Immune dysfunction (i.e., being more susceptible to infections) is a common part of both Fibromyalgia and CFS, and is becoming more common in the overall population as well. In earlier articles, we have discussed how to diagnose and treat chronic viral and antibiotic sensitive infections. The most common and important infections to treat in CFS and Fibromyalgia are yeast, fungal and Candida infections (I will treat these as a single infection for this article). Unfortunately, standard medicine does not recognize fungal infections unless they affect the nails, skin, hair or groin areas—or they are in the blood and can kill you. Because there is no test to clearly diagnose overgrowth of bowel or sinus Candida, many doctors say it doesn’t exist. Reminds me of the little boy who thinks he’s invisible because he’s covered his eyes…

That there is no blood test does not mean there is no way to tell if you need treatment. I recommend the Candida/yeast/fungal treatment for most people who have ANY of the below problems:

	1.	CFS/ Fibromyalgia—As I have discussed in lectures to thousands of health practitioners, if someone has CFS/FMS, presume the Candida is present and treat for it.
	2.	Chronic sinusitis—which is usually caused by yeast.
	3.	Spastic colon/irritable bowel syndrome.

When you treat the yeast as we’ll discuss, not only does the CFS/FMS usually improve, but the sinusitis and spastic colon will often go away as well. As fringe benefits, most of you will find (if you take the Diflucan medication part of the treatment) that your dandruff and feeling like you want to stick your finger in your ear to scratch it will also go away!

How do I Treat the Candida/Yeast?

It takes around 3-5 months to restore balance between the healthy bacteria and the yeast in your body, but most people will be feeling better at ~ 1 month into using the prescription antifungal “Diflucan.” Here is your “recipe” for treating the yeast:

	1.	Begin by avoiding sugar (I will add the magic words “except for dark chocolate,” which is a healthy food in moderation). Sugar feeds yeast, so substitute stevia, a healthy natural sweetener.
	2.	Take healthy bacteria (probiotics) to fight the yeast. I recommend Probiotic Pearls or Acidophilus Pearls 2 twice a day for 3-5 months.
	3.	At the same time, begin the herbal antifungal mix “Anti-Yeast” 2 twice a day for 3-5 months.
	4.	After 1 month on the above, add the medication Diflucan 200 mg a day for 6-12 weeks (get the generic form fluconazole. The brand name is $600 for 6 weeks. The generic is available for only $40 for 42 tablets at Consumers Discount Pharmacy, phone 323-461-3606).

For those who would like more detail on the Candida issue, it is discussed at length in my book “From Fatigued to Fantastic!“ (Avery/Penguin Oct 2007). Part of the section from the book is in the article below.

An Overview of Yeast/Candida Infections

I will use the terms yeast, fungi, and Candida interchangeably for this discussion. Fungal overgrowth may suppress the body’s immune system. It is suspected that this occurs in part because the bowel yeast infections cause what is called “leaky gut syndrome.” This means that food proteins get absorbed into the blood system before they are fully digested. Because of this, your immune system has to complete the digestion process, which often overtaxes it. Many physicians feel that yeast overgrowth causes a generalized suppression of the immune system. In other words, once the yeast gets the upper hand, it sets up a cycle that further suppresses the body’s defenses.⁷

Yeast are normal members of the body’s “zoo.” They live in balance with bacteria—some of which are helpful and healthy, and some of which are detrimental and unhealthy. The problems begin when this harmonious balance shifts and the yeast begins to overgrow.

Many things can prompt yeast to overgrow. One of the most common causes is frequent antibiotic use. Antibiotics kill off the good bacteria in the bowel along with the bad bacteria. When this happens, the yeast no longer have competition and begin to overgrow. The body is often able to rebalance itself after one or several courses of antibiotics, but after repeated or long term courses—and especially if the body has an underlying immune dysfunction—the yeast can get the upper hand.

Other factors are also important. Studies have shown that animals that are sleep-deprived and/or have increased sugar intake develop immune suppression and bowel yeast overgrowth. Many physicians feel that eating sugar stimulates yeast overgrowth in people as well. So as you prepare your meals, remember—sugar is food for yeast.

Diagnosing Yeast Overgrowth

There are no definitive tests for yeast overgrowth that will distinguish yeast overgrowth from normal yeast growth in the body. In my experience, using Dr. William Crook’s yeast questionnaire is still the most reliable way to tell if a person is at risk of yeast overgrowth. A simplified version is part of our free web program which will analyze your symptoms to determine the cause(s) of your CFS/FMS, fatigue or pain and tailor a treatment protocol to your case.

In addition, anyone with ANY of the following criteria should be treated with antifungals:

	1.	anyone with CFS or Fibromyalgia, OR
	2.	who has chronic nasal congestion or sinusitis, OR
	3.	has spastic colon (gas, bloating, diarrhea and/or constipation), OR
	4.	has been on recurrent or long term antibiotics (especially tetracycline for acne), OR
	5.	who intermittently has painful sores in the mouth (not cold sores on the outer lips) that last for about ten days at a time.

Treating Yeast Overgrowth

A number of very effective treatments can be used to eliminate a yeast problem. I find that the best approach is to combine dietary changes, natural remedies, and prescription medications.

Natural Yeast Treatments

The most important part of treating yeast overgrowth is avoiding sugar and other sweets, although I will add the three magic words, “except for chocolate.” You can also enjoy one or two pieces of fruit a day, but you should not consume concentrated sugars like fruit juices, corn syrup, jellies, pastry, candy, or honey. Stay far away from soft drinks, which have ten to twelve teaspoons of sugar in every twelve ounces. This amount of sugar has been shown to markedly suppress immune function for several hours. Be prepared to have your CFS/FMS symptoms flare for about one week when you cut sugar out of your diet.

Using stevia as a sweetener is a wonderful substitute for sugar. Despite some misconceptions, stevia is safe and natural, and you can use all you want. There are even cookbooks available for using stevia. The brand of stevia that you choose is very important, however. Most brands of stevia are not filtered and therefore are bitter. The two that won the taste test in our office are made by Body Ecology (1-800-4STEVIA) and Stevita. Ribose (Corvalen), a very effective nutrient for treating CFS, FMS and heart conditions, is not readily digestible by yeast and is usually well tolerated.

Several books have been written on the yeast controversy and offer additional dietary methods to try. One of the best is The Yeast Connection and the Woman by the late Dr. Billy Crook, a physician who advanced our understanding of CFIDS/FMS considerably.

One of those dietary methods that can help restore balance in the bowel is the intake of acidophilus—that is, milk bacteria, a healthy type of bacteria. Acidophilus is found in yogurt with live and active yogurt cultures. Indeed, eating one cup of yogurt a day can markedly diminish the frequency of recurrent vaginal yeast infections.⁹ Acidophilus is also available in supplement form, but which brand you use is important. Many brands do not actually contain the amount that the label claims or contain dead bacteria—which do not put up much of a fight against the yeast. I like to use Probiotic Pearls by Integrative Therapeutics or Acidophilus Pearls by Enzymatic Therapy. The pearl coating acts like a little tank—which protects the milk bacteria as they pass through the acidic environment of the stomach. Without this coating to protect against stomach acid, it is estimated that 99.9% of these yeast fighting bacteria will NOT survive the trip through the stomach. This means that to get the number of healthy bacteria in 1 pearl to your colon, you’d need to eat around 3 gallons of yogurt! Once the pearl hits the alkaline environment of the small intestine, it dissolves and releases the bacteria to fight the yeast. I recommend that you take 2 pearls twice a day for 5 months, after which time many people choose to continue taking one a day for prevention. Although the box claims 1 billion bacteria per pearl, the laboratory assays actually show that these pearls contain 2.4 billion bacteria. If you are on antibiotics (not antifungals), take acidophilus at least three to six hours before or after the antibiotic dose.

Many other natural antifungals can be helpful, but when used individually in a high enough dose to kill the yeast they also irritate the stomach. Because of this I like to combine multiple anti-fungal herbs. My favorite combination is Anti-Yeast by Ultraceuticals, which contains 240 mg of coconut oil powder (50% caprylic acid), 200 mg of oregano powder extract, 120 mg of uva ursi extract, 240 mg of garlic powder (deodorized), 160 mg of grapefruit seed extract, 80 mg of berberine sulfate, 200 mg of olive leaf extract, 50 mg of alpha lipoic acid, 50 mg of milk thistle extract, and 50 mg of N-Acetyl L-Cysteine.

Prescription Treatments for Yeast Overgrowth

It is critical to add a prescription anti-fungal as well, because the natural products only kill yeast in the gut and are not as strong. I recommend that almost all of my CFS/FMS patients use Diflucan (Fluconazole) 200 mg/day for 6-12 weeks. If stool cultures (which are negative in most people who need yeast treatment) show the yeast to be resistant to Diflucan, then your doctor may choose to substitute Nizoral at 200 mg/day for 6 weeks. Nizoral can lower adrenal hormone levels, so if your cortisol is low your doctor should consider adding adrenal support when prescribing Nizoral. I don’t use Sporanox because it costs over $600, and if your yeast is resistant to Diflucan, it will usually also be resistant to Sporanox but sensitive to Nizoral. The anti-fungal medication Lamisal is simply NOT effective for Candida.

Nystatin, an antifungal medication, has been helpful in the treatment of yeast overgrowth in the past. Unfortunately, more and more fungi seem to be developing resistance to nystatin. In addition, nystatin is poorly absorbed, which means that it has little impact on the yeast outside of the bowel. Because of this, I am now using the Anti-Yeast herbal mix instead.

Any effective antifungal can initially make the symptoms of yeast infection worse. In addition, Diflucan can cause liver inflammation, although this is uncommon (Tylenol is more likely to cause liver problems), and I have not seen it be a significant problem in the more than 3,000 patients I’ve treated. If you have preexisting active liver disease, you should be cautious about using Diflucan—or not use it at all. The “Anti-Yeast” herbal above also contains lipoic acid, milk thistle extract, and N-Acetyl L-Cysteine, natural supplements that helps to protect and heal the liver.

If symptoms of yeast overgrowth are caused by an allergic or sensitivity reaction to the yeast body parts, symptoms may flare up when mass quantities of the yeast are suddenly killed off. This is called a die-off (Herxheimer) reaction and can occur with the treatment of any chronic infection. To decrease the risk of this reaction, start your treatment with the acidophilus and a sugar-free diet for a few weeks, followed by the Anti-Yeast herbals for one month before beginning the Diflucan. If symptoms flare up, take just 25-100 mg of Diflucan each morning for the first three to fourteen days. If symptoms recur after you stop the Diflucan, I recommend continuing the medication for an additional six weeks at 200 mg a day. If you cannot get the Diflucan from your physician, the rest of the program will still help, but will not kill off the yeast in the sinuses as the Diflucan will.

Many books on yeast overgrowth advise readers to avoid all yeast in the diet. This advice is based on the theory that an allergic reaction to yeast is the cause of the problem. However, the yeast that is found in most foods (except beer and cheese) is not closely related to Candida, which is the predominant yeast that seems to be involved in overgrowth.

In my experience, trying to avoid all yeast in foods results in a nutritionally inadequate diet and does not substantially help most people. Although a few people do appear to have true allergies to the yeast in their food, they account for fewer than 10% of my patients with suspected yeast overgrowth. These people may benefit from the more strict diet recommended in Dr. Crook’s book. Interestingly, once adrenal insufficiency and yeast overgrowth are treated, most people find that their allergies and sensitivities to yeast and other food products seem to improve or disappear.

Nutritional deficiencies such as low zinc or low selenium may also decrease resistance to yeast overgrowth.¹⁰ A good multivitamin supplement, such as the Energy Revitalization System, should take care of these deficiencies. This is simply another example of how all the factors involved in CFS/FMS are closely interrelated.

What If the Yeast Comes Back?

It is normal for yeast symptoms to resolve after treatment. After six weeks on Diflucan, most people feel a lot better. If not, you may have Diflucan-resistant Candida, and a trial of Nizoral may be helpful. However, symptoms may sometimes also recur soon after you stop taking either antifungal. If this happens, I would continue taking Diflucan or Nizoral for another six weeks or for as long as is needed to keep the symptoms at bay. More frequently, people feel better after treatment and stay feeling fairly well. Although many people never need to be re-treated for yeast, others need to repeat a course of antifungals after six to twenty-four months, especially after eating too much sugar or taking antibiotics.

The best marker that I have found for recurrent yeast overgrowth is a return of bowel symptoms, with gas, bloating, and/or diarrhea or constipation, vaginal yeast, mouth sores, and/or recurring nasal congestion or sinusitis. If these symptoms persist for more than two weeks, especially if there is also even a mild worsening of the CFIDS/FMS symptoms, it is very reasonable to repeat treatment with six weeks of Anti-Yeast, Probiotic Pearls, and Diflucan. If a second round of treatment resolves the symptoms, you may opt to repeat this regimen as often as is needed, usually every six to twenty-four months. By using the Anti-Yeast and Probiotic Pearls, however, you may be able to avoid the need for repeated use of antifungals and the possible risk of becoming resistant to them.

Some people find that they need to stay on the antifungals for extended periods of time-years, in some cases—or the symptoms recur. As an alternative, instead of taking the antifungals every day, many people find they can get long term suppression of the yeast by taking 200 mg of Diflucan twice a day, one day each week (for example, each Sunday).

Treating the yeast is one of the most important parts of treating CFS/FMS, chronic sinusitis, or spastic colon. Though it takes 5 months to restore balance, you’ll be feeling much better after 1 month on the Diflucan anti-fungal medication. If your physician won’t prescribe it, see a Fibromyalgia and Fatigue Center physician or a Board Certified Holistic Physician. You’ll be glad you did!

Suddenly, the whole world seems to be going wireless. It started with mobile phones, then landline phones went wireless, and now broadband, laptops and bluetooth devices are following suit. We’re told it’s inevitable by the electronics industry. But has it considered the potential health hazards—or for that matter, have we?

“Day by day, I hear of more and more microwave applications, all of which are increasing the electro-smog that surrounds us,” says Alasdair Philips of the UK health-lobby group Powerwatch.

One telling piece of evidence for this is what happened to wireless car keys. Since remote car keys first came on the scene about 10 years ago, manufacturers have had to increase their power output by a massive 40 times to enable the signal to cut through the increasingly dense microwave smog around us, says Philips.

The other evidence is that microwave pollution can affect some people badly. Two years ago, Sarah Dacre was a successful high-powered executive, running a 70-strong TV production company, until she was struck down by a host of debilitating symptoms, including dizziness, loss of balance, chronic Candida, numbness in the arms, side and legs, and deteriorating eyesight. After months of false diagnoses–and in a state of near-total collapse–Sarah finally found the answer. “At the office, I was working all day with a laptop on my knees, and constantly using either a cordless phone or a mobile. One of the clues to what was causing the problem was that my symptoms were mainly right-sided–where I held the phones. I now can’t go anywhere near a computer or mobile phone without extreme care”.

Another sufferer is 35-year-old Roy Warne, who had to give up his job as a furniture salesman after his company installed a new wireless computer system. Now unable to work, he can’t get anywhere near his own laptop. “When I want to use the computer, I have it on in one room and sit in the hallway looking at the screen through binoculars,” he says.

Norway’s first female Prime Minister, and later Director-General of the World Health Organization, 65-year-old Gro Harlem Brundtland first suffered headaches from mobile phones, but now she finds that cordless phones and laptops cause her even worse problems. “If I hold a laptop to read what’s on the screen, it feels like I get an electric shock through my arms,” she says, “and I get an instant reaction if I touch a cordless phone.”

Although much of the evidence so far is anecdotal, even the official UK Health Protection Agency (incorporating the cautious National Radiological Protection Board) has acknowledged in a 45-page report (November 2005) that electrosensitivity (ES) is a genuine health condition. One convincing argument is that everyone reports the same cluster of neurological and physiological problems.

Nevertheless, the medical profession has tended to ignore ES sufferers, aided and abetted by an electronics industry anxious to protect its patch. That’s why most of the clinical evidence on wireless technology has come from case histories collected by a burgeoning number of self-help and lobby groups both in the UK and across the globe.

One of the most active UK groups is ElectroSensitvity-UK. Its technical consultant is Dr. John Rogers, a retired microwave-research scientist who himself suffers from ES.

Rogers points out that many of the so-called ‘wireless’ technologies (or Wi-Fi, for ‘wireless fidelity’) use microwaves like those used in radar. Wi-Fi frequencies (2.45–5.3 GHz) are chosen for their high transmission efficiency. But these frequencies are highly ‘bioactive’, says Rogers.

Problem products

What are the wireless dangers lurking in our homes? In pole position, according to ES experts, are cordless phones, especially those called DECT (digital electronic cordless telephone). They enable the phone to be used anywhere in the house, but at a price. ES campaigners say that having a DECT phone is like having an Orange or Vodafone mobile mast plonked slap-bang in the middle of your living room.

Just like a phone mast, DECT phones transmit 24/7, even when they’re not being used. Like masts, they also transmit a pulsed signal—suspected of being more dangerous than continuous radiowaves, for example. “These pulse rates mimic the body’s own endogenous nerve signalling rates, thus potentially interfering with normal functioning,” says Philips.

Added to that, like masts, DECT phones always operate at peak power, something even mobiles don’t do, having been designed to reduce power to the minimum when close to a mast (which is, incidentally, why rural mobile users receive higher doses of radiation that city-dwellers).

DECT phone emissions have a power of about 6 volts per metre (V/m) within a few feet of the base unit. That’s well within the official safety guidelines in the UK—but not in Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, China, Italy or Russia. Indeed, the city of Salzburg decreed a maximum exposure of 0.6 V/m after a scientist discovered cellular effects with emissions as low as 0.1 V/m (Electromagn Biol Med, 2003; 22: S161–9).

Likewise, in an open letter to the Bavarian Prime Minister in July 2005, a group of doctors urged a reduction of safety levels to even lower—to 0.06 V/m—after over 300 patients reported a range of health problems down to that level of exposure.

The concern over DECT phones has revived fears concerning an older piece of wireless technology—baby alarms, which have now also gone digital. Although not as powerful as DECT phones, they are potentially far more dangerous. They’re often mounted close to a baby’s head, and a baby’s brain is even more vulnerable than an adult’s.

Next on the list of domestic hazards are wireless broadband and wireless laptops. These also use the 2.45–5.3 GHz microwave frequencies, pulsed to obtain a range of up to 90 metres. Official figures of their power outputs are hard to come by, but ES groups have measured 1–3 V/m.

As radiation drops off rapidly with distance, the biggest worry is laptops, often used close to the body. What’s more, laptops seem to radiate downwards: outputs similar to those from DECT phones have been recorded from the underside of laptops. One case on Electro-Sensitivity-UK’s files is of a man who developed a penile tumour that may have been caused by a laptop, believes Dr Rogers.

Where’s the evidence?

The electronics industry, however, backed by the UK and US governments, continues to argue that any health risks from wireless are largely imaginary, fostered by hysterical hypochondriacs. Most electrical engineers and doctors agree with London University’s risk-expert Professor John Adams, who mocks ES as “an example of the modern disease of ‘compulsive risk assessment psychosis’–otherwise known as crap.”

Yet, in countries like Sweden, doctors recognize ES as a widespread condition that affects up to 3 per cent of the population (Johanssson O, Liu P-Y. ‘Electrosensitivity, electrosupersensitivity and screen dermatitis: preliminary observations from ongoing studies in the human skin’, in Simunic D, ed. Proceedings of the COST 244: Biomedical Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 1995: 52–7).

Part of the reason for professional scepticism is the lack of an explanation for why it happens.

The core of the problem may be that orthodox science still doesn’t recognize that body cells communicate electromagnetically—the orthodox view is that it’s all chemistry. Yet, 30 years ago, Dr Robert Becker showed that the body produces tiny electro-magnetic fields to regulate the immune system in general, and self-healing in particular (Becker RO, Selden G. The Body Electric. William Morrow, 1987).

This discovery was later con-firmed and extended by scientists such as Fritz-Albert Popp and Jacques Benveniste, giving us at least a theoretical basis for even relatively small artificial electrical fields having a potentially disruptive effect on the body.

However, precisely how they might do harm isn’t yet known. “The generally received opinion is that microwaves act as stressors of the immune system, particularly in vulnerable people,” says Alasdair Philips. Support for this comes from Professor Kjell Mild, of Örebro University, who has found that ES sufferers also tend to have allergic conditions or chemical sensitivity (Bioelectromagnetics, 2001; 22: 457–62). In fact, it turns out that up to 75 per cent of ES sufferers are chemically sensitive.

But many ES campaigners contend that we are all victims of microwave pollution—it’s just that we either haven’t noticed the symptoms, mistake them for something else or have particularly strong immune systems.

Growing evidence suggests they may be right. Although Wi-Fi technology is relatively new, we’ve had over a decade of experience with mobile phones and mast transmitters. Like Wi-Fi, mobiles and masts use pulsed digital microwaves. In the last five years, a cascade of studies and reports has catalogued some increasingly disturbing effects on health.

Cancer

An international review of nine studies found a 3.5-fold increased risk of acoustic neuromas (brain tumours near the ear) and 4.2-fold greater risk for uveal melanoma (cancer of the eye) in mobile users (J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev, 2004; 7: 351–84). A German study found that long-term use (more than 10 years) of mobile phones more than doubled the risk of a glioma (tumours of the brain and spinal cord) (Am J Epidemiol, 2006; 163: 512–20).

However, some studies have shown no cancer effect at all–although most of these were funded by the mobile industry, according to a Powerwatch analysis.

An EU project called Reflex—involving 12 labs across Europe—tested the effect of mobile-phone radiation on isolated cells. Although the final report played down the findings, the small print revealed that significant DNA breaks were seen in human and animal cells at exposures far below official radiation limits (European Union. Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods. December 2004).

This confirms nearly 30 years of research by Professor Henry Lai, of the University of Washington, showing damage by electro-magnetic fields to rat DNA, particularly in the brain (Environ Health Perspect, 2004; 112: 687–94).

“I have seen a lot of DNA damage, which is a concern because DNA mutation is a cause of cancer,” says Lai.

Brain damage

Study after study has shown that mobile-phone radiation has measurable effects on brain function. Swedish scientists have found “highly significant” evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus and basal ganglia in rat brains—though these results may not apply to humans.

They believe “weak pulsed microwaves” cause a “significant pathological” breaching of the blood–brain barrier, allowing potential toxins to enter the brain (Environ Health Perspect, 2003; 111: 881–3).

Similar findings were reported by Dr George Carlo, who ran a $25m research programme for six years for the US mobile-phone industry and reported a 50-per-cent greater risk of acoustic neuroma with cellphone use for six years or more (Carlo G, Schram M. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age. Avalon Publishing Group, 2000).

Other rat studies have found significant changes related to brain growth and development, and widespread brain-cell “oxidative damage” due to mobile-phone radiation (Electromagn Biol Med, 2006; 25: 61–70; Clin Chim Acta, 2004; 340: 153–62).

In humans, mobile phone radiation—particularly pulsed radiation can alter brain potentials, blood flow and brain-wave patterns (Eur J Appl Physiol, 2000; 81: 18–27; J Sleep Res, 2002; 11: 289–95). Pulsed radiation can impair cognitive processing on hearing tests and slow down reaction times (Acta Neurol Scand, 2004; 110: 46–52; Bioelectromagnetics, 2006; 27: 119–26). Significant drops in melatonin have shown up, too, after just half-an-hour of mobile use (Int J Radiat Biol, 2002; 78: 1029–36)—which could explain some of the symptoms of ES such as poor sleep. Melatonin is key in the regulation of both the endocrine system and the ‘body clock’.

Few of these adverse findings have received much publicity. “There are fortunes being made from mobile phones—not only by the mobile companies, but also by government,” says Philips. “Apart from the selling of the 3G mobile licences for over £20bn, the UK government also makes billions a year on mobile phone taxes alone.”

Future lawsuits?

What can you do about Wi-Fi? Happily, there are a number of technological and lifestyle solutions that ES sufferers say work. Or you can simply turn your back on wireless technology—although for those who need to earn a living, that’s increasingly becoming impractical.

There’s no escape from microwaves in any case. Only the very remotest parts of the UK remain untouched by ‘microwave pollution’. Many schools, public buildings, towns and cities are now geared up to provide Internet and telephone access wherever we go.

This has prompted an increasing number of experts to call for a halt to the wireless revolution—at least until the health risks are better understood. Says Dr George Carlo, “Based on exposures in 1990s, we’re looking at 30 to 50,000 new cases of brain and eye cancer today; by 2010, we’re anticipating 300,000 to 500,000 cases per year directly attributable to mobile phone use.”

US and UK insurance companies will not insure mobile-phone companies against any future lawsuit–a sign of things to come.

Tony Edwards

Hain Celestial Group Inc., the maker of Celestial Seasonings teas, received a warning from U.S. regulators that some of its powdered drink mixes contain an unsafe herb.

Robbie ate 4 teaspoons straight from the jar and within minutes he turned into a whirling dervish, a cyclone of hyperactivity. He was banging his head against a pillow on my lap one minute and the next tearing down the hall to throw toys around his room. The parents seemed all too familiar with this behavior and began making excuses. He gets like this when we have company, when he’s overtired, when he’s excited.

As a doctor, I immediately knew what the problem was – sugar. Robbie’s parents had already figured out that indulging his sweet tooth lead to hyperactive episodes. But they didn’t make the connection between the peanut butter and the behavior. I took the jar and showed them the label, which listed two different sugars (high fructose corn syrup and sugar). The parents were stunned and said they would be more diligent about cutting out the hidden sugars in their son’s diet. When my husband saw Robbie’s father a week later, he said Robbie was much calmer, was sleeping better, and was like a different person both at home and at daycare.

Most people do realize that sugar can cause hyperactivity, but what they don’t realize is that sugar lurks where you least expect to find it and affects the human body in myriad ways. The sugar industry vehemently denies that sugar is hazardous to human health. Are the parallel increases in sugar consumption, obesity, and diabetes just a coincidence? Here are the straight answers.

I know sugar can lead to weight gain, but is it really all that bad for me?

Yes, it really is. Sugar is a simple carbohydrate found naturally in many foods, including fruits and grains. If the only sugar we consumed were in natural, whole foods, we’d all be just fine. But the average American diet is full of refined, nutrient-depleted foods and contains an average of 20 teaspoons of added, refined sugar every day. That’s twice the amount recommended by the USDA (10 teaspoons and four times the maximum I personally recommend.)

So what’s wrong with refined sugar? Many things. First, sugar compromises immune function. Two cans of soda (which contain 24 teaspoons of sugar) reduce the efficiency of white blood cells by 92 percent – an effect that lasts up to five hours, according to Kenneth Bock, M.D., an expert in nutritional and environmental health. Since white blood cells are an integral part of your immune system, if you happen to meet a nasty virus or bacteria within five hours of drinking a few colas, your immune system may be unable to fight off the invader.

Refined sugar also overworks the pancreas and adrenal glands as they struggle to keep the blood sugar levels in balance. When you eat sugar, it is quickly absorbed into your blood stream in the form of glucose. This puts your pancreas into overdrive, making insulin (which carries glucose to your cells to be used for energy) to normalize blood sugar levels. But this rapid release of insulin causes a sudden drop in blood sugar. In reaction to the falling blood sugar, excess adrenal cortisone is stimulated to raise blood sugar back to normal. A constantly high intake of simple dietary sugar keeps this roller coaster going and eventually overworks or “burns out” normal pancreas and adrenal function leading to early menopause, adult-onset diabetes, hypoglycemia, and chronic fatigue.

The purpose of eating is to provide your body with nutrients. But since sugar is devoid of nutrients, the body must actually draw from its nutrient reserves to metabolize it. When these storehouses are depleted, the body becomes unable to properly metabolize fatty acids and cholesterol, leading to higher cholesterol and triglyceride levels. Drawing on the body’s nutrient reserves can also lead to chronic mineral deficits, especially in magnesium (a mineral required for more than 300 different enzyme activities) and chromium (a trace element that regulates hormones such as insulin), putting you at risk for dozens of diseases, from depression to attention deficit disorder to asthma.

A recent study, for example, found that kids who eat significant amounts of junk food are much more likely to develop asthma than kids who don’t eat junk food. While the researchers didn’t tie asthma to sugar itself, they did point out that a diet full of candy and other highly processed junk foods is deficient in a number of nutrients essential to health. And as I explained earlier, such foods further deplete the body of nutrients once consumed.

In fact, children are the biggest consumers of nutritionally void junk food at a time when their brains and bodies are growing rapidly and in need of a nutrient-dense diet for proper development, both physically and mentally. Criminologist Stephen Schoenthaler has been conducting nutritional studies on delinquents and public school children for almost thirty years. In a paper from 1986 he describes how one million kids improved their test scores when they eliminated sugar and white flour from their diets.

Alexander Schauss, Ph.D., a nutritional researcher and writer, performed similar work in juvenile detention centers and showed that violent behavior decreased dramatically when sugar was eliminated.

But I don’t eat junk food. Why should I be concerned about my sugar consumption?

Unless you’re eating a diet entirely made of whole, unprocessed foods (think fruits, vegetables, grains), you’re probably eating more sugar than you think, and than you should. Sugar, in its myriad forms, is added to virtually every packaged food product you’ll find at the supermarket – not just the sweet stuff. If you drink one soda, even the “natural” variety, used up your day’s sugar allowance.)

Don’t be fooled by the ingredients list. Sugar has hundreds of pseudonyms (see “Stealth Sugars,” for a sampling), and manufacturers have gotten very good at hiding them from consumers. Because ingredients are listed from most to least amount, often three different types of sugars will be in the middle of the list. If all sugars were required to be listed together, sugar would be the first ingredient.

To find out how much sugar you’re actually taking in, try keeping a food diary for one week. Check the labels of the foods you eat and make note of their sugar content. The reality of the numbers may not hit home because most of us don’t think in grams – 4.2 g of sugar is equivalent to 1 teaspoon of sugar. At the end of the week, take the total number of sugar grams and divide it by 4.2 to get your weekly sugar intake in teaspoons. Then divide that number by 7 to get your daily sugar consumption.

Unfortunately, the way the FDA’s labeling rules are set up, manufacturers don’t have to separate added sugars from naturally occurring ones on labels. But your total sugar intake will give you a very good idea of how much added sugar you’re eating. Naturally sweet foods, such as fruit, don’t really contain that much sugar. A cup of strawberries, for example, contains 1/6th the sugar of a can of cola.

Is there such a thing as a safe amount of sugar?

Ideally, you should eliminate all refined sugar from your diet. I’m aware do realize that such a feat may not be realistic for everyone, particularly since a large number of the foods you find at the grocery store have been made with refined sugars (plus the fact that nutrition labels don’t have to list the amount of added sugars a product contains).

Many people subscribe to the bizarre logic that if they overindulge in sweets and don’t wake up the next day with diabetes or some horrible disease then it must be okay. Dr. Abraham Hoffer, a psychiatrist in British Columbia who has been studying the effects of sugar on health for more than 40 years, says that it takes roughly 15- 20 years of steady consumption of refined sugar and junk food before an individual develops a chronic illness like diabetes. And it doesn’t take a lot of sugar to put you at risk. Hoffer’s statistics show that once intake exceeds 20 teaspoons daily, the risk of chronic disease increases exponentially.

If you can’t completely cut sugar from your diet, due to eating out and not being in control of ingredients, try not to ingest more than two or three teaspoons a day. That way you will stay well below 70 pounds annually (20 teaspoons daily) which is the cut off point for sugar-induced chronic disease. At the level we’re eating sugar now (20 teaspoons per person daily), it is only a matter of time before we’re facing an epidemic of sugar-induced diseases. In fact, the epidemics may have already begun – according to the Centers for Disease control in Atlanta, the incidence of adult-onset diabetes, has increased by 70 percent among people in their 30s in the past 10 years.

What does processing do to sugar?

Processing sugarcane, or any whole food, strips it of most if not all of its nutritional value. Researchers found that the refining process of sugar removes 93 percent of its chromium, 89 percent of its manganese, 98 percent of its cobalt, 83 percent of its copper, 98 percent of its zinc, and 98 percent of its magnesium. Ironically, the end product, the refined sugar, is what we consume, while the nutritious residues are discarded and generally fed to cattle.

In the 1920s, Sir Frederick Banting, the Canadian medical researcher scientist, who first discovered insulin, visited Panama to study diabetes among workers in the sugar cane fields. He could find almost no incidence of diabetes among the workers who ate the whole sugarcane plant daily. But among their Spanish employers – who incorporated the refined end product, white sugar, into their diets – the disease was rampant.

Is fructose healthier than sugar?

Many people mistakenly believe that fructose is a healthier sugar – especially since it is used in many so-called “natural” foods. While there is a small amount of fructose naturally present in fruit, the fructose that is added to many commercially prepared foods is nearly as refined as plain white sugar.

Most of the fructose you’ll encounter is in the form of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which has nearly eclipsed sugar as the most consumed sweetener in the United States. It is added to thousands of products, from cola to cookies and even to canned vegetables. HFCS is a highly refined sweetener that is virtually identical, chemically speaking, to refined white sugar; during digestion sugar breaks down into equal parts of glucose and fructose; HFCS contains 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose.

Why do I crave sugar?
You may crave sugary foods for many reasons. As I explained earlier, refined sugar stresses the pancreas and depletes the body’s supplies of chromium. A common symptom of chromium deficiency is sugar cravings. And satisfying these cravings further lowers chromium and increases cravings. And eating sweets is just plain pleasurable. Chocolate, for example, has been found to stimulate the production of serotonin, the feel-good brain chemical.

But the human body is drawn to carbohydrates for reasons other than instant gratification. Carbohydrates are necessary for metabolic processes in our body. Whole, unrefined carbohydrates like grains break down into sugar when chewed. After proper chewing, grains will taste sweet. Grains contain B vitamins and magnesium, these nutrients are important co-factors in hundreds of metabolic processes in the body. And the sweetness of the foods that contain B-vitamins and magnesium may create a conditioned response to these foods. In other words, sweetness makes your body think you are getting beneficial vitamins and minerals. But when we get empty carbs like sugar with no other nutrients—the body craves more and more to try to meet its nutrient demands.

So, if your body needs these vitamins and minerals and is attracted to carbohydrates to get them, and if instead of a whole grain you eat a refined empty product, then you will probably keep craving carbohydrates until you get the vitamins and minerals you need. That’s why many doctors recommend B-complex vitamins and magnesium supplements help to control carbohydrate addiction. Of course, eating organic whole grains would be the optimum solution.

The main reason for our sugar cravings it that we’ve had a lifetime of refined sugar. It’s in baby food, snacks and treats at every turn; Madison Avenue is able to sell 10 cents worth of junk food for $2.00 because it appeals to our sweet tooth. We’re hooked and we’re not complaining as long as the supply holds out. And as Dr. Hoffer says it’s a stronger addiction than heroin.

Another cause of sugar cravings is a yeast overgrowth, also known as candidaisis. Candida is a yeast that is naturally present in the human body. But some things, such as antibiotics and too much sugar in the diet, can cause the yeast to multiply, leading a number of health problems, from vaginal yeast infections to severe fatigue. And these yeast, when present in abnormally high numbers, can cause strong cravings for sweet, starchy foods, causing the problem to perpetuate. (If you suspect a yeast overgrowth, your doctor can perform a saliva or stool test for yeast antibodies.) (Dr. Dean is the medical advisor to yeastconnection.com. Visitors to the site can take the Yeast Questionnaire to help determine if they have a yeast problem. If so, a 6-Point Yeast Fighting Program will help eliminate the sugar and yeast from your life.)

Are natural sweeteners like honey better than white sugar?

Regardless of what kind of sweeteners you eat, they should account for no more than 5 percent of your daily calories. Some natural sweeteners, such as blackstrap molasses, unprocessed honey, fruit juice, brown rice syrup, and evaporated cane juice do contain low levels of nutrients, such as the B vitamins, and minerals such as iron, calcium and potassium. But don’t be fooled, these “natural” sweeteners are only marginally better than plain white table sugar and dietary intake of them should be limited.

What about calorie-free sugar substitutes such as Nutrasweet? Sweet N’ Low?
Don’t be fooled into switching from sugar to sugar-free substitutes; they’re even more unhealthy, especially aspartame (Nutrasweet). If you want to add a touch of sweetness without any calories, try stevia*. Stevia is an extremely safe herb that is not only an excellent sweetener, but it actually lowers blood sugar levels in diabetics by helping to regulate pancreatic function. And unlike sugar, which weakens the immune system, stevia has antimicrobial properties and actually helps the body fight off colds and flus.

Aspartame (Nutrasweet),on the other hand, is a neurotoxin and should be avoided like the plague. Aspartame has been shown to cause birth defects, brain tumors and seizures and to contribute to diabetes and emotional disorders.

Aspartame has three components: phenylalanine (50 percent), aspartic acid (40 percent) and methanol, also termed wood alcohol (10 percent). Those in support of this popular artificial sweetener, state that the two primary amino acids, which comprise 90 percent of aspartame by weight, are a harmless and natural part of our diet. While phenylalanine and aspartic acid are naturally occurring amino acids, our bodies and brains are not equipped to handle such high concentrations as found in a diet soda where they disrupt nerve cell communication and can cause cell death. The neurotoxic effects of these isolated amino acids can be linked to headaches, mental confusion, balance problems and seizures.

Methanol, too, is naturally present in fruits and vegetables but these foods also contain ethanol, which neutralizes the methanol. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines safe consumption of methanol as no more than 7.8 mg per day of this dangerous substance. Yet a one-liter beverage, sweetened with aspartame, contains about 56 milligrams of wood alcohol, or seven times the EPA limit.
And the absolute irony of the use of aspartame in diet products is that it can actually cause weight gain. Phenylalanine and aspartic acid, found in aspartame, stimulate the release of insulin. Rapid, strong spikes in insulin remove all glucose from the blood stream and store it as fat. This can result in hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and sugar cravings. Additionally, phenylalanine has been demonstrated to inhibit carbohydrate-induced synthesis of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which signals that the body is full. This can cause you to eat more than your normally would and, ultimately, gain weight. In one study a control group switching to an aspartame-free diet resulted in an average weight loss of 19 pounds.

Saccharin is a petroleum-derived sweetener discovered in 1879 and was used extensively during the sugar shortages during World Wars I and II. The sweetener got a bad reputation in l977 when the FDA proposed restrictions on its use saying studies involving male rats given large amounts of saccharin developed urinary bladder tumors. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) then officially classified saccharin as an “anticipated human carcinogen.” But researchers have since been unable to reproduce the results from 1977, and saccharin was recently removed from the NTP’s list. Saccharin might be the lesser of two evils, but it’s still a synthetic substance.)

Many low-carbohydrate foods, like the Atkins Bars, contain sugar alcohols. What are they?

Stealth Sugars

It sometimes requires a little detective work to find the hidden sugars in foods. You probably know the “ose”s (maltose, sucrose, glucose, fructose), but there are dozes more that you’d never suspect. The following is a list of 100 common names for sugar that you may encounter in ingredients of your favorite foods.