It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Genetic predisposition plays a key role in CD and considerable progress has been made recently in identifying genes that are responsible for CD predisposition. [2, 3] It is well known that CD is strongly associated with specific HLA class II genes known as HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8 located on chromosome 6p21]...
Performing the 21 Day Sugar Intolerance Test:
This is a very simple test and akin to an elimination diet. If you get off of sugar and carbs and have your symptoms disappear, then you can be sure you have a sugar intolerance. If you have any nagging health problems that concern you, this test is an absolute must.
Now for the next 21 days you’re not going to eat sugar of any kind. Remember that all carbohydrates turn into sugar.
Here is a list of foods to avoid:
- Bread, pasta, cookies, cakes, crackers, rolls, pastries, desserts
- Potatoes of all types, corn, rice and beans
- Fruit and fruit juices
- Energy drinks and bars
- Sugar of all kinds – candy, honey, ketchup.
- Alcohol of all kinds
- Sweetened yogurt ...
BACKGROUND & AIMS:
Patients with non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) do not have celiac disease but their symptoms improve when they are placed on gluten-free diets. We investigated the specific effects of gluten after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates (fermentable, oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols [FODMAPs]) in subjects believed to have NCGS.
In a placebo-controlled, cross-over rechallenge study, we found no evidence of specific or dose-dependent effects of gluten in patients with NCGS placed diets low in FODMAPs. ...
Most of the studies found gluten challenge to significantly increase symptom scores compared with placebo. However, only 38 of 231 NCGS patients (16%) showed gluten-specific symptoms. Furthermore, 40% of these subjects had a nocebo response (similar or increased symptoms in response to placebo). These findings reveal heterogeneity and potential methodology flaws among studies of gluten challenge, cast doubt on gluten as the culprit food component in most patients with presumptive NCGS, and highlight the importance of the nocebo effect in these types of studies ...
“So 30% – 40% of healthcare expenditures in the USA go to help address issues that are closely tied to the excess consumption of sugar.” Credit Suisse Report – Sugar: Consumption At A Crossroads ...
we estimate that the annual costs to the healthcare system due to the global obesity epidemic are in excess of USD 600 billion. But obesity, as bad as it is, is not the most worrisome issue. Diabetes type II is now affecting close to 370 million people worldwide, with one in ten US adults affected by it. The costs to the global healthcare system are a staggering USD 470 billion according to the most recent estimates from the International Diabetes Federation, and represent over 10% of all healthcare costs. In the USA alone, the healthcare costs tied to diabetes type II are estimated at USD 140 billion, compared to USD 90 billion for tobacco-related healthcare costs. Even more worrisome is that these numbers are growing at a rate of 4% a year, much faster than for obesity (1%–2%). By 2020, the annual cost to the healthcare system globally will reach USD 700 billion and the people affected will be close to 500 million. Recent events would indicate that local and national authorities around the globe are beginning to take action, with varying degrees of success. Interventions include anti-soda advertising campaigns, tax levies, removal of vending machines in schools and regulation of portion size. However, as Mayor Bloomberg discovered in New York, when his attempt to limit cup sizes was defeated in court, the combined lobby of the sugar industry – which is a huge employer and therefore has significant voting power and that of the food and beverage manufacturers – makes things much more difficult. After balancing arguments in favor and against, we believe that taxation would be the best approach and will provide the best outcome: reducing consumption while helping the public sector deal with the growing social and medical costs ...
The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.
The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent.
Although people don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data shows that it’s easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables, says the study’s lead author Adam Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington. Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods. However, most people eat a mix of foods. The average American spends about $7 a day on food, although low-income people spend about $4, says Dr. Drewnowski. ...
This puts Germany in the group of countries with the highest costs of treatment per person and year. Other countries "in the group" are Switzerland (402 US dollars, 300 euros), Denmark (238 US dollars, 178 euros) and the USA (185 US dollars, 138 euros). "If the target of 50 grams of sugar per person and day set by the World Health Organization could be reached, this would result in savings in the costs of treatment within Germany of 150 euros (201 US dollars) per person and year. Extrapolating this figure to the federal level shows annual potential savings of approximately 12 billion euros, or 16 billion US dollars," added Meier. A low-sugar diet is becoming increasingly difficult, however, since almost all processed products in the supermarket contain large quantities of added sugar ...
"For every additional 25 grams of sugar consumed per person and day—which amounts to roughly eight sugar cubes or a glass of sweetened lemonade—the costs of dental treatment in high-income countries increase on average by $100 U.S. (€75) per person and year."
11 OCTOBER 2016 | GENEVA - Taxing sugary drinks can lower consumption and reduce obesity, type 2 diabetes and tooth decay, says a new WHO report.
Fiscal policies that lead to at least a 20% increase in the retail price of sugary drinks would result in proportional reductions in consumption of such products, according to the report titled “Fiscal policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs)”.
Reduced consumption of sugary drinks means lower intake of “free sugars” and calories overall, improved nutrition and fewer people suffering from overweight, obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.
Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose or fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook, or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices, and fruit juice concentrates. ...
In 2014, Berkeley, California became the first city in the United States to pass a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The goal was to cut back on consumption—and eventually, to help chip away at rates of diseases like obesity and type 2 diabetes.
The tax, which tacks on one cent per fluid ounce on beverages with added caloric sweeteners—like sodas, energy drinks and sweetened fruit drinks—was officially implemented in March 2015. And according to a new report published Tuesday in the journal PLOS Medicine, it appears to be working.
The researchers looked at whether the tax impacted the buying behaviors of Berkeley residents. They found that one year after the tax took effect, sales of sugar-sweetened drinks fell by close to 10%, and sales of water increased in Berkeley by about 16%. Sales of unsweetened teas, milk and fruit juices also went up, suggesting people were substituting their sugary drinks with healthier alternatives. ...
We analyze seven ways of taxing soft drinks. Five tax only SSBs:
- Sales tax on SSBs: Like the retail sales taxes that already exist in many states, a retail sales tax on SSBs is based on the retail value of SSBs purchased. Expensive SSBs, such as energy drinks, face a higher tax than less expensive drinks, such as many regular sodas. Previous studies have often analyzed a 20 percent sales tax on SSBs, so we use that as a benchmark for our analyses.
- Volume tax on SSBs: A volume tax applies to SSBs based on their fluid volume, usually measured in ounces. Berkeley, for example, charges 1.0 cent per ounce. To raise the same revenue as a 20 percent SSB sales tax in our model requires a volume tax of 1.0 cent per ounce. To achieve the same reduction in SSB sugar requires a volume tax of 0.9 cents per ounce. APPENDIX 1 9
- One-tier tax on SSBs: This volume tax applies only to drinks whose sugar content exceeds a specified level. Hungary uses this approach, applying its tax to drinks with at least 19 grams of sugar per eight-ounce serving.23 To raise the same revenue as the benchmark sales tax requires a tax on high-sugar drinks of 1.3 cents per ounce. To achieve the same sugar reduction requires a one-tier tax of 1.0 cent per ounce.
- Two-tier tax on SSBs: This volume tax applies to drinks whose sugar content exceeds a specified level, and a higher rate applies if sugar content exceeds a second threshold. Britain recently announced such a tax, with one rate applying to drinks with at least 12 grams of sugar per eight-ounce serving and a higher rate applying to drinks with at least 19 grams of sugar per eight-ounce serving.24 To raise the same revenue as the benchmark sales tax requires taxes of 0.6 and 1.2 cents per ounce. To achieve the same sugar reduction requires rates of 0.5 and 0.9 cents per ounce.
- Sugar content: Taxes vary proportionately with a drink’s sugar content. South Africa recently announced such a tax, charging about a tenth of a US cent per gram of added sugar. The US federal government taxes spirits based on their alcohol content, for example, and more governments are beginning to discourage greenhouse gas emissions by taxing the carbon content of fossil fuels. To raise the same revenue as the benchmark sales tax requires a tax on sugar content of 0.34 cents per gram, and to achieve the same sugar reduction requires a tax of 0.27 cents per gram. ...
Most studies of taxing sweetened beverages focus on uniform taxes on volume or on taxes that raise SSB prices by a specific percentage, usually 10 or 20 percent (Zhen et al. 2011, 2014; Dharmasena and Capps 2012; Lin et al. 2011; Finkelstein et al. 2013). In fact, we are aware of only one study that does a head-to-head comparison of volume and sugar taxes on sweetened beverages. Zhen, Brissette, and Ruff (2014) compared a volume tax (0.5 cents per ounce) to a calorie tax (0.04 cent per kilogram calorie, equivalent to 0.15 cents per gram of sugar). 3 They calibrated these tax rates so the levy on regular Coca-Cola, the most popular sweetened beverage, would be the same under both approaches. They found that taxing sugar would reduce sugar intake 8 percent more, impose 5 percent less of a burden on consumers, and collect 5 percent less revenue than would taxing volume. 4 Taxing sugar content thus delivers more sugar reduction than a volume tax relative to the burden placed on consumers. In short, taxing sugar content is more efficient than taxing volume if the goal is reducing sugar consumption
Figs Figs22–4 show the results for the modelled diseases over the first 25 years after the introduction of the tax. (S3 Table of the Supporting Information presents more detail, including uncertainty intervals.) Most notably, the 20% tax would reduce the number of type 2 diabetes cases, with incidence down by approximately 800 per year. This is roughly a 0.6% reduction compared to the number expected without the tax (approximately 130,000 per year). The annual number of new cases of heart disease and stroke would be reduced by 240 and 70, respectively.
After 25 years there would be 16,000 less prevalent cases of diabetes, 4,400 fewer cases of IHD and 1,100 of stroke. In total, an estimated 1600 fewer deaths will occur by year 25, with heart disease accounting for the largest share of this postponed mortality.
In addition to the health care cost savings, the intervention would also raise substantial revenue for the government. Based on national household expenditure data in 2009/2010 , expenditure on soft drinks amounted to AUD5.32 per household per week, indicating that a 20% tax on these products would raise taxation revenue in excess of AUD400 million each year (taking into account changes in consumption in response to the tax). This revenue could be put towards health promotion activities, or used to subsidise healthy foods. ...
Taxes on sugary drinks help reduce consumption and prevent obesity • Evidence shows that a tax of 20% on sugary drinks can lead to a reduction in consumption of around 20%, thus preventing obesity and diabetes(7). Savings on healthcare • Estimates suggest that, over 10 years, a tax on sugary drinks of 1 cent per ounce in the United States of America would result in more than US$ 17 billion in healthcare cost savings(8). Revenues raised from taxes can be used to promote the health of the population • This tax could generate approximately US$ 13 billion in annual tax revenues in the United States of America in 2016 (9). • Based on 2014 data, a tax on sugary drinks of 1 yuan (US$ 0.16) per litre in China would generate an estimated 73.6 billion yuan (US$ 11.8 billion) in revenues(10). • Revenue generated by these taxes could be spent on efforts to improve health care systems, encourage healthier diets, increase physical activity, or build capacity for effective tax administration, further increasing the value of this measure. Low-income consumers and young people get the greatest health benefits from taxes • In Mexico, a year after the introduction of a tax on sugary drinks, households with the fewest resources reduced their purchases of sugary drinks by 17%, compared to 12% for the general population ...
originally posted by: blend57
How I Manage Food Part 2
I realized that what the evidence all points to is: We are all different and need different things. Food is as personal as a medical condition, as complicated as an emotional issue and as unique to each one of us as each of our personalities.