Is it really organic?

The title is not misleading. Prior to 1997, organic probably was what most of us envision as organic. Today, this is unfortunately a rarity, as most small farms and organic operations have been gobbled up by large national or multinational corporations. In a shrinking area of the US, you may find some isolated areas of organic farms, but don't count on it.

Companies such as Heinz, PepsiCo, Kraft, Dean, and other firms have from 1997 to 2007 purchased many many small organic food producing companies. So now they and a few other large corporations control the bulk of organic operations in the US. As a result organic products moved from the small local stores and seller coops to the large food operations and supermarkets. This brings the foods many of us thought was organic under the control of large profit operations who want profits at all costs.

This begs the question of what does organic mean today. Let me assure you it has changed and has been diluted to the point of not being recognizable and not up to the standards of the 1990 law that established the organic food standards in the US. Not only are standards not being adhered to, but the USDA's testing that was required is no longer being done. Some minor attempts are being made to correct this.

Even worse, congress in its infinite wisdom has watered down the 1990 law and is allowing non-organic products to be part of the foods labeled organic. Imported products that may not be organic are being sold as organic. In the October 2005, congress weakened the requirements for organic labeling and then in 2007, USDA proposed and started allowing non-organic products to be labeled organic if the majority (75%) of the food is organic.

So if you have diabetes and desire organic foods, realize that what you are getting may not be what you expect. I know that I am thinking twice about purchasing organic for a higher price, unless I know where and who raised it or grew it. I urge you to read the following sites for further insights:

Site l, Site 2, and Site 3.

Online sources for diabetes information – Part 4

More sites that may get your interest.

http://www.diabeticconnect.com/  This is for all types of diabetes and has many sections to the site. Two are listed next. http://www.diabeticconnect.com/discussions and http://www.diabeticconnect.com/blog-articles?category=Type+2

http://www.sleepconnect.com/  There is also a related site for sleep apnea. If you are a member of one, I believe you are also a member of the other sites. Take time to explore these sites. In the top black bar, you will see on the right side “Visit Another Community”. This is your key to finding the other sites that may be of interest to you.

In the connect communities each has a newsletter that may or may not interest you.

http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/?ic=1102  This site has much information on all types of diabetes and several excellent bloggers. You may subscribe to those you wish to read and receive an email every time they post a new blog. I subscribe to several of the bloggers and receive their newsletter.

A few interesting medical blogs for your enjoyment. My only complaint is that they use so many abbreviations with no explanation. Some are understandable, but others to me are gibberish. These a just a few of the ones I attempt to read.

http://www.medrants.com/

http://distractible.org/

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

http://advocacyblog.acponline.org/

Now I will finish with a few nutrition blogs that I find interesting and one or two other blogs. Some are very good and some are a little on the controversial side at times. Some write regularly and some are very intermittent.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

http://myoptimalhealthresource.blogspot.com/

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/ 

Miscellaneous:

http://www.medworm.com/rss/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/

While there are many more websites available that are interesting to read, this will conclude this series and if I find others of general interest, I will try to blog about them as I fine topics of interest.

Since this has not been posted, I need to add one additional piece of information that has information about about reliable diabetes research and is written by Ann Bartlett
in her latest post on Health Central.

http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/9993/119479/reliable-research

Fresh fish vs fish oil capsules, and exercise

This is a good article by a dietitian that I had not read before. While she may at times be controversial, she is doing some topics correctly. So at this time I will cover two of her blogs. The first is written on September 6, 2010 and the second is from June 24, 2010. She has been blogging since May 2010.

The first is on the subject of fish oil and whether it is more effective to take fish oil capsules or get the oil from fresh fish. The study she quotes shows that one is not better than the other. The only comments by Dr Harris of the University of South Dakota was that even though there was no difference in which the participants had, he would still recommend the fresh fish over the fish oil. Emilia Klapp R.D. then discussed the benefits of fish oil for the heart and it properties for reducing inflammation.

The other blog of interest is titled “Your Safest Diabetes Type 2 Treatment: Exercise”.
This is mixed in with other blogs about exercise which definitely shows that she understands the importance of exercise for people with diabetes and for this I am giving her high marks.

A surprising thing that she has not said is that we must eat a set number of carbohydrates. She has at least for now avoided that topic. She is the person that did an interview with Scott Strange of Strangely Diabetic on August 5, 2010.

For now, I will continue to read her blog and enjoy what she has to say.

What is the role of statins?

This article in the BBC really took me in and made me read. No is is not about diabetes, but about something that many of us do take – statins. Now I know that many people are trying to get off statins and for probably for good reasons.

This study in Israel should give you cause for thinking. A study base of of 1.8 million patients is hardly something you ignore. They found that those on statins for reducing heart attacks, were 50 percent less likely to develop rheumatoid arthritis.

The article quotes Jane Tadman, of Arthritis Research UK, who said: "Our own published research and that of researchers in Japan has shown a modest but significant effect on inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, and this latest piece of research adds further evidence of this link”. "We now need larger clinical trials to confirm further that statins can reduce the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis."

This should give those that have a history of rheumatoid arthritis in their families some hope if they need statins or are on statins.

This is a venting post

Warning! This is a post that is a venting of some frustration, so if you chose not to read it, I will understand.

On one of the forums I do occasionally participate on, I took a cheap shot at someone by asking them to stop being a poster person for poor diabetes care. Am I sorry for this, yes, and sincerely so.

I admit that this person's attitude led me to make this statement. When people have doctors that apparently do not understand diabetes and think an A1c of 7.6% is prediabetes and that he does not need a referral to another doctor for poor blood glucose control or for the neuropathy, I tend to let my emotions get the best of me. This doctor also stated that there was no hope for the neuropathy and he/she should learn to live with it. (I am working on a blog about neuropathy for the future).

The person then stated in a later post that there was no willingness or energy to be as diligent in the control as another poster had suggested by stating his experience (and about 60 years as a type 1 is worthy of recognition). Again this added to my emotions. I did not express what I thought about this statement on the forum as I would have probably have overstated my thoughts. Does the word “lazy” fit this discussion or lack of motivation may fit more appropriately.

When the person originally posted, she/he was concerned primarily about the pain from the neuropathy, which was a legitimate concern. Then to make the statements that were made after several posts that were made with some valid positive suggestions, opened the door for my comments.

Yes, I stated that the diabetes loved this person and had been given the green light to take over the body and do its damage. Wounds would not heal, and amputation was on the horizon. The kidneys would be unable to their task and dialysis would follow. Next, there would be problems with the eyesight and blindness was around the corner. I failed to mention the problems with the heart would happen.

This person is just a few years older than myself, but I should have had compassion and offered some positive advice, but when it has been previously offered and seemingly ignored or refused because the person in not inclined to do it, I changed my approach and made my statements. I have in the past been successful with this approach, but this one was not willing to listen.

While I think this person has accepted their fate and will not be proactive in their care, it bothers me that they make posts wanting help, but then will not accept the thoughts and suggestions of others. Yes, most of the people on most forums are proactive and positive, yet when the they offer good suggestions, they are too often ignored.

Open request to all type 2 people

As of now I have published all that I have permission to publish. I wish more would have responded to my request to publish their information. I will not publish without permission. I still have a lot of requests out and will continue requesting if I find new sites. Information will be added as I get it plus new URL's will be added for people.

I am not sure why people have not responded, either they have very tight control on their email and my emails were routed to spam, or have chosen not to participate. At some future date I may list the URL's only without any other information, but I really don't want to do this.

If you have been missed, are a person with type 2 diabetes, and want to be included, please go to my blog profile page and email me.

If you can help, please let me know. The lists are presently all here.

Lifestyle intervention without exercise

Normally I can scan a study and know that I don't want to read it, but this one did get my attention – in the wrong way. I felt like so many studies echo this one and are crying out for comment.

This is a study that is questionable, but the biggest key – exercise – is sadly not part of the study. Lifestyle intervention seems to be the procedure of choice for more studies. Medications seems to be the first choice. The second choice seems to be lifestyle (or dietary) intervention. Many or I should say the majority studies never mention exercise.

It seems that exercise should be the first choice, nutrition the second choice, and medications the third choice. Now granted, when first diagnosed, medications need to be the choice to bring blood glucose under tight control. Then depending on the persons health, exercise and nutrition should be started also.

Am I upset, to say the least, I am more surprised at the attitude of many researchers that totally ignore exercise or don't include this in the analysis of their studies. It is just like this does not exist and surely some people do some exercise while involved in studies unless exercise is not permitted in the studies.

This study took 93 participants who had been optimized for drug treatment and an A1c of 7.0 or greater. They also must have two of the three following conditions, be overweight or obese, have hypertension, or abnormal concentrations of lipids.

Then the researchers gave individualized the dietary instructions to optimize the intervention for part of the group and the rest were the control group. This is based on the nutritional recommendations of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The study was for six months and participants were to continue all medical tests and treatments as usual.

At the conclusion the intervention group had declined from a mean of 8.9% to 8.4% and the control group remained unchanged at 8.6%. I will say no more other than ask if this in intervention? You may read what is written in Diabetes in Control for yourself.