Thomas Smith began reviewing scientific literature after conventional medicine failed him in controlling diabetes. Smith found research that shows dietary toxins impair cell membrane function. These toxins include trans fatty acids and refined sugars. Cells begin to have trouble absorbing nutrients, and the blood sugar rises. Over time, this results in chronic elevated blood and urine sugar levels. Sounds like a growing epidemic, doesn't it?

This damage to cell membranes, caused by a poor diet, can be repaired. The diabetic syndrome can be cured by eliminating all processed fats and oils. The protocol calls for supplementing high-dose Omega-3 fatty acids. This protocol normalizes blood sugars because the body is continuously repairing cell membranes by using the fats and oils available in the diet. One caution: the speed of recovery is related to the length of the illness. Some Type 2 diabetics may require up to one year for dramatic reductions in blood sugar.

A gaping hole exists between conventional medicine and diet. Conventional medicine claims that the cause of Type 2 diabetes is unknown. Medical doctors, as practitioners of conventional medicine, are not trained to explain how it happened. They treat symptoms with medicine. The business of medicine is medicine. The business of diabetes would be devasted if the cure was as simple as diet. The explanation Thomas Smith provides in his empirical studies is fascinating and I encourage anybody with competing or supporting evidence to open the debate.

Nutrigenetics is the study of the interaction of genes and diet. The Diet Channel has published an article explaining what nutrigenetics is and how it will revolutionize the world of diabetes.

Researchers believe elevated blood sugar can be mapped back to a genetic reaction. Drugs are only overriding the cause of elevated blood sugar and forcing the sugar into the cells, causing damage over time. Nutrigenetics is addressing the cause of the elevated blood sugar and may suggest a better diet to control your diabetes. Genes control how you metabolize certain vitamins, minerals, and nutrients. These genes can vary from one individual to the next. See what happens to Buddy the Elf when he consumes way too much coffee? Yes, I know - that's Hollywood. Nevertheless - a comical example of what nutrigenetics explores.

Consumer-friendly tests are available for these gene and diet interactions. The tests are done with a cheek swab. You send your swab off to a specialized lab, which analyzes DNA from the cheek cells. You receive a report identifying your gene variations. A qualified health professional can explain the test results, and make specific diet and supplement recommendations to optimize your health. If this is a test you're interested in taking, Sciona's Mycellf Program will be happy to prepare your profile. Open up and say Ahhhh.

Ever wonder what would happen to a non-diabetic's blood sugar if they loaded up on a pile of concentrated sugar, preservatives and weird science fats? Doctors and the ADA call it prediabetes. This clip takes it to the extreme by sandwiching the center of 16 double stuff Oreos! Sometimes you have to be insanely blunt to make your point.

This is a brilliant example of the diabetes epidemic in action. In today's world -- many people are eating for convenience without realizing the consequences. More convenient equates to less nutritious - more preservatives, more sugar and even more fattening (the wrong fats, too!) The combination increases the amount of time our digestive enzymes need to work on these lab-derived ingredients. This sustains an elevated blood sugar following the time of consumption. Add the ADA definition of pre-diabetes (a blood sugar between 140 to 199 mg/dl 2 hours after a meal) and there you have it -- a potential player on Team Diabetes!

Think what would happen if this guy was in his doctor's office 2 hours after this stunt. I'd like to thank his employer for keeping him busy (whatever he's paid to do) well after the lunch hour - and protecting him from becoming another statistic. Big ups to HR for hiring this guy!! If he's not in marketing already -- you might consider a transfer and give this guy a raise. He's my Oreo hero.

The report says, diabetic children who spend a great deal of time watching television had a tougher time controlling their blood sugar. I saw the headline and immediately envisioned that scene in The Poltergeist -- the infamous horror movie from the 80s.

The study looked at 538 children with an average age of 13 who were affected by Type-1 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is caused when the body cannot make insulin, which converts sugar from food into energy. The study's authors say encouraging children with Type-1 diabetes to watch less television may play an crucial role for improving blood sugar control and better health overall. Chicago diabetes educator Monica Joyce founded a basketball camp for diabetic children and wasn't surprised by the results. Joyce said campers typically are asked how much TV they watch and are taught "they can get much better blood sugars if they're active." Physical activity can lower blood sugar levels and snacking and overeating can increase them. While TV-viewing is often accompanied by snacking, the researchers didn't examine diet or physical activity

With her little hands pressed to the TV set, Carol Anne must have been onto this research 20 years ago when she spoke the immortal words, "They're here!" They could've been supernatural powers or perhaps all that time in front of the TV welcomed supernormal blood sugars.

A Swedish study has found that elevated blood sugar in women is linked with increased risk of developing cancer.

Researchers identified 2,478 incident cases of cancer from records of 33,293 women and 31,304 men who participated in the study. Participants were recruited in the mid-1980s at age 40, 50 and 60 and the study covered a 13-year period. The records included levels of glucose in the blood when fasting and after receiving an infusion of glucose. Researchers calculated the cancer risk relative to blood glucose while adjusting for: age, year of enrollment, fasting time and smoking status. Women with blood sugar levels higher than normal have a total higher risk for cancer while for men the risk was unchanged at higher blood sugar levels. The overall risk of developing cancer for women in the top 25% of fasting blood glucose levels was 26% higher than those in the bottom 25%. Women with high fasting glucose levels had a higher risk of pancreatic, breast and endometrial cancers, while the increase in risk for malignant melanoma was two times higher.

While previous studies have shown that cancer risk for some cancers is higher for people with type 2 diabetes, this study suggests that something could be happening to trigger cancer much earlier, as glucose levels begin to rise. The scientists also found that the blood sugar levels gradually rose over the period of the study, which they suggest means that cancer risks would also continue to rise unless glucose levels were brought down by some means. The results were no different when they took Body Mass Index (BMI) into account.

The study provides further evidence for an association between abnormal glucose metabolism and cancer. If you ask me - I think this has to do with the pH levels of the blood. It is well known that cancer manifests in blood levels of higher acidity. Poor diabetic control can result in higher acid levels in the blood. The catch 22 is poor diabetic control leaves your entire blood chemistry off kilter and it cannot defend any rogue cells - especially those associated with malignant growth (i.e. cancer!)

Scientists have studied the effects of stress on glucose levels in animals and people. Diabetic mice under physical or mental stress have elevated glucose levels. And now, as if the aforementioned isn't bad enough - researchers have found that a single socially stressful situation contributes to depression in rats.

It seems this single socially stressful scenario is killing new nerve cells in the hippocampus, the area of the brain that processes learning, memory and emotion. In young rats, the stress of encountering older, aggressive rats didn't stop the creation of new brain nerve cells. It prevented the new nerve cells from surviving, which left the young rats with fewer neurons for processing feelings and emotions. Researchers anticipate that this impact on neurogenesis could be a cause of depression. The next step in this discovery is to correlate an effective plan of treatment to preserve the healthy development of nerve cells from the hippocampus.

The timing of this Washing Post article and the topic of Lissa Coffey's latest Coffeytalk newsletter seemed to harmonize splendidly. Lissa is a lifestyle expert who offers interpersonal advice based on ancient wisdom eloquently packaged in modern style. Her latest piece of advice went out to a friend of hers that was feeling social friction from the other people at work. Her friend loved the job but wanted to feel more connected with the rest of her coworkers. Lissa advised her friend: be the dog. She continues..."go in and be the dog. Open that door with a big smile on your face, tail wagging, full of enthusiasm! Look at how dogs win people over just by being themselves, by being happy and comfortable right where they are. Be the dog." Great advice, Lissa!! I'd also like to thank Bean Bag for taking a moment out of her busy watchdog schedule to smile for the camera.

A clinical trial found the effects of a high sugar diet did not increase insulin resistance in the men tested. Insulin resistance is an important marker of diabetes risk. This study showed that an intake of sucrose two and a half times above average consumption did not have adverse effects on insulin resistance in healthy, nondiabetic men.

The study observed 13 healthy men over a 6 week period. The men ate either a high-sugar diet (25% of their energy from sugar) or a low-sugar diet (10% of their energy from sugar). After 6 weeks, the subjects crossed over to receive the other diet for another 6 weeks, separated by a four week wash out period during which the subjects returned to their usual diet. Insulin resistance was measured by a two-step glucose clamp. The high sucrose diet showed no significant adverse effects, such as elasticity of the arteries (known as vascular compliance) which impacts on risk of heart disease, and glycaemic profiles.

This study does not support the notion that sugar intake has any adverse effect on the risk of diabetes in healthy, nondiabetic men. Yes, I agree with the findings of this study. They are healthy. Their response to sugar is healthy. What would a study of 13 men with a parent who has type 2 diabetes look like? I suspect those results may show a horse of a different color.