High Blood Caffeine Levels help Avoidance of Alzheimer’s

[Doomsday101]

I actually gave up caffeine completely for many years though I have started consuming it again. I also periodically remove caffeine from my life just to give my body a break from it. The headache periods from lack of caffeine never last more than 2-3 days and are never severe enough to even take anything for them. Then again, I have had regular headaches most of my life so I rarely think about them.

I believe your body adjusts to whatever you consume to help mitigate both the beneficial as well as detrimental effects. Just like your metabolism speeds up or slows down depending on the amount and frequency of food and exercise in your life.

That being said, consuming too much of anything is not good for you.

#reality

"That being said, consuming too much of anything is not good for you."

Bingo, I don't give things I enjoy up like coffee or red meat or all these other so called bad things. I just do not over do it, moderation is the key to life

 

[TheSport78]

That contains caffeine, theobromine, and theophylline -- all stimulants, and potentially problematic in moderate to high doses.

No significant clinical trials have been performed.

Right, because clinical trials would prove or disprove its effectiveness.

The FDA is a corrupt organization, to keep it simple.

But seriously, too much of anything isn't a good thing, no doubt about it. But, if someone pointed a gun to my head today and said I either had to drink Yerba Mate or Coke for the rest of my life, I'm going with Yerba 100% of the time.

 

[Doc50]

Right, because clinical trials would prove or disprove its effectiveness.

The FDA is a corrupt organization, to keep it simple.

But seriously, too much of anything isn't a good thing, no doubt about it. But, if someone pointed a gun to my head today and said I either had to drink Yerba Mate or Coke for the rest of my life, I'm going with Yerba 100% of the time.

Specifically, how is the FDA corrupt? And does that mean that you don't trust any prescription drugs?

 

[TheSport78]

Specifically, how is the FDA corrupt? And does that mean that you don't trust any prescription drugs?

I wouldn't have enough room to justify why I feel the FDA is corrupt.

I'll give one example. They have high fructose corn syrup as GRAS, or Generally Regarded As Safe. That's all I need to know about the FDA and if they have our best interests in mind.

Or how about agreeing with US Congress that pizza can be labeled as a "vegetable" if it contains two tablespoons or more of tomato paste. We're serving this "you know what" to our kids.

I don't believe in prescription drugs unless ABSOLUTELY necessary (i.e. a diabetic receiving insulin or a hypothyroid patient receiving a prescription for thyroid hormone). In terms of all these drug advertisements we see on TV? Heck no, I don't trust those drugs. No way. Especially when you see those legal commercials months later about this drug led to heart disease, cancer, birth defects, liver failure, etc. I could go on and on! Just my two cents.

 

[Doc50]

I wouldn't have enough room to justify why I feel the FDA is corrupt.

I'll give one example. They have high fructose corn syrup as GRAS, or Generally Regarded As Safe. That's all I need to know about the FDA and if they have our best interests in mind.

Or how about agreeing with US Congress that pizza can be labeled as a "vegetable" if it contains two tablespoons or more of tomato paste. We're serving this "you know what" to our kids.

I don't believe in prescription drugs unless ABSOLUTELY necessary (i.e. a diabetic receiving insulin or a hypothyroid patient receiving a prescription for thyroid hormone). In terms of all these drug advertisements we see on TV? Heck no, I don't trust those drugs. No way. Especially when you see those legal commercials months later about this drug led to heart disease, cancer, birth defects, liver failure, etc. I could go on and on! Just my two cents.

The reason that any dietary food sustance or supplement such as vitamins, minerals and herbs can be touted as a major cure or health-promoting substance without proof is that they are not regulated by the drug or medication division of the FDA. Thus, outrageous claims and rip-offs run rampant.
Glucose is of course an essential nutriant for metabolism and energy production at the cellular level; any short-chain sugar (like fructose) is therefore inherantly accepted as nutritious. Massive sugar consumption has become endemic and harmful, but now we're back to the moderation issue.

Prescription drugs are thoroughly tested before approved. If anything whatsoever goes wrong, that 1 in a million case, suits target the money -- docs and pharma.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Right, because clinical trials would prove or disprove its effectiveness.

The FDA is a corrupt organization, to keep it simple.

But seriously, too much of anything isn't a good thing, no doubt about it. But, if someone pointed a gun to my head today and said I either had to drink Yerba Mate or Coke for the rest of my life, I'm going with Yerba 100% of the time.

The FDA is a necessary evil, one with flaws but whom without the basic functionality of the American medical and pharmaceutical industries would be undermined.

 

[The30YardSlant]

I'll give one example. They have high fructose corn syrup as GRAS, or Generally Regarded As Safe. That's all I need to know about the FDA and if they have our best interests in mind.

Or how about agreeing with US Congress that pizza can be labeled as a "vegetable" if it contains two tablespoons or more of tomato paste. We're serving this "you know what" to our kids.

I don't believe in prescription drugs unless ABSOLUTELY necessary (i.e. a diabetic receiving insulin or a hypothyroid patient receiving a prescription for thyroid hormone). In terms of all these drug advertisements we see on TV? Heck no, I don't trust those drugs. No way. Especially when you see those legal commercials months later about this drug led to heart disease, cancer, birth defects, liver failure, etc. I could go on and on! Just my two cents.

The evils of high fructose corn syrup is one of medicine's great myths, right up there with salt being inherently bad for you and certain calories contributing more to obesity than others.

High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose. Table sugar (sucrose) is 50% fructose. There is physiologically very little difference between the two, and the claims of contamination and biochemical processing differences are all either greatly exaggerated or downright false. Switching out our HFCS for sucrose will not solve anything at all.

No, it isnt particuarly "good" for you but it also isn't significantly worse than regular sugar. If you eat a lot of sugar, eating more sucrose as opposed to HFCS won't solve your problems. The real issue is that the kind of foods that contain HFCS are more processed as a whoe and on the low end of the healthy spectrum, but not specifically because of HFCS. The "experts" touting the incredible life-altering dangers of HFCS are on the level of those who think vaccines cause autism.

 

[TheSport78]

The reason that any dietary food sustance or supplement such as vitamins, minerals and herbs can be touted as a major cure or health-promoting substance without proof is that they are not regulated by the drug or medication division of the FDA. Thus, outrageous claims and rip-offs run rampant.
Glucose is of course an essential nutriant for metabolism and energy production at the cellular level; any short-chain sugar (like fructose) is therefore inherantly accepted as nutritious. Massive sugar consumption has become endemic and harmful, but now we're back to the moderation issue.

Prescription drugs are thoroughly tested before approved. If anything whatsoever goes wrong, that 1 in a million case, suits target the money -- docs and pharma.

I never said there weren't flaws with the supplement industry. The individual needs to do their research on if a particular supplement would be beneficial for them, and if it's been a consistent supplement over time. And please, just because something isn't "regulated" by the FDA doesn't mean it ISN'T safe. Let's be honest, the main reason why the FDA doesn't regulate supplements, is because they can't patent drugs that are similar to them!

The only fructose one should consume is from natural sources like fruits. Glucose is essential to life. It shouldn't be compared to something harmful like HFCS/sucrose.

And I'm not trying to be rude or arrogant at all, but the statement of yours that I bolded.....

 

[Doc50]

The FDA doesn't patent anything.
They are a diligent and scrutinizing obstacle that any proposed drug or treatment must pass in order to be approved. Think of it as a court, a judge and jury, charged with assuring that every applicant is safe, effective, and purposeful. The responsibility is immense, and the amount of scientific studies required to achieve a vote of confidence is therefore huge.
The majority of applicants never get approved, leading to enormous expenditures by the pharmaceutical R&D divisions -
so that now the average cost per approved drug is approaching $1.2 billion.
Non-prescription drugs do not go through this rigorous testing, but may on fact be unsafe. The NIH has tested Vitamin E, for example; it was thought to be the perfect structure to be an effective anti-oxidant, a potential disease preventer, a genetic mutation/cancer preventer. The studies proved it actually did more harm than good as a supplement. Same with multi-vitamins; a recent study to assess their possible protective properties against breast cancer proved the opposite - the vitamin group had a higher incidence of breast cancer.

So you really can't rely on your gut or anecdotal evidence, and you actually can trust the scientific process. There risks in everything we do - driving is probably the biggest one that we take for granted. Our intention is to make wise decisions that have a high benefit/risk ratio.

 

[TheSport78]

The FDA doesn't patent anything.
They are a diligent and scrutinizing obstacle that any proposed drug or treatment must pass in order to be approved. Think of it as a court, a judge and jury, charged with assuring that every applicant is safe, effective, and purposeful. The responsibility is immense, and the amount of scientific studies required to achieve a vote of confidence is therefore huge.
The majority of applicants never get approved, leading to enormous expenditures by the pharmaceutical R&D divisions -
so that now the average cost per approved drug is approaching $1.2 billion.
Non-prescription drugs do not go through this rigorous testing, but may on fact be unsafe. The NIH has tested Vitamin E, for example; it was thought to be the perfect structure to be an effective anti-oxidant, a potential disease preventer, a genetic mutation/cancer preventer. The studies proved it actually did more harm than good as a supplement. Same with multi-vitamins; a recent study to assess their possible protective properties against breast cancer proved the opposite - the vitamin group had a higher incidence of breast cancer.

So you really can't rely on your gut or anecdotal evidence, and you actually can trust the scientific process. There risks in everything we do - driving is probably the biggest one that we take for granted. Our intention is to make wise decisions that have a high benefit/risk ratio.

I could absolutely disprove your vitamin E study, but I don't believe it would be worth it. Listen, I respect your opinion, but it's gotten to the point where we should just say "to each his own."

Let's just say the FDA used a specific type of synthetic Vitamin E NOT found in typical multivitamins that "favored" their study.

The FDA is in the "sickcare business," not the healthcare industry. Why are there side effects with almost EVERY pharma drug? Because there is NO safe drug. It's basically an oxymoron.

There's a reason why our bodies naturally produce specific macro and micronutrients, and why our bodies require a daily intake of vitamins and minerals. There's no RDI for Lipitor or Xanax. To each his own, man.

 

[TheSport78]

And here's your "study" on Vitamin E:

Should you ditch your vitamin E?

The headline was disheartening, especially because it seemed so cut and dry.

“Vitamin E May Hike Risk of Prostate Cancer.”

In the trial, men who took vitamin E supplements showed a “slight but statistically significant” increase in diagnoses of prostate cancer.

Could it be true? Could a nutrient that we consider absolutely essential to our health actually be harmful?

I had to find out the truth. And it didn’t take long to find out that, once again, the mainstream had completely botched things up.

This isn’t the first time they’ve tried to bring down vitamin E. Back in 2005, headlines claiming vitamin E could kill you blazed across TV screens and newspaper pages. The team here at Nutrition and Healing pretty handily debunked that study, pointing out a slew of flaws they probably hoped we’d miss.

And here we are again. All it took was a little digging to find the major flaw in the recent vitamin E study: the vitamin E itself.

You see, instead of using one of the natural forms of vitamin E that’s been proven over and over again to be essential to maintaining good health, they went ahead and used a synthetic. And not just any synthetic–they used the worst kind you can get. The 400 IU these men were taking every day was all-rac-alpha-tocopheryl acetate, which is pretty much junk.

Dr. Wright likes to call patent medications “space alien molecules.” And manufactured synthetic forms of vitamins are no different.

Now, had they conducted this study using an actual NATURAL type of vitamin E, like d-alpha-tocopherol or mixed tocopherols, the findings might actually be valuable. Instead, they come off as yet another pathetic (and ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to undermine natural healing.

Sorry, but we’re not buying it. In fact, there’s a little bit of an ironic twist here. You might remember a study I covered in an e-Tip at about this time last year…a study showing that a constituent of vitamin E actually could FIGHT prostate cancer!

So take your vitamin E without fear–as long as it’s the natural form with mixed tocopherols and tocotrienols that Dr. Wright has always recommended. If you’re not sure your supplements are up to snuff, check with a doctor skilled in natural medicine.

Sources:
“Use of Vitamin E Associated With Increased Risk of Prostate Cancer,” JAMA via Digital News Release (http://www.digitalnewsrelease.com/)
“Vitamin E May Hike Risk of Prostate Cancer,” Medpage Today (http://www.medpagetoday.com/)

 

[TheSport78]

The evils of high fructose corn syrup is one of medicine's great myths, right up there with salt being inherently bad for you and certain calories contributing more to obesity than others.

High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose. Table sugar (sucrose) is 50% fructose. There is physiologically very little difference between the two, and the claims of contamination and biochemical processing differences are all either greatly exaggerated or downright false. Switching out our HFCS for sucrose will not solve anything at all.

No, it isnt particuarly "good" for you but it also isn't significantly worse than regular sugar. If you eat a lot of sugar, eating more sucrose as opposed to HFCS won't solve your problems. The real issue is that the kind of foods that contain HFCS are more processed as a whoe and on the low end of the healthy spectrum, but not specifically because of HFCS. The "experts" touting the incredible life-altering dangers of HFCS are on the level of those who think vaccines cause autism.

I agree with 99.9% of this but I don't think it's warranted comparing HFCS to a natural element like sodium. There's no RDI for HFCS or sucrose. The human body doesn't NEED it to survive.

I definitely agree that there's not much difference, if none at ALL, between HFCS and sucrose. Like you said, they're both molecularly very similar to each other. They're both just as bad and just as toxic for you, but I believe most obese and unhealthy americans just don't care. Many people take their health for granted, until something goes wrong (in some cases).

The major problem with HFCS, is that it's being found in foods and drinks that you would NEVER think it would be in, and it's making our way to the children. This is an EPIDEMIC on our hands. It's cheap, economically available, and detrimental to the human body, and something needs to change.