in males, MAYBE LESS in females).  A study from March's issue of Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology made these statements (I'm cherry-picking a bit).  Just realize that when you see the term DFI (DNA fragmentation index) it is referring to genetic damage.

"What factors may lead to sperm DNA damage remains one of the major concerns. There were increasingly accumulated evidence for the correlation between obesity and male subfertility. It was reported that obesity was closely related to male subfertility. Obesity and related abnormal lipids metabolism and the change of reproductive hormones might lead to the decrease of sperm quality.  The factors related to sperm DNA damage included age, environmental pollutants such as organophosphorus and organochloride pesticides, plasticizer, heavy metals such as lead, carcinogens such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (c-PAHs) and zearalenone (ZEA), male reproductive system diseases or systemic diseases.... endocrine disorders... lifestyle, aging... and certain medications."

I've written about some of those medications in the past (HERE), although I would guess that the list would be much longer now than it was back then.  As for ENDOCRINE DISORDERS in general, including things like THYROID PROBLEMS and certain other AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES or SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASES, we can't be surprised in light of what I've already shown you.  Also, once you start to understand the effects that CHEMICALS, PESTICIDES, and METALS have on the male (and female) reproductive system, things get even scarier.  Furthermore, "aging" is often termed "ANDROPAUSE" and has effective non-pharmacological ways to address it.  As for iNOA, this stands for something called idiopathic non-obstructive azoospermia.  Huh?  In English this means that sperm is not being made at all (oligozoospermia is the medical word for LOW SPERM COUNT --- a worldwide epidemic).

Part of what makes this study so scary is the incidence of prediabetes.  While no one knows for sure how many Americans actually have PREDIABETES / INSULIN RESISISTANCE, the numbers are staggering.  In a state where people have access to excellent weather and fresh fruits and vegetables year round (CALIFORNIA), an almost three year old study showed that 55% of its adult residents have either diabetes or prediabetes.  Staggering!  Studies like this one show why the "FAT ACCEPTANCE" movement is so detrimental to our national health conversation.  The fact that 70% of our nation is obese and another 7 to 10% appear that way on their blood work even though their weight is "normal" is yet another reason that any real discussion on healthcare is a moot point, whichever political system or party you happen to associate with (HERE or HERE).

Not to be outdone, a couple of months ago, the European Journal of Endocrinology published a study titled Excess Mortality in Finnish Diabetic Subjects Due to Alcohol, Accidents and Suicide....  In this study of 435,000 diabetic adults, we saw that death via alcoholism was 71% higher than in non-diabetics.  And as for suicides; the rates for diabetic men were not so dramatic, but for diabetic women in was (gulp) 450% higher.  Furthermore, we saw that 54% of the accident-related deaths that occurred, occurred in diabetics.  This is why the authors stated, "The diabetic subjects had higher mortality at almost all endpoints, especially those treated with insulin."  Why might this be, especially as related to insulin?

As fantastic and important a hormone as insulin is (it helps move sugar from the blood to the body's cells) too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing.  The effect of simultaneously high levels of both blood sugar and insulin are death to neurological tissues, brain included.  Although I could write a book on this topic, allow me to show you conclusions from three studies that span the past 6 decades, showing you that none of this is really "news". Pay attention because you'll notice, HYPOGLYCEMIA (low blood sugar) is the flip side of the coin that is diabetic hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) as well as proof of the fact that SUGAR FEEDS INFECTIONS.

• "Peripheral neuropathy is a common complication of diabetes and may appear as the first manifestation of the disease. It is likely to occur in even the mildest cases of diabetes.  The peripheral nerves, autonomic nerves, cranial nerves, spinal cord and brain are all frequently involved in diabetes."  From the January 1962 issue of the Western Journal of Medicine (Neurologic Complications of Diabetes)

 

• "Diabetes mellitus is a disorder in which the concentration of blood glucose is persistently raised above the normal range.  A wide variety of disturbances affecting the central and peripheral nervous systems, either directly or indirectly, may be encountered in patients with diabetes mellitus.  The salient consequences of hypoglycaemia, found as a complication of treatment with insulin are neurological. Late secondary manifestations are a major problem in diabetes. As they affect the nervous system, the most important are peripheral neuropathy and cerebrovascular disease. There is no single diabetic neuropathy but a range of syndromes of which a distal predominant sensory polyneuropathy is frequent. Sensory polyneuropathy the most important risk factor for chronic foot ulceration. Severe autonomic neuropathy is uncommon and is usually encountered in type 1 cases. Focal and multifocal neuropathies comprise isolated cranial and limb neuropathies, truncal radiculoneuropathies and proximal lower limb neuropathy (diabetic amyotrophy). Some of the focal neuropathies are the consequence of an abnormal susceptibility of diabetic nerve to external compression or entrapment. Both transient ischaemic attacks and stroke are commoner in diabetic patients than in non-diabetic subjects, reflecting the increased risk of macrovascular disease in diabetes. Infections are probably more common in diabetic patients... Finally, congenital malformations, including those affecting the nervous system, are more common in diabetic pregnancies, anencephaly and spina bifida being the most frequent."  From a 1998 issue of one of the numerous journals in the British Medical Journal's stable, the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry (Diabetes Mellitus and the Nervous System)

 

• "After 2 years of follow-up, participants with Type II Diabetes had diminished global and regional cerebral vasoreactivity and a decline in multiple cognitive tasks compared with baseline. In the Type II Diabetes group, lower cerebral vasoreactivity was associated with a greater decrease in daily living activities score, and lower global vasodilation was associated with a greater decline in executive function. Higher serum soluble intercellular and vascular adhesion molecules, higher cortisol, and higher C-reactive protein levels at baseline were associated with greater decreases in cerebral vasoreactivity and vasodilation only in the Type II Diabetes group, independent of diabetes control and 24-hour blood pressure. Higher glycated hemoglobin A1c levels were associated with a greater increase in vasoconstriction in the Type II Diabetes group. Inflammation may further impair cerebral vasoregulation, which consequently accelerates decline in executive function and daily activities performance in older people with Type II Diabetes."  From the August 2015 issue of Neurology (Inflammation-Associated Declines in Cerebral Vasoreactivity and Cognition in Type 2 Diabetes)

There you have it folks; diabetes or prediabetes --- even "independent of diabetes control" (even if you are 'controlling' it with CRAPPY DRUGS) --- fouls the brain and nervous system in ways that we are just beginning to understand, mood and cognition included.  Case in point is FIBROMYALGIA, a disease we now know is intimately associated with small fiber neuropathy (HERE).  A case can also be made for Alzheimer's Disease, which much of the world now refers to as TYPE THREE DIABETES even though there is evidence it could actually be infectious (HERE).  My suggestion?  If you are following anyone, physicians included, who is telling you that living the high carb lifestyle is a good thing, run far and run fast because THEY ARE BEHIND THE TIMES as far as current peer-review is concerned.

If you are interested in starting the process of taking your life back from the ravages of sugar-induced damage, not only is it possible, people are doing it each and every day.  If you take a look at my GENERIC HEALTH PROTOCOL, today's post better helps you understand why it revolves around glycemic control.  Oh, and don't forget to like, share, or follow on FACEBOOK as it's a fantastic way to reach the people you love and care about most.

The picture above is taken from an 1892 book titled On Contractions of the Fingers (Dupuytren's and Congenital Contractions) and on Hammer-Toe, showing the thickening and contractions at the base of the fingers and upper palm area, characteristic of the FASCIAL ADHESIONS associated with DUPUYTREN'S CONTRACTURE.  Dr. Baron Guillaume Dupuytren (1777-1835) was a French physician whose claim-to-fame at the time was that he successfully treated Napoleon's hemorrhoids.  Today, however, he is best known for both naming the problem above, as well as well as performing the first surgery on it.  Some of the facts concerning Dupuytren's are as follows.

It's a genetic problem, with any number of EPIGENETIC TRIGGERS, including drugs or alcohol abuse, NAFLD and other liver diseases, EPILEPSY, hand trauma, manual labor, THYROID DISEASE, and a number of others including being under-weight.  While various non-surgical treatments are typically employed (STEROID INJECTIONS, STRETCHES, etc, etc), people with minor cases live with it (it's generally painless) and people who get severe cases that hinder activities of daily living have surgery to remove it --- sometimes removing the entire PALMAR FASCIA in the process  The condition occurs mostly in white males of Western European or Norwegian descent.

My point today is not to create a huge post about Dupuytren's "trigger fingers" and whether or not TISSUE REMODELING is a solution (sometimes it is, especially if dealt with early), but to show you some insights into the cause --- insights that can translate into almost every area of your health.  One of the biggest risk factors I left out of my short list above is BLOOD SUGAR ISSUES, including DIABETES.  Just about any book on hand pathology or hand surgery is going to contain information linking blood sugar to Dupuytren's.  For instance, going back to a Y2K issue of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (Epidemiology of Dupuytren's Disease), researchers from Reykjavik, Iceland looked at over 2,000 randomly chosen individuals, ages 46-74, and said this about them.

Dupuytren's disease or palmar fibromatosis is a common disabling hand disorder, mainly confined to Caucasians of northwestern European origin.  Blood samples were collected and biochemical parameters were evaluated. Altogether 19.2% of the males and 4.4% of the female participants had clinical signs of Dupuytren's disease. In men elevated fasting blood glucose.... was significantly correlated with the presence of the disease.

Wow; almost one of every five males in this study had some degree of Dupuytren's.  No matter how you slice it, that's a lot of people.  One of the British Medical Journal's numerous publications, BMJ Postgraduate Medical Journal (Clinical Associations of Dupuytren’s Disease) showed something similar back in 2005.  Notice below that an average of 1 in 5 people with diabetes has Dupuytren's, and that it causes a pathological activation of FIBROBLASTIC ACTIVITY, leading to OXIDATIVE STRESS (free radicals) and tissue HYPOXIA (a lack of O2).  Here's the scary thing; once you realize that half of all American adults have diabetes or pre-diabetes (HERE), this issue of AGES becomes a much bigger deal than just Dupuytren's.

Initially, there is a proliferative stage characterized by an increase in myofibroblasts. The abnormal tissue contains increased glycosaminoglycans and collagen, with an increase in the ratio of type III to type I collagen. It has been suggested that Dupuytren's is a result of local hypoxia and chronic ischemia . The palmar fat of those with Dupuytren's has shown a lipid composition compatible with that of mild hypoxia. High levels of free radicals have been found, which can induce fibroblast proliferation.  The association with diabetes is well recorded, with a reported prevalence of between 3% and 32%, and an average of around 20%. It is equally common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, although it occurs at a younger age in patients with type 1 diabetes. Dupuytren's occurring in diabetic patients is different from the condition in non-diabetic patients. There is a lower incidence of contractures, and fewer cases require surgery. Usually Dupuytren's is more common in men, but in diabetic patients the sex ratio is equal.

Speaking of AGES and Duyutren's, a brand new study from the Journal of Orthopedic Surgery and Research (Association of Advanced Glycation End Products in Dupuytren Disease) concluded thusly...

Advanced glycation end products are associated with aging, hyperglycemia, and oxidative stress. Accumulation of advanced glycation end products can cause various pathological conditions.  Immunostaining of the palmar fasciae of the Dupuytren’s disease group showed higher expressions of advanced glycation end products and receptor for advanced glycation end products than that in the control group. Recently, advanced glycation end products (AGEs) have been gaining attention because deposition of AGEs in organs and tissues can cause various diseases, such as arteriosclerosis, cataract, renal failure, and osteoporosis. AGEs... are known to increase oxidative stress and inflammation through binding to the receptor for AGEs (RAGE). Accumulation of AGEs is also accelerated by hyperglycemia leading to the development of diabetic complications.

SUGAR is messing people up in ways they don't really understand.  Although my readers grasp the fact that sugar is ultra-inflammatory (HERE), and that inflammation always results in scar tissue / fibrosis (HERE), what is the exact mechanism of this pathology?  We've discussed it before on this site in a post titled BLOOD SUGAR DYSREGULATION (DIABETES & PRE-DIABETES) AND ITS EFFECTS ON TENDONS, LIGAMENTS, AND FASCIA.   With a little sleuthing you'll see that almost every health problem / disease you can name can be linked back to blood sugar in one way or another.  Add it all up and it goes a long way toward explaining why problems in the fascia have been linked to all sickness, disease, and pain (HERE).  What's a person to do?

Fortunately, I've given you a protocol that contains science-based information about controlling blood sugar (HERE is an example of true "evidence-based" steps to address blood sugar issues).  To access this top secret document, simply wire $10,000 dollars to my secret Swiss bank account and follow the instructions found HERE. Just kidding.  It's completely free, FOUND HERE, and will help most of you at least get started thinking about creating your own personalized plan to take your life back and get off the MEDICAL MERRY-GO-ROUND you've been riding for way too long.  And if you like what you're reading, be sure to like, share, or follow us on FACEBOOK, as it's a great way to reach those you love and care about most.

​"Big Tobacco sowed doubt that cigarettes were harmful, confused the public, persistently denied their effects, bought the loyalty of scientists and gave ammunition to political allies.  As late as 1994, chief executives of every major tobacco firm swore under oath before US Congress that they did not believe that nicotine was addictive or that smoking caused lung cancer.  the science demonstrating sugar’s role in diet-related disease is incontrovertible, but science alone cannot curb the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemics. Opposition from vested interests that profit from diminishing society’s health must be overcome."   From this month's issue of the Journal of Insulin Resistance (The Science Against Sugar Alone is Insufficient in Tackling the Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Crises – We Must Also Overcome Opposition from Vested Interests)
​

The quote above comes from renowned medical doctor, researcher, and professor, DR. ROBERT LUSTIG --- a vocal opponent of the sugar industry and the lies they've been propagating for over half a century.  While Lustig is an amazing person whom I've been following for years (his work on HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP is second to none), he is not the most interesting man in the world.  That title belongs to.......

For some reason beer companies tend to have great ("BRILLIANT") commercials, with none funnier (and more irrelevant to the product they are selling) than Dos Equis' most-interesting-man-in-the-world campaign (HERE).  It seems, however, that there just may be a real life most-interesting-man-in-the-world.  According to his Curriculum Vitae, during the 80's, 90's, and 2000's, this MIMW was running a company that built houses in NY, playing professional polo in the US, France, Australia and Argentina, running a lifestyle consulting company, running a company that developed performance-enhancing devices for horses, and finally, working as an editorial and research assistant at Wiley & Sons Publishers (they publish scientific journals and books).  After going back to school a decade and a half ago and earning his Ph.D in Exercise Science from the University of South Carolina, he now works as a researcher in UAB's Nutrition Obesity Research Center.  On top of all this his CV lists his interests as competitive martial artist, natural bodybuilding, yoga, private pilot, classical figurative sculptor and painter.  His name is Edward Archer and he is the most interesting man in the world.

Truth is, I'm rather amazed at what Dr. Archer has accomplished at a time in life when most people are starting to think about winding things down, packing it in, playing out the string, retiring, and living the rest of their lives on a golf course or in a bass boat.   Best guess is that I would thoroughly enjoy hanging out with Archer for a couple hours and picking his brain on some things.  Today however, I want to discuss a study he authored that was published in this month's issue of Progress in Cardiovascular Disease called In Defense of Sugar: A Critique of Diet-Centrism.  The study's abstract states....

Sugars are foundational to biological life and played essential roles in human evolution and dietary patterns for most of recorded history. The simple sugar glucose is so central to human health that it is one of the World Health Organization's Essential Medicines. Given these facts, it defies both logic and a large body of scientific evidence to claim that sugars and other nutrients that played fundamental roles in the substantial improvements in life- and health-spans over the past century are now suddenly responsible for increments in the prevalence of obesity and chronic non-communicable diseases.

Interestingly enough, while people certainly need fats and proteins to survive, your body can make glucose (BLOOD SUGAR) out of either.  In other words, you can not only live by thrive without eating sugar (or for that matter, carbs in general) ---- it's called a KETOGENIC DIET and has been used to treat people with neurological problems for the better part of the past century.  And referring to sugar "medicine" is going way outside the scope of this study --- a study on "dietary" sugar.  Touting a lack of physical activity as the primary cause of the OBESITY EPIDEMIC, Archer goes on to say...

Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide a rigorous, evidence-based challenge to 'diet-centrism' and the disease-mongering of dietary sugar. The term 'diet-centrism' describes the naïve tendency of both researchers and the public to attribute a wide-range of negative health outcomes exclusively to dietary factors while neglecting the essential and well-established role of individual differences in nutrient-metabolism.  My position is that dietary sugars are not responsible for obesity or metabolic diseases and that the consumption of simple sugars and sugar-polymers (e.g., starches) up to 75% of total daily caloric intake is innocuous in healthy individuals.

I was sent a copy of this study by a friend who is not only a research guru, but one of the nation's premiere FUNCTIONAL MEDICINE specialists (he's a renowned professor at one of the larges universities in the nation, as well as an MD with a world-wide practice specializing in treating people with problems that no one else can figure out).  Considering that just a few days ago we discussed what separates good research from bad research (HERE); and considering I've shown you over and over again what excess sugar does to your system, Dr. Archer's position is untenable.  Why would I say that?

Nobel Prize winner, Otto Warburg, was talking about the SUGAR / CANCER link nearly a century ago, and Alzheimer's is now being referred to within a growing segment of the scientific community as TYPE III DIABETES.  And on top of that we're only just beginning to scratch the surface of the fact that sugar continues to be shown to arguably be THE MOST ADDICTIVE DRUG on the planet.  So, when someone comes along saying that as long as we're 'healthy,' 3/4 of our diet could be made up of sugar without adversely affecting us, I have to take exception.

Today, however, I'm not really interested in the time and effort it would take to debate Archer's study point by point by point --- you can find that info all over my site.  What I am interested in is showing you why at the very least you need to be wary of his message by showing you who he hangs out with (remember when your parents told you that you'll be known by your friends?).  At the very least this makes his research suspect (especially true when you consider "Big Sugar's" 50 year track record of fraudulent research, which, thanks to sunshine laws, is only recently coming to light --- HERE, HERE or HERE).  According to Archer's CV, he has spoken at conferences sponsored by.......


THE WORLD SUGAR RESEARCH ORGANIZATION 
The WSRO says on their website that, "Through our Science Program we provide evidence-based information on the nutrition and health science around sugar, to our members, stakeholders and the wider community....   WSRO acts as a knowledge hub for the science of sugar.  We do this by monitoring the global scientific evidence, identifying where scientific consensus is and where the gaps in scientific knowledge are. The WSRO provides a balanced and evidence based view of the current scientific landscape."  In other words, the WRSO holds themselves up as the epitome of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE ---- a term that far too often is more like 1984's Ministry of Truth than the supposed pinnacle of fact and principle it is usually portrayed as. 

If you want to see a few of the organizations who actively support and fund the WSRO, HERE is a partial list.  That bastion of truth and knowledge (Wikipedia) says of the WSRO (who until March of 1978 was known as the International Sugar Research Foundation or ISRF), "In 1996 and 1997 it ran a campaign to manipulate science and to fix the results of WHO/FAO expert reports. This was done in conjunction with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). With members from literally hundreds of food industry transnational corporations, this is a key food industry lobby group. It was set up by and is funded by Coca Cola amongst others and pursues their interests on a global stage."  Although you could read for hours about the ways the deep-pocketed WSRO has tried to steer the science on dietary sugar (frequently very effectively); let's at least mention another of the organizations Archer is affiliated with --- one that was mentioned in the quote above; the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).....


THE INTERNATIONAL LIFE SCIENCES INSTITUTE
Because I covered the ILSI in my "SUPER POST" on diet soda (four plus decades of research have shown that people gain more weight --- in many cases double the weight --- with diet soda than regular soda), I am not going to spend much time on it today, other than to say that the only people saying good things about them are themselves or groups funded by them / through them.


THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS, FOOD & NUTRITION CONFERENCE & EXPO
With a name like this, surely "The Academy" is a conflict-free organization that is truly interested in and dedicated to promoting healthy living through healthy eating?  Writing for Time back in 2016 (Soda and Snack Food Companies Welcomed at Nutrition Conference), Alexandra Sifferlin called the Academy, "the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, with more than 100,000 nutrition practitioners," going on to say that "not everyone appreciates the attendee list. Every year, companies that sell junk food attend the event, and as of Friday, the Expo’s floor plan shows companies like PepsiCo and Nestle (which makes candy like KitKat and Butterfinger) have booths near the main entrance. Other trade organizations like the American Beverage Association, the National Confectioners Association and the Sugar Association will also be on the expo floor."  So; the biggest professional organization for dietitians --- the people who create GUIDELINES and DIET PLANS for our schools, hospitals, nursing homes, etc, etc, etc --- is playing a huge part in "FOOD POLITICS".

Listen to what Sheila Kaplan wrote for the medical daily, STAT, about the same expo (Nutritionists Built Close Ties with the Food Industry. Now They’re Seeking Some Distance).   After talking about industry providing coloring books for little kids to teach them that sugar is "all natural" and can be sprinkled on fruits and vegetables, she revealed the dirty little secret --- that the food research industry is essentially in the back pocket of "Big Food" (CHERRY-PICKED).....

"The event is also made possible by vast sums of money from companies and trade groups, in some cases reinforcing the perception that 'Big Food' brands are corrupting the guidance provided to millions of Americans every year.  Among the academy’s missteps: the paid endorsement of Kraft singles; the acceptance of soda company money to underwrite meetings; and a high-profile role as safe haven for corporate-sponsored food research.  Balancing the need to polish the group’s image with an equally strong need for money is not easy.  'There’s been so much criticism of the relationship between industry and the societies,' said Katherine Tucker, a nutrition professor at University of Massachusetts, Lowell, who also taught for many years at Tufts University. 'I think everybody is really taking a careful look at it and trying to reduce the appearance of conflict of interest.' Tucker is editor in chief of the journal Advances in Nutrition, which is published by the academy’s academic counterpart, the American Society for Nutrition. She said the reality is that nutrition research relies on the food industry’s payments — more so than scientists in other fields rely on private companies.  'The people who are interested in funding us are the food companies,' said Tucker, who has accepted money from Kraft and other agribusinesses. 'We have to be careful not to let them lead where the research is going. Industry funding is helpful, but it’s also important for our society to be seen as independent scientists.'"

Here's where these doctors are missing the mark.  Conflict of interest (COI) does not necessarily mean that there is something dirty, underhanded, and / or unethical going on, but the mere appearance that it could be.  But they want to have their cake and eat it to (pun intended).  Research has shown that studies funded by the food industry ("food" is used loosely here) are anywhere from 500% to almost 800% more likely to provide findings beneficial to themselves.  In other words, the criticism that these folks and their journals have gotten is totally and 100% warranted.  And it's not like any of this criticism is new.  Three years prior to this, Michelle Simon wrote a 51 page paper called And Now a Word From Our Sponsors: Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food?  Again, there are literally hundreds of articles on this topic that can easily be accessed by searching the internet.


THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION (INDUSTRY NUTRITION ADVISORY PANEL)
I get it; some of you feel I've crossed the line and am entering territory that could only be described as scientifically sacrilegious.  After all, the AHA is one of those trusted organizations that's so far above reproach that many would consider its leaders to be more pure than Dove soap (99.44%).  Right?  Wrong.  I've not only written about their financial conflicts within the context of STATIN DRUGS (GUIDELINES and more GUIDELINES), a quick search of the world wide web reveals just how deeply these conflicts run.  

Unite Here, with over a quarter million members, published a paper three years ago this summer asking Is the American Heart Association for Sale?  Then there was Dr. Barbara Roberts' 2014 piece for the Daily Beast called The Heart Association's Junk Science Diet, discussing the AHA's ongoing "WAR" against RED MEAT and SATURATED FAT --- despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. 

"A recent Cambridge University analysis of 76 studies involving more than 650,000 people concluded, 'The current evidence does not clearly support guidelines that recommend… low consumption of total saturated fats.'  Yet the American Heart Association (AHA), in its most recent dietary guidelines, held fast to the idea that we must all eat low-fat diets for optimal heart health. It’s a stance that—at the very best—is controversial, and at worst is dead wrong. As a practicing cardiologist for more than three decades, I agree with the latter—it’s dead wrong.  Why does the AHA cling to recommendations that fly in the face of scientific evidence?  What I discovered was both eye-opening and disturbing. The AHA not only ignored all the other risk factors for heart disease, but it appointed someone with ties to Big Food and bizarre scientific beliefs to lead the guideline-writing panel—just the type of thing that undermines the public’s confidence in the medical community."

There was also the appropriately-named article for Medium (Listening to The American Heart Association About As Unhealthy as Listening to Tobacco Ads in the 50's), discussing the AHA's recent proclamation that coconut oil is as unhealthy as beef fat ---- something I wrote about HERE (BTW, being asked whether coconut oil is as unhealthy as beef fat is similar to being asked whether you still beat your wife).  Again, it's easy to find articles touting the numerous financial conflicts within the AHA's leadership, not to mention their researchers (HERE).


INTERNATIONAL FORUM PONTE AL 100 ENERGY BALANCE
This was a conference held in Cancun (Archer was the keynote speaker) that was largely about promoting sedentary lifestyle as the chief reason for the industrialized world's burgeoning waistlines and health woes.   How do I know this? Two reasons; firstly it was chiefly funded by COCA COLA --- nuff said.  Secondly; almost anytime you see the term "ENERGY BALANCE," in this context, it's secret code used by the groups promoting this point of view (I have seen it promoted in the past by both the ILSI and WRSO) indicating that lack of exercise is a far bigger health risk than what you eat.


What's the point of this post?  You need to realize that there is an entire industry (research and acedemia) built around "proving" the benefits of sugar, just like there has always been the same for Big Tobacco and BIG PHARMA.  In fact, when you start following the money, there's no end to the "interesting" tid bits you might dig up (HERE is a recent example with Flu Shots).  It's why you had better be careful who you listen to (self included) and do your own research.  Part of the beauty of my site is that I have tried to wade through the junk science and sales pitches in order to bring you simple and inexpensive ideas you can use to dramatically affect your health; even if you are struggling with chronic pain or chronic conditions (HERE is an example).  How can you trust my site? 

Truthfully, you can't other than to realize that I have nothing up my sleeves and am not trying to sell you anything.  The one thing you can do for me is to make sure to get our site in front of those who need it most (your friends and loved ones).  The best and easiest way to accomplish this?  By liking, sharing, or following on FACEBOOK, of course!

"Dietary Guidelines for Americans advise for 10% or less of calories from added sugar, and the American Heart Association advocates less than 150 calories from added sugar per day for men and less than 100 calories for women and children. Over-consumption may have important health implications given associations with greater risks for obesity, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.  Evidence is also emerging that sugar consumption may negatively impact children’s cognitive development. Added sugars, especially high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), may adversely influence hippocampal [brain] function during critical periods of development."


One of my ETHIOPIAN DAUGHTERS turned in an excellent research paper this week on the many ways that added sugars adversely affect people's physical and mental health.  Among other things, she discussed several ways that people are being fooled by industry. What are the consequences of ignoring this sort of information?  Just days ago, the American Journal of Preventative Medicine published a study titled Associations of Prenatal and Child Sugar Intake With Child Cognition from which the quote at the top of the page came from.  While none of this is really new or shocking, my opinion is that the SUGAR ADDICTED PUBLIC needs to be constantly reminded of sugar's numerous ill effects.  

In this study, researchers took 1,234 randomized mother-child pairs that were born between 1999 and 2002, and along the way assessed their diets (both mother and child) as well as the child's cognitive abilities, comparing the amount of sugar consumed by both mother and child to the child's level of intelligence / cognition.  What did this team of Harvard researchers conclude?

• The more table sugar (sucrose) that mom consumed while pregnant, the worse her child scored.
  
• The more sugar-sweetened beverages or diet soda mom consumed while pregnant (HFCS), the worse her child's scores.
  
• The more sugar-sweetened beverages little Susie consumed as a toddler, the worse her cognitive scores became by the time she was 3 and 7.

While some of you may be new to my site, most of you are not shocked by these findings  In fact, I have written several articles on what sugar does to brains as they get older (HERE and HERE).  We already know how bad SUGAR is for one's health.  We also know that BLOOD SUGAR is at the root of the vast majority of modern disease processes via inflammation (SUGAR CAUSES INFLAMMATION).  And on top of everything else, numerous studies have shown us that sugar is at least as addictive as hard drugs, with many showing it to be more addictive (HERE). 

Oh; and don't forget that not only does zero calorie DIET SODA mess with metabolism in ways that are only just beginning to be understood (it frequently increases blood sugar via SCREWING UP ONE'S MICROBIOME), researchers have shown for at least a decade that people who drink diet sodas gain nearly double the weight as if they were drinking regular soda (HERE).  What does all this mean?

It reveals two things that most of us already knew; processed foods and added sugars are bad, and Americans are consuming way too much of them.  Fortunately, I have something that will help people break their sugar / carb addiction and start taking their lives back --- even if they are severely addicted, SEVERELY OBESE, or STRUGGLING WITH T2D.  Take a look at what you can do to not only help yourself, but your family as well (HERE).  And don't forget to like, share, or follow on FACEBOOK if you feel the free info on our site is valuable.

As far as extreme or norm – certainly when it comes to obesity and nutrition, there’s a great deal of food industry funding research, conferences, travel, etc... Husten has reported that the president of the Institute of Medicine, cardiologist Victor Dzau, was a member of the Pepsico board of directors. Last year he wrote on his website, 'Coke also pays a lot of money to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute to put a red dress logo on the Diet Coke label, while the American Heart Association has struck deals with, among others, Cheetos and Subway. I am sure that these represent just the tip of a very large iceberg.'  From Kathlyn Stones August 2015 article for Health News Review, Behind the Scenes of the Time' Takedown of a Coke-Funded 'Front Group'

There's a concept known as 'Energy Balance' that's been floating around the weight loss world for decades.  It says that if you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.  Likewise, to lose weight you must burn more calories than you consume. The Energy Balance theory has not only fueled scads of articles in the magazines you must pass when checking out at the grocery store (Shocking Truth: Jog Ten Miles to Burn Off Just One Brownie), it's still being promoted by too many doctors (HERE).  Considering it's now April of 2018, way too many doctors.  What's even worse, however, is that it's being promoted by some of those who really should know better --- prominent scientists and professors.  Enter Steven Blair.

Dr. Blair left his professorship at the University of South Carolina's Departments of Exercise Science, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, where he not only received numerous accolades and awards, but was said to have published over 700 papers and book chapters (not as many as HUGH but a lot nonetheless).  His area of expertise is the relationship between one's level of physical fitness / body composition (lean body mass -vs- bodyfat) and chronic disease (HEART DISEASE, OBESITY, DIABETES, etc, etc, etc). His most famous lecture / article is called "Physical Inactivity: The Biggest Public Health Problem of the 21st Century".  While too little exercise is certainly a huge problem as far as Western health is concerned, is it really the biggest? 

To answer this question, we need to go back to a couple of posts I wrote on calories.  Let me go on record to say that calories have little meaning as far as your weight is concerned.  In fact, I consider counting calories rather a waste of time.  Why?  Because it's not the CALORIES themselves that cause people to gain weight, but instead it's the effect said calories have on the endocrine system (particularly the metabolic pathways that deal with hormones such as insulin, glucagon, ghrelin, leptin, etc --- HERE). 

For example, put your body in KETOSIS and you can consume more calories than you ever dreamed possible, while shedding pounds like a junkyard dog sheds fleas (HERE).  On the other hand, subsisting on 1,000 calories a day of the wrong stuff (heavily processed carbs, sugar, and CHEMICALS) frequently contributes to ramped up INSULIN RESISTANCE and METABOLIC SYNDROME --- the precursors to TYPE II DIABETES.  In other words, promoting "Energy Balance" as a valid method of weight loss in this day and age is not only ridiculous, it's living 60 years in the past. 

Speaking of 60 years in the past; I've shown you on two different occasions how the sugar industry paid Ivy League researchers to "prove" that our nation's burgeoning health problems were related not to eating sugar but instead to increased consumption of dietary fat (HERE and HERE) --- and then got it published in the most prestigious journals of the day.  Taking a page out of an old playbook; in 2014 Coca Cola created something known as the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), with Blair and two others leading the way (Coke had already been funding the research for many years).  And although the organization went belly up in November of the very next year (stick around to see why), Coca-Cola managed to pay for several hundred studies, the driving theme always the same; that our epidemic of obesity and chronic illness has not been fueled by sugar (particularly SUGARY BEVERAGES), but instead by sedentary lifestyles. 

How bad was the fallout?  When the cat was finally let out of the bag as far as who was actually funding GEBN, not only did Blair find himself out of a job (he "retired"), so did one of the other head honchos (Dr. Hand lost his job as Dean of West Virginia's School of Public Health).  Not only were these gentlemen paid handsomely for being industry shills, Coke was funding GEBN to do studies showing just how 'harmless' sugar really is.  Recently, one of BMJ's numerous publications (the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health) published an Oxford-led paper that read more like a sordid tell-all that may have been more at home in the Enquirer than a scientific journal --- Science Organizations and Coca-Cola’s ‘War’ with the Public Health Community: Insights from an Internal Industry Document.

I am not going to spend any real time here because you can probably guess what was going on by recalling what Big Tobacco was doing three decades ago (plus the study is free online).  Basically, Coke put the framework for GEBN in place, complete with internal memos revealing not only that the sole motive was making money and creating favorable public policy, but they also hid their relationship to the scientific community, not letting on that they were paying for the entire shindig, while making it look like Blair and his brethren were coming to all of these conclusions of their own.  Newly revealed records show they weren't. Case in point, another study, also from England (Coca-Cola – A Model of Transparency in Research Partnerships? A Network Analysis of Coca-Cola’s Research Funding (2008–2016)), published in the Cambridge Core.  Here are some cherry-picked highlights.

"There is concern in public health that The Coca-Cola Company may fund research that benefits its corporate interests and diverts attention from the role of sugar-sweetened beverages in the obesity epidemic.  In 2015, The Coca-Cola Company published several lists of health professionals, scientific experts and academic researchers with whom it collaborated and whose research it funded between 2010 and 2015. It is not clear whether these lists are comprehensive. The Coca-Cola Company, in conjunction with The Coca-Cola Foundation and the Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness, has funded 389 studies between 2008 and 2016, published in 169 journals, involving more than 1000 authors.  Although Coca-Cola took a step towards transparency, our data have shown major gaps and errors in its disclosures of research funding: Coca-Cola has acknowledged only forty-two out of 513 potential investigators on grants awarded by the company.  Coca-Cola predominantly funds research on nutrition, with a focus on physical activity, the concept of ‘energy balance’ and how these two factors relate to obesity and diabetes."

Transparency?  Surely you jest.  Coke was about as transparent as our government's been (make sure to go see the new movie Chappaquiddick this weekend) --- particularly once this charade was exposed by journalist Larry Husten, and Medical Doctor Yoni Freedhoff.  How one could conceivably refer to 42 of 907 "Coke" researchers (4.6%) as transparent is beyond me.  And honestly, while Coke probably thought they were making a a good choice in Blair, I've always been adamant that doctors (and in this case, exercise physiologists), no matter how intellectual, academic, or "nice," SHOULD LEAD FROM THE FRONT.  Nothing destroys credibility faster than someone who is severely overweight telling the public the best ways to LOSE WEIGHT --- kind of like a virgin working as a SEX THERAPIST. Furthermore, Blair's ongoing public debate with Cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra (see the link on 'Heart Disease' above) has shown just how off-base and financially conflicted he and GEBN really were/are.

Bottom line, this is how it rolls with way too much of what we oxymoronically refer to as 'EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE'.  And if you think that this sort of thing is not happening times ten with significant numbers of DRUG & DEVICE STUDIES, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I've been wanting to get rid of; cheap.  If you are struggling with with chronic health conditions, weight included, I'm giving you (completely free of charge and with no strings attached) a protocol to start moving your personal health-o-meter in a different direction.  It's not designed to cure any specific disease, but to make your body function better by promoting proper physiology and homeostasis (HERE). 

If you know someone who could benefit from this information, be sure to get it in front of them by liking, sharing, or following on FACEBOOK --- the best way going to reach those you love and care about most with information that could potentially save their lives.

What did you get for / from your valentine this year?  Hopefully not a box of cheap chocolates.  I only bring this up because two days ago the British Medical Journal published a study called Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods and Cancer Risk....  Although you intuitively knew this, there is some real "meat" (ULTRA-PROCESSED MEAT) in this study that you can take home to your family (and it's all free online).  But the first thing we have to do before proceeding is to create a clear definition of ultra-processed food (UPF).  Most of us know what processed foods are, but what in the heck are "ultra" processed foods?

According to natural health expert, Dr. Adrew Weil (What are Ultra-Processed Foods?), UPF's "include soft drinks, packaged snacks and baked goods, and reconstituted meat products such as chicken and fish nuggets. Instant noodles and commercially produced soups also qualify."  But as you'll soon see, UPF's go far beyond the obvious foods seen on this list.  Another study from BMJ (this one published in 2016 --- Ultra-Processed Foods and Added Sugars in the US Diet...) concluded that......

"Ultra-processed foods were defined as industrial formulations which, besides salt, sugar, oils and fats, include substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations.  Ultra-processed foods comprised 57.9% of energy intake, and contributed 89.7% of the energy intake from added sugars. The content of added sugars in ultra-processed foods was eight-fold higher than in processed foods.  High intake of added sugars increases the risk of weight gain, excess body weight and obesity; type 2 diabetes, higher serum triglycerides and high blood cholesterol; higher blood pressure and hypertension; stroke; coronary heart disease; cancer; and dental caries. Moreover, foods higher in added sugars are often a source of empty calories with minimum essential nutrients or dietary fiber, which displace more nutrient-dense foods and lead, in turn, to simultaneously overfed and undernourished individuals."

Over-fed and under-nourished.  That pretty much sums up a huge and growing segment of Western society (no pun intended).  And even though it's on this two year old list, the latest study is specifically about the relationship between UPF's and CANCER.  Speaking of UPF's and cancer; while most people have at least heard that SUGAR FEEDS CANCER, the medical community has been slow to embrace Dr. Otto Warburg's work --- odd considering he won the Nobel Prize for Medicine back in 1931 (HERE).  Once you realize that added sugar makes up the largest portion of UPF's, it's not difficult to argue that the medical community needs to step up to the plate and change the way they deal with their average patient (HERE).

An interesting "proof" of a phenomenon routinely found in EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE is that less than six months ago the American Journal of Nutrition (Ultra-Processed Foods in Human Health: A Critical Appraisal) said this about the ADDICTIVE NATURE (or non-addictive as their authors determined) of UPF's.  "This commentary challenges many of the basic arguments of [the relationship between] the link between food and health. We believe that there is no evidence to uphold the view that ultra-processed foods and drinks give rise to hyper-palatable foods associated with a quasi-addictive effect."  This statement becomes especially interesting once you realize the study's lead co-author, Dr. Michael J. Gibney, "had primary responsibility for final content... serving on scientific committees for Nestlé and Cereal Partners Worldwide."  Here's an article about NESTLE that will make you puke, and the CPW is a joint effort between Nestle and General Mills to develop BREAKFAST CEREALS.

After looking at 105,000 people without cancer and adjusting for confounders (sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, age, sex, occupation, educational level, smoking status, number of children, height, weight, dietary intakes, physical activity, personal and family history of diseases, drug use including use of hormonal treatment for menopause and oral contraceptives, and menopausal status) these authors determined that (quote is somewhat cherry-picked)......

"Main food groups contributing to ultra-processed food intake were sugary products (26%) and drinks (20%), followed by starchy foods and breakfast cereals (16%) and ultra-processed fruits and vegetables (15%).  Ultra-processed food intake was associated with increased risks of overall cancer and breast cancer. The association with overall cancer risk was statistically significant in all strata of the population investigated.  Ultra-processed foods have also been associated with a higher glycemic response and a lower satiety effect [it never makes you "full"].  Excessive energy, fat, and sugar intakes contribute to weight gain and risk of obesity, with obesity recognized as a major risk factor for breast, stomach, liver, colorectal, esophagus, pancreas, kidney, gallbladder, endometrium, ovary, liver, and (advanced) prostate cancers and hematological malignancies [leukemia].  For instance, body fatness in post-menopausal women is estimated to contribute 17% of the breast cancer burden."

And this is just for starters.  The authors went on to talk about the effects of plastics, chemicals, and other "ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING" packaging materials commonly used in UPF's, as well as the effects that additives such as dyes, MSG, ASPARTAME, and several others, have on PHYSIOLOGY / HOMEOSTASIS, particularly when it comes to GUT HEALTH and MICROBIOME (remember that 80% of your immune system is found in the Gut --- HERE).  Although you could correctly guess what the most common UPF's are (see pics at top of page), some might surprise you.  The list included "fried potatoes, biscuits, bread, coffee, sweet pastries, dairy desserts, ice cream, fruit purée, fruit in syrup, fruit and vegetable juices, soups and broths, sandwiches, pizzas, salted pastries [crackers]."  Also mentioned were processed "starchy foods (cereals, legumes, or potatoes)."

What's the solution to this mess?  First, control your BLOOD SUGAR.  This is done via controlling your intake of simple carbohydrates.   Secondly, because generic LOW CARB DIETS can be loaded with all sorts of garbage, including TRANS or other junk fats, I suggest you go PALEO.  Some of you might do great with a KETOGENIC DIET as well (click THIS LINK to watch a cool video by a researcher at Pitt using Ketogenic Diets in his lab to successfully address cancer).  And for those of you struggling with serious chronic health issues and rampant inflammation (HERE), be sure and take a look at THIS POST for a nice little protocol that will at least point the average person in the right direction.

"Cancer cells rewire their metabolism to promote growth, survival, proliferation, and long-term maintenance. The common feature of this altered metabolism is increased glucose uptake and fermentation of glucose to lactate. This phenomenon is observed even in the presence of completely functioning mitochondria and together is known as the Warburg Effect. The Warburg Effect has been documented for over 90 years with thousands of papers reporting to have established either its causes or its functions."  From the March 2016 of Trends in Biochemical Sciences (The Warburg Effect: How Does it Benefit Cancer Cells?)

"The Warburg effect states that the main source of energy for cancer cells is not aerobic respiration [oxygen], but glycolysis-even in normoxia [normal levels of oxygen]. Anaerobic metabolism of cancer cells [without oxygen] promotes cell proliferation, local tissue immunosuppression, resistance to hypoxic conditions, and metastatic processes."  From last March's issue of Nutrition and Cancer (Glucose Metabolism in Cancer and Ischemia: Possible Therapeutic Consequences of the Warburg Effect)

A few weeks ago Dr. Chandler Marrs wrote an awesome GUEST POST on mitochondrial function.  Part of what she discussed was the fact that scientists are chasing their proverbial tails on the 'genetic' side of the research equation, spending inordinate amounts of time, effort, and resources searching out and mapping the almost limitless number of "RANDOM" GENETIC MUTATIONS, instead of focusing on what's causing said mutations.  Her point was well taken; particularly considering these mutations are not nearly as random as the scientific community has led the public to believe (see link).  This, friends, is the field of EPIGENETICS (the way that bad environments / habits can turn on "mutant" genes so that they start expressing bad traits) and is critical to understand if you want to stay healthy, let alone stay free of CANCER.

Why do I mention Mitochondria?  Listen to what a popular online encyclopedia says about the relationship of Mitochondria to O2.  "A dominant role for the mitochondria is the production of ATP, by oxidizing the major products of glucose.  This type of cellular respiration known as aerobic respiration, is dependent on the presence of oxygen. When oxygen is limited, the glycolytic products will be metabolized by anaerobic fermentation, a process that is independent of the mitochondria."  Cancer lives and eats in a completely different fashion than normal tissues.  Instead of using oxygen to create energy via the mitochondria (aerobic metabolism), cancer hijacks the cell's metabolic machinery, forcing it to make energy in an extremely inefficient manner --- without oxygen (anaerobic metabolism).   This is called the 'Warburg Effect,' named after Nobel Prize winner (1931), DR. OTTO WARBURG, who back in the early 1920's, figured out that cancer feeds itself by fermenting sugar (anaerobically), even in the presence of adequate amounts of oxygen and properly functioning mitochondria.

In the same way that all diseases share common bonds (HERE), all cancers share a common bond as well --- the ability to commandeer metabolism and ferment sugar.  French and American authors, writing in one of last year's issues of Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry (The Warburg Effect and the Hallmarks of Cancer) stated "It is a longstanding debate whether cancer is one disease or a set of very diverse diseases. The goal of this paper is to suggest strongly that most of (if not all) the hallmarks of cancer could be the consequence of the Warburg's effect."  In other words, the debate around cancer cannot diverge from the fact that the primary trait that makes cancer, cancer, is the 'Warburg Effect.'

Today we are going to revisit the Warburg Effect ("SUGAR FEEDS CANCER") for many different reasons.  One of those has to do with the lies being propagated by the medical profession. Although "lies" sounds rather harsh, the average cancer doctor (let alone GP) never mentions the Warburg Effect to their patients, either by name or description.  In fact, the link shows that the biggest of the big of the heavy-hitters in cancer treatment (Johns Hopkins, MD Anderson, Mayo, etc) all have official statements on their clinic's websites denouncing the relationship between sugar and cancer.  It's essentially like waving a scared, trusting, and often gullible public right on through a red light and into heavy traffic --- OR THE DONUT SHOP.  Follow along as I make my case, showing you a few of the specific types of cancer that have been associated with increased sugar.

• DIABETES AND CANCER:  As we could write a book on this topic, I am only going to give you one study --- an Italian study that was published just days ago in the journal Metabolism (Adverse Glycemic Effects of Cancer Therapy: Indications for a Rational Approach to Cancer Patients with Diabetes).  "Diabetes and cancer are common, chronic, and potentially fatal diseases that frequently co-exist. Observational studies have reported an increased risk of cancer in patients with diabetes. Furthermore... coexisting diabetes confers a greater risk of mortality for many malignancies."  In July of last year the CDC revealed a shocking statistic via an article title on their website (New CDC Report: More than 100 Million Americans Have Diabetes or Prediabetes).  That's about 1/3 of our total population, and for the record, prediabetes, also known as CARDIOMETABOLIC SYNDROME, is almost the equivalent of having diabetes.  According to Diabetes dot org, the disease kills over 250,000 people a year and currently sits just outside the "Top 5" causes of death, looking to move up.  And as reported by the American Cancer Society, Cancer is now number one in mortality (recently surpassing heart disease), responsible for over 600,000 annual deaths in the U.S.

 

• SUGAR IGNITES CANCER STEM CELLS:  November's issue of the British Journal of Cancer (Glucose Insult Elicits Hyperactivation of Cancer Stem Cells....) showed that sugar does exactly what the study's title says it does --- it hyper-activates cells that are already primed to become cancerous.  "Meta-analysis shows that women with diabetes have a 20% increased risk of breast cancer and also an increased risk for distant metastasis and mortality.  Hyperglycemia leads to hyperactivation of cancer stem cell pool and enhances invasive ability of breast cancer cells."  The great bastion of truth and knowledge (gulp, Wikipedia) says of CSC's, "Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are cancer cells that possess characteristics associated with normal stem cells, specifically the ability to give rise to all cell types found in a particular cancer sample. CSCs are therefore tumor-forming."  These are the creatures that chemo often fails to completely kill off.  "The population of CSCs, which gave rise to the tumor, could remain untouched and cause relapse."

 

• COLON CANCER AND SUGAR:  This is probably the type of cancer that has the greatest number of studies attesting to this unholy relationship.  Less than two months ago, BMC Cancer (High Blood Glucose Levels are Associated with Higher Risk of Colon Cancer in Men: A Cohort Study) stated what we already know.  "High levels of blood glucose are thought to be associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) and hyperinsulinemia, an interstage in the development of CRC."  Did their study show this to be true as many others have?  After looking at the records of 6,000 patients, 145 of whom developed CRC, the authors (from Sweeden's Lund University) concluded that "High levels of blood glucose in men are associated with risk of colon cancer."  According to the American Cancer Society, over 50,000 Americans are expected to die of colon cancer in 2018.

 

• BREAST CANCER AND SUGAR:  In October of last year, Cancer Prevention Research (Early Exposure to a High Fat/High Sugar Diet Increases the Mammary Stem Cell Compartment and Mammary Tumor Risk in Female Mice) showed that there are certain times in developing mouse pups that increased sugar intake dramatically increased their chances of developing BREAST CANCER.  My opinion is that this study needs to be repeated with sugar alone, as the crappy dietary fats used in many scientific studies are confounders.  Just days ago, Matrix Biology published a study called UDP-Sugar Accumulation Drives Hyaluronan Synthesis in Breast Cancer.  Listen to how this phenomenon affects an important component of connective tissues, including FASCIA, HYALURONIC ACID (Hyaluronan). "Increased uptake of glucose, a general hallmark of malignant tumors, leads to an accumulation of intermediate metabolites of glycolysis.  The results reveal for the first time a dramatic increase of UDP-sugars in breast cancer, and suggest that their high supply drives the accumulation of hyaluronan, a known promoter of breast cancer and other malignancies. In general, the study shows how the disturbed glucose metabolism typical for malignant tumors can influence cancer microenvironment through UDP-sugars and hyaluronan."  For more on this relationship, check out my post called FASCIA & CANCER.  It also helps explain why sugar is one of the major risk factors in the thickening of fascia known as "DENSIFICATION".  For the record, Breast Cancer dot org says that there will be 266,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer this year, with 41,000 individuals expected to die of the disease.

 

• LIVER CANCER AND SUGAR:  Primary Liver Cancer (PLC) --- cancer that starts in the liver, as opposed to cancer that ends up there due to metastasis from somewhere else --- carries a poor prognosis.  Last October's issue of the British Journal of Cancer (The Association Between Fasting Blood Glucose and the Risk of Primary Liver Cancer in Chinese Males...) carried a study by 17 Chinese researchers that followed almost 110,000 Chinese men for over a decade, determining that, "Compared to the males with normal fasting blood glucose, the males with impaired fasting glucose and diabetes had a 60% and a 58% higher risk of incident PLC, respectively.  Increased fasting blood glucose may be an important and potentially modifiable exposure that could have key scientific and clinical importance for preventing PLC development."  According to Cancer dot org, about 42,000 Americans are diagnosed with PLC each year, with about 75% of those dying.  Just last month the journal Cancer published a study on survival rates that concluded "Some progress has occurred in survival for patients with liver cancer, but 5-year survival remains low, even for those diagnosed at the localized stage."  BTW, the number one cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is obesity, both of which are heavily linked to liver cancer (primary and metastatic).

 

• SUGAR AND BLADDER CANCER:  This past November, the British Journal of Nutrition published an Italian / Canadian collaboration (Associations of Dietary Carbohydrates, Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load with Risk of Bladder Cancer) by a team of a dozen researchers showing that high glycemic index carbs (carbs that convert rapidly to blood sugar) are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer --- a disease that kills over 17,000 annually here in America, most of them men.  "This case-control study showed that bladder cancer risk was directly associated with high dietary glycemic load and with consumption of high quantity of refined carbohydrate foods, particularly bread. These associations were apparently stronger in subjects with low vegetable consumption."  BTW, pasta was listed just under bread.

 

• SUGAR AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL CANCERS:  A study from November's issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology (Dietary Sugar/Starches Intake and Barrett's Esophagus: A Pooled Analysis) showed that developing the pre-cancerous condition known as Barrett's Esophagus (BE) could be slowed down by controlling blood sugar.  "Adjusting for age, sex, race, total energy intake, study indicator, body mass index, frequency of gastro-esophageal reflux, and fruit/vegetable intake, both studies showed intake of sucrose [table sugar] and added sugar were higher in cases than controls. BE risk was increased 79% and 71%, respectively.  Intake of sweetened desserts/beverages was associated with 71% increase in BE risk. Limiting dietary intake of foods and beverages that are high in added sugar, especially refined table sugar, may reduce the risk of developing BE."  December's issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology (A Pooled Analysis of Dietary Sugar/Carbohydrate Intake and Esophageal and Gastric Cardia Adenocarcinoma Incidence and Survival in the USA) concluded that sugar is the reason that, "During the past 40 years, esophageal/gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (EA/GCA) incidence increased in Westernized countries, but survival remained low.  Limiting intake of sucrose, sweetened desserts / beverages, and foods that contribute to a high glycemic index, may be plausible EA risk reduction strategies."  Cancer dot net estimates that almost 16,000 Americans will die of Esophageal Cancer in 2018.

 

• SUGAR, STOMACH CANCER, AND THE WARBURG EFFECT:  The February 2016 issue of the World Journal of Gastroenterology (Glucose Metabolism in Gastric Cancer: The Cutting-Edge) revealed that, "Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and ranks second in cancer-related deaths.  Glucose metabolism in gastric cancer cells differs from that of normal epithelial cells. Upregulated gycolosis (Warburg Effect) in gastric cancer meeting the demands of cell proliferation is associated with genetic mutations, epigenetic modification and proteomic alteration."  We know what GENETIC MUTATIONS are, and we've already discussed epigenetics --- but what are "proteomic alterations"?  This term indicates that cancer is deranging the stomach's protein structure, which often means that it will be trying to hijack the stomach's PROTON PUMP MECHANISM as well (in similar fashion to heartburn drugs), CREATING A LOW-ACID ENVIRONMENT in the stomach where H. Pylori (a bacteria associated with both gastritis and gastric cancers) can grow and thrive.  "Compared with normal cells that mainly generate energy via mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, cancer cells predominantly obtain energy via increased glycolysis even under aerobic conditions. Converting glucose into lactate via glycolysis is inefficient in generating ATP, but it produces a large number of intermediate products driving cell proliferation.  The accumulation of lactic acid causes acidic microenvironment, and has a protective effect on tumor cells.  The prognosis of advanced gastric cancer is still poor."  In the last link I show you the normal / healthy relationship (inverse relationship) between stomach pH and the pH of the body in general.

 

• OTHERS:  If you notice, these studies are all rather new (most no older than 3-4 months).  Had I spent the time or gone far enough back, I could have come up with any number of others.   Bottom line: find me a disease --- any disease, including cancer --- and in some form or fashion it can usually be linked back to BLOOD SUGAR.
  

The last study specifically mentioned above (WJG) contains one tidbit of information that everyone and his brother (and maybe even your pets -- no pun intended) should be familiar with.  Pay attention, because if you ever have a doctor trying to brush aside the assertion that sugar has nothing to do with cancer, bringing up this paragraph will cause copious amounts of stuttering, stammering, blushing, frowning, growling, and hopefully, backpedaling.

"Altered glucose metabolism is a hallmark of gastric cancer.  About 80 years after Warburg presented his hypothesis on aberrant glucose metabolism in cancer cells, his viewpoint has been confirmed using positron emission tomography (PET) with the glucose analog tracer in clinical oncology.  Based on the increased glucose uptake in cancer cells, PET/CT scan can reflect cancer cell glucose metabolism using 18F-FDG as a tracer and has been widely used in the diagnosis and monitoring of human cancers. 18F-FDG is the most commonly used radio-labeled glucose analog in clinical practice."

When I plugged the term "18F-FDG" into PubMed, I saw that there were over 28,000 studies on this specific subject.  Read that again and let it sink in.  It's why no one knows better than cancer doctors that sugar feeds cancer.  PET Scans (a type of CT SCAN which are actually themselves a significant cause of cancer) use glucose laced with a radioactive dye ("tracer") to make it 'glow' on the CT Scan.  Because tumors or areas of metastasis metabolically require mass quantities of sugar (anaerobic metabolism is 1,300% less efficient than aerobic metabolism), they appear as "hot spots" on the scan (HERE) as the cancer sucks up glucose the way that Joey Chestnut sucks up hotdogs (HERE).   Thus, when a cancer doctor or website of a cancer treatment facility says that dietary sugar doesn't matter in the big scheme of things, it can't be chalked up to 'Aw shucks, I wasn't aware of that'.  It can only be classified as lying.

How is your metabolism being hijacked by sugar?  In May of 2016, Oncotarget (Role of Multifaceted Regulators in Cancer Glucose Metabolism and their Clinical Significance) provided a number of the different metabolites / pathways that are affected by as well as affecting the process.  "Aberrant glucose metabolism or 'Warburg effect' is a hallmark of human cancers. There is a cluster of 'multifaceted regulators, which plays a pivotal role in the regulation of glucose metabolism."  Although I found numerous studies listing more of these regulators and intermediates than you can shake a stick at, I'll only bother to talk about one; AGES.  AGES (Advance Glycation Endproducts) are a significant factor in tumorgenesis as confirmed by a study from November's issue of Seminars in Cancer Biology (Do All Roads Lead to Rome? The Glycation Perspective).  Just remember that glycation is the process that causes the tissue damage done by sugar. After kicking things off by saying "...glycative stress has gained substantial attention recently for... alleged influence on cancer progression," the authors talk about many of the complex pathways that get taken hostage by the process.  The bottom line is that it can all be tied back to INFLAMMATION due to over-consumption of sugar and processed carbohydrates.

Few things tick me off more than big fraud in big industry.  And as I have shown you in OVER FIFTY POSTS, the problem is rampant and getting worse instead of better.  You can cut off one of Hydra's heads, but with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake annually, two rapidly grow back to take it's place.  In other words, in far too many industries the potential rewards are worth the risks.  I twice wrote about this phenomenon concerning the sugar industry (they paid scientists from Ivy League and other big time universities to fake research, which  was then published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals --- HERE and HERE).  Below are a few sentences concerning "Project 259" from the November issue of PLoS Biology (Sugar Industry Sponsorship of Germ-Free Rodent Studies Linking Sucrose to Hyperlipidemia and Cancer: An Historical Analysis of Internal Documents).

"In 1965, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) secretly funded a review in the New England Journal of Medicine that discounted evidence linking sucrose consumption to blood lipid levels [CHOLESTEROL & TRIGLYCERIDES] and hence coronary heart disease (CHD).  A study comparing conventional rats fed a high-sugar diet to those fed a high-starch diet suggested that sucrose consumption might be associated with... bladder cancer in humans. SRF terminated Project 259 without publishing the results."

They got away with it folks.  Unfortunately, not publishing study results you don't like is so common in industry that it has its own moniker --- INVISIBLE & ABANDONED.  It also happens to be why I am the current world record holder for consecutively made free throws (HERE).  But seriously, aren't you curious about what else you might not be aware of concerning the sugar / cancer relationship?  Don't you wonder why the medical profession is not talking about Dr. Warburg?   Why not take ten minutes to read The Warburg Effect: 80 Years On from the journal Biochemical Society Transactions?  Or maybe you would like The Warburg Effect as an Adaptation of Cancer Cells to Rapid Fluctuations in Energy Demand from September's issue of PLoS One?  As the quote from the top of the page said, "The Warburg Effect has been documented for over 90 years with thousands of papers reporting to have established either its causes or its functions."  In other words folks, the jig is up.  There are no more excuses for doctors not sharing this information with their patients!

How detrimental are the effects of sugar on cancer treatment?  A study from the Polish journal, Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig (Glycemic Load and Carbohydrates Content in the Diets of Cancer Patients) revealed that after following the diets of "100 cancer patients aged 19-83 years, high glycemic load was observed in 76% of analyzed diets. The diets of men had higher glycemic load, energy and sucrose content than the diets of women. Men, in comparison to women, consumed more refined grain products, beverages, honey and sugar, and sweets  Analyzed diets were characterized by high glycemic load and simple sugars content. Men consumed more refined and sweetened products than women. The improvement of knowledge about proper nutrition is needed in... cancer patients."  Now ask yourself this.  Do you really believe that diets are better in the US than in Europe?   Not one chance in a million!

How can anyone, whether mainstream or ALTERNATIVE, successfully treat cancer, while consuming this much sugar?  That's just it; they can't.  This can be seen in several studies showing that drugs don't work well when one is consuming this mass quantities of sugar.  A study from the British Journal of Pharmacology (The Warburg Effect and Drug Resistance) showed shows why.  It also showed that the mainstream medical community knew of this almost a century ago!

"In 1924, Otto Warburg reported the observation that cancer cells used glycolysis more than mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation for their energy requirements.  More recently, data have emerged indicating that the Warburg effect could also influence drug efficacy.  Attrition rates for anticancer drugs are high compared with other therapeutic areas.  The fact that the effectiveness of drugs is tested in models that poorly simulate the tumour microenvironment should be considered as it is also likely to have a role in the attrition."

This is especially true of chemotherapy.  A study from the October issue of Anticancer Research (Effect of Hyperglycemia on Antitumor Activity and Survival in Tumor-bearing Mice Receiving Oxaliplatin and Fluorouracil) showed that, "Cancer chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and fluorouracil was less effective and survival was shorter in hyperglycemia."  Likewise, research from the November issue of the same journal (A Simple Method to Optimize the Effectiveness of Chemotherapy: Modulation of Glucose Intake During Chemotherapy) revealed that "the modulation of glucose intake during chemotherapy" could make said therapy far more effective. "The proposed scheme is simple, surely easier to follow than a strict chronic diet, and should avoid weight loss."

I guess the bottom line is that when it comes to cancer; whether talking prevention or treatment, you need to modify your immediate risk factors.  Everyone knows that things like SMOKING, OBESITY, CHEMICAL EXPOSURE, etc, are risk factors for cancer, but what about modifying intake of sugar and high glycemic (processed) carbohydrates?  The September issue of the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (Prevalence of Modifiable Cancer Risk Factors Among U.S. Adults Aged 18-44 Years) stated that "Carcinogen exposure and unhealthy habits acquired in young adulthood can set the stage for the development of cancer at older ages."  Among the 'preventative factors' listed included not consuming "sugar-sweetened beverages daily."  A starting point I guess, but rather wimpy in light of today's post.  Let me to show you something that's not wimpy.

Although I would never in a million years claim that I have the cure for cancer, I have a good generic protocol that's helpful for restoring health and preventing the loss of HOMEOSTASIS that can lead to so many chronic conditions (HERE).  I would also suggest that you start exploring the KETOGENIC DIET as well since it forces the body to burn fat instead of sugar (and be sure to watch the incredible anti-cancer video at the end of THIS POST).  As always, the research quoted in this post is cherry-picked, and nothing I write is meant to diagnose, treat, or cure anything, cancer included.  The FDA says.....

Is Diabetes a Form of Accelerated Aging?  A rhetorical question asked via the title of a study published in a 1976 issue of Geriatrics.

What were you doing back in 2005, and why do I ask?  It's the first time I remember hearing about Type III Diabetes (T3D).  And while there are probably other instances that can be found earlier, understand that the term was not coined in a vacuum.  In other words, as you can see from the title above, decades of studies led to that "Ahha Moment," where the light bulb came on and scientists actually realized that Alzheimer's was largely due to blood sugar's affects on the brain.  It's an easy concept to understand once you realize that Alzheimer's Disease has increased exponentially over the past century --- in lock-step with sugar consumption.

That pillar of all knowledge (Wikipedia) had this to say about T3D; "Type 3 diabetes is a proposed term for Alzheimer's disease resulting in an insulin resistance in the brain. The categorization is not embraced by the medical community, though a limited number of published reviews have forwarded putative mechanisms linking Alzheimer's and insulin resistance.  The term has been widely applied within alternative healthcare circles."  I would certainly be classified as one of those "Alternative" folk, but what I want to show you today is that this concept is not confined to alternative practitioners, and is increasingly being "embraced" by the mainstream.  BTW, just because something is or isn't embraced by the medical community has little bearing on its veracity (HERE or HERE are good examples).  Be aware that all the studies I quote from are at least somewhat cherry-picked due to restraints on time and space.

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2005:   As far as I can tell, the study that got the ball rolling was from the February issue of the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (Impaired Insulin and Insulin-Like Growth Factor Expression and Signaling Mechanisms in Alzheimer's Disease: Is This Type 3 Diabetes?).  The ten authors from the Pathology Department of a famous Ivy League medical school (Brown) concluded that "The neurodegeneration that occurs in sporadic Alzheimer's disease is consistently associated with a number of characteristic histopathological, molecular, and biochemical abnormalities, including cell loss, abundant neurofibrillary tangles and dystrophic neurites, amyloid-beta deposits, increased activation of pro-death genes and signaling pathways, impaired energy metabolism / mitochondrial function, and evidence of chronic oxidative stress.  The accumulating evidence that reduced glucose utilization and deficient energy metabolism occur early in the course of disease, suggests a role for impaired insulin signaling in the pathogenesis of AD.   We propose the term, 'Type 3 Diabetes' to reflect this newly identified pathogenic mechanism of neurodegeneration."  For the record, these authors did not equate AD with T3D, but showed how eerily similar the molecular mechanisms were.

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2006:  A year later we saw three different studies on the subject; Lancet Neurology's Alzheimer's Disease Could Be 'Type 3 Diabetes,' the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease's Intracerebral Streptozotocin Model of Type 3 Diabetes: Relevance to Sporadic Alzheimer's Disease, and IOS Press's Therapeutic Rescue of Neurodegeneration in Experimental Type 3 Diabetes: Relevance to Alzheimer's Disease.  The first study answered the question raised in its title affirmatively.  The second study (again, from Brown) showed that "chemical depletion of insulin and IGF [insulin-like growth factors] signaling mechanisms combined with oxidative injury is sufficient to cause AD-type neurodegeneration. The STZ-injected rats did not have elevated blood glucose levels, and pancreatic architecture and insulin immunoreactivity were similar to control, yet their brains were reduced in size and exhibited neurodegeneration associated with cell loss [apoptosis], gliosis, and increased immunoreactivity."  Just remember that immunoreactivity and "GLIOSOS" (activating the microglia) are hallmarks of AUTOIMMUNITY.   And in case you did not grasp what this last sentence was saying, re-read it until you do.  AD is happening from living the high carb lifestyle, in spite of the fact that your blood sugar levels might be "normal".

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2007:  Writing for The Scientist in November of that year (Alzheimer's: Type 3 Diabetes? Neurodegeneration Research Turns to Insulin for Answers) Kerry Gerns wrote, "Looking in the brains of patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease found reductions in insulin, insulin-like growth factor. Type 1 diabetes is a deficiency in insulin production, and type 2 is a resistance to insulin, where there is plenty of insulin but cells don't respond to it. Accumulated evidence suggests that insulin and insulin-like growth factor signaling is impaired in patients with Alzheimer's disease. It looks like in Alzheimer's disease you end up having a defect in these kinds of pathways, which are similar to the pathways for insulin-resistant diabetes."   2007 also saw major media getting in on the act with Time's article by Catherine Guthrie, Is Alzheimer's a Form of Diabetes?  Answering the rhetorical question stated in the title, she wrote, "Referring to Alzheimer's disease as 'type 3' diabetes is controversial, especially within the diabetes community. Alzheimer's disease is a complication of diabetes, not a unique form of the disease, says Dr. Sue Kirkman, vice president of clinical affairs for the American Diabetes Association. 'Nevertheless,' she says, 'this is primarily a semantic argument.'"  To reiterate her point about semantics, another scientist quoted in the article referred to the differences between the two diseases as "splitting hairs".

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2008: In November of that year, the person who started it all --- Brown's Susan De la Monte --- published yet another study (Alzheimer's Disease Is Type 3 Diabetes: Evidence Reviewed), this one in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.   "Alzheimer's disease has characteristic histopathological, molecular, and biochemical abnormalities, including cell loss; abundant neurofibrillary tangles; dystrophic neurites; amyloid precursor protein, amyloid-β (APP-Aβ) deposits; increased activation of prodeath genes and signaling pathways; impaired energy metabolism; mitochondrial dysfunction; chronic oxidative stress; and DNA damage.  We conclude that the term 'type 3 diabetes' accurately reflects the fact that AD represents a form of diabetes that selectively involves the brain and has molecular and biochemical features that overlap with both T1DM and T2DM."  Don't forget that T1D is autoimmune diabetes --- the body attacking its own pancreas.

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2009:  In November of 09, Dr. Tina Kroner wrote an article for Alternative Medicine Review called The Relationship Between Alzheimer’s Disease and Diabetes: Type 3 Diabetes?  She concluded that, "Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are found in higher concentration in both hyperglycemia and AD, contributing to oxidative stress and cell damage. These AGEs are known to be further modified to reactive advanced glycation end products, (RAGEs), which can generate oxidative injury."  Not sure what OXIDATIVE STRESS or AGES are?  Click the links and get familiar as it's very important since both destroy mitochondrial function --- the foundation of life and health.  Dr. K went on to say, "Referring  to AD  as  type  3  diabetes  has  its  foundation  in  the  fact  that  the central nervous system  in  AD  is  characterized  by  a  paucity  of  insulin  and  resistance  of  the  insulin  receptors. This results in cognitive dysfunction, since insulin  is  crucial  for  neurological  signaling  processes  to  occur.  Insulin  also  participates  in  neurological  function  by  stimulating  the  expression  of  ChAT,  the  enzyme  responsible for acetylcholine synthesis; acetylcholine is in  turn a necessary neurotransmitter for cognition."

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2010:  In May of 10, two doctors of pharmacology, writing in the "neurology" section of the U.S. Pharmacist (Type 3 Diabetes: Brain Diabetes?) said, "A relationship between diabetes mellitus (DM) and dementia is undeniable, with numerous studies concluding that DM increases the risk of cognitive decline and dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease. Not only does DM increase the risk of dementia, it actually increases the rate of dementia development two- to threefold. The mechanism of this impairment is not fully understood, but it is hypothesized that hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, oxidative stress, advanced glycation end products, and inflammatory cytokines collectively lead to cognitive dysfunction.  The apparent overlap between DM and dementia has led to the suggestion that AD is not solely a neurologic disorder, but rather a neuroendocrine disorder." Although the point of this article was the never-ending quest for new drugs (essentially new diabetes drugs), the thing you have to remember is that science has repeatedly shown that THIS CLASS OF DRUG does not work worth a flip.  Like STATINS that unarguably lower CHOLESTEROL LEVELS but don't change endpoints, diabetes drugs lower blood sugar without really affecting morbidity or mortality either.  These are the surrogate endpoints that medicine loves to chase and track, but in reality don't mean much if the process doesn't help you live longer with less chronic illness (HERE).

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2011: 2011 was a big year for T3D. In April, six Italian researchers from the University of Palermo's Department of Experimental Biomedicine and Clinical Neuroscience published a study in Rejuvenation Research called Can Alzheimer Disease Be a Form of Type 3 Diabetes?  These authors answered their own question by stating....  "Alzheimer disease and metabolic syndrome are two highly prevalent pathological conditions of Western society due to incorrect diet, lifestyle, and vascular risk factors. Recent data have suggested metabolic syndrome as an independent risk factor for AD and pre-AD syndrome. Furthermore, biological plausibility for this relationship has been framed within the 'metabolic cognitive syndrome' concept."  Since the authors went on to describe several technical similarities between the two diseases, AD and diabetes CMS, I feel it is critical for my readers to understand what CARDIOMETABOLIC SYNDROME is, as it is arguably the #1 risk factor for both.  Researchers from the collective labs of Neurodegeneration and Neuroinflamation at BSHRI in Arizona, published a study in the International Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (Is There Inflammatory Synergy in Type II Diabetes Mellitus and Alzheimer's Disease?) that concluded, "There is strong evidence supporting inflammation as key feature in the brain of AD and in the pancreas of T2DM. A wide range of inflammatory mediators and receptors are involved in these two diseases, although complement activation is a prominent feature in AD, but not in T2DM. The presence of infiltrated lymphocytes is controversial in AD. Therefore, current research findings support the inflammation-based pathogenic mechanisms in both diseases."  A study from Pancreas (Diabetes and Pancreatic Cancer) came to some shocking conclusions related to this subject saying that, "Long-standing diabetes increases the risk of pancreatic cancer by 40% to 100%, and recent-onset diabetes is associated with a 4- to 7-fold increase in risk, such that 1% to 2% of patients with recent-onset diabetes will develop pancreatic cancer within 3 years. Type 2 and type 1 diabetes mellitus increase the risk of pancreatic cancer with a latency period of more than 5 years. Type 3 diabetes mellitus is an effect, and therefore a harbinger, of pancreatic cancer in at least 30% of patients."  If this doesn't present you with a  "holy crap" moment, I'm not sure what will!

 

• TYPE II DIABETES IN 2012:  2012 saw a barrage of media coverage on the subject, with articles in the New York Times (Is Alzheimer's Type III Diabetes?), The Guardian (Alzheimer's Could be the Most Catastrophic Impact of Junk Food), and Popular Science (Alzheimer's May Be Caused By Poor Diet).  All are free online.

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2013:  In November of that year, Expert Review of Clinical Immunology finally got GUT HEALTH and MICROBIOME in on the act with a study called The Intricate Association Between Gut Microbiota and Development of Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 Diabetes.  Not surprisingly, the European authors concluded that, "It has been proposed that changes in the composition of gut microbiota contribute to the development of diabetes Types 1, 2 and 3 (the latter known as Alzheimer's disease). The onset of these diseases is affected by complex interactions of genetic and several environmental factors. Alterations in gut microbiota in combination with specific diets can result in increased intestinal permeability [Leaky Gut Syndrome] via a continuous state of low-grade inflammation to the development of insulin resistance. Since a change in composition of gut microbiota is also suggested to be the underlying factor for the development of obesity, it is obvious to link gut microbiota with the pathogenesis of diabetes. In addition, insulin resistance in the brain has been recently associated with Alzheimer's disease."  So, if you've got DYSBIOSIS, start figuring out what it will take to get rid of it -- including possibly an FMT.  A Portuguese study published in Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (Crosstalk Between Diabetes and Brain: Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Mimetics as a Promising Therapy Against Neurodegeneration) explained how GLUCAGON, the metabolic opposite of insulin, is "neuroprotective".  Not sure that the whole build-a-better-drug thing worked out so well for these researchers, but you don't need drugs to increase glucagon levels --- you can do it via EXERCISING and CARB RESTRICTION.

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2014:  The journal CNS & Neurological Disorders - Drug Targets was looking for potential AD drugs with a study called Molecular Linkages Between Diabetes and Alzheimer's Disease: Current Scenario and Future Prospects.  A study from Texas Tech (Diabetes Mellitus and Blood-Brain Barrier Dysfunction: An Overview) was published in the Journal of Pharmacovigilance showing how inflammation is not only a factor in diabetes, it's related to T3D via something similar to LEAKY GUT SYNDROME that science is starting to call LEAKY BRAIN SYNDROME.  "Changes in plasma glucose levels (hyper- or hypoglycemia) have been associated with altered BBB transport functions (e.g., glucose, insulin, choline, amino acids, etc.), integrity (tight junction disruption), and oxidative stress in the CNS microcapillaries. Last two implicating a potential causal role for upregulation and activation of the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE). This type I membrane-protein also transports amyloid-beta [plaques] from the blood into the brain across the BBB thus, establishing a link between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and Alzheimer’s disease (also referred to as “type 3 diabetes”). Hyperglycemia has been associated with progression of cerebral ischemia and the consequent enhancement of secondary brain injury."  This is part of the reason BRAIN INJURIES are associated with a host of strange and seemingly unrelated problems. Biochemical Pharmacology (Brain Metabolic Dysfunction at the Core of Alzheimer’s Disease) concluded "Growing evidence supports the concept that AD is fundamentally a metabolic disease with molecular and biochemical features that correspond with diabetes mellitus and other peripheral insulin resistance disorders. Disease pathogenesis is complicated by the fact that AD can occur as a separate disease process, or arise in association with systemic insulin resistance diseases, including diabetes, obesity, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease."  BTW, OBESITY is the #1 cause of NAFLD.  The European Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (Type 3 Diabetes is Sporadic Alzheimer’s Disease: Mini-Review) revealed that "Alzheimer’s disease is the most common cause of dementia in North America. Because the fundamental abnormalities in AD represent effects of brain insulin resistance and deficiency, and the molecular and biochemical consequences overlap with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, we suggest the term ‘Type 3 diabetes’ to account for the underlying abnormalities associated with AD-type neurodegeneration."  

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2015:  More questing for drug therapies in 2015, with Clinical Interventions in Aging publishing Link Between Type 2 Diabetes and Alzheimer’s Disease: From Epidemiology to Mechanism and Treatment.  The Italian journal Neurological Sciences also published Linking Insulin with Alzheimer's Disease: Emergence as Type III Diabetes.  But the best of the lot was from the World Journal of Diabetes (Molecular and Biochemical Trajectories from Diabetes to Alzheimer’s Disease: A Critical Appraisal) that concluded "Diabetes mellitus (DM), a metabolic disorder is a major orchestra influencing brain and behavioral responses via direct or indirect mechanisms. Many lines of evidence suggest that diabetic patients apparently face severe brain complications, but the story is far from being fully understood. Type 2 diabetes, an ever increasing epidemic and its chronic brain complications are implicated in the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Evidences from clinical and experimental studies suggest that insulin draws a clear trajectory from the peripheral system to the central nervous system. This review is a spot light on striking pathological, biochemical, molecular and behavioral commonalities of AD and DM. Incidence of cognitive decline in diabetic patients and diabetic symptoms in AD patients has brought the concept of brain diabetes to attention. Brain diabetes reflects insulin resistant brain state with oxidative stress, cognitive impairment, activation of various inflammatory cascade and mitochondrial vulnerability as a shared footprint of AD and DM. It has become extremely important for the investigators to understand the patho-physiology of brain complications in diabetes and put intensive pursuits for therapeutic interventions."  Even though the quest for new drugs is on, these authors revealed that "decades of research have yielded a range of molecules with potential beneficial effects, but they are yet to meet the expectations."  This, folks, is as good an example of the failure of "MONOTHERAPIES" as I can think of!

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2016:   Ten researchers from the International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology (Curcumin Ameliorates Insulin Signalling Pathway in Brain of Alzheimer's Disease...) showed just how good YELLOW SPICES can be for the brains of those with T3D.  "It is a well-known fact that curcumin has anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.  We believe that curcumin may be a potential therapeutic agent that can regulate the critical molecules in brain insulin signalling pathways. Furthermore, curcumin could be adopted as one of the AD treatments to improve a patient's learning and memory ability."  Two other studies, Alzheimer's Disease and Diabetes: The Common Pathogenesis from one of last year's issues of Neuropsychopharmacologica Hungarica, and Shared Links Between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Alzheimer's Disease: A Review from Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome provided more of the same things we've been seeing throughout.

 

• TYPE III DIABETES IN 2017: That same crew of researchers from Texas Tech was back for the attack with a study called Is Alzheimer's Disease a Type 3 Diabetes? A Critical Appraisal.  Because they presented such a mountain of evidence to the affirmative, I'm not quite sure why they called this a critical appraisal.  And while there was an overwhelming number of studies on this subject this year (I found at least 5 others that I am not mentioning because hopefully you are getting the picutre), one stood out for me because it actually tied the issue to aluminum.  Just over a month ago, the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (Alzheimer’s Disease as the Product of a Progressive Energy Deficiency Syndrome in the Central Nervous System: The Neuroenergetic Hypothesis) made an interesting statement in the middle of a long review --- revealing something that many of you have been aware of for at least three decades --- that aluminum is linked to Alzheimer's Disease.  "Metal toxicity from chronic aluminum exposure is linked with AD and is related to decreases in PKC (protein kinase C) activity."  Why is this a big deal?  Two reasons.  Firstly, aluminum is as close to a universal adjuvant as we have (because germs don't do it on their own, adjuvants are included in all vaccines to purposely create inflammation in order to purposely drive your immune system to bigger and badder responses -- HERE), being nearly ubiquitous in the VACCINES given to both children and adults (LIKE THIS COMMON ONE).  Secondly, PKC is an incredibly important (regulatory) enzyme, and without it functioning properly, you've got serious -- even deadly -- problems.

Fortunately, my regular readers already know about the AD / T3D relationship from the article I wrote last February --- ALZHEIMER'S IS DIABETES OF THE BRAIN.  And while T2D can certainly be reversed by abandoning the HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE and cutting INFLAMMATION out of your life (remember that T2D is not so much a sugar issue as it is an inflammation issue), it's not clear from the research to what extent Alzheimer's can be reversed, if at all, by doing the same.  This is why the fact that today's post showed that consuming ULTRA-INFLAMMATORY SUGAR --- even in the absence of what the medical community considers to be "HIGH BLOOD SUGAR" --- is a huge risk factor for developing any number of chronic diseases, including ALZHEIMER'S.  The takeaway?  On this final day of 2017, purpose in your heart to make 2018 a healthier year.  A great place to start getting your BLOOD SUGAR under control?  THIS POST, of course.

"There are many unifying systems within the body. The circulatory system supplies blood to every tissue and organ. The nervous system connects and integrates all of the body’s functions. A third unifying system is comprised of a connective tissue matrix called fascia, is a continuous sheath of living tissue that connects the body front to back, head to toe. It surrounds every muscle, organ, nerve and blood vessel. A primary function of this fascial system is to support and lubricate. Thus, the circulatory system, the nervous system and the fascia all help to organize the body into a unified continuous whole. The human body is always working to maintain a state of balanced function. For example, blood pressure, blood sugar and the heart rate are actively kept within a normal range."  From Tervuren Osteopathic Clinic, Belgium (History & Principles of Osteopathy)

But what happens when the blood sugar is not kept in normal range? I've attended numerous seminars on NEUROLOGY, ENDOCRINOLOGY, FUNCTIONAL MEDICINE, and GUT HEALTH, and the consensus by the brilliant instructors is that most of the health-related problems physicians see on a day-to day-basis are the result of BLOOD SUGAR.  In other words, way too many of us are caught up in living the HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE.  It's why one in ten Americans has full-blown DIABETES, and over half of our adult population has pre-diabetes (otherwise known as CARDIOMETABOLIC SYNDROME).  The problem is so big and widespread that calling it an epidemic would be a massive understatement.

All blood sugar dysregulation issues (including HYPOGLYCEMIA, which is an early step on the path to diabetes) share a common denominator --- INFLAMMATION.  The harsh truth is that SUGAR IS ONE OF THE MOST INFLAMMATORY THINGS (I can't bring myself to call it a food) that you can put in your mouth.  Furthermore, diabetes and the issues leading up to it (including INSULIN RESISTANCE) are themselves considered to be inflammatory (they are not only caused by inflammation, but they cause inflammation as well).  You already know what blood sugar does to the nerves of those with diabetes (NEUROPATHY), but today I want to look at what current research says sugar does to connective tissues, including FASCIA, LIGAMENTS, and TENDONS (and even bone --- yes, bone is a connective tissue as well).

"In the skin: With the glycosylation of collagen, the collagen in your skin becomes less elastic and stiffer than a happy-hour martini. In your connective tissues: When glucose attaches to collagen in your connective tissues, you end up with less elasticity. You need collagen for the smooth functioning of joints. High blood sugar magnifies all aches and pains and can lead to impaired joint movement—and eventually arthritis.  In your lungs: The glycosylation of collagen results in abnormal recoil of the elastic tissue, so you have trouble getting the air out as well as in. This occurs slowly in lung connective tissue, but 40 years of high glucose levels often lead to respiratory failure—the inability to get enough oxygen into your blood without the use of an oxygen tank."  DR. OZ talking about the effects of sugar on SKIN and lungs (COPD) in a short article called What Does Glycosylation Do to Your Body?

"At least 9% of Americans are living with diabetes.  A foot ulcer is the initial event in more than 85% of major amputations that are performed on people with diabetes.  In the United States, every year about 73,000 amputations of the lower limb not related to trauma are performed on people with diabetes.  Of non-traumatic amputations in the United States, 60% are performed on people with diabetes."  From 25 Must Know Statistics About Amputation Due to Diabetes on the Azura Vascular Care website

"Diabetes is characterized by chronic hyperglycemia and an altered cellular homeostasis, which lead to diffuse vascular damage and multi-organ dysfunction. Diabetic patients risk both micro- and macro-vascular complications: the former result from damage to retinal, renal, and neural tissues, which is the cause of blindness, end-stage renal failure, and non-traumatic lower limb amputation.  Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are the unifying mechanism behind the main pathological pathways triggered by hyperglycemia, one of which leads to the formation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs)."  From the October 2016 issue of Intech (A Potential Mechanism for Diabetic Wound Healing: Cutaneous Environmental Disorders)

There are many of you out there saying to yourself, "Hey; I DON'T HAVE DIABETES so I don't have to worry about posts like this."  Wrong. If you are eating the wrong foods, something called Glycosolation / Glycation is creating large numbers of ADVANCED GLYCATION ENDPRODUCTS or AGES, and is already working overtime to kick your butt.  Glycosolation is the process of chemically attaching to a sugar to a protein or fat molecule via specific enzymes.  When this system runs without enzymes (which it often does --- especially when sugars are being attached to Red Blood Cells), it's called glycation and leads to an overproduction of AGES.  The more sugar or high glycemic index carbs a person consumes, the more AGES they make.

This creates a situation I've spoken of numerous times in regards to a whole host of tissues --- THE LEAKIES.  Only in this case, the AGES attack the tight cellular junctions in the walls of your arteries, causing the vessels to leak.  The body cannot tolerate excess fluid leaking out of its blood vascular system so it patches it with --- you guessed it --- CHOLESTEROL.  This process also leads to an inability to clear HOMOCYSTEINE, a molecule associated with HYPERTENSION and HEART DISEASE, from an increasingly toxic body.  On top of everything else, the process leads to the formation of FREE RADICALS / OXIDATIVE STRESS.

Lots of sugar, lots of inflammation, lots of AGES, lots of homocysteine and ROS formation, and you'll have lots of cholesterol building up in your arteries (which is why 99% of you who were told that your cholesterol issue is due to "BAD GENES" were lied to).  This buildup of arterial plaques not only leads to all the things we typically think of (heart attacks, strokes, a lifetime of STATIN DRUGS), it leads to problems with vision (Diabetic Retinopathy) as well as an array of Diabetic Wounds and Ulcers, which tend to get worse in body parts that are farther away from the heart.  AGES in your blood can actually be measured by a simple blood test known as the A1C (the HbA1C measures glycosylated hemoglobin).  While a fasting blood sugar test measures what you blood sugar is here and now, the A1C provides a longer-term view because it measures the amount of glucose that has attached to the oxygen-carrying protein hemoglobin, over the lifespan of the RBC --- about 90 days.

Blood vessels are made up of many layers of both connective tissues and smooth muscles.  Attack the connective tissues in arteries and as you will see throughout this post, the arteries will become stiff and inelastic --- not a good property for arteries as, among other issues, it always results in high BP.   Furthermore, because these AGES block angiogenisis (the production of new blood vessels), your body will have a tough time healing wounds.  Take a look at some of the cherry-picked conclusions from a 2006 issue of Diabetes (Receptor for Advanced Glycation End Products Is Involved in Impaired Angiogenic Response in Diabetes).

"One consequence of long-term hyperglycemia is the formation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs); the accumulation of AGEs in the vessel wall has been implicated in the pathogenesis of diabetes complications. Among a variety of AGE receptor or AGE-binding proteins that have been described, the receptor for AGEs (RAGE) is probably the best-characterized molecule. RAGE belongs to the immunoglobulin superfamily of cell surface molecules to which AGEs bind.  Recently, RAGE has been shown to be involved in both microdiabetic and macrodiabetic vascular complications.   In this study, we showed for the first time that RAGE is involved in impaired angiogenic response in diabetes. Moreover, our results implicate esRAGE as a therapeutic factor to protect impaired angiogenic response in diabetes. In addition to the vaso-degenerative changes, several observations indicated that angiogenic response or development of new vessels in response to local ischemia/inflammation is significantly reduced in diabetic patients and animals." 

Here is how this scenario plays out.  Not only does jacked blood sugar cause major issues with the RBC's themselves, it stiffens the connective tissue in arteries, while causing them to be filled with thick, waxy, plaques that eventually harden to the consistency of stone.  When I was doing cadaver dissections at both Kansas State University and Logan College of Chiropractic, it was easy to tell which arteries had "hardened".  Tap them with your scalpel and many would not only feel like you were tapping on a rock, it would actually sound like it as well.   The obvious result is a starvation of blood / oxygen / nutrients to all cells and tissues, but particularly those farthest from the heart.  It's not hard to see why this is such an important issue.

According to the American Podiatric Medical Association (Diabetic Wound Care) as many as a quarter, "of patients with diabetes who develop foot ulcers will require an amputation."  A decade old issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation (Cellular and Molecular Basis of Wound Healing in Diabetes) has a list of, "Over 100 known physiologic factors that contribute to wound healing deficiencies in individuals with diabetes."   I'm going to leave you with a few of them that affect connective tissues.

• DECREASED OR IMPAIRED GROWTH FACTOR PRODUCTION:  Many of these are similar to HGH (human growth hormone), and when they are not present, connective tissue cannot grow / repair properly.

 

• DECREASED ANGIOGENIC RESPONSE:  Although this was previously mentioned, it goes along with the previous point.  Any tissue or wound healing requires a blood supply in the form of new capillary beds.  So not only is blood sugar screwing up the vessels that are already there, it's preventing new ones from forming.

 

• DECREASED MACROPHAGE FORMATION:  Macrophages are like mini Pac Man units running around and eating cellular debris.  As you might imagine, there is an abundance of cellular debris in degenerative diseases like diabetes.  A failure to clean this garbage up leaves you both TOXIC and prone to CHRONIC INFECTIONS (macrophages also present antigens such as germs to the T-CELLS so they can be destroyed).

 

• DECREASED COLLAGEN ACCUMULATION:  Without COLLAGEN --- nature's protein building block --- how would you ever hope to heal a wound?
  

 

• DECREASED EPIDERMAL BARRIER FUNCTION:  This is a no-brainer. Diminished quality of the tissues that make up the skin, and it won't be the barrier is was meant to be. 

 

• DECREASED QUANTITY OF GRANULATION TISSUE:  Granulation Tissue is simply the name for new connective tissue and it's capillary bed that forms on wound surfaces during the healing process.  You could have deduced this from what we've already seen.

 

• DECREASED KERATINOCYTE AND FIBROBLAST MIGRATION & PROLIFERATION:  FIBROBLASTS are the cells that create Collagen.  Keratinocytes are the cells that create keratin --- a fibrous structural protein that not only makes up hair and fingernails, but is the tougher outermost layer of the skin. 

 

• DECREASED NUMBER OF EPIDERMAL NERVES:  This is a hallmark of NEUROPATHY.  Just today I talked to a patient who had a relative who dropped a huge chunk of wood on their foot, and never felt it or knew it had been broken because they can no longer feel their feet.  This person was under forty.
  

 

• DECREASED BONE HEALING: For those not in the know, bone is a connective tissue.

 

• FOULED UP BALANCE BETWEEN ECM COMPONENTS AND THEIR REMODELING:  Although in some connective tissues the process is slow, while in others it's very rapid, they are always being remodeled (broken down and built back up) by the body.  Higher blood sugar skews this process towards the catabolic (breaking down) side of the equation, while moving it away from the anabolic side (building up).  ECM is an important part of all connective tissues, including fascia.
  

"Fascia is essentially our second skin, covering muscle, nerve, joints and organs.  It’s located beneath our skin layer, acting as a deeper inner skin layer that weaves throughout the body.   Fascia acts as a communicator transmitting input from one area to the body to another.  Your entire body is connected by this fibrous collagen filled inner or “second skin”.  As I mentioned in my newest book, The Fascia Fix Food Plan, the number one fascia buster is sugar!  Excess dietary sugar binds to collagen and goes through a process called glycation where these new sugar linked proteins, appropriately called AGE’s (advanced glycation endproducts) cause inflammation and collagen degradation.  Internally, unhealthy fascia will cause muscle stiffness, aching joints, headaches and anxiety. Externally, you will see cellulite and sagging skin.  AGE’s literally cause you to age too fast!  For youthful collagen (or perhaps… to not AGE it too fast) a dietary approach is essential.  You need to protect and nourish.  Protect collagen by avoiding sugar and high carbohydrate foods....."   From Dr. Sherri Jacob's site, Health E-Coaching (AGEs and Your Second Skin: Fascia)

Knowing what we know about diabetes and wound healing, it's not a leap --- especially after what we learned of the relationship between CANCER AND POLARITY just a few days ago --- that diabetes affects the polarity / electrical fields of connective tissues like fascia as seen by the name of the study Glucose Suppresses Biological Ferroelectricity in Aortic Elastin.  An article in Science Daily said of this study, "When researchers treated elastin with sugar, they found that glucose suppressed ferroelectric switching by up to 50 percent. This interaction between sugar and protein mimics a natural process called glycation, in which sugar molecules attach to proteins, degrading their structure and function."  This is a huge deal because elastin is the elastic protein that is found in fascia, which gives it its ability to stretch.

One of the things I talk about at length to my patients is the importance of full and unrestricted Ranges of Motion (ROM).  Lose ROM and it not only tends to cause pain, but is a huge factor in developing DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIC CONDITIONS.  We see this occurring in something known as Diabetes Induced Limited Joint Mobility (LJM).  In fact, a 2011 study from the Journal of Musculoskeletal Medicine talked about this in regards to it's ability to mimic several common issues associated with adhesed fascia (DUPUYTREN'S & PALMAR FASCIITIS were discussed).  "Limited joint mobility (LJM) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). LJM often is characterized by hand stiffness, but other joints may be involved. The prayer and tabletop signs is a condition characterized by hand stiffness resulting from flexion contractures of the fingers and by thickened, tight, waxy skin. “LJM” is the newer, preferred term used in describing the condition because joints other than those in the hands (eg, in the wrists and elbows, feet, and spine) also may be involved."

The problem with diabetes attacking connective tissues is so large that Dr. Frits Holleman (MD / Ph.D), Professor of Medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, wrote an article for Diapedia called Connective Tissue Disorders, noting how AGES particularly attack collagen. "In the pathogenesis of diabetes complications various processes play a part. One of these is the formation of Advanced Glycation Endproducts (AGEs) in blood and tissues by irreversible binding of glucose degradation products to proteins such as albumin, myelin and collagen."  Some of the problems he associated with diabetes included, "Limited Joint Mobility (LJM), Dupuytren´s disease, Flexor tenosynovitis (Trigger finger), Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Shoulder capsulitis (Frozen shoulder), Stiff hand syndrome, Scleredema diabeticorum (also known as Scleroderma diabeticorum), and Necrobiosis lipoidica (diabeticorum."  None of this is new information as Holleman's statement was virtually identical to the conclusions of a 1996 issue of Endocrinology & Metabolism Clinics of North America (Connective Tissue and Joint Disease in Diabetes Mellitus).

In 2006, The Journal of the CCA (The Musculoskeletal Effects of Diabetes Mellitus) contained a list of the various side effects seen when diabetes attacks various collagen-based connective tissues (although muscles are not officially a connective tissue, I'll include them here).

• MUSCLE CRAMPS:  These authors gave many metabolic pathways that this occurs, including loss of electrolytes.  After concluding that, "electrolyte imbalances are common in people with Type II diabetes," the authors of a 2015 New England Journal of Medicine study (Electrolyte and Acid–Base Disturbances in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus) discussed the ways that this disease adversely affects your body's intricate ACID / ALKALI balance.  Why?  Because all of these electrolytes are ions that have either a positive or negative charge.  Too much positive charge (H+) and you'll be acidic.  Not enough negative charges (OH-) and you'll be acidic as well.  It's why uncontrolled diabetes leads to ketoacidosis (not to be confused with KETOSIS that occurs purposefully as the result of a Ketogenic Diet).
  

 

• DIABETIC MUSCLE INFARCTION:  Also known as Spontaneous Diabetic Myonecrosis, this is when a muscle, due to a non-blood clot related occlusion, dies because it can't get enough oxygen.  Not super common, but admittedly "under-diagnosed" by numerous studies.
  

 

• CRPS:  Although it used to be called Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is what happens when the nervous system gets tipped way beyond standard, run-of-the-mill SYMPATHETIC DOMINANCE that is so common in today's pedal-to-the-metal society.  A study from one of last year's issues of the Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine (Relationship Between HbA1c and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in Stroke Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) concluded plainly that, "Diabetes is considered highly related to CRPS occurrence."  BTW, one of the visible manifestations of CRPS is that the skin and fascia of the affected areas thickens.
  

 

• HYDROXYAPATITE DEPOSITION DISEASE (HADD):  A year ago in September, the journal Radiology Research and Practice (Calcium Apatite Deposition Disease: Diagnosis and Treatment) concluded that, "Calcium apatite deposition disease (CADD) is a common entity characterized by deposition of calcium crystals within and around connective tissues.  An association has also been found between adult onset diabetes and calcific tendinitis."  That association is that diabetics are about 300% more likely to have this issue than non-diabetics.

 

• LIMITED JOINT MOBILTY (LJM):  We discussed this earlier.

 

• DIABETIC STIFF HANDS SYNDROME (DSHS) / CHEIROARTHROPATHY:  This is the part of LMJ above that affects the hands and wrists.  How common is it?  A study from a 2013 issue of the Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research (Prevalence of Hand Disorders in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and its Correlation with Microvascular Complications) concluded that, "Physicians have long recognized the association between diabetes mellitus and several pathologic conditions of the hand.  Diabetic foot has always been a point of worry for treating physicians but complications like diabetic hand syndrome might not have gained enough recognition. Diabetes is complicated by musculoskeletal problems of upper extremity and particularly the hand, collectively referred as “the diabetic hand.” This study found that the hand disorders were present in two third of the patients of type 2 diabetes." Re-read that last sentence if you didn't quite grasp (no pun intended) its implications.
  

 

• NEUROPATHIC JOINTS:  We already know that the neurology of diabetics is affected severely.  We also know that many, maybe most, neurological diseases have their origins in blood sugar dysregulation.  Thus, it can't be a surprise to see that joints are affected neurologically as well.  And if joints are affected, we see that not only is bone affected, but cartilage also --- yes, cartilage is the last of the main connective tissues we had not yet mentioned.  Also called Charcot Arthropathy or Diabetic Osteoarthrothapy, Medscape says, "Charcot arthropathy results in progressive destruction of bone and soft tissues at weightbearing joints; in its most severe form, it may cause significant disruption of the bony architecture. Charcot arthropathy can occur at any joint; however, it occurs most commonly in the lower extremity, at the foot and ankle."  Just last year the journal Diabetes Research shed even more light (Charcot Neuropathic Arthropathy of the Foot: A Literature Review and Single-Center Experience) by concluding that, "Charcot neuropathic osteoarthropathy of the foot is a relatively common complication of diabetic neuropathy. Incorrect diagnosis and improper treatment often result in the extremity having to be amputated."  This happens because when DIABETIC NEUROPATHY is present, people can't feel their joints (particularly their feet) due to a massive loss of PROPRIOCEPTION (abnormal joint function always causes joint degeneration).
  

 

• CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME:  Once you realize that this diabetes-induced thickening or "DENSIFICATION" of the tissues of the hand and wrist occurs at the FLEXOR RETINACULUM (a cross between a fascia and a ligament), it's easy to see why diabetes would be associated with CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME.
  

 

• ADHESIVE CAPSULITIS / FROZEN SHOULDER SYNDROME:  There are dozens upon dozens of articles linking Frozen Shoulder to type II diabetes.  Just last month, an article in Very Well called Adhesive Capsulitis and Diabetes: Diabetes and Frozen Shoulder stated, "The shoulder joint capsule actually adheres (or sticks) to the head of the humerus bone. The humerus is the long bone that extends from your shoulder to your elbow. The joint capsule is a protective sleeve of connective tissue that surrounds the joint."  Last year, researchers from England published a study in the journal MLTJ called Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder and Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Prevalence, that looked at over 5,400 studies and determined that "A high prevalence of adhesive capsulitis exists in diabetes, and an equally high prevalence of diabetes is present in adhesive capsulitis."  How high?  Depending on the study, incidence was anywhere from 3 to 8 times higher than the non-diabetic population.
  

 

• TENOSYNOVITIS:  Tenosynovitis is an inflammation of the fluid-filled membrane that surrounds certain tendons --- particular those in the hands --- usually manifesting in the form of trigger fingers or a thumb issue known as DeQUERVAIN'S SYNDROME.  In a study from Diabetes Care (HbA1c Values Determine the Outcome of Intrasheath Injection of Triamcinolone for Diabetic Flexor Tenosynovitis), the worse the blood sugar values, the greater the chance that treatment would not be effective.  Furthermore, "Tenosynovitis has a reported incidence ranging from 1.7 to 2.6% in the general population. However, the incidence of tenosynovitis in diabetes is reported to be between 10 and 20%."
  

 

• DUPUYTREN'S CONTRACTURE:  This is a thickening of the palmar surface of the hand (see earlier link).
  

 

• OSTEOPOROSIS:  Both OSTEOPOROSIS and diabetes are in the "inflammatory" family of diseases.  Our government's own NIH talks about this link in an article called What People With Diabetes Need to Know About Osteoporosis.  As far as peer-review, the studies are numerous.  One of the best can be found in a 2014 issue of the International Journal of Endocrinology (Osteoporosis, Fractures, and Diabetes).  "It is well established that osteoporosis and diabetes are prevalent diseases with significant associated morbidity and mortality. Patients with diabetes have an increased risk of bone fractures. In type 1 diabetes, the risk is increased by 6 times and is due to low bone mass.  Diabetes itself is associated with increased risk of fracture, although T2DM is often characterized by normal or high bone mineral density (BMD). Thus, diabetes may be associated with a reduction of bone strength, that is, not reflected in the measurement of BMD."  In other words, a bone density examination (DEXA Scan) not likely to give you anything helpful as far as osteoporosis is concerned.
  

 

• OSTEOMYELITIS / SEPTIC ARTHRITIS:  These pertain to infections of the bone.  And while not particularly common, diabetics are at far greater risk simply because they are at far greater risk of infections period.  Why?  Because in the same way that SUGAR FEEDS CANCER, sugar also happens to be ROCKET FUEL FOR INFECTIONS (this included DYSBIOSIS).
  

 

• DIFFUSE IDIOPATHIC SKELETAL HYPEROSTOSIS (DISH):  I've seen plenty of DISH in my day, and I cannot recall one that was in a person that was not either diabetic, or functionally a diabetic (obese, sedentary, poor diet, etc).  On x-ray, DISH looks like someone poured wax down the spine (huge amounts of calcification).  The authors of this list trotted out twenty year old research showing that possibly over a quarter of diabetics will develop DISH.
  

 

• OSSIFICATION OF THE POSTERIOR LONGITUDINAL LIGAMENT:  The PLL is a long ligament that runs the length of the back of the vertebral body (which puts it inside the spinal canal acting almost like a lining for the spinal cord).  As I have written before pertaining to SPINAL STENOSIS, when this ligament thickens or calcifies (ossifies), it crowds the spinal cord.  The result is spinal stenosis or a shrinking of the spinal canal.  It's a miserable problem that can affect either the neck or the low back, and is often accompanied by RADICULOPATHY or SCIATICA.
  

Much of what you see on this list this boils down to what are known as crosslinks.  Connective Tissues --- particularly fascia --- look somewhat like netting under a microscope.  There are, of course, the main fibers that run parallel to each other, but there are the cross-links that keep these main fibers in line.  While having more cross-links tends to make tissue stronger and more stable, it also makes it stiff and inelastic.  Listen to what renowned podiatrist, Dr. Emily Splichal, says in her book called Barefoot Strong: Unlock the Secrets to Movement Longevity. 

"Although crosslinks provide strength and stability, excessive or what are called non-specific crosslinks create stiffness and a lack of elastic recoil in the connective tissue.  It is these non-specific crosslinks we call fascial adhesions.  These non-specific crosslinks are formed through a process of glycation, which occurs in the presence of excess glucose.  These AGES are responsible for forming non-specific crosslinks in collagen, resulting in stiffer and non-elastic fascia and tendons.  The stiffer the connective tissue, the increased risk of tearing during dynamic movement."

this is why there are others that could be added to the list above.  For starters an article in Everyday Health (The Role of Fascia in Rheumatoid Arthritis) talked about the link between RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS and problems in the fascia.  WebMD upped the ante earlier this year in an article called Rheumatoid Arthritis and Diabetes: Are They Linked?  In it they said, "research shows that RA raises your risk for diabetes by about 50%. And diabetes raises your risk of having arthritis, including RA and arthritis-related issues, by about 20%. Nearly half of American adults who have diabetes also have arthritis."  And how about PF.

PLANTAR FASCIITIS (PF) affects millions of Americans each year, and if not dealt with properly can be debilitating.  In a study led by Dr. Maria Craig of Sydney's Institute of Endocrinology and Diabetes in Australia (Plantar Fascia Thickness, a Measure of Tissue Glycation, Predicts the Development of Complications in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes) her team concluded exactly what the title said, that the thickness of the PF is an "alternative index of tissue glycation and a marker of microvascular disease."  Granted, this was for Type 1 diabetics, but I'll bet you a dime to a dollar that the same would be true for Type 2's.  By the way, you see the same thing for something known as plantar fibromatosis, which is essentially Dypyertyns of the bottom of the foot instead of the palm of the hand.

Before we cover our last topic of the day (tendons), I want to take a moment to discuss the relationship between diabetes and the odds of developing POST-SURGICAL ADHESIONS.  Not only is it easy to find studies discussing the increased risk of diabetics developing post-surgical SCAR TISSUE, but having this disease dramatically increases their chances of the incision site not holding (HERE).  An August study published in the journal Hernia (Advanced Glycation End Products as a Biomarker for Incisional Hernia) concluded...

"Incisional hernia is one of the most frequent complications after abdominal surgery, with incidences up to 30%.  Advanced glycosylation end products (AGEs), also known as non-enzymatic collagen crosslinks, are correlated with aging, smoking, hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia and oxidative stress.  Due to the auto-fluorescent properties of AGEs, measurements can be carried out on the skin using auto-fluorescent readers (AF readers). The levels of accumulated AGEs measured in the skin correlate with systemic AGE levels.  A preoperative screening tool or biomarker for postoperative surgical complications may be helpful to select patients who are fit for surgery. This could lead to prevention of major complications like wound complications or anastomotic leakage.  AGE accumulation measured in the skin indirectly with autofluorescence might be associated with incisional hernia."

I do want to briefly mention one more problem before we move on; something called Necrotizing Fasciitis.  Although NF is not common, it's an increasingly bigger issue thanks in part to diabetes.  Less than two weeks ago, Medscape said of this problem:  "The frequency of necrotizing fasciitis has been on the rise because of an increase in immuno-compromised patients with diabetes....  Necrotizing fasciitis is a rapidly progressive inflammatory infection of the fascia, with secondary necrosis of the subcutaneous tissues. The speed of spread is directly proportional to the thickness of the subcutaneous layer. Necrotizing fasciitis moves along the fascial plane."

Last year, the journal Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology published a paper called Does Diabetes Mellitus Affect Tendon Healing?  Describing pathophysiological processes we have already discussed, these authors, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience of Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden showed that it does in a big way.  Another study from last year, this one from the journal Diabetes Complications showed that ACHILLES RUPTURE in women was linked to diabetes as well.  Yet another article from last year, this one from the Diabetes Council (Is Tendon Pain Linked to Diabetes?) concluded that....

"The tendons connect muscle to bone or to specific structures or organs—for example, the eye. Tendons are flexible but non-elastic cords made up of a specific type of protein, collagen.  In Type 2 Diabetes, there are a number of tendon conditions that can be relatively common.  These conditions are usually associated with poor blood sugar control as well as by how long someone has been diagnosed.  Diabetic patients are at higher risk for these tendon conditions, likely because of the inflammation that is consistent with high blood sugar levels.  Poor glycemic control— chronic high levels of blood sugar—cause the formation of advanced glycation end products or AGEs. The critical characteristic of AGEs that can cause tendon (and other) damage is that they can form chemical cross-links between proteins.  Think of it as ropes that are tangled with each other and all knotted up—these ropes aren’t useful anymore.  When proteins and other molecules become cross-linked—they lose their function.  The risk of tendon disorders also increases in diabetic patients who also have diabetic neuropathy."

This last sentence is a huge deal because I am not only seeing tons of younger Type II diabetics in my clinic (it's no longer uncommon to see teens with Type II), but increasingly younger patients with Diabetic Neuropathy.  In fact, I've previously shown you that as many as half of those with neuropathy don't know it because even though it would be detected on a test, they have not had major loss of sensory or motor function (OR SEXUAL FUNCTION) ---- yet.  This is why there are studies showing that by the time people are actually diagnosed with T2D, half will have some degree of neuropathy.  And if you have neuropathy, you will have tendon issues (HERE).  Much of this has to do with the fact that tendinosis is both an inflammatory and a degenerative problem (HERE).

What's my best advice to you?  The first point would be to realize that while sugar is heavily associated with Type II diabetes, T2D is not so much a sugar issue as it is an inflammation issue.  In other words, there are a myriad of drivers of inflammation other than sugar that could be the chief culprit in diabetes.  It's is why reading THIS POST is important, and helps explain why some people go on strict low carb diets but cannot control their blood sugar.  I not only show you what diets typically work to combat diabetes, but how to potentially rid your body of diabetes-inducing inflammation as well.