We Lose Any Grip on Feeling "Normal" Without Hormones

Without hormones or imbalanced hormones, we lose any grip on feeling "normal." Without hormones, life quality is greatly diminished. Without hormones, a woman is at her weakest physically. Without hormones, disease is allowed to proliferate because the brain perceives that the body is no longer reproductive; therefore, nature wants to "eliminate" you to make way for those who are healthy and reproductive..

. Loss of hormones is not to be taken lightly. Having no hormones is like having bad premenstrual syndrome (PMS) every day of your life. You are not in control of your emotions, nor are you in control of the cruel physical manifestations of the loss of hormones. Couple this with the stress of having and fighting cancer, and (to me) it doesn't make sense to be without hormones..

. You see, we may have changed with the passing of time, but the biology inside us has not. Nature has a job to do, and the brain was hard-wired at the beginning of time and doesn't know anything else. A healthy woman is hormonally balanced. We can't "out think" nature. This never works, no matter how hard we try to come up with something better..

. Women remain confused about hormones and in some cases terrified of hormone replacement; one day, headlines in the newspapers praise hormone replacement therapy (HRT); the next day, the headlines are screaming that HRT will kill us..

. The truth is, despite the widespread use of synthetic hormone brands such as Premarin and Provera, these drugs have always been associated with cancer. The first cancer linked with synthetic hormone replacement was cancer of the uterus lining (endometrium)..

. The most recent resurfacing of the negatives associated with synthetic hormones and cancer came from a government-sponsored study titled the Women's Health Initiative. This study was supposed to last 8.5 years, but it was stopped after only 5.2 years because the risks of using Premarin and Provera outweighed the benefits. Breast cancer was just one of the increased risks discovered. Additionally, the study concluded that synthetic hormone replacement therapy protects neither your bones nor your heart. Ironically, bone and heart protection were two of the primary benefits once used by doctors as selling points to get women to fill their prescriptions for these drugs..

. The Women's Health Initiative Study hoped to show decreases in:.

. breast cancer.

. stroke.

. pulmonary embolism.

. colorectal cancer.

. endometrial cancer.

. hip fracture.

. death due to any cause.

. The actual outcome results were shocking:.

. 29 percent increase in coronary heart disease.

. 41 percent increase in strokes.

. 22 percent increase in cardiovascular disease.

. 2,100 percent (yes, this is correct) increase in pulmonary embolism—lung blood clots.

. 26 percent increase in breast cancer.

. So much for synthetic hormones! These statistics alone should convince you right away of the negative effects of these so-called synthetic hormones..

. Those of us who were on the original birth control pills for any length of time were actually on synthetic hormones- strong synthetic hormones. Any wonder why women of our generation are under siege from an epidemic of breast and ovarian cancers?.

. Read on and see if you relate to my scenario: As I said, for 22 years, I was on synthetic birth control pills, the original ones that were very strong. I even manipulated my periods with them, if I didn't want to have a period on a particular weekend. I just didn't realize what was in those birth control pills, nor did I understand the dangers of messing with nature..

. I did not realize that having only a two-day bleed meant that I was not ovulating fully. At the time, I thought it was great to have such a light period. I did not realize that the importance of ovulation in the human female body is to let the brain know that I was well, healthy, and reproductive. As far as my brain was concerned, I was not reproductive because I was not fully ovulating. An ovulating woman is a reproductive woman..

. To believe that the body is not fully ovulating is a dangerous assumption for the brain to make. If the brain perceives us as unable to reproduce, its job, biologically speaking, is to try to eliminate us to make room for the reproductive ones. This is the nature in us. This is the template that was programmed in us from ancient times. Thus, this hormonal imbalance that I unknowingly put myself in was creating a backdrop for cancer. Why? Because we all have cancer in us, but as long as we are hormonally balanced, the brain perceives us as young, strong, and healthy. If we become imbalanced, this signals to the brain that the reproductive system is no longer in working order, and it is in this scenario that the cancer has a chance to come into being..

. You see, cancer proliferates in an environment of hormonal imbalance. This is why I believe that Western medicine's standard of care, well-meaning as it is, is treating us incorrectly. Western medicine is looking at everything except the obvious. Western medicine is trying to poison the cancer out of us, further wreaking havoc with our hormonal systems..

. Then, to prevent recurrence, we are given hormone ablation drugs such as tamoxifen or Femara, which interfere with the body's ability to read the hormones in some parts of the body. Plus, for many women these drugs cause horrible side effects. To me, it doesn't make sense to take any drug that prevents new hormones from being made in our bodies or to kill off any of the little bit of hormones we might have left. Why has Western medicine been trying to out think nature? We are given fake hormones that don't replicate exactly what our bodies make naturally, and doctors are expecting them to work in the same way or better. It hasn't worked. Look around. Are the women you know doing well from midlife on? Most everyone has complaints, from mild to severe. No wonder women are in such bad shape..

. Once you understand the importance of your brain perceiving the body as reproductive—our "brain template"—it will be easier for you to make decisions for yourself..

. Read more: Excerpt from Ageless The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones by Suzanne Somer

.

. Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com

.

. hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

What are Hormones, How do Hormones Communicate?.

Hormones carry messages from glands to cells to maintain chemical levels in the bloodstream that achieve homeostasis. "Hormone" comes from a word that means, "to spur on." This reflects how the presence of hormones acts as a catalyst for other chemical changes at the cellular level necessary for growth, development, and energy..

As members of the endocrine system, glands manufacture hormones. Hormones circulate freely in the bloodstream, waiting to be recognized by a target cell, their intended destination. The target cell has a receptor that can only be activated by a specific type of hormone. Once activated, the cell knows to start a certain function within its walls. Genes might get activated, or energy production resumed. As special categories, autocrine hormones act on the cells of the secreting gland, while paracrine hormones act on nearby, but unrelated, cells. Email me for more info at jones.gretchen@gmail.com..

There are two types of hormones known as steroids and peptides. In general, steroids are sex hormones related to sexual maturation and fertility. Steroids are made from cholesterol either by the placenta when we're in the womb, or by our adrenal gland or gonads (testes or ovaries) after birth. Cortisol, an example of a steroid hormone, breaks down damaged tissue so it can be replaced. Steroids determine physical development from puberty on to old age, as well as fertility cycles. If we are not synthesizing the correct steroidal hormones, we can replenish what is missing with cyclic hormone therapy with estrogen and progesterone..

Peptides regulate other functions such as sleep and sugar concentration. They are made from long strings of amino acids, so sometimes they are referred to as "protein" hormones. Growth hormone, for example, helps us burn fat and build up muscles. Another peptide hormone, insulin, starts the process to convert sugar into cellular energy..

Hormones so perfectly and efficiently manage homeostasis due to negative feedback cycles. Our goal is to keep the concentration of a certain chemical, such as testosterone, at a constant level for a certain period of time, the way that a thermostat works. Using negative feedback, a change in conditions causes a response that returns the conditions to their original state. When a room's temperature drops, the thermostat responds by turning the heat on. The room returns to the ideal temperature, and the heater turns off, keeping the condition constant. Our pituitary hormones FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) and LH (luteinizing hormone) regulate estrogen levels and the release of the egg from the ovaries and then progesterone can be released from the corpus luteum. In males, LH has a different role, producing testosterone from males Leydig cells in the testes..

.

Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

Brain Function and Estrogen

A study conducted at the University of Southern California demonstrated that estrogen promotes the growth of those essential neurons in the brain's hippocampus that are critical to memory function. Scientists there created a hippocampal campus in a petri dish, inducing these cells from the memory center to set up housekeeping in the USC lab. They then squirted conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs or Premarin) on the nerve cell colonies and watched the results under a videomicroscope.

The cells literally bristled with excitement. The addition of estrogen juice significantly increased the number of dendrites or outgrowths of the cell membranes which are known to be cellular markers of memory formation. Dendrites hook-up with other neurons to form new connections, a process that promotes brain 'plasticity' or the ability to learn new material and make new associations. In other words, the same cellular events that occur in the hippocampus of the brain during memory formation happened in these brain cell cultures when estrogen was added.

When I see patients going through the menopausal transition, I not only inquire about hot flashes, night sweats, and the quality of their sleep, I also ask "How's your mood?" and "How's your memory?". The lack of estrogen affects women differently, some struggling far more than others in a brain function sense. I think the problems with verbal memory and executive functioning (starting a multi-step task and completing it successfully) along with the increase in anxiety and depression that can accompany falling estrogen levels are too often not addressed in women of age.

RePost:Hypoestrogen, What is that

Women of all ages can have hypoestrogen. Hypoestrogen is when levels of cycling estrogen falls below the normal range of 150 pg/ml to 550 pg/ml. The symptoms are felt by women in many ways. And every woman knows when “the change” happens. Some women even know when slight changes begin to occur. Even the women who are lucky enough to never experience a hot flash often have probably experienced one of the following other hypoestrogen symptoms: heart palpitations, insomnia, mood swings, joint aches, headaches, fatigue, low libido, vaginal dryness, bloating, skin dryness, brain fog….just to name a few.

When just a few symptoms began to occur with me at age 42, I was NOT thinking it was from hypoestrogen. I knew that to be “menopause” and I was still cycling every 28 days having a 3-4 day period and just had two babies 15 months apart. When my doctor told me I should start on beta blockers to control my anxiety feelings and onset of heart palpitations, I decided to dig really deep and figure out what was causing the changes in my body to occur. I knew these changes came out of no where started to occur shortly after my last pregnancy at age 41. At that time my estrogen level was 48 pg/ml. I didn’t know much about fractionating the estradiol out of the estrogen total at that time. I didn’t know what the significance was about timing the cycling and checking blood. I didn’t know that fluctuations in estrogen can be pretty significant just days apart in a cycle. I also didn’t realize that if estrogen wasn’t peaking and I wasn’t ovulating I was not getting any progesterone and therefore had cycles with unopposed estrogen.

I’ve been treating women who have hypoestrogen levels and have seen the dramatic changes that occur when estrogen and progesterone are replaced in a cyclic dosing schedule and reach their individual therapeutic range in the blood serum. Like I said earlier, estrogen peaks around 350-550 pg/ml and is around 100-150 pg/ml on baseline days. Progesterone peaks around 10-15 ng/ml and is around 2-5 ng/ml on baseline days. Hormones that are too low cause symptoms that women feel and experience. They are real symptoms.

How long would you replace your thyroid if you were hypothyroid? I believe you would say forever. Well, I say that is how long we should replace our estrogen and progesterone if we have hypoestrogen. The results are amazing. It’s easier to replace hormones when receptors are still present and active. But, it is never too late. I have patients who are doing amazingly well that are in their late 70’s. I also have patients as young as 19 whose symptoms are resolved dramatically using bioidentical hormones in cyclic dosing and the results cannot even compare to that of traditional care, which is oral birth control pills (synthetic estrogen and synthetic progestins) given in static doses using low amounts of hormones. I know many women who cannot stand how they feel on the pill. Maybe some women don’t even realize that it is the pill causing some of the symptoms they experience.

Women can change the standard of care. My goal is to educate women and then we have a choice what we want to do with that information. We cycle. Let’s keep on cycling.

Hypoestrogen, What is that Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

So Many Changes Since Starting Hormones Almost a Decade Ago

I haven’t written in a while any new posts on hormone therapy. I have now been doing cyclic hormone therapy personally since the end of 2007 and I wanted to document all that has change since then.

Before starting therapy, I was not able to sleep unless I took high doses of Ambien or Xanax and even with those medications, I never felt rested in the morning. Instead, I still felt groggy and drugged. I have not used a sleeping medication for three years (after 9 months of weaning off Ambien and Xanax by the way, not easy stuff to get off of) and I sleep so soundly that some days I sleep through my alarm clock. That NEVER happened since I was a kid. In my late 30’s and early 40’s sleep was not my friend. Since starting hormones, I can sleep again.

No more heart palpitations. No more joint aches. My skin looks amazingly clear and fresh. I bring that up, because before hormone therapy I was constantly going to the dermatologist for plumper injections and products to help with my complexion because my skin looked so dead.

My skin is firm and moist. I am able to lose weight when I diet and eat right. Prior, I could eat like a bird and I still had the roll around my hips. That roll doesn’t exist and my abdomen is flat.

Hormones replaced how your body uses these hormones is essential. Don’t let standard of care medicine scare you about your own hormones. Disease state and decline in health start to occur when we begin to lose our hormones. You have options and a choice. Hormones do not CAUSE cancer, Hormones CONTROL cells. Repair of cells can only occur if your body has the right ingredients to repair those cells.

The people I love dearly are on hormone therapy so that we can be healthy together as we age. We all realize we are not going to live forever, however, the quality of your life should matter to you as you age.

I encourage you to get your hormone levels checked and monitor them. I recommend checking a Fractionated Estrogen level (estradiol and estrone ultrasensitive) on a Day 12 of your menstrual cycle, if you are still having periods. I also check FSH on that day. Normal levels should be around 350-500 pg/ml on average of ESTRADIOL, and less for ESTRONE. Normal for FSH on that day is 4-6 miu/ml.

I started hormone therapy when my estradiol was 48 pg/ml and my FSH was 4.8. Today my estradiol is between 500-800 pg/ml on day 12 and my FSH is around 6.

Call my office 847-325-5110 to schedule an appointment or email me at crtconnect@gmail.com hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

FEARS INSTILLED BY STANDARD OF CARE DOCTORS

I see many patients who have been told by their OB/GYNE doctors or their primary care doctors that hormones cause cancer and are bad for them. I will quote one of these doctors comments to a patient of mine and then comment:

"You are increasing your risk of breast cancer by taking hormones. You take away the hormones, the cancer goes down" My patient tried to argue and say, yes, but that information was from the WHI study and was synthetic hormones, used in such a way that did not mimick a natural hormone cycle. Her response was, "They are all pharmaceuticals and when you take away the hormones, the cancer goes down. If the evidence is there, you have to listen."

My patient then asked about thermal imaging instead of mammograms and was told that it is not "standard of care" to do thermal imaging.

So ladies, and gentlemen, let me please first by saying that your own body producing hormones is NOT THE CAUSE OF CANCER! I would be more afraid of that diet coke you are drinking then replacing your hormones with bioidentical (non main stream pharma drugs) in a cyclic dosing manner to REPLACE WHAT YOUR BODY IS LACKING.

Hormones are your bodies way of communicating and repairing cells. Our hormones are the chemical messengers in our body. I personally treat women who have hormone abnormalities ALL THE TIME. I just started another breast cancer patient on hormone therapy and she isn't scared because she knows your own cycle of hormones isn't and wasn't the cause of her breast cancer and doesn't increase your risk of getting it more. How can you believe a study that was done with synthetic drugs not even hormone like in the blood. I measure these hormones in women all the time. I can tell you that Prempro does NOT mimick a normal cycle and is no better than birth control pills.

When women restore their hormones it is self evident that they become healthier. Their skin improves. Their sleep is restored. Headaches and heart palpitations disappear. Insulin resistance improves and weight loss is possible. Breast tissue is renewed and less lumpy, blood supply is returned to the vaginal wall and libido improves. Hair grows again!

If another standard of care doctor tells my postmenopausal women that she is tired because it is her thyroid (when her thyroid levels are all perfect) I want to scream NOOOOOO! It isn't her thyroid! Check her estrogen levels. Restore it to what is physiological normal for young cycling women, and see what happens!

Women, stop believing the fear instilled by the Standard of Care with regards to breast cancer. Stop the madness of over radiating breast tissue. Start researching the data out there with regards to breast cancer and get the real story. Women are going on birth control pills for 20 years in some cases. We are exposed to serious chemicals in our food supply. We are ingesting fake sweetners, deficient in Vitamin D, not exercising, overweight, not getting enough sleep, drinking too much alcohol, and taking way too many pharmaceutical drugs. What if these are the cause of the increase of cancer in our society? Nobody wants to take that kind of responsibility for their health. We would rather blame a hormone.

You have a choice. You can continue to go through life down that path, or you can choose to feel great again. I choose, sleep, energy, great skin, great marriage and sex life, great mood, ideal body weight, no anxiety, no depression,no heart palpitations, no headaches, no food cravings that are out of control....and when any of those areas are out of whack, I know what I did to contribute to that and suffer the consequences of my actions. My hormones range 150-800 and I cycle every month.

If you want to talk, please call me anytime and I'd love to talk with you. I can be reached at 630-220-4122 or feel free to email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com.


Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

Oral versus transdermal hormones, what's the difference?

Hormones that we share with plants work best when absorbed through the skin. The hormones estradiol and natural progesterone can be suspended in creams or an alcohol gel. When taken by mouth hormones have very different effects. Prometrium, the most widely marketed natural progesterone pill is made from raw material progesterone in a peanut oil base, in doses of 100 and 200 mg. it has the potential, just as transdermal or our own natural progesterone, to be a neurosteroid and act like a neurotransmitter when it crosses the blood-brain barrier. Natural progesterone, from your ovaries or transdermally applied, hits GABA receptors all over to calm the brain. Prometrium taken orally must go through the liver instead of directly into the bloodstream. Prometrium, after being metabolized in the liver, becomes a molecule with some drug like, intoxicating side effects on GABA. Anything ingested orally must face the first-pass liver detox. That fact alone means that any drug or hormone that comes in a pill must be overdosed to have any effect at all. By the time a pill makes it through your system, you've only absorbed about 10 percent, so you have ingested 90 percent more of any drug taken by mouth than you needed to than if you had just taken it transdermally. Molecules passing through your skin are rated at 60 to 70 percent absorption and potency. On the skin of your arm, what you don't absorb ends up on your sleeve; once you've swallowed it, who knows where the excess might land or what it might turn into. But the best reason to use hormones through the skin is timing. Hormones have a "beat" like music, or your heart. Think of your heart beating, boom, boom, boom, or your pulse. That's pulsitility. Now hear it go faster and louder, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM. That's amplitude. In the same way your heart races if you're scared or stressed, your hormones can "race" depending on the needs of your system and the environmental cues to which it's responding.


Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

Birth Control That Uses Combined Hormones Raises Heart Risk

WEDNESDAY, June 13 (HealthDay News) -- Sweeping new research comparing various forms of hormonal contraception -- including birth control pills, vaginal rings and skin patches -- suggests that the risk for heart attacks and strokes is twice as high among users of combined estrogen-progestin versions.

These include brands such as Yasmin and Yaz pills, the NuvaRing vaginal ring and Ortho Evra patches. The overall odds of suffering such debilitating effects, however, are still quite low. However, natural transdermal hormones do not have these same debilitating effects because #1 they aren't taken orally, and #2 because they are given in non synthetic forms of the actual hormone structure of estrogen and progesterone (not progestins).

Analyzing 15 years of observational data from more than 1.6 million women aged 15 to 49, Danish scientists found that those taking low-dose estrogen birth control pills combined with various progestins suffered heart attacks and strokes between 1.5 and 2 times more often than women not using hormonal contraception. The risks were between 2.5 and 3 times higher among users of vaginal rings and transdermal patches compared to non-users.

"The first point to take home is that [clotting] complications increase dramatically with increasing age," said lead author Dr. Ojvind Lidegaard, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Rigshospitalet, a state-run hospital in Copenhagen. "A doubled risk for thrombotic stroke is not very serious when you are 20 years old, because your risk at baseline is very low. On the other hand, when you are 35 years old or older, the risk is no longer that low, and you should be more careful with choosing those products with the lowest risk of thrombotic complications."

The study is scheduled to be published June 14 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The link between combined estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives and blood clots occurring in either veins or arteries has been studied continually since the formulations were marketed in the 1960s, with the man made synthetic estrogen doses lowered in many products in response to research showing increased vascular risks.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced in April that birth control pills containing drospirenone -- a man-made version of the hormone progesterone included in products such as Bayer's Yaz or Yasmin -- would require updated labels since these contraceptives may be linked to a higher risk of blood clots. That change pinpointed risks associated with blood clots in veins, however, while the new Danish study focuses on clot risks in arteries.

"Pills are still very beneficial. I wouldn't want a study like this ... to tell us these are dangerous drugs," said Dr. Kathleen Hoeger, chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and director of the Strong Fertility Center at the University of Rochester, in New York. "The drugs have risks, and those risks are really well-defined. This data gives doctors a lot of confidence to be able to offer advice."

The study encompasses data from the entire population of Danish women of childbearing age, and was 10 times as large as a similar study in the United States that also assessed the comparative risks of arterial clots among hormonal contraceptive users, said Hoeger, who served on the FDA advisory panel that reviewed Yaz and Yasmin.

Significantly higher rates of heart attack and stroke, which result from clots in arteries, were recorded among women with diabetes and high blood pressure and among those over age 35. The relative odds of suffering a heart attack doubled among those aged 40 to 44 compared to those aged 35 to 39, and increased by an additional one-third thereafter.

Dr. Diana Petitti, a professor of biomedical informatics at Arizona State University in Tempe, said she was struck by the finding that different formulations of progestin didn't dramatically affect the safety profiles of the various hormonal contraceptives studied.

"From the standpoint of arterial vascular disease, the combined [formulations] are essentially equivalent," said Petitti, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. "Decision-making should focus more on effectiveness and adherence and not on miniscule differences in the potential for vascular disease. All of the current products on the market are safe enough."

More information

The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about oral contraceptives.

SOURCES: Ojvind Lidegaard, DMedSc., clinical professor, obstetrics and gynecology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Kathleen Hoeger, M.D., chief, division of reproductive endocrinology, and director, Strong Fertility Center, University of Rochester, N.Y.; Diana Petitti, M.D., M.P.H., professor, biomedical informatics, Arizona State University, Tempe; June 14, 2012, New England Journal of Medicine



Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com


hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

CASE HISTORY OF ASPARTAME CONSUMPTION

Aspartame Consumption: Used for about five years;

Health symptoms started after consuming aspartame: Yes;

Diet Products Used: Diet cokes and diet everything;

Do you use Equal: No;

Do your children use aspartame: No;

Are you aware of products not labeled sugar-free: No;

May we include your case history on website: Yes;

Do you want your information anonymous: Yes;

Referred by: Yahoo!

Comments: About 10 years ago I began having muscle spasms and horrible memory lapses. I went to a neurologist and was given the diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. I had been ingesting everything diet for about 5 years trying to take off about 15 pounds. The results - I had terrible memory loss and gained 10 pounds.

I had a friend send me an article that she had come across entitled "ASPARTAME POISONING" MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE BEING MISDIAGNOSED WITH MS, AND OTHER ILLNESSES WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY ASPARTAME POISONING. Needless to say, it got my attention

I read the article and decided to just stop all of anything that was diet or had aspartame in it. To be honest, I did not think it would make any difference, but let me tell you, my initial MRI showed 19 lesions on my brain. After being off the aspartame products for 6 months, the MRI showed only 2 lesions, and the last one I had, like a year later, showed no more lesions. That was great.

I no longer had to deal with the muscle spasms, confusion, and weight gain. To this day, if I happen to ingest something that has aspartame in it and I don't realize it, I find out soon because I begin to have the memory loss and the spasms all over again. So, I just pour water down me and stay away from anything that I am not sure is aspartame-free. Then everything goes back to normal again.

This is not some made up story - it is very real. I sure wish this stuff would be taken off the market - not just for my sake, but for the sake of other innocent victims.

I just had lunch with a friend whose husband is a diabetic, and about everything he eats has some sort of sugar substitute in it, like the aspartame. She just told me that he has been having a whole lot of problems with memory loss lately. She thought it was due to his age, but I told her about my situation and told her to see if he could stop ingesting anything that has sugar subs in it to see if his memory improves.

It is really scary to me to think about how many people are on medications for diseases that they really don't have. Yet they continue to feed themselves this poison and wonder why they are not getting better???

I am well now, and I'll never touch that stuff again


Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com


hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

DAY 15 OF HCG PROTOCOL AND STALLING!

It can be very frustrating to be on this protocol and not see the scale go down a pound a day. This is when I really have to be objective about my diet and my actual progress. So for me, I pay attention to everything I eat. Mindful eating I call it. I increase my daily exercise to atleast 30 minutes of aerobics a day and try to drink real water rather than flavor waters, because I really don't know if flavored waters were used in the ORIGINAL protocol back in the 1940s.

It plays on my moods when the scale doesn't move and the fat doesn't leave my body as fast as I think it should or could! I get a little more irritable and sensitive over nothing because of the way I'm feeling internally, which is frustrated! This is all normal on the protocol and sometimes can take 1-2 weeks to pass. It's probably part of the survival mechanism the body has to resist fat loss once I reach around 20 percent body fat. It doesn't mean you are not losing fat in the process so keep looking at yourself in the mirror and pay attention to the places that the fat is leaving and the places where it still exists and be faithful to your goal. This protocol works 100 percent of the time if you will work it 100 percent. So I have to take my own advice and just keep sticking with the program. I have about two weeks to go before I try on those white jeans! I'm hoping they slip on like a nice fitting glove. I'm getting a little bit anxious now though because my body is not cooperating and it might take a little longer than I anticipated.

I will keep you posted! For all of you on the protocol, be strict with yourself and follow a system and you will reach your goals like you never have before with any other weight loss method. I do promise you that.


Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com


hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

The Endocrine System - Your Body's Internet

The human endocrine system is sort of like your body's Internet.

It puts out teeny tiny chemical messengers that travel through your bloodstream and cause very big things to happen in your body and with how you feel.

For example, throughout your entire lifetime, the estrogen your endocrine system produces amounts to no more than the weight of a microchip.

But, wow! What an impact it can have on you!

The Way the Endocrine System Works

Your endocrine system is made up of a collection of glands and a few organs that produce hormones. Hormones are small, but powerful little buggers. They regulate and control an extraordinary number of your bodily functions.

Hormones travel by way of your blood through your network of veins and vessels to tell your body what to do and how to feel.

We’re all familiar, in one way or another, with raging hormones in teenagers, pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS) blues and the menopause nightmare. But, it doesn’t have to be that way. Your hormones can work for you instead of against you!




Hormones! How can something so small have such a big impact?

They dramatically affect your health, attitude, growth and development, energy, your sense of security and your feeling of well being.

And, just like a garden needs fertilizer to be healthy and productive, your body’s Internet requires good all-around nutrition and a healthy lifestyle.

You need specific nutrients for your hormones to be balanced and for your glands to function optimally, so you can look and feel your very best. Most important are complete low-fat proteins and high quality oils, especially omega 3 fish oil.

7 Steps for Glandular and Hormonal Health

1. Eat a Healthy Diet. Eating healthy takes diligence and planning. Include more fruits, vegetables, low-fat protein foods and essential oils from fish, whole grains and nuts.

2. Exercise Regularly. Daily exercise is a must for your body to run smoothly and at its best. A daily 30-minute walk or the equivalent is all that's necessary.

3. Manage Stress. Rest, relaxation and letting go of tension and negative emotions are all important. Exercise, meditation and positive-thinking techniques can help.

4. Drink Lots of Water. Water is an essential nutrient. You body prefers at least 8 glasses of pure water a day, without having to distill it out of some other liquid.

5. Live a healthy Lifestyle. Eliminate bad habits such as smoking, eating high glycemic and processed foods and drinking sodas and excess alcohol and coffee.

6. Think Positively. Your mental attitude has a great deal of influence over your health, how your body functions and how you feel. Use your mind to your advantage.

7. Take Good Quality Nutritional Supplements. You can't possibly get everything you need from the food you eat – no matter how good your diet is.







Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

DAY 7 OF HCG PROTOCOL

Really!! It's only been a week??? How come it feels like it has been so much longer. I did put myself behind a day or two or three (don't know yet)- because I went to a pool party on Saturday.

I thought I was going to be good and follow my protocol, even brought my own food; apple, chicken, and salad to eat. Everyone knew I was on the protocol and still could not accept that I was fine drinking ice tea and not snacking on all the food that was out.

I knew that if I went to this pool party there was a small chance I would deviate from the protocol, and of course after a couple of hours, I did. This is an annual summer pool party we go to and there is lots of food, drinking, socializing by the hot tub and pool and it lasts all night.

I didn't beat myself up about cheating and started back on track Sunday and planned my meals for today. What I didn't do is get on the scale Sunday or this morning! I didn't want the mental anguish of seeing the scale either the same number or higher. My clothes still are feeling looser so I know intellectually I'm going to reach my goal, but emotionally to see the scale a higher number than what it was the day or two before would be too difficult to handle. I just want to go back to sticking to the protocol and focus on today.

I started listening to Colin Watson's podcasts and that always helps to get me back on track. I choose to focus on what I want, not on what I don't want.

hCG changes lives! It can change yours too!


Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com


hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

I wrote this before I weighed in this morning. Yesterday I noticed I had a lot of habits that came to surface that I had to not act on. Urges to randomly snacking throughout the day. What saved me was I was so busy at work that I had no time to rest in between patients. And snacking isn't easy now with braces on my teeth because it is a huge process I have to go through after I eat anything; floss, brush, redo lipstick, etc.

My weight is at my setpoint which is the part where I will stall for a day or two before the pounds drop and mentally that is challenging because when I know I am following the protocol and not losing and I'm exercising, it can be deflating to my efforts. I have to tell myself that I can and will move beyond this temporary stall and that the protocol does work and that fat is dissipating even though the scale doesn't reflect it yet. I tend to sabotage myself at this point in the protocol by eating something a little extra because I'm mad the scale didn't reflect a loss, but who am I punishing - the scale or me?

I have to keep reminding myself that if I keep on track and love myself enough to have the integrity to stay on track, I will reach my goal on time and be able to wear those white jeans by the end of May.

I'm not waking up hungry now. The first couple of days my stomach was feeling really empty and I think to myself how am I not going to eat anything until 10 am. But now, drinking my tea, ice water, or coffee I am fine. I usually have my fruit first and try to stall and not eat lunch until 2:00 or 2:30. Otherwise if I eat at 1:00, I don't really have any time to have a snack or eat until after work which ends sometimes after 6:30-7:00. Yesterday I ate lunch at 1:00 and didn't get a break at work until after 7 so there were thoughts of hunger in that period of time and if I wasn't in the mindset that I was in of sticking with the protocol, I might have snuck in something that was laying around in the lunchroom (and there is never anything low calorie in our lunch room)but I didn't. Instead, I ate an apple when I was done. Drank lots of water. Went to the gym and did a light work out. Came home, grilled some Cod and made a big green salad with salsa and that was dinner.

What is really frustrating about this is that I woke up this morning, got on the scale and it WAS EXACTLY THE SAME WEIGHT AS YESTERDAY MORNING. WHAAAAAATT THE HECK!! Ha Ha, you all know what I'm talking about. That was like a huge slap in the face because of the fact that I was faithful to the protocol. But, this is what I'm talking about. When you reach a "set-point" weight of yours, a weight that your body is comfortable at, it takes some effort to get below it.

So, today, I am sticking with the protocol because I know it works when I follow thru and I will break through this set point. It might stall for a couple of days and I am ready for that stall mentally. I woke up before work and grilled chicken and asparagus for lunch. I am drinking my coffee for breakfast and will have a snack of strawberries around 10 or 11 am today. I'm excited to see the physical response of my body as I go through the changes. It's really motivating too for me to see all my patients who do this protocol and change their lives. I had a family come in yesterday with a total of over 150 lbs of weight loss and tons of inches.

This protocol changes lives. It can change yours too if you want it to.





Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com




hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

Day 4 of hCG Protocol

I'm at my hardest part now of the protocol, and I know it is only Day 4 so don't laugh please. But I am at my weight that I usually can maintain, without dieting. To get below that weight, I really have to fight through some mind games that this protocol brings out.

For those of you that have done this diet you know what I'm talking about. So I came up with some mantras to say to myself when my mind tells me I want to deviate. It's a sort of subliminal discussion I have with myself.

1. I have stuck to my 500 calories a day.
2. I am losing 1-2 lbs a day and I can feel the weight falling off.
3. I am not hungry. There is no need to eat more than 500 calories a day.
4. I am confident this program works.
5. I am following this program perfectly.
6. I have integrity to not sabatoge myself while on this protocol.
7. I am able to stick to my protocol until I reach my goal.
8. This protocol is not difficult and I will reach my goal.

Those are just a few examples that I repeat to myself when I feel like cheating. Cheating just prolongs the goal and I know, I have started and stopped this protocol before with good intentions, but not enough desire to reach a certain goal.

I can't really say I'm ever bored, but I find that I like to eat when I don't want to do something I need to get done. And then I feeeeeel bored. My stomach really isn't growling, and I don't physically need food in my body, but I just feel like eating something that ISN'T on the protocol. It's so funny to fight with myself. It only happens when I do hCG too.

So tomorrow I will post and let you know if the scale stalled or went down and I won't cheat. It's only 5:00 p.m. so I have a long way to go before lights out tonight, but I am going to be true to my word and stick with it. Check out Colin Watson's live broadcast tonight or check out podcasts he has done previously. His broadcasts really help me to stay focused on doing this protocol for me.

Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com


hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

HCG - I'm doing it again!!

Yes, I'm doing hCG again. It isn't easy. I'm on Day 3 of the 500 calorie part. The load day this time was TORTURE for me. Oh my did I do it right! I couldn't sleep the entire night because I was FULL, MISERABLE, HEARTBURN, it was really, really bad.

I worked the entire next day and looked like I had been out partying all night long. Broke my new necklace I had been waiting for in the mail for three months because I was deliriously tired and couldn't figure out how to put it on.

Today, I feel good. I was strict yesterday and didn't cheat at all. Not even with my morning routine of coffee with lots of cream. Down 3.2 pounds after my load day of gaining 4.5 pounds. Lifted weights this morning at the gym before work.

I'm doing this again for two important reasons. The first reason is totally personal. I bought a pair of white jeans from BEBE one or two sizes too small a couple of years ago (and they are literally brand new, never worn) and at the time I was already pretty fit, but because they were the last pair left and I really wanted a pair of white jeans in that particular style, I bought them. Well, my brother just graduated medical school and for his graduation party in June I really, really, really want to be able to wear those white jeans! The second reason is because I promote hCG in my practice and I want to live the walk I talk. I have admittedly started and stopped this protocol in the past, stopping because I couldn't stick to it and gave up within a week or two of starting, gaining a few pounds in the process each time. I went back and evaluated why I would do that to myself over and over again when I was telling my patients to stick to it and be true to yourself and follow the protocol strictly for the best results. I came up with a few revelations. First, I didn't have that much to lose so I wasn't that motivated to be so strict. Second, I succumbed to my emotional eating habits over and over again. I had to identify what those emotions were and why I would want to sabotage myself. It was very eye opening for me to do this. hCG has a way of bringing out all your demons haha.

So, I want to be accountable to all of you who read this blog and come see me in Lombard and help you through the pitfalls of doing this protocol. It works 100% of the time like no other weight loss method out there. When I get into those jeans I will post a facebook picture and you will see why I'm doing the protocol again.






Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com hormone replacement therapy, hormone imbalance, women to women, bodylogicmd, hormone replacement after hysterectomy, bioidentical hormones, HRT, women's health, men's health, TS Wiley, The Wiley Protocol

Reposted from TS Wiley's newsletter: What Can Your Patients Do To Protect Against Breast Cancer if they are BRCA1 Carriers

What can your Patients do to Protect against Breast Cancer if they are BRCA1 Carriers?

nl_cl_2012_05_06

T.S. Wiley is and always will be a strong proponent of breastfeeding babies into toddler hood, primarily as the single strongest action against preventing breast cancer.

In her book, "Sex, Lies and Menopause", she notes the "collaborative reanalysis of individual data" published in July 2002 in the Lancet, from 47 studies in 30 countries, including 50,302 women with breast cancer and 96,973 women without the disease. "Researchers concluded that if women in developed nations like the United States breast fed nine months longer than the norm, which is three months, breast cancer deaths would be reduced by 25,000 lives. Furthermore, and most importantly, if women breast fed twelve months longer, or fifteen months in total, as is the norm in developing nations, lives saved from breast cancer each year would approach 50,000. Since only about 47,000 of us are expected to die from breast cancer this year, that's all of us who would be saved".
Introduction

Breastfeeding has been inversely related to breast cancer risk in the general population. Clarifying the role of breastfeeding among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation may be helpful for risk assessment and for recommendations regarding prevention. We present an updated analysis of breastfeeding and risk of breast cancer using a large matched sample of BRCA mutation carriers.
Methods

We conducted a case-control study of 1,665 pairs of women with a deleterious mutation in either BRCA1 (n = 1,243 pairs) or BRCA2 (n = 422 pairs). Breast cancer cases and unaffected controls were matched on year of birth, mutation status, country of residence and parity. Information about reproductive factors, including breastfeeding for each live birth, was collected from a routinely administered questionnaire. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the association between ever having breastfed, as well as total duration of breastfeeding, and the risk of breast cancer.
Results

Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, breastfeeding for at least one year was associated with a 32% reduction in risk (OR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91; P = 0.008); breastfeeding for two or more years conferred a greater reduction in risk (OR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74). Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, there was no significant association between breastfeeding for at least one year and breast cancer risk (OR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.31; P = 0.43).
Conclusions

These data extend our previous findings that breastfeeding protects against BRCA1-, but not BRCA2-associated breast cancer. BRCA mutation carriers should be advised of the benefit of breastfeeding in terms of reducing breast cancer risk.
Introduction

In the general population, reproductive factors, including late age at menarche, parity and breastfeeding, have been shown to protect against the development of breast cancer. Various proposed mechanisms include reducing lifetime exposure to ovarian hormones, reducing the cumulative number of ovulatory cycles and differentiation of the breast lobules. We and others have evaluated the impact of reproductive factors in the etiology of BRCA-associated breast cancer, although the results are conflicting and vary by BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. With respect to breastfeeding and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers, two previous studies reported no relationship and three studies reported a protective effect. One case-control study of BRCA2 mutation carriers reported no association between breastfeeding and breast cancer risk.

We have previously reported in a study of 965 matched pairs that the total duration of breastfeeding was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer risk among BRCA1, but not among BRCA2, mutation carriers. The association was particularly strong for breastfeeding for more than one year (OR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80). No association was seen for BRCA2 mutation carriers (OR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.59). Here we update the analysis of total duration of breastfeeding and risk of breast cancer using a larger sample of BRCA mutation carriers with the addition of 700 matched pairs. Because childbirth and breastfeeding are strongly correlated, we restricted the present analysis to parous women and we matched on parity to eliminate any potential confounding effect of parity.
Methods
Study population

Eligible study subjects were identified at one of 62 participating centers in seven countries. These women were participants in ongoing research protocols at the host institutions. These women sought testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations because of a personal and/or family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. All study subjects, (with the exception of some participants from the research study of SLN), received genetic counselling. The institutional review boards of the host institutions approved the study. All subjects provided written informed consent. In most cases, testing was initially offered to women who had been previously diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer. When a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation was identified in a proband or her relative, genetic testing was offered to other at-risk individuals in the family. Mutation detection was performed using a range of techniques, but all nucleotide sequences were confirmed by direct sequencing of DNA. A woman was eligible for the current study when the molecular analysis established that she was a carrier of a deleterious mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene.
Data collection

All study subjects completed a baseline questionnaire at the individual center at the time of a clinic appointment or at their home at a later date. The questionnaire requested information on family and personal history of cancer, reproductive and medical histories, including preventive oophorectomy and mastectomy. Detailed information regarding ages at menarche and menopause, cause of menopause, pregnancy, breastfeeding history, and hormone use was also queried. For each live birth, women were asked to recall how long they breastfed each child and to indicate the number of months of breastfeeding. We estimated the total duration of breastfeeding for each woman by summing the months of breastfeeding for each live birth.
Case and control subjects

Information on cancer status was available for a total of 12,116 women who carried a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Case subjects were women with a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer. Control subjects were women who never had breast cancer and who were also carriers of a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Potential subjects were excluded if they were nulliparous (n = 2,626) or if information on parity (including year of last birth) was missing (n = 320), if they had been diagnosed with ovarian or other cancer (n = 2,325), if information on breastfeeding was missing (n = 721), if BRCA mutation status was missing (n = 191) or if other pertinent information was missing (n = 54). After exclusions, there was a total of 5,879 eligible women, including 2,784 women with breast cancer (potential case subjects) and 3,095 women without breast cancer (potential control subjects).

A single control subject was selected for each case subject, matched according to mutation in the same gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2), year of birth (within one year), country of residence (Poland, USA, Canada, Israel, Austria, Italy, United Kingdom), and parity (number of births). We only included live births one or more years prior to the breast cancer diagnosis of the case for both the cases and controls. A control was eligible to be matched to a given case if the date of interview or date of prophylactic mastectomy in the matched control occurred at or after the year of breast cancer diagnosis of the case and if the last live birth of the control was at least one calendar year prior to the year of breast cancer diagnosis of the case. In total, 1,665 matched sets were identified. An appropriate match could not be located for 1,119 of the eligible cases because the date of birth of these cases (mean year of birth 1947.99; range 1901 to 1981) was substantially earlier compared to the pool of remaining controls (mean year of birth 1966.57; range 1903 to 1989).
Statistical analysis

A matched case-control analysis was performed to evaluate the association between breastfeeding and the risk of breast cancer. We censored breastfeeding one year prior to the diagnosis of the matched case. The distributions of continuous and categorical variables between cases and controls were compared using the Student's t-test and chi-square test, respectively. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the univariate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for breast cancer associated with breastfeeding (ever/never) and total duration of breastfeeding (months). A multivariate analysis was carried out to control for potential confounders. All analyses were performed using the SAS statistical package, version 9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). All P-values were based on two-sided tests and were considered statistically significant if P ≤ 0.05.
Results

Case and control subjects were similar with respect to year of birth, oral contraceptive use, age at last birth, smoking status and body mass index (BMI) at age 30 (Table 1). Cases with a BRCA1 mutation had a significantly earlier age at menarche than controls (13.09 years vs. 13.27 years; P = 0.003) and were less likely to have consumed alcohol (61% vs. 67%; P = 0.002). Although not significant, age at first birth (24.8 vs. 25.1; P = 0.08) and age at last birth (29.0 vs. 29.3; P = 0.06) were, on average, earlier in BRCA1 mutation carriers compared with controls. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use was significantly lower in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 cases versus controls (5% vs. 12%; P < 0.0001 and 10.7% vs. 16.5%; P = 0.02, respectively). Age at menarche, age at first birth, age at last birth, mean duration of breastfeeding and alcohol consumption did not differ between cases and controls with a BRCA2 mutation.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of breast cancer cases and controls with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

The mean duration of breastfeeding was shorter among the cases than the controls with a BRCA1 mutation (8.8 months vs. 10.4 months; P = 0.0009). There was a significant reduction in breast cancer risk with breastfeeding among women with a BRCA1 but not a BRCA2 mutation (Table 2). On average, BRCA1 cases breastfed for 1.6 fewer months than controls (8.8 vs. 10.4 months P = 0.0009). There was only a 0.5-month difference between cases and controls with a BRCA2 mutation (10.2 vs. 9.7 months P = 0.56). Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, breastfeeding for at least one year was associated with a 32% reduction in risk (OR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91; P = 0.008); breastfeeding for two or more years conferred an even stronger reduction in risk (OR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74; P = 0.0003). Each year of breastfeeding conferred a 19% reduction in risk. The effect of breastfeeding was present for women diagnosed at all ages. The reduction in risk associated with breastfeeding for one or more years compared with never breastfeeding was 44% for women with an age at breast cancer diagnosis of ≤ 39 (OR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96), 54% for those with an age at diagnosis of 40 to 49 (OR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.26 to .81) and 69% for those with an age at diagnosis of ≥ 50 (OR = 0.31; 95% CI 0.07 to 1.30).

Table 2. Relationship between duration of breastfeeding and risk of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, there was no significant association between breastfeeding for at least one year and breast cancer risk (OR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.31; P = 0.43). There was no relationship following stratification by age at diagnosis. The risk estimates associated with breastfeeding for one or more years compared with never breastfeeding by age at diagnoses ≤ 39, 40 to 49 and ≥ 50 were 0.98 (95% CI 0.37 to 2.62), 1.41 (95% CI 0.59 to 3.43) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.24 to 3.43), respectively.
Discussion

The goal of the current study was to evaluate the relationship between breastfeeding and breast cancer risk among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Because of the strong relationship between parity and breastfeeding, we limited our analysis to parous women and we matched cases and controls on parity. Here we report that ever having breastfed and the total duration of breastfeeding conferred substantial reductions in breast cancer risk among BRCA1, but not BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breastfeeding for one or more years conferred a significant 32% reduction in risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers. These findings are in agreement with our earlier publication, which was based on a subset of these women. In the present study, we expand our study sample from 995 to 1,665 matched pairs and we have matched on parity. The current study provides the most up-to-date evaluation of this association and should be helpful for genetic counsellors. The current study pertains to women who choose not to have a bilateral mastectomy; among women who have had preventive surgery, the risk of breast cancer is sufficiently low that they are not impacted adversely by the inability to breastfeed.

Other groups that have evaluated the relationship between breastfeeding and breast cancer risk among BRCA mutation carriers reported no relationship between breastfeeding and risk, although these studies were limited by small sample sizes and the merging of women who were carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. These findings extend our previous report that breastfeeding for more than one year reduces risk among BRCA1, but not among BRCA2 mutation carriers.

In a collaborative re-analysis of data from 47 independent epidemiologic studies conducted among women in the general population, the authors reported a 4.3% reduction in breast cancer risk for every 12 months of breastfeeding (95% CI 2.9 to 5.8; P < 0.0001). The effect of breastfeeding among BRCA1 mutation carriers reported here is much greater than that reported in the general population (19% vs. 4.3% reduction in risk per year of breastfeeding). In BRCA mutation carriers specifically, it does not appear that parity per se influences the risk of breast cancer independently of breastfeeding. The majority of BRCA1-related tumors are basal-like breast cancers characterized by ER, PR and HER2 negativity while BRCA2-tumors resemble sporadic cases. Other groups have shown that parity is a risk factor, while breastfeeding protects against the development of basal-like or ER-negative/PR-negative breast cancers in the general population. Likewise, differences in the pathologic features of BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors may also reflect etiologically distinct tumors and possibly differences in risk factor associations.

Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the biologic basis for the inverse relationship between breastfeeding and breast cancer risk. These include: 1) hormonal changes, particularly a reduction in endogenous estrogen and progesterone levels and/or increased prolactin levels; 2) excretion of estrogens and carcinogens from the breast ducts; 3) breast tissue differentiation; and 4) a delay in the establishment of regular ovulation and, subsequently, the cumulative number of ovulatory cycles. We have recently shown that the number of lifetime ovulatory cycles does not influence breast cancer risk in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (JK, JL, HTL, C K-S, SN, RD, WDF, PG, NT, PA, LS, Beth Karlan, AE, CE, Jeffrey Weitzel, DMG, JB, Dana Zakalik, CS, Taya Fallen, OG, TH, PS, SAN, Oophorectomy after Menopause and the Risk of Breast Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers, submitted). Our data presented in this manuscript support the first three hypotheses and are reinforced by the long lasting effect of breastfeeding among BRCA1 mutation carriers. Breastfeeding for at least one year significantly reduced the risk of breast cancer diagnosed under the age of 50. Although the association did not achieve statistical significance (likely due to small numbers), this protective effect was also apparent for those diagnosed ≥ 50 and was indicative of a long-term reduction in risk with breastfeeding.

Experimental evidence supports an important role of the BRCA1 protein in mammary cell differentiation and proliferation. Rajan and colleagues have shown that BRCA1 and BRCA2 mRNA expression is high in proliferating cells in mice during periods of rapid proliferation and differentiation, such as embryogenesis, puberty and pregnancy, but is low during lactation. In addition, the BRCA proteins interact with STAT5a, a mammary gland transcription factor that is stimulated by prolactin at the end of pregnancy, and which is involved in the growth and terminal differentiation of breast epithelial cells. Thus, among women with a mutation and one functional allele, one would expect that breast cell differentiation from breastfeeding might be compromised.

In vivo studies have shown that a conditional mutation in Brca1 in mouse mammary epithelial cells results in defective development of mammary tissue during pregnancy and lactation. Further, Russo et al. have reported that the developmental pattern of breast tissue from parous women with a family history of breast cancer or BRCA1 mutation was comparable to that from nulliparous women with no family history (that is, did not differentiate with parity). Collectively, the evidence supports an important role of the BRCA proteins in breast tissue differentiation during pregnancy and/or lactation.

Based on our findings to date, it appears that cumulative sex hormone exposure, particularly estrogen, is likely involved in the development of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Late age at menarche, breastfeeding and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy are protective; while the role of parity is less clear. Recent studies have identified an important role for progesterone in regulating the number of stem cells in normal human and mouse mammary glands. The terminal differentiation of mammary stem cells during the process of breastfeeding may be protective since this process can deplete the pool of potentially deleterious stem cells or by reducing the number of stem cells at risk of mutation. If confirmed, agents that can mimic the terminal differentiation process, or otherwise reduce the size of the stem cell population, may be effective in reducing breast cancer risk. Notably, it has been reported that heterozygosity of BRCA1 may result in abnormal self-renewal of breast cancer stem cells. Specifically, failure of terminal differentiation after pregnancy in BRCA1 mutation carriers resulted in an increased risk of breast cancer.

Strengths of the current study include the large number of known BRCA mutation carriers and the ability to conduct a matched analysis to ensure that the case and control subjects were similar. The sample size range in four prior studies was 94 to 1,601 BRCA carriers . To determine the effect of breastfeeding on cancer risk independent of the effects of parity, we limited our analysis to parous women and matched for parity. We controlled for other known or suspected risk factors for breast cancer in our multivariate models, thus decreasing the influence of confounding although our adjusted and unadjusted results did not differ substantially.

The main limitation of our study was the use of self-reported breastfeeding which may have led to measurement error; however, an earlier validation study by Kark et al. reported high concordance between breastfeeding derived from clinic records compared with an interview conducted 20 to 22 years later (Spearman P = 0.86). A role of recall bias is unlikely given that there is no reason for women to suspect a role of breastfeeding in the etiology of their disease. In addition, we were not able to differentiate between women who exclusively breastfed versus those who also supplemented with bottle feeding. Despite this, with 1,665 matched pairs, this is the largest study to date addressing the role of breastfeeding in the etiology of BRCA-associated breast cancer development.
Conclusions

In summary, these findings corroborate a protective role of breastfeeding on breast cancer risk for BRCA1. The lack of an association for BRCA2 mutation carriers suggests that the biological pathway for carcinogenesis is different for the two genes. Women with a BRCA mutation should be advised of the benefit of breastfeeding in terms of reducing breast cancer risk.

T.S. Wiley concludes, “This new study just reinforces these beliefs and gives us further information to aid BRCA1 carriers.”

Steven A Narod and TS Wiley



Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com

LOW ESTROGEN? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??

Hypoestrogen, What is that?
Women of all ages can have hypoestrogen. Hypoestrogen is when levels of cycling estrogen falls below the normal range of 150 pg/ml to 550 pg/ml. The symptoms are felt by women in many ways. And every woman knows when “the change” happens. Some women even know when slight changes begin to occur. Even the women who are lucky enough to never experience a hot flash often have probably experienced one of the following other hypoestrogen symptoms: heart palpitations, insomnia, mood swings, joint aches, headaches, fatigue, low libido, vaginal dryness, bloating, skin dryness, brain fog….just to name a few.

When just a few symptoms began to occur with me at age 42, I was NOT thinking it was from hypoestrogen. I knew that to be “menopause” and I was still cycling every 28 days having a 3-4 day period and just had two babies 15 months apart. When my doctor told me I should start on beta blockers to control my anxiety feelings and onset of heart palpitations, I decided to dig really deep and figure out what was causing the changes in my body to occur. I knew these changes came out of no where started to occur shortly after my last pregnancy at age 41. At that time my estrogen level was 48 pg/ml. I didn’t know much about fractionating the estradiol out of the estrogen total at that time. I didn’t know what the significance was about timing the cycling and checking blood. I didn’t know that fluctuations in estrogen can be pretty significant just days apart in a cycle. I also didn’t realize that if estrogen wasn’t peaking and I wasn’t ovulating I was not getting any progesterone and therefore had cycles with unopposed estrogen.

I’ve been treating women who have hypoestrogen levels and have seen the dramatic changes that occur when estrogen and progesterone are replaced in a cyclic dosing schedule and reach their individual therapeutic range in the blood serum. Like I said earlier, estrogen peaks around 350-550 pg/ml and is around 100-150 pg/ml on baseline days. Progesterone peaks around 10-15 ng/ml and is around 2-5 ng/ml on baseline days. Hormones that are too low cause symptoms that women feel and experience. They are real symptoms.

How long would you replace your thyroid if you were hypothyroid? I believe you would say forever. Well, I say that is how long we should replace our estrogen and progesterone if we have hypoestrogen. The results are amazing. It’s easier to replace hormones when receptors are still present and active. But, it is never too late. I have patients who are doing amazingly well that are in their late 70’s. I also have patients as young as 19 whose symptoms are resolved dramatically using bioidentical hormones in cyclic dosing and the results cannot even compare to that of traditional care, which is oral birth control pills (synthetic estrogen and synthetic progestins) given in static doses using low amounts of hormones. I know many women who cannot stand how they feel on the pill. Maybe some women don’t even realize that it is the pill causing some of the symptoms they experience.

Women can change the standard of care. My goal is to educate women and then we have a choice what we want to do with that information. We cycle. Let’s keep on cycling.


Hypoestrogen, What is that?

Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com

Did you hear about Pink Slime? Oh My!!

Gerald Zirnstein grinds his own hamburger these days. Why? Because this former United States Department of Agriculture scientist and, now, whistleblower, knows that 70 percent of the ground beef we buy at the supermarket contains something he calls “pink slime.”

“Pink slime” is beef trimmings. Once only used in dog food and cooking oil, the trimmings are now sprayed with ammonia so they are safe to eat and added to most ground beef as a cheaper filler.

It was Zirnstein who, in an USDA memo, first coined the term “pink slime” and is now coming forward to say he won’t buy it.

“It’s economic fraud,” he told ABC News. “It’s not fresh ground beef. … It’s a cheap substitute being added in.”

Zirnstein and his fellow USDA scientist, Carl Custer, both warned against using what the industry calls “lean finely textured beef,” widely known now as “pink slime,” but their government bosses overruled them.

If you have questions about “pink slime,” email us at ABC.WorldNews@abc.com.

According to Custer, the product is not really beef, but “a salvage product … fat that had been heated at a low temperature and the excess fat spun out.”

The “pink slime” is made by gathering waste trimmings, simmering them at low heat so the fat separates easily from the muscle, and spinning the trimmings using a centrifuge to complete the separation. Next, the mixture is sent through pipes where it is sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria. The process is completed by packaging the meat into bricks. Then, it is frozen and shipped to grocery stores and meat packers, where it is added to most ground beef.

The “pink slime” does not have to appear on the label because, over objections of its own scientists, USDA officials with links to the beef industry labeled it meat.

“The under secretary said, ‘it’s pink, therefore it’s meat,’” Custer told ABC News.

ABC News has learned the woman who made the decision to OK the mix is a former undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith. It was a call that led to hundred of millions of dollars for Beef Products Inc., the makers of pink slime.

When Smith stepped down from the USDA in 1993, BPI’s principal major supplier appointed her to its board of directors, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.

Smith did not return ABC News’ calls for comment and BPI said it had nothing to do with her appointment. The USDA said while her appointment was legal at the time, under current ethics rules Smith could not have immediately joined the board.

- Jim Avila, ABC News


——————————————-

Joann Smith was formerly the president of NCA (NCBA) prior to her appointment to Undersecretary of Agriculture and then on to the board of IBP (USDA Inc.). She made Eldon Roth of BPI a very rich man. Roth was a major financing source for the USPB purchase of National Beef out of the Farmland bankruptcy. The recent sale of National Beef was highly profitable for the money men – cattle producers got sold out. – MC

Need More?
Advanced Meat Recovery – What is it?


Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com

In Defense of Food

In Defense of Food
An Eater's Manifesto

Food. There’s plenty of it around, and we all love to eat it. So why should anyone need to defend it?

Because most of what we’re consuming today is not food, and how we’re consuming it — in the car, in front of the TV, and increasingly alone — is not really eating. Instead of food, we’re consuming “edible foodlike substances” — no longer the products of nature but of food science. Many of them come packaged with health claims that should be our first clue they are anything but healthy. In the so-called Western diet, food has been replaced by nutrients, and common sense by confusion. The result is what Michael Pollan calls the American paradox: The more we worry about nutrition, the less healthy we seem to become.

But if real food — the sort of food our great grandmothers would recognize as food — stands in need of defense, from whom does it need defending? From the food industry on one side and nutritional science on the other. Both stand to gain much from widespread confusion about what to eat, a question that for most of human history people have been able to answer without expert help. Yet the professionalization of eating has failed to make Americans healthier. Thirty years of official nutritional advice has only made us sicker and fatter while ruining countless numbers of meals.

Pollan proposes a new (and very old) answer to the question of what we should eat that comes down to seven simple but liberating words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. By urging us to once again eat food, he challenges the prevailing nutrient-by-nutrient approach — what he calls nutritionism — and proposes an alternative way of eating that is informed by the traditions and ecology of real, well-grown, unprocessed food. Our personal health, he argues, cannot be divorced from the health of the food chains of which we are part.

In Defense of Food shows us how, despite the daunting dietary landscape Americans confront in the modern supermarket, we can escape the Western diet and, by doing so, most of the chronic diseases that diet causes. We can relearn which foods are healthy, develop simple ways to moderate our appetites, and return eating to its proper context — out of the car and back to the table. Michael Pollan’s bracing and eloquent manifesto shows us how we can start making thoughtful food choices that will enrich our lives, enlarge our sense of what it means to be healthy, and bring pleasure back to eating.

Pollan’s last book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, launched a national conversation about the American way of eating; now In Defense of Food shows us how to change it, one meal at a time.




Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com

Reading Nutritional Labels on Foods We Eat

March 28, 2012

Do nutrition labels confuse you?

 
Nutritional labels have been around for well over a decade, and the familiar panel — which provides some key nutrition information, an ingredient list and nutrition declarations — enables more informed food decisions.
Do people make good use of the information? The first step is for people to bother looking at it -- and they do. Women more than men, health conscious and exercise enthusiasts more than couch potatoes, but most people report they do consult with the label, at least when they’re buying a product for the first time. A recent review of 120 studies of nutrition label usage in Public Health Nutrition finds that 75% of Americans check the label.

Eyeing the label is a good start, but do consumers get what they need from it?

A recent paper in Nutrition Reviews found that of the 60 percent of consumers who said they use the Nutrition Facts Panel, only a quarter found it easy to use. The calorie information on the Nutritional Facts Panel gets a glance from 75 percent of consumers, but most consumers cannot put the calorie count in context since they have no idea how many calories they should consume, and about half of the people overestimate their suggested daily caloric intake. The percent daily values, typically located above the actual ingredients, were either ignored or poorly understood by most surveyed.

A ‘D’ in label comprehension

A new study in the journal Appetite studied 120 young Israeli adults’ understanding of the various parts of the nutrition label. The study was performed in a travellers’ immunization clinic, so it’s by no means a representative sample of the population, but rather a group of highly schooled, mid to upper socio-economic class individuals.
People were presented with several common food products, and were asked about their attention to and understanding of the nutrition facts on the label.

Most of the people (almost 80 percent) reported that they looked at nutrition labels when selecting foods.
But when given a label comprehension evaluation, the average score was a ‘D’ – 60 percent correct answers.
The nutritional table was understood much better than the ingredient list or the nutrition declaration information.  The nutrition declaration piece, with its “without”, “contains no” and “less” assertions was least understood. When a bottle of canola oil declares it contains “no cholesterol” does it mean there’s naturally no cholesterol, or that this manufacturer kindly removed the cholesterol for added nutrition value?

Figuring out food labels

The nutritional label is an important tool for promoting healthy eating. Reading the label helps consumers decide if, and how much, of that packaged food they should eat.  Go to the site www.msgtruth.org to learn more about what the ingredients behind the labels actually means.

Some of the nutrition confusion can be solved by nutrition education – of which there currently is very little. Not all people know that ingredient lists, by law, have to list ingredients by their relative amount in the product, from high to low, so fruit as the first ingredient is very different from fruit at no. 5, and that added sugar comes has so many different names.   Recently, the Institute of Medicine advocated that the front of the package panel display only four nutrition facts: calories, saturated and trans fat, sodium and sugars. It recommends that the FDA develop a point system -- much like the energy star® program used for assessing electronics’ energy efficiency – which takes into account just saturated and trans fats, sodium, and added sugars, since these nutrients pose the most pressing diet-related health concerns.

To increase the mix-up, manufacturers introduce some more confusion in an effort to better market their product. The declaration “no cholesterol” on a vegetable oil is redundant – no vegetable oil has any cholesterol, as cholesterol is present only in animal derived foods. Likewise, package health claims promising “immunity” “antioxidants” "heart-health" “strong bones” and “lower cholesterol” don’t mean the food is healthy.  They practically don’t mean a thing.

So how to read the label? For an FDA tutorial on how to read the Nutrition Facts label go here, and I’d love to hear your personal approach.

Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com

What Can We Do to Feel Better!

I am almost ready to publish my first podcast on Itunes and will post when it actually is ready to listen to. I am reading Suzanne Somers book BREAKTHROUGH and the table of contents outlines what she discusses and it's everything I have been talking about with my patients. She calls it 8 Steps To Wellness.

Step 1: Get Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy
Step 2: Avoid Chemicals and Detoxify your Body
Step 3: Take Nutrition Seriously
Step 4: Create a Healthy GI Tract
Step 5: Avoid Pharmaceuticals Unless Absolutely Necessary
Step 6: Supplement Your Diet
Step 7: Exercise Regularly
Step 8: Get Proper Sleep

The goal here is to increase your life span as well as improve your overall health. Emphasizing early detection of illness, preventive strategies, and lifestyle changes.

Change is never easy. We get comfortable with our pharmaceutical drugs. Take a pill for every ailment we have.

These are the topics I will be discussing on my podcast shows. I hope you all will tune in and listen.


Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com

Stay Tuned....

I am going to start doing podcasts and talk about hormones and treatment and symptoms. I'll keep you posted in the progress. I have lots to say about hormones and this web site is getting a little crowded and for some may be confusing to navigate through. If you would like me to send you weekly email updates letting you know when and how to hear these podcasts as they are scheduled, please send me an email letting me know at jones.gretchen@gmail.com.



Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com

Estrogen and Cardiovascular Disease

Cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of premature death in the Western world, typically develops 10 years later in women than in men. Scientists have long established that the female hormone estrogen protects against the disease but the mechanism of action was unclear.

Professor Kinsella and Dr Elizebeth (Libby) Turner have shown that the prostacyclin receptor is a prime target for estrogen being regulated by the alpha (ERa), but not by the beta (ERb), form of the estrogen receptor protein. Prostacyclin receptor levels can prevent platelet aggregation, or blood clotting, and the narrowing of vessel walls. As such the protein can play a role in protecting the body from cardiovascular disease.

‘We found that prostacyclin receptor levels followed estrogen levels. If estrogen went down, so too did the amount of this prostacyclin receptor ', says Professor Kinsella. 'We now have a clear understanding of one of the ways that estrogen may protect against heart disease. This is really significant in its own right, as it opens up new avenues of investigation for treatment of cardio vascular disease in women and it adds considerable information to the whole debate about the potential benefits of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for post-menopausal women.'

The Health Research Board funded this project. Commenting on today’s publication of the findings, Enda Connolly CEO of the state agency said, ‘Cardiovascular disease is the primary cause of death in Ireland. Approximately 10,000 Irish people die each year from this disease, so a finding like this, which sheds new light into the very core of the disease, has tremendous potential to create new and more effective treatments for patients.'

More information: Estrogen increases expression of the human prostacyclin receptor with the vasculature through an ERα-dependent mechanism. Elizebeth C. Turner and B. Therese Kinsella J. Mol. Biol. (2010) 396, 473-486.

Provided by University College Dublin



Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com

What is the Truth about Menopause and Bioidentical Hormones? Read Here

I have been treating people with hormone problems for the past four years and the information that I have gathered is critical to your immediate and long term health and well being. Information your doctors don't have and the drug companies certainly don't want you to know.

Menopause is permanent! It is the Permanent Loss of your Sex Hormone System. Your ability to produce estradiol and progesterone depends on if you have any eggs left in your ovaries or if they are function-able! If you leave menopause untreated, it will affect your entire body. It causes numerous, immediate health problems, accelerates aging, and leads to the degenerative diseases of aging that women experience later in life.

I know estradiol and progesterone are essential to our health. They help us to be fit and functional today and over time, helps to prevent degenerative diseases like cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, blood clots, dementia, autoimmune diseases like arthritis and fibromyalgia. They also slow down the pace at which we age.

My patients who are absent of these two hormones are plagued by fatigue, abdominal weight gain, hair loss, constipation, headaches, digestive problems, brain fog and memory loss, irritability, anxiety, depression, loss of libido, vaginal dryness, insomnia, restless sleep, increased cholesterol, etc etc etc. The list is long ladies!

Some of you think you "skipped menopause" because you don't or didn't have any symptoms. Your body is still experiencing challenges you may be completely unaware of because no woman is escaping menopause. Menopause is permanent loss of your sex hormones. You never regain your ability to produce these two hormones. These hormones ARE essential to your health women!!

My approach to treating hormone loss is probably very different from what you have experienced from your doctor. Please understand, doctors are trained in medical school to treat ONLY THE SYMPTOMS of menopause. Not the cause!! The standard of care treatment is hormone drugs, patches, birth control pills, vaginal creams...Uggg

We can empower each other through education and knowledge. Fear and confusion has led women to believe that their own hormones are dangerous, cancer causing molecules! Oh my!! I really want this to change for women! My goal is to educate you and then you can make a choice. Similar to if you want to take supplements, vitamins, exercise, stop smoking, etc. You have that right to choose whether or not you do certain things that make you healthier. Shouldn't you have the same right to replace your hormones as well?

Read my article about proper levels of hormones in the body and learn what is optimal. Then, use only bioidentical transdermal hormones in cyclic, rhythmic dosing to acquire those levels. The results are self evident.




Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com

How To Control Diabetes

In my medical training I was taught that we should eat a low fat diet high in complex carbohydrates and that prevented weight gain and disease. I have since discovered that I have been mislead down the wrong path. It isn't fat that makes us fat or have diabetes. In fact, it is the carbohydrates that we are eating. A diet high in fruit, milk, bread, and very little fat sets you up for higher blood sugar levels, high blood pressure, chronic fatigue, weight gain, and abnormal cholesterol profiles. Carbohydrates increase the release of insulin to bring blood sugar levels down. Insulin is a fat storing hormone. Weight gain, along with high insulin levels cause blood pressure to increase. The blood pressure medications often used often increase blood sugar levels even more.

You could test this yourself by monitoring your own blood sugar levels. Do an experiment of your own. Check your blood sugar levels when you get up in the morning before you eat and if you are not diabetic your blood sugar level should be "normal" which is between 70-100. Then eat a perfect American Diabetes Association breakfast, a bowl of shredded wheat with non fat milk, a banana and a glass of orange juice. Wow! Now watch your blood sugar rise one hundred to two hundred points. A normal blood sugar response to any meal is no more than ten to twenty points.

So it must be food that is the problem. It isn't protein. Protein will eventually turn into sugar, but not that quickly. It isn't the fat. We aren't eating any fats, or hardly any, and fats do not turn into sugar that quickly either. Carbohydrates are the only nutrient group that can be converted into sugar so fast. All carbohydrates are recognized as sugar by the body, whether they are in the form of grains, starches, dairy, fruits, or sweets. So basically we are telling diabetics to eat SUGAR!

Why is sugar so destructive to diabetics? To understand and appreciate why, you need to understand the role of insulin in the human body. Insulin is the hormone responsible for tightly regulating the amount of sugar going to the brain after you eat. Insulin accomplishes this in two ways. First, the presence of insulin alerts the liver to incoming high amounts of sugar so that the liver does not let this high sugar pass through to the brain. Second, insulin stows away sugar into cells, thereby decreasing blood sugar levels. Also, when sugar is stowed, insulin levels normalize. This system keeps blood sugars and insulin levels balanced.

Diabetics are insulin resistant. This means that cells will not allow insulin to unload sugar from the bloodstream. Because the cells do not respond to insulin, the pancreas reacts by secreting even more insulin in an attempt to open up the closed cells. The result is type 2 diabetics have both high insulin levels and high blood sugar levels. Now, ask a type 2 diabetic to eat more carbohydrates and it further increases both their blood sugar levels and insulin levels.

You can try this for yourself. Eliminate all obvious carbohydrate foods, such as potatoes, rice, legumes, cereals, breads, fruit, low fat yogurt, milk, and of course refined sugar. Add more eggs, egg substitutes, fish, chicken, red meat, nuts, non starchy vegetables, real mayonnaise, real cheese, real butter and healthy oils. See what happens. You will see that your blood sugar numbers will fall dramatically and you may even lose body fat.

Let's take this even further. Numerous studies reveal that diabetic patients have a very high rate of heart disease. These studies span three decades relating high insulin levels and heart disease, high insulin levels and hypertension, high insulin levels and excessive body fat gain and many other problems. What is interesting to me is that many people after a heart attack are told to go on a low fat, high carbohydrate diet. This increases their blood sugar levels which then increase the insulin levels. High insulin levels are associated with increase in weight, increase in blood pressure, degenerative diseases of aging such as osteoarthritis, various cancers, cholesterol abnormalities, coronary artery disease, less lean body mass with excess body fat, osteoporosis, stroke, and type 2 diabetes.

Could it be that we are accelerating the aging process through poor eating and lifestyle habits that raise insulin levels?

Of course there are genetic variables. However, this is clinically significant only when eating and lifestyle habits consistently cause insulin levels to rise. In other words, a genetic predisposition to disease is not a "guarantee" that you will develop that disease. Instead, what you do and how you live your life determines your risk for developing insulin resistance and the degenerative diseases of aging.

To learn more give me a call!


Call my office in Lombard (630) 627-3700 to set up an appointment or email me at jones.gretchen@gmail.com