Karen Bentley

How Omega 3 Fish Oil Cures Severe Leg Cramps

The Big Fat Lie about Cholesterol

Guide to Artificial Sweeteners: Everything you need to know about saccharin, aspartame and sucralose

Karen Bentley

Omega 3 Fish Oil Cures Severe Leg Cramps

Imagine having leg cramps so severe you can't stand up, you can't walk, you can't sit still or do anything except think about the extreme pain you're having in your legs? This was my life experience for several years. Every now and then I worried that maybe I had something more sinister, like multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy. But no, my problem was extreme leg cramping, and it happened regularly in both legs.
My cramping episodes lasted anywhere from 5 minutes to 30 minutes. Sometimes I was able to get relief by changing positions, self-massage or elevation with a pillow. Then last year, I discovered Active-On, an over-the-counter product that I poo-pooed until I actually tried it. Active-On rolls on your skin just like a deodorant. Instead of blocking sweat or smell, Active-On blocks pain by numbing out the pain receptors under your skin.

My husband kept trying to get me to use it, and I kept mightily resisting because I thought it was going to be useless. Then one night when my leg cramping was so bad, I gave in and tried it out of desperation. What a surprise to get almost immediate relief. Now I keep a handy supply of Active-On on the night stand next to my bed, and I use it for all kinds of muscular aches and pains. No one is paying me to endorse Active-On, and my only reason for mentioning it is to help others who suffer from miserable cramps.

While I was truly grateful to have a reliable pain-killer in my arsenal of tools, what I really wanted more than anything was a reliable cure for the cramps. The experts I talked to over the years thought I had a deficiency of some kind. Most suggested it was an electrolyte deficiency, and I thought so too. This theory made the most sense because electrolyte deficiencies can result in severe muscle contraction and weakness. Minerals that are important for electrolyte performance and muscle contraction include calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium.

I tried a wide range of different over-the-counter mineral and vitamin supplements -- the expensive, organic supplements that you can only find in health food stores. I tried different brands. I tried different doses. I tried taking them at different times of the day. I ate tons of bananas, too. And yes, the cramps lessened a little, but they never went away.

After a while, I pretty much gave up on finding a solution. This is why it's so ironic that the solution would finally present itself to me in the form of Omega 3 capsules. I started taking Omega 3 supplements because the scientific evidence is very compelling, and being a whitefish shellfish kind of girl, I almost never eat dark, fatty fish. To my surprise, a couple of days after taking the Omega 3 capsules my cramps completely stopped. In fact, for several consecutive months I experienced no cramping whatsoever--- that is, until this Christmas. The holidays got me a little discombobulated, and I forgot to take the capsules for a few days. Wham! My cramps came back with a vengeance.

Of course, this is a completely empirical observation based on an experiment of one, but I'm totally sold on the need for essential fat in the diet. Yes, I had a deficiency, but of all things, it was a FAT deficiency. Essential fat is the kind of fat your body can't make on its own and therefore must be eaten. Imagine that. I need fat to be pain free and healthy. Maybe you do, too.



Karen Bentley is the creator of The Sugar-Free Miracle Diet System, a weight loss program that cuts sugar out, adds back healthy fat, and makes you eat yourself thin with big food volume. For more info, go to www.sugarfreemiracle.com .

How Omega 3 Fish Oil Cures Severe Leg Cramps

KarenBentley

Imagine having leg cramps so severe you can't stand up, you can't walk, you can't sit still or do anything except think about the extreme pain you're having in your legs? This was my life experience for several years. Every now and then I worried that maybe I had something more sinister, like multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy. But no, my problem was extreme leg cramping, and it happened regularly in both legs.
My cramping episodes lasted anywhere from 5 minutes to 30 minutes. Sometimes I was able to get relief by changing positions, self-massage or elevation with a pillow. Then last year, I discovered Active-On, an over-the-counter product that I poo-pooed until I actually tried it. Active-On rolls on your skin just like a deodorant. Instead of blocking sweat or smell, Active-On blocks pain by numbing out the pain receptors under your skin.

My husband kept trying to get me to use it, and I kept mightily resisting because I thought it was going to be useless. Then one night when my leg cramping was so bad, I gave in and tried it out of desperation. What a surprise to get almost immediate relief. Now I keep a handy supply of Active-On on the night stand next to my bed, and I use it for all kinds of muscular aches and pains. No one is paying me to endorse Active-On, and my only reason for mentioning it is to help others who suffer from miserable cramps.

While I was truly grateful to have a reliable pain-killer in my arsenal of tools, what I really wanted more than anything was a reliable cure for the cramps. The experts I talked to over the years thought I had a deficiency of some kind. Most suggested it was an electrolyte deficiency, and I thought so too. This theory made the most sense because electrolyte deficiencies can result in severe muscle contraction and weakness. Minerals that are important for electrolyte performance and muscle contraction include calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium.

I tried a wide range of different over-the-counter mineral and vitamin supplements -- the expensive, organic supplements that you can only find in health food stores. I tried different brands. I tried different doses. I tried taking them at different times of the day. I ate tons of bananas, too. And yes, the cramps lessened a little, but they never went away.

After a while, I pretty much gave up on finding a solution. This is why it's so ironic that the solution would finally present itself to me in the form of Omega 3 capsules. I started taking Omega 3 supplements because the scientific evidence is very compelling, and being a whitefish shellfish kind of girl, I almost never eat dark, fatty fish. To my surprise, a couple of days after taking the Omega 3 capsules my cramps completely stopped. In fact, for several consecutive months I experienced no cramping whatsoever--- that is, until this Christmas. The holidays got me a little discombobulated, and I forgot to take the capsules for a few days. Wham! My cramps came back with a vengeance.

Of course, this is a completely empirical observation based on an experiment of one, but I'm totally sold on the need for essential fat in the diet. Yes, I had a deficiency, but of all things, it was a FAT deficiency. Essential fat is the kind of fat your body can't make on its own and therefore must be eaten. Imagine that. I need fat to be pain free and healthy. Maybe you do, too.









Karen Bentley is the creator of The Sugar-Free Miracle Diet System, a weight loss program that cuts sugar out, adds back healthy fat, and makes you eat yourself thin with big food volume. For more info, go to www.sugarfreemiracle.com .

The Big Fat Lie about Cholesterol
Karen Bentley

Cholesterol has a long, unhappy reputation as a bad, unhealthy substance in our diets. The basic theory is that if you eat foods with high dietary cholesterol, you'll end up with a lot of cholesterol floating around in your blood, which clogs your arteries and increases your risk of heart attack and stroke. Even though the cholesterol theory sounds logical, it's oversimplified, incomplete and misleading. The time has come to re-examine some of the well-intended premises that seemed so compelling 50 years ago but which are now outdated.
It's because of dietary cholesterol, for example, that many people routinely pass on eating a real egg and opt for an egg substitute, a manufactured food mostly made out of egg-whites, but also containing a thickener and other controversial substances. Egg substitute products have no fat and no cholesterol, whereas a real egg has a little over 5 grams of fat (about 45 calories) and 200 milligrams of cholesterol. Since the "official" recommended daily limit for dietary cholesterol is still set at 300 milligrams per day or less, real eggs continue to be undesirable for many people. Part of the cholesterol marketing party line we're asked to believe is that a processed, packaged food is a better, healthier choice than a real, whole food just because it has less fat or no cholesterol.

And yes, the food you eat has a modest influence on cholesterol production, but there's a catch. 70 percent of the cholesterol floating around in the blood is made in the liver, and every cell in the body makes cholesterol, too. When you eat foods that contain a lot of cholesterol, your body makes less of it. Conversely, when you eat foods that don't have a lot of cholesterol, your body makes more of it. All-in-all, cholesterol production is fairly constant. A diet that restricts foods that contain cholesterol has a small "helping" effect rather than a "driving" effect on the amount of cholesterol in the blood. This, obviously, is why so many people resort to taking drugs to manage their blood cholesterol levels. The biggest influences on high cholesterol levels are lack of physical activity, obesity, not eating enough unsaturated fat, and eating too much sugar and highly processed carbs. Gender, genetics and age also play a role.

Cholesterol is absolutely essential for good health, good skin and good sex. Technically, cholesterol isn't a fat. It's a lipid, which is a fat-like substance that makes your cell membranes rigid but porous. These two qualities are important for transporting nutrients and hormones into the cell while keeping toxins and wastes out. Cholesterol also enables the production of sex hormones, cortisone, vitamin D, and it's the regulator of calcium and phosphorus.

These days, everyone's familiar with HDL and LDL, two types of carrier molecules that bind with cholesterol and move it throughout the body. HDL, the healthy carrier, is like a gelatinous sponge that picks up toxins and transports them of the body. You want more HDL because it gets rid of the environmental and chemical poisons that make us sick. (As an aside, real whole eggs increase HDL.) LDL, the lousy carrier, is the kind of cholesterol that transports cholesterol to cells and that sticks to artery linings. The important thing to know about LDL, the one thing that few others will tell you, is that LDL only sticks to artery linings at a late stage of atherosclerosis, after damage to the artery has already occurred. Artery damage is initially caused by pollutants like cigarette smoke, excess alcohol, hydrogenated trans fats, overcooked protein, sugar, and excessive reliance on pain killers like aspirin and ibuprofen.

Early scientific studies that contributed to the cholesterol theory only examined animal fat consumption, which is where dietary cholesterol is found. They completely ignored other dietary factors, particularly the intake of sugar and highly refined carbohydrates. When a substance isn't studied, it doesn't count because it never comes up on the radar screen, so to speak. Fortunately, this situation is now in the process of being corrected, and the latest and greatest scientific news about heart health risks is beginning to point a finger at excess sugar. Note that the term "sugar" is used generically as a short-cut word to mean all highly processed or sweetening foods including fructose, honey, molasses, syrups of any kind, cane juice, white flour, white pasta, etc.

Excess sugar consumption leads to excess sugar in the blood. It's as simple as that. The continual overload of excess glucose stresses every metabolic process, and kicks the production of insulin into overdrive to keep glucose levels in a normal range. The more sugar in your blood, the more your body produces insulin to get it out. And where does it go? Insulin converts the excess glucose to blood fat, commonly called triglycerides, and to LDL cholesterol so that it can be transported and put into storage, a/k/a fat. The glucose-converted-to-fat and cholesterol gets deposited anywhere there's space in your body, predominantly in your fat cells, but can also spill over into your arteries, your brain and your organs. Oh, by the way, when your fat cells get filled up, insulin makes new ones.

High levels of triglycerides are harmful to health because they cause a thickening of artery walls, another major contributor to heart attack and stroke. The secret of low triglycerides (150 milligrams or less) is to eat omega 3 type fats, restrict consumption of highly processed foods and to avoid anything made with sugar or hydrogenated trans fats. Exercise helps, too.

Consider these two recent studies:

Study 1: The May 2010 Tufts Health & Nutrition Letter summarized the results of a meta-analysis of 21 studies which were combined into one jumbo study of 347,747 people. The results were compelling because it said there was NO LINK, none, nada, between the saturated fats you eat, heart disease and blood cholesterol. In short, it "failed to find a significant association between saturated fat intake and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke or cardiovascular disease."Tufts is one of the most highly regarded sources of nutritional information in the United States and typically presents readers with a very conservative message. Here's the most important part of the study. The researchers theorized that the primary reason "reducing saturated fat intake may not have the expected results is that people tend to replace fat with carbohydrates, especially processed carbs." Isn't that amazing?

"It's important to look at the big picture," says Ronald M. Krauss, MD, of the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute. "An overall eating pattern that emphasizes whole grains rather than refined carbs such as white flour, along with foods high in polyunsaturated fats, such as fish, seeds, nuts and vegetable oils, is of more value for reducing coronary heart disease risk than simply aiming to further reduce saturated fat." Dr. Krauss goes on to say that there's little evidence that a very low saturated fat intake of 9 percent or less is associated with a reduction in CVD risk. Predictably, the article does some CYA by talking about how complex and difficult it is to isolate and analyze food intake, and of course, they continue to recommend that saturated fats be displaced by unsaturated fat. "An easy way to do this is to give preference to fats from vegetable, rather than animal, sources."

Study 2: Another study, this one reported in the June 2010 Tufts Health & Nutrition Letter discusses the results of an Italian research project with 47,749 adults (15,171 men and 32,578 women). Using dietary questionnaires, the researchers were able to calculate the participants overall carbohydrate intake and the average GI of the carbohydrates. Eight years later, 465 participants developed heart disease. It was discovered that women who consumed foods with a high GI (which suggests lots of highly refined, sugary foods or drinks) were 2.24 times more likely to develop heart disease than those who didn't.

At long last, the American Heart Association finally issued guidelines for sugar consumption. These guidelines refer to the sugar added to foods by food manufacturers, not to sugars that occur naturally in foods. Keep in mind that all fruits, veggies and most dairy products have some naturally occurring sugars. Naturally-occurring sugars are not the problem. The problem is all the sugars that are in just about everything that comes in a package. Women should limit sugar consumption to 25 grams or about 6 teaspoons per day, and men should limit sugar consumption to 37.5 grams or about 9 teaspoons a day. As it turns out, this is pretty easy to do. For example, a 16-ounce bottle of soda has 44 grams or about 11 teaspoons of sugar added to it.

The bottom line. Excess sugar consumption puts you at risk for high LDL cholesterol, high triglycerides, high levels of insulin production, and high risk for every major health problem you want to avoid. As Bill Clinton might say, "It's the sugar, stupid!"

Guide to Artificial Sweeteners: Everything you need to know about saccharin, aspartame and sucralose
Karen Bentley

Sugar and sugar relatives like high fructose corn syrup are bad for you. They make you fat, especially in your belly. They raise your blood sugar and increase triglycerides. They put you at risk for heart disease and diabetes. They rot your teeth, and they make some people out-of-control crazy with food.
That adds up to a lot of very good reasons to cut back on sugar, but really, are artificial sweeteners any better? Like sugar, artificial sweeteners are all highly processed substances. Even worse, they're man-made, and man-made substances almost never end up being good for us, especially if we eat a lot of them.

On the surface, non-caloric sweeteners seem to be better. Of course, the biggest benefit is that you don't ingest as many calories, and caloric reduction is the most popular weight loss theory of the day. Another benefit is taste. It's a big leap to go from a diet that has hidden sweeteners in almost everything to a diet that has no sweetening agent whatsoever. And lastly, most non-caloric sweetening substances don't raise blood sugar, and this advantage is definitely worth considering if you're a type 2 diabetic or if you're one of those people having a hard time losing weight.

That said, recent studies suggest that diet drinks and food products might not be producing the intended result. According to Consumer's Research Magazine, "There is no clear-cut evidence that sugar substitutes are useful in weight reduction. On the contrary, there is some evidence that these substances may stimulate appetite."

People who drink a lot of diet sodas, for example, are not losing weight or inches, and it's been shown show that rats being fed artificial sweeteners overeat and get fat. There's also the fact that some of these substances have a long history of bad press from our very own FDA and other governments, as well as laundry lists of health problems empirically reported by concerned individuals. At this point in time, our government says artificial sweeteners are safe, but no guidelines are provided for limits on consumption.

There are four categories of alternative sweetening options available to you: artificial sweeteners, sugar alcohols, stevia (an herb with sweet leaves), and blends that are made with various combinations of all these options. Some blends even include regular table sugar. This article is focused exclusively on artificial sweeteners. The three most readily available, widely used artificial sweeteners in the U.S. are aspartame, saccharin and sucralose. Let's look at each of these in more detail.

Aspartame(commercially sold as NutraSweet, Equal, Canderel) Aspartame was discovered by accident in 1965 at G.D. Searle. In 1981 the FDA approved it as a table top sweetener. In 1983 it was approved for use in carbonated beverages, and in 1996 it was approved for use in foods and all other drinks.

Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sugar, and is currently the most popular artificial sweetener in the U.S. It has four calories per packet, and 24 packets equals one cup of sugar. Because aspartame loses sweetness when subjected to heat for long periods of time, it's not a suitable choice for baking. If aspartame is used in stove-top cooking, don't add it until the last five minutes of cooking to maintain sweetness.

Aspartame is approved for use by the American Diabetes Association and other major public health organizations that promote weight loss. At the same time, a small army of individuals continue to object to the controversial way in which aspartame got FDA approval, which came about when the Donald Rumsfeld, then the CEO of Searle, used his personal relationship with President Ronald Reagan to push it through.

Another more troubling and compelling issue regarding aspartame comes from individuals who claim to suffer serious neural health problems due to aspartame consumption. These reports include a lower threshold for seizures, increased incidents of brain tumors, greater prevalence of multiple sclerosis, numbness in limbs and more. The alleged harm is due to the fact that methanol, one of the ingredients in aspartame, breaks down into formaldehyde. Consuming large amounts of methanol is thought to have a cumulative and toxic effect, especially for children.

A second health problem is caused by phenylalanine, another chemical ingredient in aspartame. Phenylalanine is dangerous to the estimated 10 million people who have PKU or phenylketonuria. This is a genetic disorder where the enzyme needed to metabolize phenylalanine is missing. If you're interested in learning more about individual health concerns about aspartame, check out Sweet Misery, a documentary on DVD by Cori Brackett.

Saccharin(commercially sold as Sweet N Low and Necta Sweet) Saccharin was discovered by accident in 1879, and is the great grandmother of all artificial sweeteners. It didn't become popular and widely used, however, until there was a sugar shortage brought on by WWI.

Saccharin is currently the third most popular artificial sweetener in the U.S. When it comes to health and safety regulation, saccharin has a long and confusing history, littered with flip-flops in FDA position. The FDA first began inspecting saccharin way back in 1907 due to concerns that it might be carcinogenic. Even President Teddy Roosevelt, a diabetic and saccharin user, got into the saccharin debate. "Anybody who says saccharin is injurious to health," he said, "is an idiot."

More recently, in 1972 the FDA attempted to ban saccharin, but the ban was not successful. In 1977 Canadians claimed to conclusively determine that saccharin causes cancer in animals, and they banned it from their country. (This Canadian ban is still in effect.) In the same year the FDA required that all U.S.-based saccharin products carry this warning label: "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals."

Then in 2000 the U.S. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences concluded that saccharin should be removed from the list of known or suspected human carcinogens. This time it was President Bill Clinton who was responsible for removal of the warning label, which was lifted as part of his massive regulation changes and pardons just before leaving office.

Saccharin is 200 times sweeter than sugar, but has a bitter after taste, which is why food manufacturers often use it in cmbination with other sweeteners. Saccharin has four calories per packet, and 12 packets equal one cup of sugar. It's heat stable and can be used in cooking. It's been shown to trigger an insulin response in rats, presumably from taste stimulation.

Sucralose(commercially sold as Splenda, Nuvella and store brands) Sucralose was discovered in 1976 and is 600 times sweeter than sugar. It's currently the second most popular artificial sweetener in the U.S., and is projected to overtake aspartame for the number one position.

The FDA approved sucralose as a table top sweetener in 1998 and as a food additive in 1999. According to the National Cancer Institute, the FDA viewed more than 100 safety studies which showed no evidence that sucralose causes cancer or poses a human health threat. Some experts claim it's no more dangerous than table salt.

Sucralose is made by chlorinating sugar. Three hydrogen atoms are replaced with three chlorine atoms. This process removes the calories from sugar but maintains the taste. Maltodextrin, a bulking agent, is added to the product so that the volume exactly matches sugar. Most of what you see when you purchase sucralose is actually the maltodextrin filler, which is made from the partial hydrolysis of starchy vegetables or vegetable roots. Very little sucralose is needed because it's so sweet and potent.

Each packet of sucralose has 3.31 calories, and one cup of sucralose is exactly equal to one cup of sugar. This makes it an easy and convenient type of product for home use. It's also heat stable and can be used in every kind of cooking. Sucralose has no effect on glucose or insulin production.

The biggest health safety concerns have to do with the fact that sucralose hasn't been around for a long time, and the impact of heavy usage may take a while to reveal itself. Another issue with sucralose has to do with whether or not the chlorine is absorbed into the body. Predictably, the manufacturer claims that none is absorbed while other resources say that anywhere from 11 percent to 27 percent might be absorbed. All things considered, sucralose is definitely the least objectionable type of artificial sweetener.

The bottom line: You have to decide for yourself what is or isn't safe and how much of these substances you want to put in your mouth. Keep in mind that the approval process for artificial substances is highly influenced by research that's financed by the corporations who manufacture and sell the products.

In any case, your best health bet is to use any artificial sweetening product in moderation, which means limiting consumption to two or three servings per day. If you're a low to moderate consumer of artificial sweeteners, it probably doesn't matter what type of substance it is. If, on the other hand, you're a heavy user, then sucralose is highly recommended.







Karen Bentley is a leading sugar-free expert and the creator of The Sugar-Free Miracle Diet System, the most popular e-book sugar-free diet system on the internet. For more information about how to take off weight by cutting out sugar, visit www.sugarfreemiraclediet.com