estrogen Archives - Page 3 of 3

What is DES and Why You Should Care

Published on February 6, 2013

6757 views

Diethylstilbestrol or DES is synthetic estrogen developed in the late 1930s. It was initially approved by the FDA in 1941 for vaginitis and as an early hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women. It was later approved a variety of low estrogen indications. In 1947, the FDA approved its use in pregnant women with a history of miscarriage. DES had been used off-label for miscarriage prevention since the early 1940s, despite the fact that little evidence supported its use and animal studies indicated clear carcinogenic and congenital reproductive abnormalities in the offspring.

After 10 years of widespread use and marketing, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the efficacy of DES was finally conducted. As one might expect, it was found ineffective in preventing miscarriage. In fact, women on DES had a higher risk of miscarriage. Later studies in the 1960s began detailing the adverse events associated with this drug. Despite mounting evidence of the dangers of diethylstilbestrol, it remained on the market and widely used through the early 1970s in the US and into the 1980s in some European countries. In the US alone, it is estimated that between 5-10 million women and their children were exposed to DES. Because the compound was never patented, 287 drug companies sold DES under a multitude of brands and for an array of low-estrogen conditions.

In addition to diethylstilbestrol use in humans, it was used widely in farm animals to fatten up the chickens and cattle, beginning in the early 1950s and through the 1970s. DES was found to cause cancer and interestingly enough, cause gynecomastia (man boobs) and sterility in the poultry workers. Well before DES was banned in humans, the FDA banned it in poultry under the newly enacted Delaney Clause to the FDA 1958. It seems man boobs and sterility was all it took to ban the product in chicken farms. Miscarriage, congenital abnormalities and cross-generation cancer risks, on the other hand, were not sufficient to initiate its ban in large cattle or humans. It was another 20 years before diethylstilbestrol was banned in cattle or humans and many years after before it was removed from the food chain (if it even is now). “In 1980, half a million cattle from one hundred and fifty-six feedlots in eighteen states were found with illegal DES implants.” Even upon FDA’s decision to withdraw its approval of DES in cattle and feed, it did so on grounds of the procedural non-compliance of the manufacturers, erstwhile maintaining the safety of diethylstilbestrol, “because there is no evidence of a public health hazard.” Despite its clear carcinogenic and teratogenic risks, it is still used in veterinary care.

Diethylstilbestrol Risk for Humans

Amongst those suffering the most from DES exposure are men and women who were exposed in utero as developing fetuses. DES was given to pregnant women from the 1940 through 1971 in the US and into the 1980s in some European countries. If you were born anytime between 1940 and 1980, ask your mom if she was given DES to prevent miscarriage. It was sold under dozens of brand names (click here for brand names).

Sons and Daughters of DES

The range of depth of reproductive abnormalities, endocrine and health issues found in the children and grandchildren of DES moms, is expanding regularly. If your mom or grandmother was given DES, here is a list of health issues to look for:

DES Daughters

In a large cohort study comparing the reproductive health of the daughters of women prescribed DES during pregnancy to the health of women whose mothers had not been given DES, researchers found a 2-8 times higher incidence of the following conditions:

Infertility
Spontaneous abortion
Ectopic pregnancy
Second trimester pregnancy loss,
Preterm delivery
Preeclampsia
Stillbirth
Neonatal death
Early menopause
Breast cancer
Cervical neoplasia
Clear cell adenocarcinoma

The increased risk of miscarriage and adverse pregnancy outcome in DES daughters is overwhelmingly linked to structural abnormalities with uterus. Fully 69% of DES daughters who have had difficult with infertility and miscarriage have an abnormally shaped uterine cavity or structural changes to the cervix (44%).

DES and Endometriosis

Of particular interest to Hormones Matter followers, DES exposure in utero is linked to an 80% increase in endometriosis. We will be digging deeper into the DES – endometriosis connection in the coming weeks.

DES Sons

Sons of women given DES during pregnancy are three times more likely to have structural abnormalities of the genitals including:

epididymal cysts
undescended testes
extremely small testes
hypospadias (misplaced urethral opening)
micropenis (some, but not all)
increased risk of infertility
increased risk of testicular and prostate cancer (although the research has just begun)

In the animal research, offspring of DES exposed mothers shows a vast array of structural and morphological changes across multiple physiological systems ranging from sex reversal in male fish to structural and functional changes in pancreatic cells. The full scope of damage from DES is yet to be determined.

DES Grandchildren

Yes, there are third generation effects from this drug. Researchers are just beginning to untangle the third generation effects. In women, menstrual irregularities appear more common as do the various forms of cancer, but the data are unclear. In men, hypospodias may be more frequent, but again the data are mixed.

Endocrine disruptors like diethylstilbestrol impact human health in ways we are only just beginning to understand. The current methods for measuring and calculating risk for endocrine disruptors is out-dated and based on standard, linear, dose-response curves that not only fail to account for how hormone systems work, but also fail to address possible transgenerational effects. Hormones matter and sooner or later we must address the broader endocrine system in pharmaceutical and environmental regulation. As women, we ought to be fighting for sooner.

The Soy Connection

by Jordan Davidson

Published on December 31, 2012

3302 views

As a firm believer in natural and holistic health, I believe that the food you eat can have a direct impact on your health. For those dealing with reproductive and or endocrine disorders simple dietary changes may help prevent or relieve a number of troublesome symptoms. For women across the board, especially those with estrogen sensitive diseases (e.g. endometriosis) minimizing soy in one’s diet can provide a lot of relief.

But, isn’t soy good for you? That’s not an easy question to answer. In moderation soy can provide a lot of benefits to one’s diet. However, soy should not be a staple in your day to day meal planning. To better answer the question we need to break it down.

Phytoestrogens

Soy is filled with phytoestrogens also known as “dietary estrogens,” which mimic the hormone estrogen that is naturally produced by the human body. Research has shown that phytoestrogens are beneficial for women going through menopause, since menopause is marked by a reduction in estrogen levels. Some menopausal women say that eating soy products helps relieve some symptoms of menopause such as hot flashes. Research has shown that phytoestrogens help maintain cholesterol levels and bone density in post-menopausal women. In addition phytoestrogens also help protect against a number of different cancers, such as prostate and breast cancer, cardiovascular disease and help with cognitive functioning.

However, soy being filled with phytoestrogens, can also be bad for you. Estrogens are female sex hormones – estradiol is the most common. Estradiol promotes the growth of female sex characteristics. Soy is also high in phytic acid which if consumed in high quantities can affect the absorption of other minerals. That is why third world countries that survive on grain and legume based diets have high rates of mineral deficiencies.

Too Much Dietary Estrogen

Increased estrogen consumption can be particularly detrimental to a number of people (i.e. babies, children, men, women sensitive to estrogens). Studies have shown that giving babies/infants soy formula is the estrogenic equivalent to giving them daily birth control pills. Obviously, such small children shouldn’t be on any form of contraception. It has also been suggested that this increased ingestion of estrogen can lead to estrogen sensitivities, earlier onset of puberty and reproductive diseases/disorders such as endometriosis. For older children increased amounts of estrogen also cause pubertal issues. Large quantities of estrogen can delay puberty for boys and lower the age of menarche (first menstruation) for girls. The average age of menarche decreases every year and a lot of researchers and medical professionals hypothesize that is has to do with the environment, toxins and the estrogen that comes from outside sources. Early puberty can also lead to short stature in women.

Estrogen in abundance is also bad for grown men. Men produce both testosterone and estrogen, with testosterone being the predominant hormone by far, and responsible for masculine features. Too much estrogen in males can offset their testosterone to estrogen balance, causing hormonal deficiencies. Lastly, estrogen is bad for women who are sensitive to estrogen, such as women with endometriosis. The endometrium that builds up in endometriosis responds to estrogen. The more estrogen you give your body the more the endometrium can build up, which leads to additional inflammation and bleeding.

Not all Soy Products are Created Equal

If you are still confused as to how soy can be both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ for you consider this: soy products come from a soy bean – however, if you take a good look at your soy-patties or chips made with soy you won’t see mashed up green beans. The invisible soy you eat come from processing the beans. ‘Asian’ soy which is usually quoted as being “good” soy is fermented soy. The process of fermenting soy can reduce a lot of the detrimental qualities of soy, but not entirely. Unfermented soy contains antinutrients such as tripsin inhibitors which can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and create chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. When soy is processed and manufactured it isn’t always fermented. There are two popular forms of processed soy:

Soy Lechitin: Soy lecithin is basically a waste product of refining soybean oil. In small amounts it isn’t harmful, but if you look at food labels it is found in a large amount of products. Putting soy products in everyday foods provides a lot of nutritional benefits (lower fat, lower calories, higher protein) while being cost effective to the manufacturers. Unfortunately when you process soy it also increases the levels of estrogens and goitrogenics. Goitrogenics decrease the productivity of the thyroid and are bad for those with thyroid disease. Although ironically enough lecithin by itself (not soy lechitin just plain old lechitin) is good for you, it is a natural product high in choline.

Soy Protein Isolate: Soy Protein Isolate is the key ingredient in most imitation meat and dairy products. It is also found in other manufactured goods and protein powders. To make soy protein isolate, the soy beans must first be mixed with an alkaline solution to remove fiber, then rinsed and separated using an acid wash and, lastly, neutralized in an alkaline solution. The resulting products are finally dried at high temperatures to produce a high-protein powder. A similar process is used to make textured vegetable protein which is a high-temperature, high-pressure extrusion processing of soy protein isolate. With natural almost always being better for you, a process like this is by no means healthy. It doesn’t sound good for you and it isn’t. This process can also increase the amount of trypsin inhibitors.

So… Is soy good for you? Studies show that a glass of red wine at dinner is good for you. But we all know that washing dinner down with a bottle of red wine every night would not be good for us. Approach soy in the same way; some soy products several times per week, especially if it is fermented, organic soy (think tofu cubes and not ‘fake pepperoni’) will provide more benefits than detriments. In general be smart about what you put in your body, be an educated consumer and read your labels. Just because it has soy doesn’t make it good. But, that doesn’t mean you need to take all soy products out of your life.

Forty Years of Pain and Still No Diagnosis

by Louise Heiner-van Dalen

Published on November 12, 2012

3571 views

I am Louise Heiner-van Dalen, 63 years old. I live with my husband André in Elim, a little village in the east of the Netherlands.

The Pain of Puberty

From the moment my periods started at age 15, I had a lot of cramps and stomach pain. I went to the practitioner, and he did screenings of my blood and urine. Nothing was found. This was in 1964. The doctor told my mother that I was making it up to get attention. So my mother and my younger sister started telling me that they were strong and never complained, while I was weak and always had something to complain about.

Every two weeks I had a lot of pain, and I felt so bad; I really was ill. My mother and sister started to call me names and to tell everybody how childish I was.

Miscarriages and Endometriosis

I got married in my 25^th year, and after two years, in 1976, we really wanted to get pregnant. In those years I lost two ‘babies’ during the first part of pregnancy.

We went to the gynecologist and examinations started. Fertility examinations did not seem to be possible for some reason, and in those years the only option was a diagnostic laparoscopy. Then they found that there was a kind of flap mechanism, which was why they couldn’t do the first examination.

During this surgery they also saw that there was a lot of endometriosis in the abdomen. They had to tap off a lot of infection. When I woke up the doctor told me it was impossible to get pregnant because the ovaries were shriveled up by the endometriosis.

He gave me medicines that should have stopped my periods for a longer time, but after a couple of months enormous bleeding started. I was not able to take a step because of the bleeding and there was no way to stop it.

My husband and I talked about it, and with pain in our hearts we decided to that I should have surgery to take out my uterus and ovaries. We were afraid that going on like this could cost me my life, and I didn’t like to live like this. I was only 29 years old, it was 1978.

Hysterectomy

After we talked with our practitioner and with the gynecologist, my surgery was planned. The gynecologist told us that they would inspect everything, and it maybe it would be possible the take out the endometriosis and to keep the uterus.

When I woke up after surgery, I felt the incision with my hand, and it felt empty. I knew. In those years, the gynecologist thought that leaving a tiny little piece of one the ovaries would be enough to prevent problems with estrogen hormones.

Post-Surgery- Cycles of Pain

I could no longer have children. We planned on adopting before we got married, so we started the process before my surgery. In the mean time, I didn’t feel well, but it was hard to tell what it was. My muscles and joints started to give problems, and I had a lot of headaches. Every four weeks I had several days of physical discomfort and mental instability.

In 1980, we adopted our first baby boy and we were so happy, but I was still in pain.The doctors kept on telling me that I needed medicines because of mental problems. I refused that, because I was sure that there were other problems. The abdominal pain returned. Another gynecologist did a laparoscopic examination again, and again he found endometriosis and a few chocolate cysts.

Our second baby boy came in 1981. The gynecologist monitored my condition.

Premarin, Other Hormones and Psychosis

In 1992, after another surgery, doctors conducted an intra-uterine inspection and discovered that my mucus membranes were very thin and sometimes bleeding. He decided to give me Premarin, an estrogen hormone.

In a short time, I felt better than ever before. We were so happy and the gynecologist told me that I had to take this for the rest of my life. But then more and more the doctors found out that using this medicine could cause a greater risk of developing breast cancer.

Because of my husband’s job we had to move every four years or so. This meant every four years I had to find a new house doctor. In 2004, our new house doctor forced me to stop the Premarin. I refused. Then he refused to give me a new prescription. Day by day, my situation got worse. There were signs of psychosis. I had a lot of pain in my legs and seven nightly perspiration in 15 minutes, so I never slept. We asked the doctor to send me to an endocrinologist, but he refused saying it was all mental problems and I had to see a psychiatrist. I refused, and my husband went to the doctor to tell him that he wouldn’t leave before he had a referral letter for the endocrinologist. The doctor gave him the letter, and my husband told him that we would never come back to him.

The endocrinologist agreed with my need for the medicines. He did screenings of my blood and wanted to monitor my progress. We had to find another practitioner.

Prescription Mishap – Pseudo Pregnancy and Leg Pain

In 2010, I planned to travel to Québec, so I took my new prescription for Dagynil, a hormone, to the pharmacy four weeks before I left. I told them that it was important to have them in time.

Shortly before leaving, my husband went to the pharmacist to get my Dagynil, but they didn’t have to correct dosage by mg. They gave him a splitter and told him that I could simply split the tablet. I always thought that it was not good to split this kind of medicines, but the pharmacist said it was safe.

During my stay in Québec, I felt more and more sick, especially in the morning, with nausea, and my daughter-in-law joked that I seemed pregnant. After the month long trip, I came home and a week later I felt another psychotic attack coming. I knew for sure that the pharmacist and the house doctor had made an enormous mistake.

My husband called for the doctor, and he didn’t believe us! I had so much pain in my legs, I felt so bad, and was really panicking. I asked the doctor to make a phone call to the endocrinologist, but he refused. Again the same story!

It took three weeks; by then I was so upset that I started to shout at the doctor as soon he entered my room. I lived in a strange world that wasn’t mine. I wanted to die to be with the two little babies I had lost. It was horrible. I kept on shouting at the doctor, and he was trying to make a phone call for a psychiatrist.

My husband told the doctor that it would be better to make a phone call to the endocrinologist. Finally he agreed, and the next morning he made a phone call to us to tell us that we had to go to the hospital immediately. Thank God!

The endocrinologist felt so sorry for me. Again the same story. He agreed that I was pregnant – at least I had all the signs – but there was no baby, of course. It took several weeks before I was feeling better after this bad adventure. I was prescribed the correct dosage of Dagynil and slowly I felt more myself.

Today

In 2011, we moved again, and we found a good, friendly doctor. We told him openly about the problems we had in the past, and he listened very carefully.

About six months ago, I woke up and felt strange, like another psychotic attack was coming up. I made an appointment with the doctor and told him that there seemed to be something wrong. He looked through blood tests from the last few months, since I needed monitoring because I have collagen/microscopic colitis. Then he saw that my thyroid numbers were going up slowly but still within the margin that is normal.

I asked the doctor to make a phone call to the endocrinologist, which he did immediately, while we were sitting there. The endocrinologist explained my hormone troubles, and he advised him to prescribe Euthyrox. I was happy and felt better within a couple of weeks.

My abdominal pain is still there, and nobody knows if it is the endometriosis or the colitis, but another surgery will give more scars and troubles inside. Forty years of pain and problems and I still do not have a diagnosis and my treatment plan changes often.

Is Your Deodorant Linked to Breast Cancer?

by Lisbeth Prifogle, MFA

Published on April 16, 2012

2565 views

A new study reveals that parabens, a toxin found in most bath and beauty products, was found in 99% of breast cancer tissue tested. Parabens are used in everyday products like shampoo, deodorant, body wash, make-up, etc., as an antimicrobial. The parabens in various products enter the body through the skin and mimic estrogen in our system. This study demonstrates how parabens in our products are linked to the estrogen overload that can cause breast cancer and other health problems. For mor information please read Dr. Mercola‘s article on this study, our article on toxic cosmetics and DIY beauty products (including safe deodorant), and for an in-depth, scientific look you can read the study found in the Journal of Applied Toxicology.

Milk it does a Body Good?

by Lisbeth Prifogle, MFA

Published on April 16, 2012

4210 views

Recently, I bought a lunch-box sized container of Horizon organic milk. I don’t use milk regularly, but do use other dairy products like cheese, sour cream, and butter often. I was a bit disturbed when I noticed something on the label that I had not seen on other dairy products: “Our farms produced this milk without the use of antibiotics, added hormones, pesticides or cloning.” I’d heard of the dangers of growth hormones in milk, but decided to do some research into what’s really in our milk, if they use cloned cows or if that’s just another advertising scam and if current regulations really protect the consumer.

Pesticides, Antibiotics and Hormones in Milk

If you are a woman and you have ever been prescribed an antibiotic or medication of any type, your doctor or pharmacist most likely asked you if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. Why? Because the medications come through the mother’s milk. Why would this be any different in animals? It’s not.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, commercial dairy farmers feed cattle corn silage, alfalfa or grass silage, alfalfa hay, ground or high-moisture shelled corn, soybean meal, fuzzy whole cottonseed, and perhaps commodity feeds (corn gluten, distillers grains, soybean hulls, citrus pulp, etc.), instead of grazing on grass in a sunny field. It might be cheaper up front, but the feed is likely genetically modified (GM) to withstand dangerous pesticides that the animals then digest and process into milk. The feed is a very unnatural food for the cows, wreaking havoc on their poor digestive systems. This makes them susceptible to various pathogens, such as E. coli, mastitis and other diseases contracted through their diet and poor living conditions. Farmers give cattle antibiotics throughout their life, when all they need to do is let them graze on grass to balance the pH level of their stomach and give them better living conditions in general. These antibiotics are found in milk we consume.

In order to increase the production of milk the cows are injected with the bovine growth hormone rGBH. While labels state, “No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rGBH-treated and non-rGBH-treated cows,” the truth is out there. Investigative journalists, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, tell their story on PR Watch about how Monsanto, former manufacturer of rGBH, lawyered-up and hid their revealing report on the dangers of rBGH in milk. According to the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research (2003), there are at least 16 different harmful medical conditions for dairy cattle treated with rGBH, including:

40 percent increase in infertility
55 percent increased risk for lameness
Shortened lifespan
Hoof disorders
Visibly abnormal milk

It also increases the levels of Insulin Growth Factor -1 (IGF-1) in the cows as well as their milk. In this important report on the link between breast cancer and milk from cows treated with rGBH, Dr. Mercola explains that “IGF-1 is a potent hormone that acts on your pituitary gland to induce powerful metabolic and endocrine effects, including cell growth and replication. Elevated IGF-1 levels are associated with breast and other cancers. When cows are injected with rBGH, their levels of IGF-1 increase up to 20-fold, and this IGF-1 is excreted in the milk.”

In addition to the added hormones, we have to deal with the natural hormones in milk. Cows are now milked 300 days of the year, including entire pregnancies. According to Ganmaa Davaasambuu, who holds a Ph.D. in environmental health and is a current fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, “Milk from a cow in the late stage of pregnancy contains up to 33 times as much of a signature estrogen compound (estrone sulfate) than milk from a non-pregnant cow.” What does this mean to the consumer? Studies are not revealing that the increase in sex hormones are linked to cancers including prostate, breast and endometrial. According to Dr. Davaasambuu’s research, “One study compared diet and cancer rates in 42 countries. It showed that milk and cheese consumption are strongly correlated to the incidence of testicular cancer among men ages 20 to 39. Rates were highest in places like Switzerland and Denmark, where cheese is a national food, and lowest in Algeria and other countries where dairy is not so widely consumed. Butter, meat, eggs, milk, and cheese are implicated in higher rates of hormone-dependent cancers in general. Breast cancer has been linked particularly to consumption of milk and cheese.”

Cloning

Companies use different claims to appear more desirable to the health-conscious consumer. I have seen products labeled as non-GMO when the ingredients have not been genetically modified in general, yet. So, are cows really cloned, or is this a marketing ploy as well? The truth is stranger than fiction, I’m afraid. In 2008, the FDA approved the use of cloned animals for both meat and milk. Similar to genetically modified food, there are no regulations that cloned animal products have to be labeled and are thought to be safe. Personally, I’d rather not be the guinea pig to find out the safety of these products.

Regulations

Does the USDA and FDA protect the consumer? Well, I’m not so sure I’d consider rGBH or cloned animals safe. The FDA seems to be going out of their way to limit the sales of raw milk lately. However, consumers have been fighting for their right to buy and consume raw, organic milk so much that states have been forced to change their laws and allow the sale of it (Click here to see if raw milk is legal in your state). Meanwhile, the FDA continues to send SWAT teams out to arrest Amish farmers and the USDA allows the largest “organic” dairy companies to sell questionably organic products. The Cornucopia Institute is filing a formal legal complaint in an attempt to immediately halt the USDA from allowing factory farms producing “organic” milk from bringing conventional dairy cattle onto their farms. Cornucopia claims the practice, which places family-scale farmers at a competitive disadvantage, is explicitly prohibited in the federal regulations governing the organic industry.

Sugar and our Hormones

by Lisbeth Prifogle, MFA

Published on April 2, 2012

3559 views

It’s Easter season, which outside of religious practices, means candy, candy and more candy for a lot of Americans. Peeps, Cadbury Eggs, jelly beans are just a few of the hallmarks of this spring holiday. But, along with our growing waistline, scientists and Americans are both scrutinizing our diet and a common culprit seems to repeatedly point back to the white stuff. Even CBS News, 60 Minutes is looking at the toxicity of sugar. Is candy and sugar in our diet really the cause of America’s obesity and health problems? It’s now estimated that the average American consumes up to 180 lbs of added sugar per year. Here’s another statistic that demonstrates the increase of sugar in our diets over the years:

In 1700, the average person consumed about 4 pounds of sugar per year.
In 1800, the average person consumed about 18 pounds of sugar per year.
In 1900, individual consumption had risen to 90 pounds of sugar per year.
In 2009, more than 50 percent of all Americans consume one-half pound of sugar per person
DAY—translating to a whopping 180 pounds of sugar per year!

“Walk away from the Peeps, Ma’am!” might be what you’re telling yourself, but this sugar epidemic is out of control thanks to the highly processed foods and soft drinks where sugar hides under a variety of names. Here are some fancier names for sugar:

Sucrose, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn syrup, maltodextrin, maltose, syrup, mannitol, molasses, ethyl maltol, fruit juice, fruit juice concentrate, diatase, cane sugar, caramel, carob syrup, barley malt, beet sugar, C12H22O11,

But, that’s not all. There are as many names for sugar as Eskimos have for snow. As the public becomes more aware of the many dangers of sugar, the food industry has to try to hide it under different names.

Is it ironic or coincidental that this heavenly, legal substance that give us so much pleasure looks identical to illegal drugs such as cocaine, meth, heroine? In my opinion the only difference is that sugar is a legal drug. Am I exaggerating? No, actually I’m not. In a recent study where rats were given the choice between water, sugar and cocaine the rats choose … SUGAR! This is vital information for you and your family’s health because when you start cutting sugar out of your diet you will likely go through withdrawal symptoms as you would with any addictive substance. As an adult you can cope with the headaches, irritability and fatigue; but if you are cutting sugar out of a child’s diet they won’t understand what is happening to their body. Something to be aware of as a parent when you start cutting processed foods and sugary treats out of your children’s diet.

I’m sure some of you are reading this thinking, I’m not diabetic, this doesn’t apply to me. What if I told you that your high cholesterol and muffin top is more likely linked to the sugar than bacon? Interested now? To break it down barney-style, sugar (whether it be white rice, processed bread, soda, lemonade, plain ol’ sugar in your coffee) turns into glucose in your body. Your body releases insulin, a hormone, to cleanse the blood. What your body can’t use immediately as energy is stored in the liver and fat tissue of the body for later use. When you overload your system with sugar, your whole body has to work overtime to clean it out of your system and this means putting its everyday tasks aside to deal with this toxic overload. So, instead of processing healthy fats, proteins, good carbs, etc., your system is processing junk. Then, it has to do its normal jobs after that. No wonder you’re so tired and lethargic all the time – you’re forcing your whole body to work double shifts everytime you reach for that candy bar or soda!

SUGAR = FAT = HEART DISEASE/CANCER/DIABETES/OBESITY/LIVER DAMAGE/INFERTILITY/ACNE/AND MORE.

Can it get worst? Actually, yes. In 2007, Child and Family Resource Institute released findings that sugar disrupts the sex hormones as well.

“Glucose and fructose are metabolized in the liver. When there’s too much sugar in the diet, the liver converts it to lipid. Using a mouse model and human liver cell cultures, the scientists discovered that the increased production of lipid shut down a gene called SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin), reducing the amount of SHBG protein in the blood. SHBG protein plays a key role in controlling the amount of testosterone and estrogen that’s available throughout the body. If there’s less SHBG protein, then more testosterone and estrogen will be released throughout the body, which is associated with an increased risk of acne, infertility, polycystic ovaries, and uterine cancer in overweight women. Abnormal amounts of SHBG also disturb the delicate balance between estrogen and testosterone, which is associated with the development of cardiovascular disease, especially in women.”

So, what can you do? How do you beat the cravings? The first step is to remove table sugar and processed foods out of your house. If it’s not there, you can’t be tempted. The second step is educating yourself on the hidden ingredients that are actually sugar. (Here’s a scary tip – did you know that juice is depleted of all nutrients, flavor and color, stored for a year, and then artificially flavored and colored?!) Thirdly, check out my post, Sweet Alternatives, for some healthy alternatives that will help you and your family beat that sweet tooth for good.

Photos Jdurham, jasoncangialosi Creative Common 2.0

Women’s Hormones: An Intellectual and Ethical Cul de Sac

by Chandler Marrs, PhD

Published on September 21, 2011

5390 views

Menopause is barreling down with a ferocity that is difficult to ignore. Like many women my age, I’ve had my share of health challenges and, until recently, blindly trusted the pharmaceutical industry to fix all that ailed me. Health by chemistry was a great thing; oral contraceptives, a fabulous invention, allergy meds – ditto, pain killers – wonderful, and on, and on. Take a pill and feel better, isn’t that what we all want? But I, like so many women, have lost faith in pharmaceuticals. It’s not because the science isn’t cool, it is, in every area of pharmacology, except women’s hormone therapies. Here, intellectual curiosity and innovation have been replaced by status quo. Little has changed in this area of hormones and health in 60 years.

Hormones, Hormones, Everywhere and No Innovation in Sight

Since their inception, hormone replacement therapies (HRT) and oral contraceptives have dominated women’s health, immediately moving from seemingly narrow applications when first introduced to the almost mythical status as cure-alls for any female and many general health ailments. The history of both these pills is strikingly inglorious and utterly dumbfounding. Just on general principle, why would anyone believe any medication could be so widely beneficial for so many apparently disparate conditions? It is physiologically impossible.

For HRT especially, if one believes the marketing, the pills provide a veritable fountain of youth. Where is the science? But believe we did, and generations of women may now be paying the consequences.

From the very first estrogens synthesized and marketed to women everywhere (diethylstilbestrol- DES), through today’s HRTs and OCs, profit appears to override health concerns. Even in the 1930’s and 1940s before these drugs came to market, the carcinogenic risks were well known, and yet, they garnered FDA approval and were sold to millions, upon millions of women.

Synthetic Hormones

I have personal experience only with the often ignored side effects of oral contraceptives, as I have yet to reach the age of menopause. In my 20s, while on the presumable high estrogen dose of oral contraceptives that were common then, I had intense bouts of vertigo that would develop even when lying down and ever increasing blood pressure. After years of expensive testing could find no neurological cause for the vertigo and after repeated prescriptions to lower my blood pressure, I stopped taking the pill. I had enough. The vertigo stopped fairly soon thereafter and the blood pressure returned to normal. Over those several years, there was not a single physician that suggested I stop taking the pill, indeed I was prescribed more and more meds to counter the apparently unknown side effects of oral contraceptives and it was recommended I see a shrink because the vertigo had to be psychosomatic.

I look back at that time and I wonder how many other women suffered similar circumstances. What is this propensity to prescribe and continue prescribing medications in the face of apparent ill effects? Why are we ignoring, even at the patient level, the possibility that some meds may not work for some women (or men). The statistics bear this out, but there seems to be a natural inclination to minimize these risks. This is compounded of course, by intense marketing.

As I approach this menopausal stage, I again will be faced with yet another hormone-issue for which the choices are bad and worse. We know from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002, that HRT is not the panacea it was marketed to be and the risks associated with this medication are not benign.

Over a one year period, for every 10,000 women taking and estrogen plus progestin, the risk of developing these conditions increases by:

• Heart disease: 7 additional cases
• Breast cancer: 8 additional cases
• Stroke: 8 additional cases
• Blood clots: 18 additional cases

For estrogen only:

• Stroke: 12 additional cases
• Blood Clots: 6 additional cases

Consider however, the millions of women who will take or have taken HRT for years. As of 2010, over eight million women in the US alone take HRT, and will likely do so for at least a couple years. In this light, the increased risk of disease looks a lot scarier.

• Heart disease: 5600 new cases per year; 28,000 in five years
• Breast cancer: 6,400 new cases per year; 32,000 in five years
• Stroke: 6,400 new cases per year; 32,000 in five years
• Blood clots: 14,400 new cases per year; 72,000 in five years

When the WHI was published, some 17 million women in the US had been taking HRT for many, many years, even decades. That’s 13,600 new cases of breast cancer per year, 68,000 in five years! Despite these data, and the thousands of lawsuits that followed, HRT is still one of the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide. I think we can do better.

Statistics from the Mayo Clinic

We Need Your Help

Hormones Matter needs funding now. Our research funding was cut recently and because of our commitment to independent health research and journalism unbiased by commercial interests we allow minimal advertising on the site. That means all funding must come from you, our readers. Don’t let Hormones Matter die.

Yes, I’d like to support Hormones Matter.

Hormones Matter

Where health, hormones, and a whole bunch of other stuff, make sense.

estrogen - Page 3

What is DES and Why You Should Care

Diethylstilbestrol Risk for Humans

Sons and Daughters of DES

DES Daughters

DES and Endometriosis

DES Sons