I always advise you to eat real food–meat, cheese, nuts, eggs, and even chocolate— in moderation. In fact, subscribers to my newsletter know what it means to eat like you’re on top of the food chain–because you are!
Not only is it satisfying, it will help keep you healthy and free of modern-day diseases like diabetes. Except now, we may need to start calling this problem “Diet Diabetes” or even “Diet-betes.” Turns out, something that many dieters always seem to have in their hands–a can of diet soda–may actually cause diabetes.
It’s true that drinking beverages high in sugar plays havoc with your metabolism. Both the excess sugar–and the extra pounds it helps pack on–can lead to adult-onset Type II diabetes.
But it turns out that sugar-free diet sodas are even worse. And my daughter, who is an expert on diet and originator of the “bear diet,” has argued this for years. Finally, the research has caught up to her…
In a new study published last month in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, women who drank diet soda ran a greater risk–a much greater risk–of developing diabetes than those who drank old-fashioned sugary sodas!
The evidence comes from a wide-scale, long-term prospective study of more than 66,000 middle-aged or older French women. Researchers surveyed the women about their dietary habits. They also monitored the women’s health over 14 years.
A prospective study like this is considered the strongest type of statistical study since dietary behavior is assessed long before the subsequent occurrence of any health outcomes.
As I’ve said before, however, these prospective studies are still limited. The information that the participants report does not always match true dietary consumption. For example, women in the study might not accurately count all the soda they drank.
Researchers analyzed the data to determine the prevalence of diabetes among women who drank regular soda, diet soda, and unsweetened fruit juice.
Compared to juice-drinkers, women who drank either type of soda had a higher incidence of diabetes. In fact, women who drank 12 ounces a week of either type of soda increased their risk of developing diabetes by about 33 percent, compared to juice drinkers. And women who drank up to 20 ounces per week of either type of soda fared even worse. They increased their diabetes risk by more than 50 percent.
And women who drank diet sodas had an even higher risk of diabetes compared to those who drank regular soda.
The women who drank 17 ounces of diet soda a week had a 15 percent higher risk than regular soda drinkers did. And women who drank 50 ounces of diet soda a week (that’s less than one can a day), increased their diabetes risk by nearly 60 percent compared to regular soda drinkers! And, according to the data, many women fall into this last category.
In fact, the study noted that women who drank diet sodas tended to drink more of it throughout the week. Diet soda drinkers had nearly three glasses a week on average. That’s compared to only about one and one-half glasses among women who drank regular soda.
And how about the women in the study who drank 100 percent fruit juice? Did they also raise their risk of diabetes?
Nope. Not one iota. This, despite the natural sugar and associated calories present in fruit juice!
And here’s what worries me the most about this study…
The French study compared women who drank one, two, or three sodas a week.
In the U.S., we would have to look at one, two, or three per day! I would actually look forward to seeing that study. Because data in the U.S. would be based on a much larger population. With much larger medical research budgets. And, sorry to say, much higher rates of diabetes.
Imagine what we might discover if the U.S. government-industrial-medical researchers would become as curious about “diet” soft drinks as the French?
But you and I will have to use our imaginations. Apparently, this research topic isn’t “interesting” in the U.S.–or no researcher has the imagination to pursue it.
In their paper, the study authors also made a comment about aspartame, now the most frequently used artificial sweetener in diet soda. They noted that previous research shows aspartame has a similar effect on blood glucose and insulin levels as the sucrose sugar used in regular sodas.
But here’s the real lesson…
It’s not enough to avoid “calories” to be healthy. You should avoid unhealthy foods and beverages in the first place. No matter what the calorie count. Substituting sugar with artificial sweeteners is not the solution.
Try to learn to appreciate the natural taste of many beverages like cocoa, coffee, and juice without sweetening them up. This is just good common sense advice–but now there is new science that makes such good advice even more urgent.
In addition, soft drinks, popular bottled sports drinks, and energy drinks are certainly not the right way to hydrate either. Subscribers to my newsletter Insiders’ Cures can read more about the importance of healthy hydration in the free special report, Miracle at Red Bush. If you’re not a newsletter subscriber yet, you can get started here. When you become a subscriber, you will also get my free report The “Top-of-the-Food-Chain” Cure for Obesity.
I suggest throwing out all the sodas in your fridge. Instead, lift a glass of juice or wine and toast “vive la France.” In English, that means “Long Live, France.” Yes, indeed. Long lived are the French.
I recently received a question from a newsletter subscriber who I would imagine never touched a can of diet soda in his life. But he did write to me about an interesting way to purify the body. I thought I’d share his question with you…
Don L. wrote My wife and I recently saw a naturopathic doctor for EDTA chelation. After two attempts to start the intravenous EDTA we had to discontinue. As soon as the chelation entered my wife’s arm it would swell up…her veins couldn’t support the chelation. We found EDTA in a suppository and are currently using that. Since you didn’t mention the suppository method, I wonder if you approve of it, especially in this case. Our prime reason is to clear metals from the brain as she has memory problems and I take it to thwart it. We are 78 and 75.
Not everyone responds well to intravenous infusions, especially as we get older. It depends upon the nature of your vein structure. Or perhaps, in your wife’s case, the needles weren’t placed comfortably.
However, the practice of chelation therapy is best performed by a licensed medical doctor. I wrote about this in the February 2013 issue of my newsletter.
I am not familiar with naturopathic doctors practicing chelation therapy. The training of naturopathic doctors varies widely from school to school. And the licensing varies widely from state to state.
In addition, I am not familiar with the application or effectiveness of chelation therapy when administered by suppository. Generally speaking, suppositories can be a very effective way to administer many herbs and drugs. Traditionally, many cultures administered medicine this way. Native Americans frequently gave tobacco suppositories. This bypassed the need to smoke it, but still delivered the medicinal properties.
Of course, modern Big PHARMA disregards this medical practice.
But imagine if you could get an effective dose of an unpleasant medicine through a suppository. It goes straight into the bloodstream. And you don’t have to swallow bad-tasting drugs and wait for them to pass through the entire gastro-intestinal tract. Indeed, many drugs cause unpleasant and even dangerous side effects in the digestive tract. These drugs can upset your stomach, make you nauseous, irritate your digestive linings, and even causing bleeding. How much simpler would it be to place a suppository?
When it comes to memory, I would consider taking potent herbal remedies, such as barberine, lutein and several nutrients that pass the blood-brain barrier as the place to start. These don’t require intravenous infusions or chelation therapy.
To learn what are the proven benefits of chelation therapy, become a subscriber to my Insiders’ Cures monthly newsletter.
Source:
1. Am J Clin Nutr March 2013 ajcn.050997. First published January 30, 2013, doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.050997