My Solution to the U.S. Opioid Crisis

Not your typical street-level drug pusher, but a great source of oxycodone

The mainstream news outlets in the U.S. tell us we are in the midst of a narcotic use epidemic. People are dropping like flies from overdose.

Narcotics are also called opioids. I’m talking about oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), morphine, fentanyl, heroin, etc. Not Xanax, Ativan, or Valium.

On average, it takes three weeks of daily narcotic use to get physically dependent on it. “Dependent” means that when you stop the drug completely and suddenly, your body may crave it and you could have withdrawal symptoms. The severity of withdrawal symptoms varies from person to person. Possible symptoms include anxiety, sweating, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hyperactivity, restless legs, weakness, easy fatigue, shaking, suicidal thoughts, insomnia, and muscle pain or cramps.

Good and bad news, bad news first: Narcotic withdrawal can be very uncomfortable but rarely causes medically serious complications. The serious complications are usually in folks with pre-existing heart disease, high blood pressure, low blood pressure, or heart rhythm disturbances.

Here’s how you stop your chronic daily narcotic habit without suffering a withdrawal syndrome (if needed, see the postscript for an example):

  1. Total up your current total daily dose in milligrams
  2. Determine 10% of the amount by dividing the milligrams by 10
  3. Reduce your daily milligram intake by that 10% every week
  4. Nine weeks later you’ll be off narcotics

Congratulations! You’ve done your part to solve America’s opioid crisis. You’ve reduced your drug bill, avoided Opiate Use Disorder, and reduced your risk of narcotic overdose death by 100%. And you did it without political meddling or an expensive stay at a detox center.

Be aware that as you taper off your narcotic, you may have a flare of an underlying psychiatric condition such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, bipolar disorder, panic attacks, or psychosis. If so, see a mental health professional posthaste.

Good luck, America!

Steve Parker, M.D.

PS: Take Percocet 10/325 for example. It’s 10 mg of oxycodone and 325 mg of acetaminophen. Say you’re taking Percocet 10/325, four pills at at time, four times a day. That’s a total daily oxydocodone dose of 160 mg (16 pills x 10 mg). 160 mg divided by 10 = 16 mg. We have to round off 16 mg to 15 mg due to the availability of various strengths of Percocet. So starting today, you reduce your daily oxycontin dose by 15 g, which is one-and-a-half pills. After one week, you reduce your daily pill count by another one-and-a-half pills. Etc.

PPS: Let you’re doctor know what you’re doing beforehand. He’ll be overjoyed and ensure it’s safe for you to do this taper.

Who Said the Paleo Diet Cures Dementia?

Christopher E. Pitt, a general practitioner in Australia, wrote an article in 2016 questioning the safety of the paleo diet and veracity of some of its more prominent advocates. Dr. Pitt reviewed most of the available scientific studies and concluded:

Overall, conclusions about the effectiveness of the Palaeolithic diet should be considered cautiously. Positive findings should be tempered by the lack of power of these studies, which were limited by their small numbers, heterogeneity and short duration. Nevertheless, there appears to be enough evidence to warrant further consideration of the Palaeolithic diet as a potential dietary option in the management of metabolic diseases. Larger independent trials with consistent methodology and longer duration are required to confirm the initial promise in these early studies. Claims that the Palaeolithic diet could treat or prevent conditions such as autism, dementia and mental illness are not supported by clinical research.

The Palaeolithic diet is currently over-hyped and under-researched. While the claims made by its celebrity proponents are not supported by current evidence, the Palaeolithic diet may be of benefit in the management of various metabolic derangements. Further research is warranted to test these early findings. GPs should caution patients on the Palaeolithic diet about adequate calcium intake, especially those at higher risk of osteoporosis.

I’ve read most of the clinical studies cited by Dr. Pitt and reviewed them here, except I don’t recall the Bligh study. [Bligh HF, Godsland IF, Frost G, et al. Plant-rich mixed meals based on Palaeolithic diet principles have a dramatic impact on incretin, peptide YY and satiety response, but show little effect on glucose and insulin homeostasis: An acute-effects randomised study. Br J Nutr 2015;113:574–84.]

I’m not going to address Dr. Pitt’s article point by point. I merely bring it to your attention for your consideration. I will say I think Dr. Pitt is being too deferential to entrenched and sclerotic “authoritative” panels (e.g., Australian dietary guidelines). I was the same until 2009. Regarding calcium, you’ll find my assessment via the search box above and to the right.

I certainly agree with Dr. Pitt that the paleo diet is no panacea, and that further research is warranted.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Weight-Loss Diets Don’t Work: True or False?

Does A Whole Food Plant-Based Diet Work?

Carb-rich whole-grain bread

Depends on how you define “work.”

New Zealand researchers found significant long-term weight loss and improved cholesterol levels over six and 12 months with a low-fat vegetarian diet. Surprisingly, this was accomplished without restriction on calories and without an exercise component. Weight loss measured at six months was 27 lb (12.1 kg) and they only gained a little back by six months later.

The authors think the successful weight loss was from “… the reduction in the energy density of the food consumed (lower fat, higher water and fibre). Multiple intervention participants stated ‘not being hungry’ was important in enabling adherence.”

I scanned the article pretty quickly and don’t see that they referred to the diet as vegetarian. Here’s their test diet description:

We chose a low-fat iteration of the plant-based diet [7–15% if calories as fat] as this has been shown with previous research to achieve optimal outcomes, especially for heart disease and weight loss. This dietary approach included whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruits. Participants were advised to eat until satiation. We placed no restriction on total energy intake. Participants were asked to not count calories. We provided a ‘traffic-light’ diet chart to participants outlining which foods to consume, limit or avoid. We encouraged starches such as potatoes, sweet potato, bread, cereals and pasta to satisfy the appetite. Participants were asked to avoid refined oils (e.g. olive or coconut oil) and animal products (meat, fish, eggs and dairy products). We discouraged high-fat plant foods such as nuts and avocados, and highly processed foods. We encouraged participants to minimise sugar, salt and caffeinated beverages.

Perfect diet compliance would make this a vegan diet. I didn’t catch it in the text of the article, but I’m guessing protein calories were 10–15% of the total, and carbohydrates were around 75%.

The researchers called their investigation the BROAD study. All study subjects were overweight or obese adults. A control group ate their regular foods. The intervention group eating the whole food plant-based diet numbered 33, including 7 with type 2 diabetes. All studies like this have people that drop out. I.e., they quit or otherwise get lost to follow-up. Of the intervention group, 75% lasted for six months, 70% stuck with it for the entire 12 months.

There weren’t enough diabetics in the study to make statistically significant conclusions, but the authors write, “Hemoglobin A1c reductions favoured the intervention and all intervention patients with a diabetes diagnosis improved while adherent, and two resolved their condition by HbA1c.”

I’d love to see these researchers repeat this study with 50–100 overweight or obese folks with T2 diabetes. Clearly, it’s a radically different diet than what I recommend for my patients with diabetes.

Steve Parker, M.D.

PS: For science nerds, here’s the study abstract:

Background/Objective: There is little randomised evidence using a whole food plant-based (WFPB) diet as intervention for elevated body mass index (BMI) or dyslipidaemia. We investigated the effectiveness of a community-based dietary programme. Primary end points: BMI and cholesterol at 6 months (subsequently extended).

Subjects: Ages 35–70, from one general practice in Gisborne, New Zealand. Diagnosed with obesity or overweight and at least one of type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, hypertension or hypercholesterolaemia. Of 65 subjects randomised (control n=32, intervention n=33), 49 (75.4%) completed the study to 6 months. Twenty-three (70%) intervention participants were followed up at 12 months.

Methods: All participants received normal care. Intervention participants attended facilitated meetings twice-weekly for 12 weeks, and followed a non-energy-restricted WFPB diet with vitamin B12 supplementation.

Results: At 6 months, mean BMI reduction was greater with the WFPB diet compared with normal care (4.4 vs 0.4, difference: 3.9 kg m−2 (95% confidence interval (CI)±1), P<0.0001). Mean cholesterol reduction was greater with the WFPB diet, but the difference was not significant compared with normal care (0.71 vs 0.26, difference: 0.45 mmol l−1 (95% CI±0.54), P=0.1), unless dropouts were excluded (difference: 0.56 mmol l−1 (95% CI±0.54), P=0.05). Twelve-month mean reductions for the WFPB diet group were 4.2 (±0.8) kg m−2 BMI points and 0.55 (±0.54, P=0.05) mmol l−1 total cholesterol. No serious harms were reported.

Conclusions: This programme led to significant improvements in BMI, cholesterol and other risk factors. To the best of our knowledge, this research has achieved greater weight loss at 6 and 12 months than any other trial that does not limit energy intake or mandate regular exercise.

Source: Nutrition & Diabetes – The BROAD study: A randomised controlled trial using a whole food plant-based diet in the community for obesity, ischaemic heart disease or diabetes

For T2 Diabetes: Diet, Exercise Better Than Drugs According to Canadian University Study

Exercise is more helpful for preventing weight gain than for inducing weight loss

From the Vancouver Sun:

“Taking medication to tightly control and lower blood glucose levels is the advice frequently given by doctors to the 400,000 British Columbia residents with Type 2 diabetes — but it’s a “misguided” approach, according to the University of B.C. Therapeutics Initiative [the TI].

More than $1 billion is spent annually on diabetes drugs in this province, but in its latest bulletin to doctors, the TI says a growing body of research casts doubt on the effectiveness of Type 2 diabetes treatment. Doctors should focus instead on prescribing lifestyle modifications such as weight loss, exercise and healthier diets instead of medications to many patients, it says.

Type 2 diabetes, characterized by resistance to insulin, is largely caused by obesity, lack of exercise, high-carbohydrate diets and aging.”

Source: Type 2 diabetes: Exercise, diet better than medicine, says UBC study | Vancouver Sun

Read the short article for an opposing viewpoint. Namely, some diabetes drugs may help prevent cardiovascular disease (I’m not yet convinced).

h/t The Low Carb Diabetic

Hey, I know a diet that helps!

No degludec up in here!

Paleolithic Dieters: You May Have an Iodine Deficiency

A pinch of salt may cut the bitterness in a cup of coffee

An article in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that paleolithic-type diets may be deficient in iodine. See my comment after the link below.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:

Different diets are used for weight loss. A Paleolithic-type diet (PD) has beneficial metabolic effects, but two of the largest iodine sources, table salt and dairy products, are excluded. The objectives of this study were to compare 24-h urinary iodine concentration (24-UIC) in subjects on PD with 24-UIC in subjects on a diet according to the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR) and to study if PD results in a higher risk of developing iodine deficiency (ID), than NNR diet.

SUBJECTS/METHODS:

A 2-year prospective randomized trial in a tertiary referral center where healthy postmenopausal overweight or obese women were randomized to either PD (n=35) or NNR diet (n=35). Dietary iodine intake, 24-UIC, 24-h urinary iodine excretion (24-UIE), free thyroxin (FT4), free triiodothyronine (FT3) and thyrotropin (TSH) were measured at baseline, 6 and 24 months. Completeness of urine sampling was monitored by para-aminobenzoic acid and salt intake by urinary sodium.

RESULTS:

At baseline, median 24-UIC (71.0 μg/l) and 24-UIE (134.0 μg/d) were similar in the PD and NNR groups. After 6 months, 24-UIC had decreased to 36.0 μg/l (P=0.001) and 24-UIE to 77.0 μg/d (P=0.001) in the PD group; in the NNR group, levels were unaltered. FT4, TSH and FT3 were similar in both groups, except for FT3 at 6 months being lower in PD than in NNR group.

CONCLUSIONS:

A PD results in a higher risk of developing ID, than a diet according to the NNR. Therefore, we suggest iodine supplementation should be considered when on a PD.

(European Journal of Clinical Nutrition advance online publication, 13 September 2017; doi:10.1038/ejcn.2017.134.PMID: 28901333 DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2017.134)

Source: A Paleolithic-type diet results in iodine deficiency: a 2-year randomized trial in postmenopausal obese women. – PubMed – NCBI

Parker here. I thought I knew a little about the Paleolithic diet, so was surprised to read above that table salt is excluded. It’s not excluded from the Paleobetic Diet. Most table salt purchased in the U.S. iodine-fortified. The introduction of iodized salt in the U.S. in 1924 raised IQ in iodine-deficient regions by 15 points!

Guyenet’s Response to Taubes’ “Sugar Is Killing Us” Hypothesis

An unregulated poison?

An unregulated poison?

Gary Taubes argues that sugar is the likely cause of the Western world’s epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes, had heart disease.

I agree it’s a strong contributor to those maladies, if only via it’s contribution to overweight and obesity. I wouldn’t say it’s the sole cause.

Here’s an excerpt from Guyenet’s response to Taubes to whet your appetite:

A Slow-Acting Toxin

According to Taubes, sugar may be a “toxin” and “the primary cause of diabetes, independent of its calories, and perhaps of obesity as well.” Elsewhere in the essay, coronary heart disease is added to the list. Yet Taubes asserts that this speculative hypothesis cannot currently be tested because there is so little existing research on sugar, and so little interest in conducting such research, that the research necessary to nail it down would take years to decades to complete and is not even on the radar screen of the funding agencies.

This belief is remarkable in light of the fact that a Google Scholar search returns hundreds of scientific papers on the health impacts of sugar, many of them human randomized controlled trials, and many funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. In reality, the health impacts of sugar are of considerable interest to the scientific community, and as such, they have been studied extensively. Having established that this research exists, let’s take a look at it.

The hypothesis that sugar is the primary cause of coronary heart disease is easily refuted. In the United States, coronary heart disease mortality has plummeted by more than 60 percent over the last half century, despite a 16 percent increase in added sugar intake. Roughly half of this decline can be attributed to better medical care, while the other half is attributed to underlying drivers of disease such as lower cholesterol and blood pressure levels and an impressive drop in cigarette use. This striking inverse relationship is incompatible with the hypothesis that sugar is the primary cause of coronary heart disease, although it doesn’t exonerate sugar.

Is sugar the primary cause of diabetes, “independent of its calories”? Research suggests that a high intake of refined sugar may increase diabetes risk, in large part via its ability to increase calorie intake and body fatness, but it is unlikely to be the primary cause. An immense amount of research, including several large multi-year randomized controlled trials, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the primary causes of common (type 2) diabetes are excess body fat, insufficient physical activity, and genetic susceptibility factors.

The ultimate test of the hypothesis that sugar is the primary cause of obesity and diabetes would be to recruit a large number of people—perhaps even an entire country—and cut their sugar intake for a long time, ideally more than a decade. If the hypothesis is correct, rates of obesity and diabetes should start to decline, or at the very least stop increasing. Yet this experiment is far too ambitious to conduct.

Or is it? In fact, this experiment has already been conducted—in our very own country. Between 1999 and 2013, intake of added sugar declined by 18 percent, taking us back to our 1987 level of intake. Total carbohydrate intake declined as well. Over that same period of time, the prevalence of adult obesity surged from 31 percent to 38 percent, and the prevalence of diabetes also increased.

Source: Americans Eat Too Much Cake, but the Government Isn’t To Blame | Cato Unbound

Enjoy the view:

Well below room temp here

Not much sugar in this environment except for berries in spring and summer

Taubes partial response:

In stopping an epidemic, nothing is more important than correctly identifying its cause. Where we are today with obesity and diabetes reminds me of where infectious disease specialists were through most of the 19th century, when they blamed malaria and other insect-born diseases on miasma, or the bad air that came out of swamps. That was mildly effective, in that it was an explanation for why the rich in any particular town preferred to build their homes on hills, high above the miasma and, incidentally, away from the swamps and lowlands and slums where the vectors of these diseases were breeding. But only by identifying the vectors and the actual disease agents do we help everyone avoid them and eradicate the diseases. Only by unambiguously identifying the cause can we effectively design treatments to cure it. The kinds of explanations that Dr. Guyenet and Freedhoff put forth – highly palatable foods or ultra-processed foods – are the nutritional equivalents of the miasma explanation. They sound good; they might help some people incidentally eat the correct diets or offer a description of why other people already do, but they’re not the proximate cause of these epidemics. And there is a proximate cause. We have to find it. I can guarantee it’s not saturated fat, regardless of the effect of that nutrient on heart disease risk. What is it?

Now I am going to focus primarily on Dr. Guyenet’s response, as his was by far the most antagonistic, questioning both the history I present in the lead essay as well as the conclusions I’ve derived from the history and the science. While Dr. Guyenet does indeed challenge “specific and testable assertions” related to my lead essay, the one assertion he does manage to refute successfully is not, regrettably, an assertion I made in the article. As for the rest, the evidence against is not nearly as compelling as he presents it.

First, Dr. Guyenet examined “the 1980 Dietary Guidelines to determine if they condemn fat and take a weak stance on sugar as suggested.” He then set out to determine whether the 1980 Guidelines contributed to obesity, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. He concluded that they didn’t.

I was under the impression when I wrote the essay, though, and still am upon re-reading it, that I do not make such a simplistic assertion. The point that I made is not about the 1980 USDA Guidelines alone – Dr. Guyenet and I both note that they urged readers to avoid too much sugar – but rather the entire movement of the research community to demonize fat, and the journalistic coverage of it, and the series of government documents, and the consensus conferences that followed along because of it—all part of the same concerted public health effort that led us by the late 1980s to believe that the essence of a healthy diet is its relative absence of fat and saturated fat. As an unintended consequence, this ill-conceived dogma-building directed attention away from the possibility that sugar has deleterious effects independent of its calories.

These government reports, as I noted, included the FDA GRAS report on sugar in 1986, the Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health in 1988, the National Academy of Sciences Diet and Health report in 1989, the British COMA report on food policy the same year, and others. I could have also mentioned the 1984 NIH consensus conference on “lowering blood cholesterol to prevent heart disease” that followed on this legendary Time Magazine cover – “Cholesterol, And Now the Bad News” – and the founding in 1986 of the National Cholesterol Education Program, which published its guidelines for cholesterol lowering the following year. All focused on dietary fat and serum cholesterol as the agents of heart disease and all mostly or completely ignored the evolving science on insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome that implicated sugar and other processed carbohydrates.

Indeed, if anything, the more relevant of the two USDA Dietary Guidelines, the one that Dr. Guyenet does not address, is the 1985 version that declared without a caveat, as I noted, that “too much sugar in your diet does not cause diabetes.” This is, of course, remains the critical question and the one that yet has to be rigorously tested (ignoring the tautology implied by the use of the words “too much”).

Dr. Guyenet, Dr. Freedhoff, and I all agree that had Americans eaten as the guidelines cautioned (and just as Michael Pollan would have preferred as well), we’d all very likely be healthier. But we didn’t. The question is whether the dietary fat/serum cholesterol/heart disease obsession directed attention away from the hypothesis that sugar causes heart disease, diabetes, and perhaps obesity as well through its effect on insulin resistance. The secondary question is whether this obsession in government documents, programs, journalistic coverage, and (pseudo)scientific reviews explains why we continued to eat such high sugar diets. As Dr. Guyenet notes, Americans still consume a significant amount of our calories from grain-based desserts and sugary beverages. But why? By focusing on the straw man of the 1980 guidelines, Dr. Guyenet fails to address that question. That he’s taking on a straw man makes me thinks he’s more interested in appearing to win an argument than in dealing with what may be the single most important public health issue of our era.

A key point to make, as Professor Kealey does, is that Americans did indeed respond to the dietary dogma of the 1970s and 1980s by changing their diets. Dr. Freedhoff and Dr. Guyenet are wrong in this regard when they attend only to the total percentage and amounts of fats, carbohydrates, and protein in our diets, and not the type of fats, carbohydrates, and even protein. Looking at what we ate instead of how much we ate supports the supposition that Americans heard the advice on fat and acted on it, even as we were ignoring the sugar advice. As the USDA reports, between 1970 and 2005, we cut down on our use of butter (-17%) and lard (-66%), while almost doubling vegetable oil consumption (from 38.5 pounds per capita yearly to 73.7); we more than doubled how much chicken we ate (33.8 pounds per capita yearly to 73.6, probably skinless white meat, but I’m speculating), while reducing our red meat consumption by 17 percent, and beef by 22 percent. We cut back on eggs, too. So while total fat consumption decreased only marginally, as Drs. Freedhoff and Guyenet note, that marginal decrease is accompanied by a reduction in animal fats and their replacement by vegetable oils, which were thought to be heart healthy and still are (perhaps also erroneously). The type of fats we consumed and the type of foods we consumed changed significantly, and this change was very much in accord with what we were being told.

The post-1980 focus on dietary fat also led to the creation and sale of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of non-fat and low-fat food-like substances (credit for the terminology once again to Mr. Pollan). In this instance, the CDC’s publication Healthy People 2000 is informative: Healthy People 2000 included multiple “nutrition objectives” aimed at reducing dietary fat consumption, including the creation of 5,000 low-fat or low-saturated fat products. It included nutrition objectives to reduce salt intake and increase complex carbohydrate and fiber consumption, but included no such objective for sugar or sugar-rich foods. Why not? Indeed, I find that the words “sugar” or “sugars” appear only five times in the almost 400-page final review of how well the guidelines were met. In 1995, the American Heart Association counseled in one of its pamphlets that Americans could control the amount and kind of fat consumed by “choos[ing] snacks from other food groups such as…..low-fat cookies, low-fat crackers,…unsalted pretzels, hard candy, gum drops, sugar, syrup, honey, jam, jelly, marmalade (as spreads).” In 2000, the AHA published this cookbook of low-fat and luscious sugar-rich “soul-satisfying” desserts. I don’t know if Dr. Guyenet would describe this as a “weak stand” on sugar or not, but it does shed light on our failure to limit sugar consumption during a period in which all public health advice was focused on reducing fat.

The more important question, and a very different one, is whether our sugar consumption has uniquely deleterious effects on our health. To refute the claim that consuming sugar might cause heart disease, Dr. Guyenet points out that heart disease mortality has dropped precipitously over the years of the obesity and diabetes epidemics and during a period when sugar consumption clearly increased (technically “caloric sweeteners” since the increase was due primarily to high-fructose corn syrup). Professor Kealey makes a similar point but with a far more nuanced perspective about how mortality rates are confounded by what are, after all, a half-century’s worth of very concerted efforts by medical researchers, the pharmaceutical and medical industry, and public health authorities to reduce mortality. That these efforts succeeded in reducing mortality is indeed commendable, but it makes it far more difficult than Dr. Guyenet suggests to derive meaning from the mortality data. If it’s evidence against the sugar hypothesis, it’s very weak evidence.

Dr. Michael Eades weighs in with words of wisdom.

Is Your Blood Glucose Meter Accurate? 

DiaTribe has an article on glucose meter accuracy by Jeemin Kwon and Adam Brown. I quote:

Results from the Diabetes Technology Society’s Blood Glucose Meter Surveillance Program identifies only six out of 18 meters that passed. Did yours make the cut?

The Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) recently revealed long-awaited results from its Blood Glucose Monitor System (BGMS) Surveillance Program. The rigorous study tested the accuracy of 18 popular blood glucose meters (BGM) used in the US. These FDA-cleared meters were purchased through retail outlets and tested rigorously at three study sites in over 1,000 people (including 840 people with diabetes). The results were troubling: only six out of the 18 devices met the DTS passing standard for meter accuracy – within 15% or 15 mg/dl of the laboratory value in over 95% of trials.

The devices that passed were:

  • Contour Next from Ascensia (formerly Bayer) – 100%
  • Accu-Chek Aviva Plus from Roche – 98%
  • Walmart ReliOn Confirm (Micro) from Arkray – 97%
  • CVS Advanced from Agamatrix – 97%
  • FreeStyle Lite from Abbott – 96%
  • Accu-Chek SmartView from Roche – 95%

The devices that failed were:  

  • Walmart ReliOn Prime from Arkray – 92%
  • OneTouch Verio from LifeScan – 92%
  • Prodigy Auto Code from Prodigy – 90%
  • OneTouch Ultra 2 from LifeScan – 90%
  • Walmart ReliOn Ultima from Abbott – 89%
  • Contour Classic from Bayer – 89%
  • Embrace from Omnis Health – 88%
  • True Result from HDI/Nipro – 88%
  • True Track from HDI/Nipro – 81%
  • Solus V2 from BioSense Medical – 76%
  • Advocate Redi-Code+ from Diabetic Supply of Suncoast – 76%
  • Gmate Smart from Philosys – 71%

Source: Are Blood Glucose Meters Accurate? New Data on 18 Meters | diaTribe

Natural Ways to Treat Hypertension

You may need to cut back on alcohol Photo copyright: Steve Parker MD

You may need to cut back on alcohol.
Photo copyright: Steve Parker

Drugs to control hypertension can save your life. I prescribe them all the time. However, there are also “natural” ways to control high blood pressure. Click the link at bottom for some of the better known methods from Kerri-Ann Jennings, RD. If you’re trying to avoid drugs, you’ll probably need a combination of tricks. And they don’t work for everybody.

Even if you’re already on drugs, you may be able to cut back or stop them if you adopt some of these tips.

“High blood pressure is a dangerous condition that can damage your heart. It affects one in three people in the US and 1 billion people worldwide.

If left uncontrolled, it raises your risk of heart disease and stroke.

But there’s good news. There are a number of things you can do to lower your blood pressure naturally, even without medication.Here are 15 natural ways to combat high blood pressure.”

Source: 15 Natural Ways to Lower Your Blood Pressure

h/t Jan at The Low Carb Diabetic

Butchered Bones Found in Canada Indicate Humans Came to North America 24,000 Years Ago

Fresh off the Bering Strait from Siberia?

Fresh off the Bering Strait from Siberia?

From Ancient Origins:

“Archaeologists have found a set of butchered bones dating back 24,000 years in Bluefish Caves, Yukon, Canada, which are the oldest signs of human habitation ever discovered in North America. Until recently, it was believed that the culture that represented the continent’s first inhabitants was the Clovis culture. However, the discovery of the butchered bones challenges that theory, providing evidence that human occupation preceded the arrival of the Clovis people by as much as 10,000 years.

For decades, it has been believed that the first Americans crossed the Bering Strait from Siberia about 14,000 years ago and quickly colonized North America.”

Source: 24,000-Year-Old Butchered Bones Found in Canada Change Known History of North America | Ancient Origins