Monday, January 10, 2011

How To Gain Bone Mass | LIVESTRONG.COM

How To Gain Bone Mass | LIVESTRONG.COM

Overview

Until your 30s, your bones take in more calcium than they use, resulting in increased bone mass. Sometime in your 30s, the balance shifts, and your body begins to leach calcium from your bones without replacing it, leading to decreased bone density. Low bone density means your bones are more fragile and break more easily. As you age, maintaining or gaining bone mass becomes an important part of your health care regimen.

Step 1

Increase your calcium intake to at least 1,000mg per day by eating calcium-rich foods, such as dairy products or leafy green vegetables, or by taking calcium supplements. If you're a postmenopausal woman, you need more calcium, so plan your diet to include 1,200 to 1,500mg of calcium, says Betsy Felser, a physician and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of California's Keck School of Medicine, in "USC Health" magazine.

Step 2

Take a vitamin D supplement to ensure that you get between 400 and 800mg of vitamin D every day, recommends Robert K. Rude, professor of medicine at the Keck School of Medicine and osteoporosis specialist, in "USC Health" magazine. Vitamin D helps your bones absorb calcium.

Step 3

Stop smoking. If you're a smoker, your chances of developing osteoporosis--low bone density--are significantly higher, according to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Quitting can help you improve your bone mass.

Step 4

Exercise for at least 30 minutes on most days of the week. According to Cedars-Sinai, a sedentary lifestyle increases your osteoporosis risk while regular exercise boosts your bone health.

Step 5

Do weight-bearing exercises like running, walking, weight training, tennis or dancing regularly. Weight-bearing exercises improve your bone strength by forcing bones to work against gravity, explains the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

Photo Credit

girl running in jog bra image by jimcox40 fromFotolia.com
Holly L. Roberts

About this Author

Holly Roberts is an award-winning health and fitness writer whose work has appeared in health, lifestyle and fitness magazines. Roberts has also worked as an editor for health association publications and medical journals. She has been a professional writer for more than 10 years and holds a B.A. in English and an M.A. in literature.

Article reviewed by Elizabeth Ahders

Last updated on: 08/04/10


Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/193544-how-to-gain-bone-mass/#ixzz1AgVHOgSw

More Evidence that Artificial Sweeteners Cause Weight Gain - Wellsphere

More Evidence that Artificial Sweeteners Cause Weight Gain - Wellsphere

More Evidence that Artificial Sweeteners Cause Weight Gain

Posted Jul 03 2008 4:12pm
I recently told you about some research showing a nasty little correlation between the use of artificial sweeteners and compromised health, specifically where diet soda consumption was found to be associated with increased risk for both cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome, not to mention obesity.

(Two years ago, a study at the University of Texas found there was a 41% increase in the risk of being overweight for every single can of diet soda a person consumed, as I reported inDiet Soda No Bargainon September 26 2007.)



Now, in a new study from published in the February issue of Behavioral Neuroscience, rats that were fed artificially sweetened yogurt in addition to their regular rat chow wound up eating more and gaining more weight than rats that ate yogurt with real sugar. Psychiatrist Guido Frank at the University of Colorado in Denver says about this, "There is good evidence that the brain responds differently to artificial sweeteners and you should take this into account when designing weight-loss programs".



So why would you eat more calories when you're consuming artificial sweeteners?



We don't know for sure but three possible reasons have been suggested.



I've speculated before that artificial sweeteners might cause a blood sugar or insulin response simply via the mechanism of classical conditioning- much like Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sound of a bell simply because the bell had been associated with a steak. A second reason might be that exposure to artificial sweeteners in some way undermines the brain's ability to track calories and to determine when to stop eating.



Finally there's the possibility that diet soda drinkers do an eating version of what economists call "risk compensation"- theythinkthey're significantly cutting back on calories so they subconsciously "allow" themselves to eat more, usually way more than the number of calories they've "saved" by drinking diet soda!



Anyway you look at it, and whatever the reason turns out to be, most chemical artificial sweeteners aren't doing you any good.



And if you want further reason not to believe everything you read about nutrition in the popular press, a recent publication which shall remain nameless, "reported" on the recent artificial sweetener study, concluding that since artificial sweeteners were clearly bad, "you're better off eating real sugar".



Excuse me, how about a reality check young yeoman journalist: You're better off eatingneither! Just because Marlboro lights have less nicotine than Marlboro's doesn't mean Marlboro's are a good thing!

Artificial Sweeteners and Bladder Cancer: No Credible Link Thus far.

Artificial Sweeteners and Bladder Cancer: A Link, Not according to Science? | 3FC

Artificial Sweeteners and Bladder Cancer: A Link?
January 29, 2010

For years now, many dieters and health-concise people have consumed beverages that contained artificial sweeteners. Rather found in tea or diet soda, the product has been popular among the masses. There is now scientific information regarding a potential link between the artificial sweeteners and bladder cancer.
The Definition of Artificial Sweeteners

This product can also be refered to as sugar substitutes. They are substances used in place of sucrose, commonly known as table sugar, to sweeten foods and beverages. There are six main kinds of sweetener in America. They are saccharin, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium and stevia.
Artificial sweeteners require smaller amounts to sweeten to the small level as sucrose. Artificial sweeteners are regulated by the FDA. However, since the Artificial Sweeteners are considered generally recognized as a safe product, it can be marketed before approval by the FDA. Popular brands sold are Equal and NutraSweet.
What Started the Frenzy

Back in the 1970s, a different sweetener, saccharin, linked bladder cancer to lab rats. This discovery started the worries about sugar substitutes. This discovery linked the cancer to rats only, the sweetener did not have the same affect on people. But, the concern had already been set in many American’s minds.
Studies Pertaining to the Link

During 1995 and 1996, a new study consisted of more than half a million Americans. 340,045 Men and 226,945 women were participants in a research project regarding artificial sweeteners. The study was done by reputable, independent researchers. The participants were between the ages of 50 to 69. Participants filled out surveys with specific food and drink intake. From there, researches would figure out the amount of aspartame each participant consumed. Soda and sweetener added to coffee and tea were given high preference.
The results showed no increased risks among the participants who drank large quantities of sweetened drinks daily. This study was run by scientists at the National Cancer Institute.
What It Means to the Diet Soda Drinker

While the rumor of cancer from sweeteners has been cleared based on this study, there will always be skeptics. People may base their opinions on previous generation family members rather than scientific fact. While significant artificial sweeteners can cause weight gain, there is no proof that it can cause cancer.
The Future of the Artificial Sweetener

While sales of the Artificial Sweetener may decrease from time to time, the product is not going anywhere. Products that contain these sweeteners are such items as bubble gum, diet sodas, creams for coffee, sweeteners for tea and coffee. These products will continue to be available, as they have been found safe for consumption.

Thirteen Pros and Cons of Artificial Sweeteners | 3FC

So other that the last one re: bowl loosening (which is a definite side effect IMHO) all others are related to the 'Italian studies' (which are not credible IMHO/have not been replicated-- a big red flag in any experiment) and as it relates to how you can use them/like them.

Thirteen Pros and Cons of Artificial Sweeteners | 3FC

Thirteen Pros and Cons of Artificial Sweeteners

February 5, 2010Email This ArticlePrint This Article

With so many options it may be hard to choose artificial sweeteners that are right for you. Most artificial sweeteners have both pros and cons, leaving it hard to decide which one to choose. Each substitute has its own individual set of pros and cons.

Pros

All sugar substitutes have known pros other than just that most of them have no calories. Some of the more common pros include:

  • Leaving no effect on your body’s blood-sugar levels.
  • A better, sweeter flavor than sugar.
  • Helping the body loose weight.
  • No adverse changes on taste when heated.
  • The ability to use less product to achieve the same level of sweetness.
  • Most artificial sweeteners appear to be safe for pregnant women.
  • Some artificial sweeteners have been proven to not increase cancer risks.
  • Combining certain artificial sweeteners can produce a customized, unique flavor.
  • Some products, such as Stevia, have been used before in other countries with no adverse effects on the populace.
  • Helping you control diabetes.
  • Replacements for less suitable sweeteners such as high fructose corn syrup.
  • Allowing the common dieter the ability to eat foods they normally wouldn’t be allowed because of high sugar content.

Cons

The bad side effects are the most notorious part of sugar substitutes, some of which are harmful enough to cause death. Some of the more common cons include;

  • Unlisted calories.
  • Changing the texture of baked goods.
  • Adding an ‘artificial’ taste to food or drinks.
  • Claims of organ damage in animal testing.
  • Certain artificial sweeteners are listed as “anticipated human carcinogens.”
  • Possible bodily harm to children who consume it.
  • Certain sweeteners contain phenylalanine which some people can’t metabolize.
  • Some sweeteners cannot be used for baking.
  • Some people are allergic to artificial sweeteners.
  • When used alone as a sweetener some artificial sweeteners have a bitter taste.
  • Many tests concerning artificial sweeteners have been proven to be poorly conducted.
  • Some artificial sweeteners have not been approved by the FDA.
  • Possible laxative effect when more than recommended is consumed.

There are also reports of side effects such as:

  • Headaches and dizziness
  • Mood changes
  • Weight gain
  • Vision and hearing problems
  • Muscle spasms
  • Fatigue
  • Anxiety attacks
  • Depression
  • Memory loss
  • Heart palpitations
  • Lupus
  • Epilepsy
  • Nausea
  • Insomnia
  • Joint pain

Unfortunately, most new artificial sweeteners are too new to have been tested fully, so many of them may prove to be more harmful in the long run than they appear to be right now. If you happen to have many allergies it may be best to consult your physician before trying any artificial sweeteners.

Related posts:

Artificial Sweetener Are Bad

I've included the comments to show how funny some people are after reading a few blogs they are 'scientists' or something...


Artificial Sweetener Are Bad

Artificial Sweetener Are Bad

79
rate or flag this pageTweet this

By Hilium

For years, artificial sweeteners have been hailed as the dieter's dream come true. Great taste. No calories. What could be better?

Problem: The sweeteners have not lived up to their publicity. Most don't really taste all that good. And the more tests we conduct, the more bad news we get about their adverse effects on our health.

The truth about: Saccharin. Widely available as Sweet-'nLow. The first noncaloric artificial sweetener, saccharin was discovered in 1879, when it was accidentally produced by a student at Johns Hopkins University.

Saccharin is used in canned fruits and chewing gums and in unexpected places, including toothpaste. Its use has declined somewhat since the advent of newer sweeteners (see below).

Pros: 350 times sweeter than sugar.

Cons: Produces a bitter aftertaste. Saccharin creates a slightly increased risk of bladder cancer in humans. Products containing saccharin are required to carry a warning label regarding the cancer risk.

  • Acesulfame K. Widely available as Sunette and Sweet-One.

The newest substance to be approved for use as a tabletop sweetener. It has not yet been approved for any additional uses.

Pros: 200 times sweeter than sugar.

Cons: Although it has not been thoroughly tested, long-term rat studies produced lung, breast and other tumors. It may slightly increase the risk of cancer and should not have been approved.

  • Aspartame. Widely available as Equal and NutraSweet. Used in soft drinks and in countless types of diet foods. It breaks down at high temperatures, however, and can't be used in baked or cooked foods.

Pros: 150 to 200 times sweeter than sugar.

Cons: Early tests showed that aspartame may have caused an increased incidence of brain tumors in rats. (Other animals tested showed no tumors.)

A board of public inquiry revoked the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 1974 approval of aspartame on the grounds that the research did not conclusively show that aspartame does not cause brain tumors. Three of five members of an FDA panel selected to review the board's decision agreed with it. But the FDA commissioner overturned the board's decision and reapproved aspartame anyway.

The rat study has not been repeated, so the question of brain-tumor risk remains unresolved. Also, the medical literature is peppered with reports of headaches and other reactions associated with aspartame.

Recommended: People who seem to be sensitive to aspartame should avoid it. Products containing aspartame also must carry a warning label for people with phenylketonuria (PKU), a genetic problem that afflicts one in 20,000 people. People with PKU can't metabolize a component of aspartame.

Warning for travelers:

Cyclamate, a popular sweetener in the 1950s and 1960s, was banned in the US in 1970. It was linked to bladder cancer, shrinking testes and other health risks in laboratory animals.

But US manufacturers still market cyclamate to many other countries, where it is used alone, or combined with saccharin. When you travel, read labels very carefully to avoid products that contain cyclamate.

Do we really need them?

More and more evidence shows that artificial sweeteners are not all they're cracked up to be.

Reasons:

  • Each presents some health risk.

  • Despite the popularity of artificial sweeteners, people are consuming more sugar than ever.

Theory: Sugar substitutes may be stimulating our appetite for sugar.

  • Although artificial sweeteners have no calories, they have no nutritive value either. Bottom line: Most people probably would be better off using moderate amounts of sugar.

One teaspoon of sugar contains fewer than 25 calories. Used in moderation, its only adverse effect (except in people with diabetes and some other medical conditions) is to promote tooth decay, which is easily preventable and treatable.

Comments

J. Ross 20 months ago

OTHER STUDIES SEEN ON THE INTERNET CONTRADICT YOUR FINDINGS !

me 19 months ago

I strongly believe that sweeteners are making our bodies worse. Sweetener is a chemical, and while it may have less calories than sugar, it is far worse. It is really bad for you, even worse than sugar. Uh, so how does that work? It doesn't!

K.S 19 months ago

Even though sweeteners are supposed to be better, they don't taste nicer and are worse for you than sugar. I agree, with the research I've done I know that sugar is better than artificial chemicals.

Julie W 19 months ago

Though I have researched a lot about artificial sweeteners and have found many different opinions, I have finally come to a conclusion. While sweeteners contain no sugar, they are a chemical, and 100% FAKE. Thay have no calories, but many are a health risk and are dangerous to animals and us. If you're smart, you would keep your body healthy.

D.C 19 months ago

I don't know much about artificial sweeteners, but now I do! There are lot's of different opinons of course, but I learnt a lot just from your page. Thank you!

M.Hughes 19 months ago

I'm not really sure what to believe. Some people don't really think it matters, but some do. I now realise that sweeteners are fake and are a chemical, and I don't have diet cokes or sprite zeros anymore.

J. Sabz 19 months ago

Thanks, now I'll be more careful when drinking coffe!!

flobberface 18 months ago

duuuude, sweeteners are BAD (:

M 15 months ago

Thanks for this i.m.o. well-balanced article. The long and short of it is that neither sugar nor artificial sweeteners are harmful when used in moderation. Trouble is, some of us have problems with moderation.

IP 15 months ago

Why does everybody think that just because something is a 'chemical' it is automatically bad for you? Just because its not Natural? Sugar is a chemical too - 12 atoms of carbon, 22 of hydrogen, and 11 of oxygen.

FDA=devil 13 months ago

Aspartame contains methanol which breaks down in the system to produce many metabolites, one of which is formeldahyde. To defend harmful artificial sweeteners with the argument that they are made up of a different arrangement of the same atoms is as ignorant as saying "the FDA approved it so it must be safe.

Jake 13 months ago

Artificial sweeteners are WORSE than sugar! Sugar is only bad for you when over consumed. Your body uses sugar for energy fist because it is easily metabollized. Think about it why is sugar in pretty much any natural food? Why do you want to eat something that tastes like a cats pooper? Just stop eating so much junk food if your a fat whale and stop being lazy. Oh and has anyone ever wondered why the only people that drink diet soda are fat? Maybe cause if you cut out all the sugar in your diet you body stores ever little bit it does get as fat for a rainy day

josh 9 months ago

the better i can limit my 6 year old son from artifical sweetners, the less his allergies act up

Chem Major 2 months ago

As a chemistry major at a prestigious American university (currently ranked in the top thirty according to newsweek), I can safely say that there is little to no risk of using the artifical sweetener saccharin specifically. I have been working for months and doing research on this sweetener, and the negative health effects were specific to rats because of a unique metabolistic chemical in their bodies that will cause cancer in the presence of saccharin. This is NOT present in humans. Also, for those who do not understand the word chemical, sugar (glucose) is also a chemical (to be accurate, everything is a chemical or made up of chemicals). Finally, 10 years ago the warning labels were removed because the FDA found CONCLUSIVELY that it does not cause cancer in humans.

Brett 7 weeks ago

As a food scientist, the more articles written by laymen and the more comments posted by the public I read (concerning foods,additives,nutrition etc) the more I realise that the majority of people, including the author of this article, are dim-witted, uneducated conspiracy theorists.

Aspartame Safety Concerns on MedicineNet.com

Aspartame Safety Concerns on MedicineNet.com

Aspartame Safety Concerns

Medical Author: Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD
Medical Editor: William C. Shiel Jr., MD, FACP, FACR

In response to research published by Italian scientists that suggests that the artificial sweetener aspartame can cause cancer, the U.S. consumer organization Center for Science in the Public Interest requested an urgent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review of the product's safety in June 2007.

Aspartame, which has been on the U.S. market since 1981, is composed primarily of two common amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine. Each of these is also a building block for conventional foods such as protein and natural flavor molecules. Before its FDA approval, the safety of aspartame was tested in over 100 scientific studies. These studies were carried out in both humans and laboratory animals and included studies of rats that were fed aspartame in doses greater than 100 times the amount that humans would normally consume.

The data that sparked the controversy were from a report by researchers at the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF) in Bologna, Italy, published in 2005. The scientists carried out tests of over 4,000 rats that regularly consumed high doses of aspartame and were allowed to live until they died naturally. Scientists from ERF concluded from their study that aspartame causes cancer and that current uses and consumption of the sweetener should be reevaluated.

The controversy prompted a review of the data by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in May 2006. At that time, an EFSA press release stated that EFSA's review of ERF's study concluded, among other things, that on the basis of all evidence currently available to EFSA, ERF's conclusion that aspartame is a carcinogen is not supported by the data and the EFSA sees no need to further review its earlier scientific opinion on thesafety of aspartame or to revise the Acceptable Daily Intake.

Upon learning of the ERF study results, the U.S. FDA also requested the study data from ERF to evaluate the findings. On Feb. 28, 2006, the agency received a portion of the data requested. The FDA issued a statement in May 2006 which stated:

    We are actively reviewing the data provided by ERF and will complete our review of those data as soon as possible. When FDA completes its review of the ERF study data, it will announce its conclusion.

    Since it was first approved for use in the United States, the safety of aspartame has been questioned by some. To date, however, the agency has not been presented with scientific information that would support a change in our conclusions about the safety of aspartame. Those conclusions are based on a detailed review of a large body of information, including more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies regarding the sweetener's safety.

In summary, the FDA currently supports its previous position regarding the safety of aspartame. However, because of its phenylalanine component, aspartame does carry a risk for people with the rare genetic disorder phenylketonuria. People who have this disorder should avoid or restrict aspartame use because of their body's difficulty in metabolizing phenylalanine.


Last Editorial Review: 7/10/2007