Skip to content

Category: healthy living

1

Published on 1 Comment on Problems With Scented Candles

 Several people have recently asked me whether scented candles have any health effects. The answer is a big YES - they have many negative health effects, and so do other scented products such as air fresheners and dryer sheets (e,g, Bounce). All of them contain fragrances and other chemicals - all from petrochemicals (which means they are chemical products derived from petroleum). And yes - all 3 products are totally unnecessary, so ditch them for better health. View all of them as sources of indoor air pollution.

Most of the candles on the market are made with paraffin wax, derived from petroleum, and scented with synthetic fragrances, also derived from petroleum. Synthetic fragrances typically also contain phthalates that can interfere with your hormone system (endocrine disruptors).

In one study scientists at the South Carolina State University lit several brands of candles made of paraffin – the most common and inexpensive candle wax – as well as soy candles (thus vegetable based) and burned them for 5 to 6 hours in a chamber. All of the candles were unscented and undyed. They found that the paraffin candle smoke emits varying levels of pollutants, including benzene, toluene and ketones, as well as hydrocarbon chemicals called alkanes and alkenes, which are components of gasoline. They have been linked to cancer, asthma and birth defects. None of the vegetable-based soy candles produced toxic chemicals. From SC State University:  Frequent use of certain candles produces unwanted chemicals

Researchers point out that the emissions from burning an occasional paraffin candle will not likely cause health problems - it's the frequent lighting of scented paraffin candles in indoor rooms, and inhaling the pollutants in the air that may cause health problems, or as Dr. Massoudi of S. Carolina State University stated: "could contribute to the development of health risks like cancer, common allergies and even asthma."

Scented candles are known to release various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including both pleasant aromas and toxic components both before lighting (unlit) and when lit. When lit, the "highest emission concentration" was of formaldehyde. By simply touching the candles, one absorbs chemicals through the skin.

Safe candle alternatives are beeswax candles and unscented soy candles. These do not emit toxic chemicals when burned. However, all burning candles emit soot, which is ultrafine, lung-damaging particulate matter that's capable of penetrating deep into the lungs.

From Huffington Post: The Big Problem With Scented Candles

Scented candles are one of the easiest and most effective ways to mask unpleasant odors in your home....But one of the main problems with scented candles is the scent itself. According to Anne Steinemann, an environmental pollutants expert who is a professor of civil engineering and the chair of sustainable cities at the University of Melbourne, certain candles may emit numerous types of potentially hazardous chemicals, such as benzene and toluene. They can cause damage to the brain, lung and central nervous system, as well as cause developmental difficulties.

"I have heard from numerous people who have asthma that they can’t even go into a store if the store sells scented candles, even if they aren’t being burned," Steinemann added. "They emit so much fragrance that they can trigger asthma attacks and even migraines."

Researchers at South Carolina State University tested both petroleum-based paraffin wax candles and vegetable-based candles that were non-scented, non-pigmented and free of dyes. Their 2009 report concluded that while the vegetable-based candles didn't produce any potentially harmful pollutants, the paraffin candles "released unwanted chemicals into the air," said chemistry professor Ruhullah Massoudi in a statement.

It may be shocking to think that your favorite candles could potentially be bad for you, and made worse by added fragrances. Steinemann said for some people, the effects are "immediate, acute and severe," while others may not realize they are being effected until they gradually develop health issues.

Though the risk to you may be small, there are alternatives. Steinemann suggests going the unscented route, avoiding "even those with essential oils, as they can potentially have hazardous chemicals," she said. "It's almost like air fresheners with the fragrance just sitting there ... permeating surfaces in the room."

Published on Leave a comment on Drink Coffee and Live Longer?

 Drink coffee daily -  3 to 5 cups of either regular or decaffeinated - and live longer by lowering your risk of premature death from cardiovascular disease, neurological disease, type 2 diabetes, and suicide. Yes, it was an observational study, but the results are similar to what other studies are finding. From Medical Xpress:

Moderate coffee drinking may lower risk of premature death

People who drink about three to five cups of coffee a day may be less likely to die prematurely from some illnesses than those who don't drink or drink less coffee, according to a new study by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health researchers and colleagues. Drinkers of both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee saw benefits, including a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease, neurological diseases, type 2 diabetes, and suicide.

"Bioactive compounds in coffee reduce insulin resistance and systematic inflammation," said first author Ming Ding, a doctoral student in the Department of Nutrition. "That could explain some of our findings. However, more studies are needed to investigate the biological mechanisms producing these effects."

Researchers analyzed health data gathered from participants in three large ongoing studies: 74,890 women in the Nurses' Health Study; 93,054 women in the Nurses' Health Study 2; and 40,557 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Coffee drinking was assessed using validated food questionnaires every four years over about 30 years. During the study period, 19,524 women and 12,432 men died from a range of causes.

In the whole study population, moderate coffee consumption was associated with reduced risk of death from cardiovascular disease, diabetes, neurological diseases such as Parkinson's disease, and suicide. Coffee consumption was not associated with cancer deaths. The analyses took into consideration potential confounding factors such as smoking, body mass index, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and other dietary factors.

Published on Leave a comment on American Academy of Pediatrics: End Routine Antibiotic Use in Animals

The American Academy of Pediatrics released a new report that the overuse of antibiotics in animals poses a real health risk to children. Giving routine antibiotics to animals leads to antibiotic resistant bacteria  - which means that antibiotics may not work when given to people. Most of the antibiotics sold in the U.S. each year - 80 percent- are used in animals that people than eat. The great majority of antibiotics given to animals are the same ones given to humans.The main way to ensure that the meat that you are purchasing is antibiotic-free is to buy meat labeled organic. And to buy organic dairy products (milk, butter, cheese, cream). Note that the reason routine use of antibiotics in animals has not been stopped so far in the USA is due to agriculture industry lobbying. From Medical Xpress:

Pediatricians' group urges cuts in antibiotic use in livestock

Overuse of antibiotics in farm animals poses a real health risk to children, the American Academy of Pediatrics warns in a new report.This common practice is already contributing to bacterial resistance to medicines and affecting doctors' ability to treat life-threatening infections in kids, according to the paper published online Nov. 16 in the journal Pediatrics.

"The connection between production uses of antibiotics in the agricultural sector to antibiotic resistance is alarming," said Victoria Richards, an associate professor of medical sciences at the Quinnipiac University School of Medicine in Hamden, Conn. She believes the danger is "not only for infants and children but other vulnerable populations, such as the pregnant and the older individuals."

As the academy explained in its warning, antibiotics are often added to the feed of healthy livestock to boost growth, increase feed efficiency or prevent disease. However, the practice can also make antibiotics ineffective when they are needed to treat infections in people. Some examples of emerging antibiotic germs include methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), C.difficile, and highly resistant strains of the tuberculosis bacterium. Each year, more than 2 million Americans develop antibiotic-resistant infections and more than 23,000 die from these infections, the academy said. And in 2013, the highest incidence of such infections was among children younger than 5, federal government statistics show. 

"Children can be exposed to multiple-drug resistant bacteria, which are extremely difficult to treat if they cause an infection, through contact with animals given antibiotics and through consuming the meat of those animals," report author Dr. Jerome Paulson, immediate past chair of the academy's executive committee of the Council on Environmental Health, said in an academy news release."Like humans, farm animals should receive appropriate antibiotics for bacterial infections," he said. "However, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics without a prescription or the input of a veterinarian puts the health of children at risk."

Spaeth noted that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the World Health Organization, have both called for a curbing of antibiotic use in animals. But the authors of the new report expressed concern over resistance from the agriculture and farming industry to such measures.

Published on Leave a comment on Which Mosquito Repellents Work?

People spend a lot of effort trying to repel mosquitos  - because the bites are so annoying and because they spread serious diseases. New research looking at different mosquito repellents - both DEET and non-Deet ("natural") products - had interesting results. What was once thought effective in repelling mosquitoes doesn't work at all (vitamin B patch), and what was thought attractive to mosquitoes may actually repel them (floral scents), and the "natural" alternatives may or may not work. Also - the species of mosquito is important (they tested Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus), for they found that there was some variation among the 2 species in what they were attracted to or repelled by. Best choices for protection lasting at least 2 hours: DEET repellants, Cutter lemon eucalyptus insect repellent, and Victoria's Secret Bombshell. Best protection lasting 4 hours: DEET repellants, and Cutter lemon eucalyptus insect repellent. This last non-DEET product contained lemon-eucalyptus oil containing p-menthane-3,8-diol. Of course there was an untreated control (an attractive to mosquitoes volunteer's bare hand) in the study for comparison purposes.

However, while EcoSmart organic insect repellent  worked for 4 hours for Ae. albopictus mosquitoes, it only worked for the first few minutes for Ae. aegypti mosquitoes (so don't buy this product). For years people thought that Avon Skin So Soft worked well as a repellent - well, forget it- not good at all. Other products that did not work: a mosquito skin patch (vitamin B), and Cutter natural insect repellent. These results showed that DEET-free products containing citronella or geraniol did not work. See the original study for the result lists for 10 products for both species of mosquitoes. From Popular Science:

VICTORIA’S SECRET PERFUME WARDS OFF MOSQUITOES, STUDY FINDS

Because mosquitoes carry diseases like malaria and dengue fever, and irritate us, humans do a lot to avoid them. In most places people have to fend for themselves against the pests by sleeping under mosquito nets or using repellant. A number of new repellant formulas have hit the market in recent years, many with questionable efficacy. Researchers at New Mexico State University decided to compare the effectiveness of different repellants and perfumes, according to a study published recently in the Journal of Insect Science.

The Y-shaped tube used in the study.  Rodriguez et al, Journal of Insect Science, 2015

The researchers tested eight commercially available repellents, two fragrances, and a vitamin B patch that reportedly keeps the mosquitoes at bay, on two different species of disease-carrying mosquitoes. To test the efficacy of each, the researchers put a mosquito at the long end of a Y-shaped plastic tube. One of the researchers who is particularly attractive to mosquitoes placed her two hands at the ends of both forked tubes—one hand was untreated, the other treated with the chemical being tested. If the mosquito avoided the tube with the treated hand by staying still or moving towards the untreated hand, the researchers determined that the repellent worked.

The researchers found that, among repellents, those that contained the tried-and-true ingredient DEET were most effective in warding off the mosquitoes. A few others, such as Cutter Lemon Eucalyptus Insect Repellent, worked almost as well, while most of them (including the vitamin patch) didn’t make any difference.

While those findings weren’t unexpected, the researchers were surprised to find that Avon Skin So Soft Bath Oil repelled the mosquitoes for about two hours. Another fragrance, Victoria’s Secret Bombshell perfume, also repelled the mosquitoes and lasted even longer.

That overturned the previous understanding about how mosquitoes interpret scents. “There was some previous literature that said fruity, floral scents attracted mosquitoes, and to not wear those,” said Stacy Rodriguez, a research assistant involved in the study, said in a statement. “It was interesting to see that the mosquitoes weren’t actually attracted to the person that was wearing the Victoria’s Secret perfume – they were repelled by it.”

Published on Leave a comment on Garlic Eating Men Smell More Attractive?

This study found that men who eat a lot of garlic (4 cloves in raw or capsule form) had a "more attractive" body odor to women. This is body odor, which is different than breath odor. Since this study was done in Prague (capital of the Czech Republic), one wonders about cultural biases - is this a group that normally enjoys garlicky foods? What would women who never ate foods containing garlic think about the body odor? The researchers gave an evolutionary explanation, but...first this study needs to be replicated in a group that doesn't normally eat garlic. At any rate, the study results should give reassurance to those men who enjoy eating garlic - it's attractive to women! From Medical Xpress:

Research finds men who eat garlic smell more attractive

The beneficial health properties of garlic are well known, but researchers at the University of Stirling and Charles University in Prague have uncovered another less well known and surprising property – that the body odour of men who eat garlic is attractive to women. In a study of 42 men – who each were asked to eat raw garlic, garlic capsules, or no garlic – their body odour was perceived to be 'significantly more attractive' when they had eaten garlic in bulb and capsule form than when they hadn't eaten it.

For the study, 82 women were asked to sniff the odour samples and judge them on their pleasantness, attractiveness, masculinity and intensity. Researchers found the unexpected positive effect was only achieved once the men were eating a substantial amount of garlic. When the men ate 6g of garlic, equivalent to two cloves, with bread and cheese, there was no difference in the ratings between then and when they simply ate the bread and cheese on its own. 

But when the dosage was doubled to 12g, or four cloves, the men were reported to smell more attractive than when they hadn't eaten it. In the final experiment, when the men consumed the same amount of garlic, but in capsule form, their body odour was also perceived as more attractive.

Craig Roberts, Professor of Psychology at the University of Stirling, said: "Our results indicate that garlic consumption may have positive effects on the pleasure derived from perceived body odour perhaps due to its health effects....Previous research indicates that many animal species use diet-associated cues to select mates in good physical condition. "As the health benefits of garlic consumption include antioxidant, immunostimulant, cardiovascular, bactericidal and anti-cancer effects, it is plausible that human odour preferences have been shaped by sexual selection.

The study concludes that body odour, in contrast to breath odour, is positively affected by garlic and that these two sources of odour should be strictly differentiated. As breath odour plays an important factor in intimate relationships further studies may be carried out.

Published on Leave a comment on Very Low Levels of Vitamin D and Heart Problems

New research found that negative health effects - 35% increased risk of cardiovascular problems (coronary heart disease, heart attacks, strokes) are when the vitamin D levels are really low (under 15 nanograms per milliliter). Currently many doctors recommend optimal levels for health as somewhere between 35 to 40 ng/ml. One article in Medscape recommended 1,000 IU of vitamin D (preferably D3) daily to achieve this level. Or you can go outside in the sun for 15 to 20 minutes. From Science Daily:

Specific vitamin D levels linked to heart problems

A lack of vitamin D can result in weak bones. Recent studies also show that vitamin D deficiency is linked to more serious health risks such as coronary artery disease, heart attacks, and strokes. And now, a new study shows what level of deficiency puts someone at risk of developing these heart problems.Researchers at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City have found that patients are fine from a heart standpoint, and may need no further treatment, if their vitamin D level is anywhere above 15 nanograms per milliliter.

"Although vitamin D levels above 30 were traditionally considered to be normal, more recently, some researchers have proposed that anything above 15 was a safe level. But the numbers hadn't been backed up with research until now," said J. Brent Muhlestein, MD, co-director of cardiovascular research at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute, and lead researcher of the study.

The body naturally produces vitamin D as a result of exposure to the sun, and it's also found in a few foods -- including fish, fish liver oils, and egg yolks as well as some dairy and grain products. Those who don't have enough exposure to sunlight or vitamin D producing foods often have low vitamin D levels. Low levels are also attributed to race because people with dark skin have a natural protectant against ultraviolet light.

Dr. Muhlestein and his team have studied the effects of vitamin D on the heart for several years, looking at smaller numbers of patients. In this study, thanks to Intermountain Healthcare's vast clinical database, they were able to evaluate the impact of vitamin D levels on more than 230,000 patients. The 230,000 patients were split up into four groups (<15 ng/ml, 15-29, 30-44, ≥45) and were followed for the next three years by researchers who looked for major adverse cardiac events, including death, coronary artery disease, heart attacks, stroke, and incidents of heart or kidney failure.

Dr. Muhlestein found that for the nine percent of patients in the lower than 15 group, their risk of cardiovascular events increased by 35 percent compared to the other three groups, and the risks faced by the other three groups weren't very different from each other.

Published on Leave a comment on House Dust Contains a Microhistory of Our Life

Nice update from a large crowd sourced study I posted about September 1, 2015. Main finding: all our homes are teaming with microorganisms, which vary according to sex of occupants, pets, geographical location and humidity. In total, the indoor dust contained more than sixty-three thousand species of fungi and a hundred and sixteen thousand species of bacteria. The scientists have posted it all online and members of the public can download the complete data set and hunt for new correlations and patterns. Just remember that all these microbes in our lives is completely normal, and many species are important partners in maintaining our health. Excerpts from Emily Anthes's article in the New Yorker:

Our Dust, Ourselves

Dust talks. That clump of gray fuzz hiding under the couch may look dull, but it contains multitudes: tiny errant crumbs of toast, microscopic fibres from a winter coat, fragments of dead leaves, dog dander, sidewalk grit, sloughed-off skin cells, grime-loving bacteria. “Each bit of dust is a microhistory of your life,” Rob Dunn, a biologist at North Carolina State University, told me recently. For the past four years, Dunn and two of his colleagues—Noah Fierer, a microbial ecologist at the University of Colorado Boulder, and Holly Menninger, the director of public science at N.C. State—have been deciphering these histories, investigating the microorganisms in our dust and how their lives are intertwined with our own.  ...continue reading "House Dust Contains a Microhistory of Our Life"

Published on Leave a comment on Exposure to Animals In First Year of Life and Lower Risk of Asthma

Labrador Retriever image Other studies have found this same association - that living with a dog or farm animal has health benefits such as lower risk of allergies and asthma. In a Swedish nationwide study looking at over a million children, the association between early exposure to dogs and farm animals and the risk of asthma was evaluated. All children born in Sweden from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2010 were included. The researchers found that exposure to dogs and farm animals during the first year of life reduces the risk of asthma in children at age 6 years. From Science Daily:

Early contact with dogs linked to lower risk of asthma

A team of Swedish scientists have used national register information in more than one million Swedish children to study the association of early life contact with dogs and subsequent development of asthma. This question has been studied extensively previously, but conclusive findings have been lacking. The new study showed that children who grew up with dogs had about 15 percent less asthma than children without dogs.

A total of more than one million children were included in the researchers' study linking together nine different national data sources, including two dog ownership registers not previously used for medical research...."Earlier studies have shown that growing up on a farm reduces a child's risk of asthma to about half. We wanted to see if this relationship also was true also for children growing up with dogs in their homes. Our results confirmed the farming effect, and we also saw that children who grew up with dogs had about 15 percent less asthma than children without dogs.

"These kind of epidemiological studies look for associations in large populations but do not provide answers on whether and how animals could protect children from developing asthma. We know that children with established allergy to cats or dogs should avoid them, but our results also indicate that children who grow up with dogs have reduced risks of asthma later in life. Thanks to the population-based design, our results are generalizable to the Swedish population, and probably also to other European populations with similar culture regarding pet ownership and farming" says Catarina Almqvist Malmros, senior author on the study, Paediatrician at Astrid Lindgren Children's Hospital and Professor in Clinical epidemiology at Dept of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

Published on Leave a comment on Time to Ditch Personal Care Products Containing Parabens?

Even though many, many personal care products contain parabens, the evidence is accumulating that parabens have negative health effects. And now research suggesting that perhaps they may be a factor in developing breast cancer. This latest study was done "in vitro" - meaning looking at the effects of chemicals on human breast cells (in culture dishes), but the results absolutely should make someone think twice about all the parabens in products, and how they accumulate in us. Research has already found parabens in the human breast, but many thought that the levels were too low to promote cancer.

Parabens are common ingredients in cosmetics, shampoos, body lotions and sunscreens, where they are used to prevent microbial growth and prolong shelf life.  Common names of parabens are: methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben. Detectable levels of multiple parabens are present in human urine and breast tissue. Bottom line: Parabens are endocrine disrupting chemicals that mimic estrogens and may have effects at very low doses to stimulate breast cancer cell growth. So read labels of personal care products and avoid those with parabens. From Futurity:

New Tests Suggest Parabens Carry Cancer Risk

A group of chemicals called parabens—common ingredients in personal care products—may interact with growth factors in the body to increase the risk of breast cancer, according to new research. Parabens are preservatives widely used in everything from shampoos and cosmetics to body lotions and sunscreens. The chemicals have generated increasing health concerns, however, because they mimic estrogens, which have been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer and reproductive problems.

“Although parabens are known to mimic the growth effects of estrogens on breast cancer cells, some consider their effect too weak to cause harm,” says lead investigator Dale Leitman, a gynecologist and molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an adjunct associate professor of nutritional sciences and toxicology. “But this might not be true when parabens are combined with other agents that regulate cell growth.”

Existing chemical safety tests, which measure the effects of chemicals on human cells, look only at parabens in isolation, he says. They fail to take into account that parabens could interact with other types of signaling molecules in the cells to increase breast cancer risk.

To better reflect what goes on in real life, Leitman and his colleagues looked at breast cancer cells expressing two types of receptors: estrogen receptors and HER2. Approximately 25 percent of breast cancers produce an abundance of HER2, or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. HER2-positive tumors tend to grow and spread more aggressively than other types of breast cancer.

The researchers activated the HER2 receptors in breast cancer cells with a growth factor called heregulin that is naturally made in breast cells, while exposing the cells to parabens. Not only did the parabens trigger the estrogen receptors by turning on genes that caused the cells to proliferate, but also the effect was significant. The parabens in the HER2-activated cells were able to stimulate breast cancer cell growth at concentrations 100 times lower than in cells that were deprived of heregulin.

The study demonstrates that parabens may be more potent at lower doses than previous studies have suggested, which may spur scientists and regulators to rethink the potential impacts of parabens on the development of breast cancer, particularly on HER2 and estrogen receptor positive breast cells. The findings also raise questions about current safety testing methods that may not predict the true potency of parabens and their effects on human health.

Published on Leave a comment on Reducing Sugar Improves Health

This study showed that children reducing sugar consumption (but not fruits), and without reducing calories, after 10 days improved all sorts of metabolic health markers: blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, liver function, fasting blood glucose, and insulin levels. As one of the researchers said: "I have never seen results as striking or significant in our human studies; after only nine days of fructose (sugar) restriction, the results are dramatic and consistent from subject to subject." Once again, not all calories are the same.

On average, the obese children in this study had been getting about 27 percent of their daily calories from sugar, and during the study period it was lowered to about 10 percent of daily calories. By comparison, the average American takes in about 15 percent, though children typically consume much more than this in part because they have the highest intake of sugar-sweetened beverages. In February of this year, the federal government’s Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommended that Americans limit their intake of added sugars to no more than 10 percent of daily calories. From Medical Xpress:

Obese children's health rapidly improves with sugar reduction unrelated to calories

Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, has the power to reverse a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases, including high cholesterol and blood pressure, in children in as little as 10 days, according to a study by researchers at UC San Francisco and Touro University California.

"This study definitively shows that sugar is metabolically harmful not because of its calories or its effects on weight; rather sugar is metabolically harmful because it's sugar," said lead author Robert Lustig, MD, MSL, pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital San Francisco. "This internally controlled intervention study is a solid indication that sugar contributes to metabolic syndrome, and is the strongest evidence to date that the negative effects of sugar are not because of calories or obesity."

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions—increased blood pressure, high blood glucose level, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol levels—that occur together and increase risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. Other diseases associated with metabolic syndrome, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes, now occur in children—disorders previously unknown in the pediatric population.

In the study, 43 children between the ages of 9 and 18 who were obese and had at least one other chronic metabolic disorder, such as hypertension, high triglyceride levels or a marker of fatty liver, were given nine days of food, including all snacks and beverages, that restricted sugar but substituted starch to maintain the same fat, protein, carbohydrate, and calorie levels as their previously reported home diets.....The study menu restricted added sugar (while allowing fruit), but substituted it by adding other carbohydrates such as bagels, cereal and pasta so that the children still consumed the same number of calories from carbohydrate as before, but total dietary sugar was reduced from 28 to 10 percent, and fructose from 12 to 4 percent of total calories, respectively. The food choices were designed to be "kid food" - turkey hot dogs, potato chips, and pizza all purchased at local supermarkets, instead of high sugar cereals, pastries, and sweetened yogurt.

Children were given a scale and told to weigh themselves everyday, with the goal of weight stability, not weight loss. When weight loss did occur (a decrease of an average of 1 percent over the 10-day period but without change in body fat), they were given more of the low-sugar foods."When we took the sugar out, the kids started responding to their satiety cues," said Schwarz. "They told us it felt like so much more food, even though they were consuming the same number of calories as before, just with significantly less sugar. Some said we were overwhelming them with food."

After just 9 days on the sugar-restricted diet, virtually every aspect of the participants' metabolic health improved, without change in weight. Diastolic blood pressure decreased by 5mm, triglycerides by 33 points, LDL-cholesterol (known as the "bad" cholesterol) by 10 points, and liver function tests improved. Fasting blood glucose went down by 5 points, and insulin levels were cut by one-third. "All of the surrogate measures of metabolic health got better, just by substituting starch for sugar in their processed food—all without changing calories or weight or exercise," said Lustig. "This study demonstrates that 'a calorie is not a calorie.' Where those calories come from determines where in the body they go. Sugar calories are the worst, because they turn to fat in the liver, driving insulin resistance, and driving risk for diabetes, heart, and liver disease."