Women health center » Health Resource Center

Sex and the Married Man – Has Your Wife Lost That Loving Feeling?

admin — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:58:25 +0000

If your wife has lost interest in sex you are not alone. The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) reports 43% of American women suffer from some form of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), which refers to diminished sex drive. However, this number could be much higher as JAMA only considers a woman to suffer from FSD if she is distressed by it. Not all women are distressed by a loss of sex drive.

Consider these recent survey results:

70% of women indicated they have experienced a sexual health issue, most issues were related to a loss of interest in sex, according to a recent survey commissioned by the National Women’s Health Resource Center and the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. In an online survey 70% of married men indicated their wives admitted to them they had lost interest in sex. 77% of the men indicated the wife’s sex drive had “Greatly Declined” since living together.

FSD Summary

In 2002 on her television show, Oprah Winfrey called FSD a “silent epidemic affecting millions of American women.” What no one is talking about is the millions of American men who are also affected. FSD is a significant problem for women but can be an even bigger problem for men. When a wife loses interest in sex it is likely the husband who suffers the most from a lack of satisfying sex, intimacy and a healthy relationship.

What is FSD? In the 2/10/99 JAMA medical publication FSD was defined with the following 4 categories of sexual dysfunction in women:

1) Hypo-active sexual desire disorder – Complete loss of interest in sex
2) Arousal disorders – difficulty in becoming aroused
3) Orgasmic disorders – difficulty in having an orgasm
4) Pain disorders – pain during sexual contact

FSD research is a relatively new field of study although there have been some causes and cures identified. Below are a few common FSD causes identified in pre menopausal women, excluding major female surgeries:

- Childbirth, giving birth to at least 2 kids can reduce testosterone and estrogen levels in a woman’s body, which reduces their sex drive.
- Birth control pills are known to inhibit a woman’s libido
- Anti-depressants, most will negatively affect a woman’s desire for sex.

Any one of these 3 events can negatively affect your wife’s libido. If your wife has given birth to at least 2 kids, is on birth control and anti depressants odds are her sex drive is greatly diminished or non existent. What you should know is there are specific reasons why women lose interest in sex and now researchers are finding solutions to improve a woman’s sex drive.

FSD Drugs

Are there FDA approved drugs to treat FSD? No. The focus in recent years on sex drugs has been for Erectile Dysfunction (ED) and as a result we have FDA approved drugs including Viagra, Cialis and Levitra. While there are currently no FDA approved drugs for FSD but that could change in the next 12-24 months with the progression of Flibanserin and LibiGel.

Flibanserin is a daily oral treatment manufactured by the German pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim. Flibanserin was initially developed as an anti-depressant but was found to have a side effect of improving the sex drive in some women. There is no date set for Flibanserin’s release although there are expectations it could hit the market in 2010.

LibiGel is a testosterone gel manufactured by BioSante Pharmaceuticals. The gel is applied daily to a woman’s upper arm. “Off label” non FDA approved testosterone therapies are reported to be the most commonly used physician assisted treatments for FSD. The BioSante website estimates 2011 for FDA approval and LibiGel launch. What Can You do to Help Your Wife and Yourself? Here are 3 things every husband can start doing today to help his wife with FSD:

1) Educate yourself about FSD. There are many good websites with FSD information, just search “female sexual dysfunction” in any major search engine.
2) Talk to your wife about FSD to help educate her. If women don’t know FSD is a curable problem they are less likely to seek out solutions for improvement. Start your discussion with the Oprah quote from above to get her attention so she understands she is not alone.
3) Talk to a sex therapist or qualified doctor about the problem. Most general practitioners are not adequately trained to help with FSD, so you need to find a qualified doctor or sex therapist.

Why is FSD information important to men? If men aren’t aware that FSD exists as the problem behind their wife’s lost sex drive how can they help with the solution? Women typically are unaware of FSD and only a small percentage will seek out medical help for their sexual problems so the husbands must get involved. Afterall, married men may have the most to gain from helping their wives overcome FSD.

By: P. David Ridge

Celebrities Love Botox

admin — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:40:52 +0000

Virginia Madsen is one Hollywood star who’s open about her Botox treatments. Rather than hide them, Madsen isn’t ashamed to admit that she uses the procedure conservatively not for her fans or a guy but to feel great about herself.

“I don’t want to be 25. I’m 45. I love the way I look. I feel better than I ever have in my life,” the sexy star said.

As the model for the “Keep the Wisdom, Lose the Lines” campaign of the National Women’s Health Resource Center, Madsen hopes to educate women about injectable cosmetic treatments.

Desperate Housewives’ star Teri Hatcher can’t seem to make up her mind whether or not she loves Botox. Last year, she admitted being a Botox fan in the past but decided that she would rather age naturally and gracefully.

“I haven’t had anything done to my face in over a year. And I don’t plan to. It needs to be OK to have wrinkles,” she told fans.

This year, she told the Daily Express that she never had Botox injections nor does she plan to get them.

Since it was approved for cosmetic purposes in 2002, Botox’s popularity has grown by leaps and bounds. Celebrities like Sylvester Stallone, Elizabeth Hurley, Ryan Seacrest, Celine Dion, Madonna, Cher, Kim Cattrall, and Kylie Minogue are suspected of using it. But the Botox Club isn’t confined to TV or movie stars. Thousands of men and women all over the world rely on this non-surgical procedure to fight wrinkles and the number of converts is increasing.

“The reason Botox has become so popular is due to the simplicity of the procedure. It does not require hospital admission, there are no surgical scars, no anesthesia and the results are visible in a few days,” according to an article in MediIndia.Com.

Botox is the brand name of the botulinum toxin type A, the purified form of the toxin secreted by the Clostridium botulinum bacterium. When taken in large amounts, this toxin causes the food poisoning botulism. In small doses, Botox paralyzes specific muscles and stops them from contracting. This relaxes the muscles around wrinkles and makes the latter less noticeable.

Botox is currently used by doctors as a temporary treatment for moderate to severe frown lines between the eyebrows, crow’s feet, and wrinkles on the forehead.

“Not all facial wrinkles benefit from Botox injections, however. Botox won’t reverse wrinkling caused by sun damage. Also, it’s less effective treating the lines around your mouth because muscles in this area are needed for eating and talking. Your skin type, skin thickness and degree of wrinkling all play a role in determining whether these injections are effective for you,” said the MayoClinic.Com.

Moreover, the procedure is not free from side effects. Adverse reactions include pain and bruising at the injection site, redness, headache, nausea, and temporary facial weakness. At the hands of an inexperienced doctor, Botox injections can be dangerous.

For your safety and protection, choose a board certified physician. If you’d rather be sure than sorry, use a product that works like Botox like the Rejuvinol AM/PM Botox Alternative Age-Defying System. This anti-aging system combines the power of the Rejuvinol morning moisturizer that creates firmer, healthier, and younger-looking skin; and the Rejuvox night cream that reduces fine lines and wrinkles. Check out http://www.rejuvinol.com for more details.

By: Sharon A Bell

Bras and the Breast Cancer Cover-Up

admin — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:40:21 +0000

“Whom can you trust when your culture is the biggest enemy of your health? Can you trust your culture’s leading authorities? Can you trust your culture’s government? Can you trust your culture’s private industry?”

We asked those questions in 1995, at the end of our book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President’s Cancer Panel, American Women’s Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women’s Health Network, and National Women’s Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it.

But are women getting the message?

It has been 12 years since our book was first published. Over that time, more than 500,000 women in the US alone have died from breast cancer, with another 2,000,000 having been diagnosed with this terrible disease — a disease that is in most cases preventable by simply loosening up or eliminating the bra. And yet, this lifesaving information has been actively suppressed and censored by the medical and lingerie industries.

Examples of Suppress and Censorship

A large public relations firm in New York City was willing and eager to help us release this information to the public. “My wife just had breast cancer, and I’m sure you are right,” the head of the firm confessed. A big media announcement and celebration were planned. Days later, however, the firm withdrew its offer to help, stating that one of their clients, a large medical center, objected to their working with us.

A Sydney, Australia public relations firm agreed to help publicize our work when we were doing outreach efforts in their country. But it, too, reversed itself. We had asked if they had any conflicts of interest, such as lingerie industry clients. They said they had none. But as it turned out, they did represent a pharmaceutical company that makes a breast cancer treatment drug, and the prevention of breast cancer and its treatment are in conflict, they explained.

The Intimate Apparel Council (which is the US trade association for the multi-billion dollar bra industry) threatened our publisher, Avery Publishing Group, with a lawsuit if Dressed To Kill was released. The publisher said the publicity would help spread the word. The lawsuit never materialized.

After the book was released, the NBC television news show, Dateline, was interested in doing a story on our work. We were extensively interviewed by a skeptical reporter who became a supporter. The story was then abruptly terminated. The producer confidentially explained that the policy of General Electric, which owns NBC, is to avoid airing news stories that can adversely impact on other GE interests. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.

Women’s magazines, such as Glamour, Self, and others, ran critical stories condemning our work, and finding “experts” to encourage women to continue wearing bras. Elle magazine planned a positive story about the bra/cancer link, but was coerced into pulling the story by bra advertisers. In various newspapers around the world, such as the Guardian in the UK, stories were pulled prior to publication because of fear that they may “panic the public”, including their lingerie advertisers.

The British Fashion Council (which is the UK’s equivalent of the Intimate Apparel Council) published the Breast Health Handbook in 1996 to oppose our efforts. They announced the formation of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Foundation, which was to receive donations from bra sales to fund genetic research into breast cancer. The book criticized our work, claiming, “The idea that wearing a bra encourages cancer by trapping toxins was recently put forward by researchers at the Institute for Culturogenic Studies (sic) in Hawaii. Researchers from more august establishments promptly dismissed it as claptrap.” Without any medical evidence or research, the book informs women that wearing bras is a health necessity, and should be worn as early in life as possible to prevent breast damage.

Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The new publisher did not list the book for three years and refused to revert publication rights to the copywrite holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it was thought to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it in print since then.)

A television documentary was produced in the year 2000 by Channel 4 in the UK, called, Bras- The Bare Facts. In the documentary, 100 women with fibrocystic breast disease went bra-free for 3 months to document the effect on breast cysts and pain. Two prominent British breast surgeons conducted the study. The results were astounding, and clearly demonstrated that the bra is a serious health hazard. We were interviewed for the program to discuss the bra/cancer connection, which was considered highly plausible and important by the doctors interviewed. Some theorized that, in addition to lymphatic impairment, the bra could also cause cancer by overheating the breasts. The documentary made newspaper headlines in British Commonwealth countries throughout the world, but no mention of it was made at all in the US. The following day, headlines in the U.K. tried to suppress fears of the bra/cancer link, and the doctors in the study quickly distanced themselves from the cancer issue, telling women to continue wearing bras. Their research for the documentary was supposed to be published in a medical journal, but never was. And no further research ever materialized to follow-up on their work, which they said they would do. Extensive news coverage of the program was available on the Internet soon after it aired, but most articles were removed shortly thereafter.

No follow-up studies have been done to refute or confirm our research. None. While a Harvard study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in 1991, discovered that bra-free women have a lower rate of breast cancer, the results were not central to the research they were conducting and were considered unimportant and not followed-up. In fact, apart from our initial 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, discussed in detail in Dressed To Kill, and our follow-up research in Fiji, discussed in our book, Get It Off!, there are still no other studies on the bra/cancer link. Not even a letter or discussion of the issue can be found in any medical journal. After decades of breast cancer research, the bra is still completely ignored as even being a potential factor for consideration. It’s like studying foot disease and ignoring shoes.

Keeping the Public Mystified

This lack of research, and the consequent ignorance, are then used by cancer organizations to justify further suppression of the issue. As the American Cancer Society states on its website, (ignoring the Harvard study), “There are no scientifically valid studies that show a correlation between wearing bras of any type and the occurrence of breast cancer. Two anthropologists made this association in a book called Dressed To Kill. Their study was not conducted according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way.” And they don’t seem interested in funding any such studies in the near future, either. There are other organizations that are similarly critical of the bra/cancer link for lack of research evidence, while at the same time discouraging any research on the subject.

Of particular interest is when breast cancer organizations antagonistic to the issue declare the bra/cancer link to be “misinformation” or a “myth”, without any scientific study supporting their claims. They say bras are important for women to wear for support, without any evidence showing bras are safe or necessary. They then encourage regular mammograms, cancer prevention drug therapy (not realizing that “prevention therapy” is an oxymoron), and even preventative mastectomies (which means that those who are high risk for breast cancer but who don’t want to get it can have their breast removed as a prevention strategy). Of course, it is better to remove the bra instead of the breasts, but bra removal is not a billable procedure.

Keep in mind that bras have been associated with other health problems, such as headaches, numbness in the hands, backache and other postural problems, cysts, pain, skin depigmentation, and more. And lymphatic blockage, which is the result of bra constriction, has already been associated with various cancers. Clearly, the bra/cancer link needs further research, while women take the precaution of loosening up.

Why the resistance?

What harm could there be in following our simple advice, or in even researching this issue? Why the defensive reaction?

There are three reasons:

1. The bra industry fears class action lawsuits. Many insiders have admitted to us that for years the industry suspected underwires were causing cancer. They know that tight bras cause cysts and pain. It is only a matter of time until a lawsuit is made against a bra manufacturer. As a defense, the industry is shifting the blame to the customer, claiming that most women are wearing their bras too tightly, and should get professional fittings. (How do you get a properly fitted push-up bra?) Breaking ranks with their industry peers, and trying to capitalize on the bad news, are several bra manufacturers that now offer newly patented bras claiming to mitigate the damage, including cancer, caused by conventional bras.

2. The medical industry is making billions each year on the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As mentioned above, there is a conflict between the prevention and the treatment of disease, especially if the prevention does not include drugs or surgery. The fact is that our treatment-focused, profit-oriented medical system is making a killing treating this disease, and has billions to lose if breast cancer goes out of fashion along with bras.

In addition, the bra issue will revolutionize the breast cancer field, embarrassing many researchers. Breast cancer research to date that has ignored the bra issue is seriously flawed as a result, which is why the “experts” are still unable to explain the cause of over 70% of all breast cancer cases. Career cancer researchers who have ignored the bra issue will have to admit this fatal flaw in their work, which they are not inclined to admit in their lifetimes.

3. Finally, there is the dogmatic, fearful resistance from some women who find their personal identity so connected to their bras that they would rather risk cancer than be bra-free (which some women have actually told us.) Women are cultural entities, and so long as our culture scorns a natural bustline, many women will submit to the pain, red marks and indentations, cysts, and even the threat of cancer rather than face potential public ridicule (which never really happens.)

There are also women who believe the myth that bras will prevent droopy breasts. The bra industry admits this is a myth, while it still promotes it to improve sales. In fact, bras cause breasts to droop, as the breasts become dependent on the bra for support and the natural supportive mechanisms atrophy from non use.

Despite the resistance, however, some women have gotten the message. And many health care professionals, who have also suspected bras for years, are now spreading that message. As women hear the news and discover that eliminating the bra also eliminates cysts and pain, the news further spreads by word of mouth.

There are now thousands of websites on this subject, many from health care professionals including medical doctors, naturopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, chiropractors, massage therapists, lymphatic specialists, nutritionists, and others who care about women and helping end this epidemic. Grassroots efforts to keep this information alive and spreading have supplanted the traditional medical research approach, which has disqualified itself for lack of interest and conflict of interest.

When a disease is caused by the culture and its habits, attitudes, fashions and industries, there is bound to be resistance to change. Industries that contribute to disease will be defensive, and industries that profit from disease will be conflicted. However, the truth has a way of getting out, despite the resistance and suppression. Thank Goodness the truth does have a way of getting out.

By: Sydney Ross Singer

Diabetes – Death by Sugar All Around the World

admin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:55:46 +0000

Due in part to many reasons, the whole world, on average, is getting bigger & fatter every year. At present:

* More than 300 million adults worldwide are obese.

* Almost half of these individuals live in developed countries and as many as 23% of American adults are obese.

* Obesity results in $100 billion in healthcare costs each year in the United States.

* Obesity results in 300,000 preventable deaths each year in the United States.

* Obesity nearly doubles your chances of developing high blood pressure.

* Nearly 70 % of cardiovascular disease cases are related to obesity!

* The U.S. Surgeon General has developed a national action plan to reduce obesity.

STATISTICS PROVIDED BY:

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

The National Institute of Health

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention

The Na tional Women’s Health Resource Center

A recent study from the journal Public Health reported obesity as being a greater health risk than smoking, drinking or poverty. Obesity was more closely associated with major illnesses and a poorer quality-of-life in comparison to people that smoked, drank, or lived in poverty. Researchers found that half of the people who are obese have an additional chronic condition such as heart disease, cancer or diabetes. This study was based on a telephone survey of 10,000 Americans and used only body mass index to assess obesity and overweight. Regardless, the results are cause for great concern.

You must also keep in mind that some individuals may fit into more than one category, and sometimes even all of the categories. However, the researchers stated that more people are overweight or obese than are, collectively, daily smokers, problem drinkers or living below the poverty line. Of course, being in more than one category puts your health status at an even greater disadvantage.

Obesity is a huge burden on the health care system now and will be even more so in the near future. It is a largely a preventable disease however it is a medical condition in many cases. This is very unfortunate but it is not something that should be dismissed as static. You can make a change or you can help someone make a change toward healthier living. One of the authors said the survey “demonstrates that public health officials should intensify their fight against obesity to levels that at least match the public health campaign against smoking”.

Sturm, R., and K. Wells. Does obesity contribute as much to morbidity as poverty or smoking? Public Health. 115(3): 229-235, 2001.

Unfortunately, this is not a joke, and it’s definitely no laughing matter. There are a large number of Internet resources for more information on either subject, such as http://www.diabetes.org and http://www.diabetesonestop.com. The newsletters from the American Diabetes Association have provided a wealth of knowledge (and many statistics and research facts in this article).

Type 2 Diabetes (T2-D) is associated with a marked impairment in the ability of the hormone insulin to stimulate glucose uptake in skeletal muscle. Most diabetic patients are obese and have high blood levels of lipids (fats) and glucose (sugar). Both of these blood levels can contribute to insulin resistance. Correct insulin is necessary for the cells of the body to pull sugar (glucose) from the blood to use as energy. Thus, it is a negative cycle (high blood glucose leads to insulin resistance and insulin resistance leads to high blood glucose!). Over the long-term, high blood glucose levels can lead to damage of the eyes, kidneys, nerves and heart.

Fortunately, while diabetes is serious, it is largely preventable and is also possible to control with lifestyle modifications, although it can’t be “cured”. Patients can learn to take care of their diabetes by decreasing their blood glucose levels through nutritional and exercise interventions and subsequent reductions in body fat. In fact, with weight loss, exercise, and better nutrition, many diabetics can greatly reduce (or eliminate) the need for medications. Any treatments should be discussed with a medical professional before changes are initiated.

However, enough optimism, it’s time to look at the hard facts and the sad state of diabetes in North American (and the rest of the world).

* T2-D affects 140 million people worldwide.

* 16 million Americans have diabetes.

* Diabetes is the 6th leading cause of death by disease in America.

* In America, the total annual cost of diabetes to the nation is more than $100 billion.

* ~25% of all Medicare costs are spent on people with diabetes.

* Obesity is the most important determinant of insulin resistance.

* No one is able to escape the effects of diabetes (i.e. death of family and friends; financial; health care costs; etc.).

The chance of death due to diabetes is increasing primarily due to cardiovascular disease. More depressing is the fact that the risk of death increases with lower socio-economic status, likely because these people are less educated, and due to the fact that you can buy loads of saturated fat and sugar for a couple of bucks just about anywhere. Cardiovascular disease sucks. Having been a spectator of an open-heart surgery at the foot of the operating table, it is clear that no one who has the choice would want to go through that ordeal. Imagine your chest ripped open, your heart fixed up, and your chest sewn up with wire. Bring on the morphine.

THE CHILDREN

The most disturbing issue surrounding diabetes is the impact that it is having in adolescents and in specific ethnic groups. Nowhere is it more sad or obvious as to what harm a sedentary lifestyle and a fast food nutritional intake can have on a person’s health than in children. Overweight children are becoming more common, health problems are greater, and T2-D is being seen more and more at younger ages. Risk factors for overweight kids include overweight parents, high-fat diets, watching too much television, and being from poor families.

Unfortunately, overweight children often simply become overweight adults. Because it is difficult for people to lose body fat as one grows older, public health experts hope that preventing excess weight gain in children will avert health problems later in life. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that American adolescents are developing T2-D. However it is difficult to detect T2-D in children because rarely do they show symptoms (these take years to manifest). Thus, it is extremely important to initiate educational, nutritional, and physical activity programs as soon as possible at all socio-economic levels.

ETHNIC GROUPS

Overall, the number of American diabetics increased at least 33% over the 1990′s and as obesity continues to increase, so will diabetes. Unfortunately, this impacts certain ethnic groups to a greater extent than others. For example, Native American Indians have a very, very high number of T2-diabetics in their communities (3 three times the national average). African Americans may have an even higher rate of diabetes (10.8% of all African Americans – 2.3 million). It is hoped that educating these peoples on nutrition and physical activity will help combat the disease.

NUTRITION

American’s fat consumption has decreased over several decades from 40 % to 34 %, however the rate of obesity has risen from 12 % in 1991 to at least 23% today. This may be due in part to the vague “official” nutritional recommendations and the massive fast food industry. The general public believes in a low fat and high carbohydrate diet, however they don’t know that there are both good and bad fats and good and bad carbohydrates.

In fact, some research shows that neither the total amount of fat or carbohydrate a person consumes can predict diabetes. Researchers suggest it may not be the quantity of fat or carbohydrate that you eat, but rather the quality. Improving the quality of your food intake and monitoring the quantity will help prevent against overweight and obesity.

Hu et al. (2001a) have written a tremendous paper on the role of nutrition in diabetes. They found that for carbohydrates, one should consume more low-glycemic carbohydrates and a high fiber content. In contrast, everyone should consume minimal refined flour products to prevent large increases in blood sugar and insulin after meals.

Recommended carbohydrate foods are oatmeal, whole unrefined grains, fibrous vegetables, apples, and other fibrous fruits, while breads and sugar based foods (soda, candy, etc.) should be eliminated. In diabetic individuals, a diet of low-glycemic carbohydrates can improve blood sugar control and if you are obese, you should absolutely eliminate all high-glycemic carbohydrates from your diet. In fact, a meal of high-glycemic foods does not cause people to feel full, and may lead to more eating! In summary, this relationship has been established: High-glycemic carbohydrates develop obesity, and obesity develops diabetes.

In their thorough review, Hu et al. (2001a) also found that a high intake of saturated fat and trans-fatty acids likely promote diabetes. In contrast, an increase in a person’s intake of poly-unsaturated fat and Omega-3 fatty acids could help prevent diabetes. It is wise to decrease consumption of saturated fats (animal fats), margarine, butter and hydrogenated vegetable oils (i.e. the oil that french fries are cooked in). Salmeron et al. (2001) recommend decreasing your intake of trans-fatty acids (hydrogenated vegetable oils) by replacing them with non-hydrogenated polyunsaturated fatty acids will help decrease your risk of T2-D. One place to start is reducing your intake of fast food.

In replacement, everyone should try to consume more fish oils and non-hydrogenated vegetable oils (i.e. olive oil). Most of the research presented is based on association. For example, in the Netherlands, diets containing a lot of fish are associated with lower risks of diabetes. Researchers suggest that one must follow the correct diet for a long time (i.e. make it part of your lifestyle) in order to see benefits. For example, fish oils (Omega-3 fatty acids) have benefits for “cell membranes” and help insulin function properly, however this will not happen overnight just because you had a salmon steak!

Basically, a typical “Westernized” diet should be avoided. All the negatives (i.e. saturated animal fats and sugars) seem to be associated with one another (i.e. they are all found in your typical fast food meal). In reality, everyone should try to:

* Decrease animal fat (saturated fats) and hydrogenated cooking oils.

* Increase fish and flax oils (poly-unsaturated Omega-3 fatty acids) and vegetable oils.

* Decrease high-glycemic carbohydrate intake. Don’t drink regular soda!

* Increase fiber from whole grains

* Increase fruit and vegetable consumption

At the 2001 ENDOCRINE SOCIETY meeting, alternative treatments of T2-D were recommended by Arsenis and Goettelman. In this study, diabetic patients reduced animal protein intake from 2-3 times a day to once every other day (vegetable protein was substituted) and stopped all consumption of plain sugars. Patients liked the new diet and the fact that they did not have to fast, take low calorie diets or receive appetite suppressants. The metabolic profile of many patients improved and it even helped some to stop using certain medications. The authors concluded that the reduction of animal protein and sugars help to improve the quality of life and metabolic profile of diabetic patients.

LIFESTYLE

In addition to diet, another contributing factor to obesity is that 60 % of Americans don’t get enough activity and 25 % get NO activity. A recent study examined almost 40000 males over the age of 40 and how the amount of TV they watch relates to their T2-D risk (Hu et al., 2001a). Researchers showed that more TV was significantly associated with higher risk for diabetes and that increased physical activity is associated with less risk for diabetes.

The key point is that if people get up and moving that they may be able to decrease their risk of diabetes. This information should be applied towards youths as well. In addition, for obese people, simply losing 5-10 pounds can have a dramatic positive effect on their health!

Even inadequate sleep can have an effect on diabetes according to research from the lab of Dr. Eve Van Cauter. In a study, subjects that got restricted sleep (< 7h) for 5 nights had impaired insulin sensitivity (Mander et al., 2001). It may be due to disruption of bodily functions due to shortened sleep. Thus, one of the functions of sleep may be to assure normal blood sugar levels. That's another "Western world" lifestyle factor that may contribute to diabetes.

On a related note, “Excessive Daytime Sleepiness” (EDS) is becoming more prevalent. This condition is associated with diabetes and is considered as an important public health problem because it is a strong risk for public safety. Its prevalence is estimated to occur in 5% to 15% of the general population.

INTERVENTIONS

According to the National Institute Health, 35-40 % of adult American women and 20-24 % of adult American men are trying to lose weight at any given time. An interesting story came out of Philadelphia last month. Philly was rated the fattest city in the USA for January of 2000 and the mayor urged the city to lose weight. The city has taken the challenge and this year sits at 3rd, while Houston is now the fattest in the USA. On a whole, obesity and diabetes are more prevalent in the Southern United States!

In a study presented at the American Diabetes Association conference, diabetic patients have the greatest improvements in symptoms after following a program that combined a proper exercise and diet approach (Alpizar et al., 2001). Obesity remains the major obstacle to the achievement of satisfactory glycemic control in T2-D and often limits management of cardiovascular risk factors. After nutritional education and guidance, as well as an increase in daily physical activity, modest weight losses and improved diabetic factors were noted (Reynolds et al., 2001). Again, these stress the need for education and guidance.

If you are active, if you eat a variety of healthy foods (natural produce, lean meats, un-refined grains), and if you are of a healthy weight, than the fear of diabetes and obesity should be minimal. When asked how to avoid diabetes, Dr. Ronald Kahn said, “Stay thin! If you are not, get thin!” After all, obesity is the most important determinant of insulin resistance.

For active people of a healthy weight, it is not unrealistic to include the odd “Western” meal in your weekly schedule without causing panic. However, the consistent intake of a high-sugar, low-fiber, high-saturated fat diet, along with a daily sedentary living pattern precludes people to the awful diseases that are diabetes and obesity.

REFERENCES

Alpizar, M., et al. Effectiveness of an Exercise Program and Diet Plan in the Control of DM2 Patients. American Diabetes Association, 61st Annual Conference, 2001.

Hu, F., et al. Diet & risk of Type II diabetes: the role of fat & carbohydrate. Diabetologia 44: 805-817, 2001a.

Hu, F., et al. Physical Activity and Television Watching in Relation to Risk for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Men. Arch Intern Med. 161: 1542-1548, 2001b.

Mander, B., et al., Short Sleep: A Risk Factor for Insulin Resistance and Obesity. American Diabetes Association, 61st Annual Conference, 2001.

Reynolds, L., et al. Lifestyle intervention reduces multiple risk factors in obese patients with poorly controlled insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes mellitus. American Diabetes Association, 61st Annual Conference, 2001.

Salmeron, J., et al. Dietary fat intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 73(6): 1019-1026, 2001.

By: Craig Ballantyne