New Study Compares Shaklee Performance vs Gatorade and Kidney Stone Risk

Friday, September 11, 2009 at 9:37am
New Study Compares Shaklee Performance vs Gatorade and Kidney Stone Risk

When you are the leader in the natural food supplement industry, people sometimes test your products without you even knowing about it.

That was exactly what happened with a recent study comparing the effects of Shaklee’s Performance and Gatorade on the risk of kidney stone formation.

This was the ultimate independent study.

Shaklee didn’t initiate it. They didn’t support it. And, in fact, they didn’t even know about it until it was published a couple of weeks ago (J.W. Goodman et al, Urol. Res., 37: 41-46, 2009).

Before I get into the results of the study, perhaps I should start with an explanation of why you would even want to do that kind of study.

Let’s start with the problem - kidney stones. They are extremely painful, and they can damage the kidney - particularly if they form over and over again.

To a urologist the solution is simple - just drink two liters of water a day.

The problem is that you have to really, really, really like water to drink two liters a day, and most people just aren’t that into water.

In fact, previous studies had shown that even when patients had a previous kidney stone and were told by their urologist to drink two liters of water a day, the average result was an increase of only 0.3 liters a day of water.

So this group of urologists asked what people were drinking instead of water.

The latest trends show that soft drink consumption is decreasing and consumption of sports drinks and energy drinks is increasing. And, there was absolutely no information on whether sports drinks increased or decreased the risk of kidney stone formation.

So they decided to look at two well-known sports drinks, Shaklee’s Performance and Gatorade, to see whether they would increase or decrease the risk of kidney stone formation compared to the consumption of an equivalent amount of water.

They looked at the effect of each sports drink on the amount of citrate in the urine and by how much they increased the pH of the urine because each of these decreases the risk of kidney stone formation.

They also looked at the effect of each sports drink on the amount of sodium and calcium in the urine because each of those increases the risk of kidney stone formation.

Performance significantly increased the amount of citrate and the pH of the urine, while Gatorade had no effect on either of them.

Neither Performance or Gatorade had an significant effect on sodium or calcium levels in the urine.

Thus, they concluded that Shaklee’s Performance was superior to either Gatorade or water alone at deceasing the risk of kidney stone formation.

Now you might be tempted to say that this study was of more interest to urologists than the general public. But my guess is that if you have ever suffered through a kidney stone this study is of great interest to you.

But to me the more important conclusion is that, once again, independent clinical studies show the superiority of Shaklee products.

To your health!

Dr. Stephen G. Chaney, PhD
Full Professor of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Nutrition
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Dr. Chaney has been teaching biochemistry, biophysics and nutrition to medical and dental students for over 30 years. In addition he has an active program in cancer research, focusing on chemotherapy. He has authored 80 publications in peer - reviewed journals. Dr. Chaney was instrumental in establishing nutrition education as an important part of the medical school training at UNC at Chapel Hill.

Q: WHAT ARE THE “THREE R’S’? HINT, Not Reading, 'Riting, & 'Rithmetic!

A: REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE.

 

This is the first in a series to focus us on ways that we can help to protect and clean up our environment.

First, the first “R”, reduce - to use less

 Most of us, and fortunately the most is shrinking, are simply not aware of the problems generated by the incredibly high rate of consumption of products in our society. As we become more aware, it gets easier to realize that with only a few modifications of our behavior, we will not only help our planet, but we will have less clutter and also save a lot of money! Preventing waste in the first place also can mean economic savings for communities, businesses, and schools.
 

Let’s explore a bit of the why’s of the three “R”s.

      Did you know that: 
… between 1960 and 2007 the amount of waste each person creates has almost doubled from 2.7 to 4.6 pounds per day. The most effective way to stop this trend is by preventing waste in the first place.

… it takes more than 2 gallons of water to make just one t-shirt, and 24% of the world’s pesticides are used to grow cotton.

… many of our landfills are filled to overflowing and it is getting more and more difficult to find room for the literal mountains of trash that are accumulating every year.

        How can we help?  The best place to start and make a difference is right in your own home. You can reduce the amount of materials you use and waste you produce, reuse products in new ways, recycle goods, and choose items and alternative methods to use less toxic chemicals. Remember how much water it takes to make just one T shirt? A good choice would be to not buy the latest, cutest, most expressive new shirt, but to check out the thrift stores for like new shirts, or to use an iron on decal to decorate the shirts we already have.

 

To reduce the amount of waste which households send to the local landfill, we must change the way we make decisions: purchasing decisions; household management decisions; and citizen action decisions. Since Packaging materials account for a major portion of the trash we generate, consider buying items in bulk or those with minimal packaging such as fruit, vegetables, and even tools that are available in bins and do not require packaging.

   

Sometimes, just trying to figure out how to make the best choices when we are shopping can be confusing. Thousands of products bombard us as consumers with claims that may or may not be true. We must look at product packaging with an eye to these considerations:  
      Can it be re-used? Choose: cloth or string grocery bags and don’t collect more than you actually will use. (Remember, just manufacturing them takes a toll on the environment), rechargeable batteries, a diaper service using cloth diapers, and containers which can continue to serve as containers for other things or as space dividers) 
      Does it have a long product life? Select well made items which can be repaired if necessary and you’ll also save money in the long run.  
      Does it have minimum packaging? Buy in bulk or choose large containers; avoid blister packs and excess quantities of filler. 
      Does it have minimum toxicity? Choose the least hazardous cleaning supplies, paints, other substances to avoid harming people, land, or the water supply) 
      Is it really a necessary purchase? Resist buying as many unneeded clothing, entertainment items and other purchases; rent large equipment used infrequently)  
      We can help to save natural resources.  
Waste is not just created when consumers throw items away. Throughout the life cycle of a product from extraction of raw materials to transportation to processing and manufacturing facilities to manufacture and use waste is generated. Reusing items or making them with less material decreases waste dramatically. Ultimately, fewer materials will need to be recycled or sent to landfills or waste combustion facilities.

We can reduce the levels of toxicity of waste by selecting nonhazardous or less hazardous items. Sharing products that contain hazardous chemicals instead of throwing out leftovers, reading label directions carefully, using the smallest amount necessary, and replacing polishes, deodorizers, and other products that contain hazardous components are ways to reduce waste toxicity.

We need to use non toxic and non polluting alternatives for certain items (e.g., cleaning products and pesticides). To learn about the unsuspected poisons that are probably lurking under your kitchen sink and around your home just send an email requesting the unsuspected poisons info to sabrams@earnlink.net and I’ll send that information.

IF you are still wondering about Resveratrol, take a look at these videos. Then, remember that Shaklee is the only company that has actually followed Dr. Sinclair's recomendations for assuring the best absorption and is also the only company in the world that has added the extract from the skin and seeds of the Muscadine grape, making one part of the Resveratrol 10 times more effective in slowing the aging process than resveratrol alone.

A Little Cancer Additive With Your Soda?

This is the third and last in my series of toxic artificial sweeteners. I hope that these blogs have been helpful, as well as the ones before showing how to eliminate them and use natural sweeteners that build our health instead of destroying it.

Please leave comments and I’d love to have you subscribe to and follow my blogs.
Thanks so much for coming.
==========================================
Every one of these extraordinarily qualified scientists agree that the food additive, Acesulfame K, is most likely to cause Cancer. Can anyone tell me why the FDA has completely ignored their warnings, has refused to do in-depth scientific testing and, with absolutely no valid evidence of its safety, has approved the sweetener, Acesulfame K?

Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D. Director, Public Citizen's Health Research Group. Former member of the NCI Carcinogenicity Clearinghouse.

J.D. Wilbourn Acting Chief, Unit of Carcinogen Identification and Evaluation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health Organization agency.

Marvin Schneiderman, Ph.D. Former Associate Director of Field Studies and Statistics at the National Cancer Institute.

Ellen K. Silbergeld, Ph.D. Professor of Epidemiology and Toxicology, University of Maryland at Baltimore. Former member, Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

Umberto Saffiotti, M.D. Chief, Laboratory of Experimental Pathology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.

Franklin E. Mirer, Ph.D. Director, Health and Safety Department, United Automobile Workers. Member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

Lorenzo Tomatis, M.D. Former director, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a World Health Organization agency.

David Rall, M.D., Ph.D. Assistant Surgeon General, United States Public Health Service (retired). Former director, United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS/NIH). Former director, United States National Toxicology Program (NTP).

If you want to read their comments, please ask me to send the page to you.  It would make the blog too long so I am saving them for whomever asks.

      Acesulfame-K, Acesulfame Potassium, or Ace-K is possibly one of the most dangerous sweeteners ever allowed to enter the market. It is often the preferred sweetener used in protein powders that are promoted as being healthy sources of protein.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) in Washington , D.C. is an independent “guardian” of the food and nutrition industry. This is a group that is not beholden to any food company or any manufacturer which allows them to be completely non biased when they reach their conclusions about the safety of the foods, food additives, drinks and food chemicals that are constantly being introduced to the market. They have no constraints to keep them from reporting on products that may pose a health danger to us.

The CSPI maintains a “Food Additives to Avoid” list and has been warning about this compound since 1987! “Tests show that the additive [acesulfame K] causes cancer in animals, which means it may increase cancer in humans." CSPI went on to say, "... acetoacetamide, a breakdown product, has been shown to affect the thyroid in rats, rabbits, and dogs. Administration of 1% and 5% acetoacetamide in the diet for three months caused benign thyroid tumors in rats. The appearance of tumors raises serious questions about the chemical's carcinogenic potency." The CSPI statement made about Ace K speaks volumes and states in no uncertain terms that it is a dangerous substance: "Avoid acesulfame K and products containing it. Your sweet tooth isn't worth it."

The only known manufacturer of acesulfame K is Hoechst Food Ingredients in Germany. CSPI claims the protocols in Hoeschst’s tests on rats and mice done in 1988 are seriously flawed. This isn’t surprising though considering this “unethical” pharmaceutical and chemical company also pleaded guilty in 1999 to a 17-year conspiracy to fix prices of sorbates, a type of food preservative, which affected $1 billion in commerce in the United States alone!

In June 1995, the CSPI filed a protest with the FDA, saying that the sweetener’s carcinogenicity had not been properly tested in long-term animal feeding tests.

According to CSPI, the numerous tests done on acesulfame K “followed inadequate protocols, which are greatly at variance with current standards for test design, execution and reporting required for the National Toxicology Program’s bioassays.”

Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), has repeatedly expressed concern that acesulfame K is a potential carcinogen and questions the safety of exposure to one of its components – methylene chloride, a known cancer-causing chemical.

What long term studies were done did not meet the standards set for long term studies! The studies were not conducted over the length of time required and the dosages were “questionably” low, which led the FDA to give the go ahead even though two of the rat studies suggested that the additive may indeed cause Cancer.

Sadly, I find this ingredient in all too many products that are claiming amazing health benefits. It is in everything from the Super Juice drinks to the “secret” or exotic ingredient “health” drinks and supplements that we see hyped so much by honest people who really believe what they say. They just don’t know the lack of science behind their product, and so unwittingly contribute to the increasingly poor health of our people.

There is no valid reason to consume this, Splenda, or Aspartame. If you are trying to lose weight, there is solid proof that artificial sweeteners make it harder for your body to release fat than if you use natural sweeteners.

I am so proud that my company, Shaklee has never in its history used an ingredient that was even questionable, let alone toxic. This is especially important in what we put into our bodies.

Again, if you want all the quotes, please let me know.

Until next time,

Expect something wonderful to happen for you every day!

Barbara Walters & Dr. Sinclair on Resveratrol

Barbara Walters & Dr. David Sinclair

SPLENDA...NATURAL SWEETENER OR PART PESTICIDE?

Often, when I sit in a restaurant and see people sweetening their drinks with Splenda, as well as the other artificial sweeteners in the container, I wish I could figure out how to warn them away from these toxins. Obviously, I can’t just go over to their table and tell them, but it really bothers me, especially when they give these to children or when a pregnant woman is using them.


Today I want to focus on Splenda. This is the second blog on the dangers of artificial sweeteners.


Splenda, which is made from Sucralose, dextrose and maltodextrin, is a highly processed, low calorie, chemical sweetener manufactured with chlorine in a factory in McIntosh, Alabama, in a process that releases a known toxin, cyclohexane into the environment.


Health problems than can be caused by exposure to cyclohexane, include but are not limited to: coma; encephalopathy; liver abnormalities; chronic “painter’s syndrome; psycho-organic solvent syndrome; organic solvent dementia; difficulty concentrating; dementia; memory loss; mood disturbance; arrhythmia; confusion; dermatitis; dizziness; fatigue; headache; in-coordination; inebriation; irritability; lethargy; impaired speech and stupor and ecological effects such as fish die-off. These are just the health hazards caused by the manufacturing process. I feel sorry for the people who have to work in or live near the factory.


One claim that they make is that Splenda is “Suitable for people with diabetes”. This is false and misleading. The only evidence for the safety of Splenda for people with diabetes lies in the manufacturers claims, not in clinical studies.


Splenda also includes dextrose and maltodextrin. For most of us that may not pose a problem, but since pregnant women who have a genetic trait for galactosemia are at risk for having a baby with galactosemia, there should be a warning—similar to the PKU warning required for aspartame—that Splenda contains a galactose monosaccharide which can cause glactosemia.


The manufacturers would have you believe that Splenda is somehow more of a natural sweetener because is “made from sugar”. Well….sort of. It starts out with a molecule of sugar, and then, three parts of the molecule, three hydroxyl groups (atoms composed of hydrogen and oxygen) are selectively removed and replaced with three atoms of chlorine. I’m not kidding! Chlorine. By the time the process is finished, what once was a real sugar molecule has become a chloro-carbon. Are you certain you want those in your body?


Chloro-carbons bear no resemblance whatsoever to any natural substances. A few of their more well known family members include carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethelene and methylene chloride— chemical agents that have absolutely no place in a healthy, human diet. Chlorine, all by itself is a component of a number of insecticides, bleach and bleach-based products, as well as household and commercial disinfectants. Some of the more famous members of this group include DDT, Chlorodane and Lindane.


“There were potential public health concerns regarding sucralose that were dismissed by the FDA when they first approved this synthetic additive,” said Jim Turner, Esq. chairman of the board of Citizens for Health. “People should also know, however, that there has not been a single human clinical study on the finished product, Splenda.”


Consumers have been reporting health effects that range from skin rashes, to headaches, to severe gastrointestinal problems.


“The sheer number of complaints on the Internet warrants an investigation,” said Turner. “Most of the testing on the safety of sucralose was conducted by the manufacturer, McNeil Nutritionals.


With the number of complaints filed, why hasn’t the FDA called a Public Hearing so that consumers can be heard?


We need to make our voices heard and call for a mandate that the FDA stop protecting manufacturers and get on with their original mandate to protect consumers.