Tips and tricks to stabilize blood sugar for non-diabetics
Hey Peter - you covered in great detail that spikes in blood glucose and generally high glucose variability are problematic even for non-diabetics. What are some of the best practices you recommend for someone trying to improve/optimize that? Is it just "eat less sugar and exercise more", or is there more to it? Keto diet? Fasting? Workouts immediately after meals to offset the glucose spike? Thanks!
Peter, Please be on the right side of history
People don't need to die! This whole pandemic could be over... https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/AndrewHill7-6-21paper.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.pdf https://c19ivermectin.com/ "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Can you talk about green powders (specifically Athletic Greens) and the significant amount of lead they contain?
So this is a long one, but my husband and I have been amazed at all the support for Athletic Greens given the shocking amount of lead in their product. I'm not sure this is an AMA exactly, but since I'm a subscriber and my husband just wrote this diatribe for fun...I thought I'd try to see if I could get your attention through this channel. A tiny bit of backstory....my husband is a functional psychiatrist. He's no schlump:) We're both deeply invested in nutrition and longevity and really appreciate your work. Therefore would love your thoughts ....hope you enjoy! LEAD CONTENT in ATHLETIC GREENS -- A workup of the claims made on the Athletic Greens website regarding their position on California Proposition 65. https://athleticgreens.com/prop65/en In reading on the athletic greens website I came across a curious statement that got my attention and caused me to go a bit deeper into their claims and assertions. It was this: “Natural green beans contain 28.75 micrograms of lead in a one cup serving . . . .” Following is my analysis of this and other misleading claims. “Natural green beans contain 28.75 micrograms of lead in a one cup serving, which is an exposure of approximately 50 times the allowed Prop 65 levels. This is 10 times the amount of lead in a serving of Athletic Greens.” • Athletic greens says that one cup or 8 ounces of green beans has 28.75 mcg of lead. • This didn’t sound right because the FDA is recommending less that 3 mcg/day in children and 12.5 mcg in adults, which doesn’t square up. (Note: This was lowered in 2018). • By the FDA report (https://www.fda.gov/food/total-diet-study/analytical-results-total-diet-study) in 2017 data sets, 8 ounces of green beans would have no more than 0.68 mcg of lead, as this was the limit of detection and no lead was reported in concentration columns. Green Bean Lead levels could have been as high as = 3 mcg/kg. 1 kg = 2.2 lbs = 35.2 oz. Therefor Lead in green beans equals no more than 0.08 mcg/ounce. • In other words, the level of lead is likely lower than this, but we can’t be sure. Taking this upper potential limit, this is still 42 times less lead than Athletic Greens is claiming is present in a serving of natural green beans. They appear to be using a very suspicious data point or to be obfuscating the truth about natural sources of lead to imply the safety of their AG product by comparison. “Our Athletic Greens gets tested EVERY batch for lead and other minerals. We pass with flying colors, and test consistently at 0.22mg/kg (or less), or about 2.64 MICRO grams per 12 gram serving. This is well within safe limits with the FDA.” • The FDA is recommending less that 3 mcg/day in children and 12.5 mcg in adults. • 0.22 mg/kg = 0.22 mcg/gram = 2.64 mcg/serving. • Almost equals an entire days lead for a child and over 1/5th of a daily serving for an adult, before they’ve eaten any food for the day. The statement appears disingenuous. • This state also doesn’t address the chances that many parents are putting this product into their children’s morning smoothies. This is not an acceptable pediatric product with this level of lead. “This is 5/1000th of the World Health Organization’s “Safe Harbour” amount, and, since it is over 1/1000th, we have to put the warning on shipments to Californian customers due to Prop 65.” • The statement appears disingenuous as these limits are not FDA limits used in the United States. • In fact, “the California Court of Appeals for the First District recently upheld the current 0.5 microgram per day safe harbor for lead (also known as the Maximum Acceptable Dose Level, or MADL) that was set in 1989.” (https://grimaldilawoffices.com/court-affirms-lead-limits-under-proposition-65/) • While they might argue that this is too low a limit, it is the law. • And, this statement is wrong. It means that one AG serving contains over 5 times the safe harbor limit, which is set at 1/1000th, rather than 5/1000s of the SHL. This is funny math that is hard to catch unless you read it closely, but it is hard to imagine it was not intentional. A report by Consumer labs would put the dose of lead in AG product in category of a contaminated product. • In their independent analysis and testing, there were many alternative products they tested that don’t contain even 0.5 mcg/serving of lead. • Green powders produced by Amazing Grass, Mercola, Garden of Life, GNC Earth, Jarrow, and other brands all were able to produce a green powder without high lead levels. • Consumer Lab failed one product for having 3.8-11.3 mcg of lead per 8 gram serving. • In addition, their cost analysis revealed quality products without toxic lead levels that were around a fraction the price of AG. “Natural spinach contains approximately 5.2 micrograms of lead in a typical adult serving size which is an exposure that exceeds Prop 65 levels by 10 times. This is double the amount of lead in a serving of Athletic Greens.” • Spinach (fresh/frozen, boiled) was reported to have 0.006 mg/kg of lead or 0.006 mcg/gram. (https://www.fda.gov/food/total-diet-study/analytical-results-total-diet-study) • 80 gram serving of spinach would therefore have approximately 0.48 mcg of lead. • This is almost 11 times less than AG is claiming and is 5.5 times what is in a single serving of AG. “If you were to have a serving of green beans, a serving of spinach, and a serving of brussels sprouts in a day (all grown on natural, clean soils) you could be taking in 80 times the Prop 65 limit and 16 times the amount of lead in a serving of Athletic Greens.” • One serving of Green beans (12 ounces) might possibly have up to 0.68 mcg of lead, though actual levels are likely to be lower. • One serving of Spinach (80 grams) actually would have around 0.48 mcg of lead • Per an FDA study, one serving of Brussel Sprouts is essentially the same as Green Beans in an FDA food analysis data set (https://www.fda.gov/food/total-diet-study/analytical-results-total-diet-study). This means there would not be more than 0.68 mcg of lead, and the actual amount is likely to be lower. • Thus the total maximum lead exposure in their scenario would be 1.84 mcg, which is only 70% of a serving of AG. The actual levels are likely to be lower however, but due to limits of detection this is the upper potential limit. This is nowhere near 80 times the limit of Prop 65. Remember that the regulation are oriented towards per serving exposure. The limit is set at 0.5 mcg lead/serving, and this scenario proposes three servings. Thus the total acceptable exposure would be 1.5 mcg lead. These three servings of natural vegetables may represent 1.2 times the recommended limits of exposure, though this is likely to be lower. “This notice APPLIES ONLY TO CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS AND NOT TO CONSUMERS IN ANY OTHER STATE, nor any other country.” • Misleading. “For example, Prop 65 sets a safe harbour limit of 0.5 mcg of lead per serving, but this limit is far below the amount of lead naturally found in many fruits and vegetables grown on clean, non-contaminated soils. In 2009 the State of California conducted its own food crop soil-lead-uptake analysis (Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129:212-220), and California’s experts found that the most commonly consumed vegetables (from 70 different locations), averaged nearly four times the Prop 65 lead limit per serving. When compared with the Prop 65 standards, each serving of potatoes, lettuce, wheat, carrots and many other vegetables would require a lead warning.” • Full Reference: Chen, W., Li, L., Chang, A. C., Wu, L., Chaney, R. L., Smith, R., & Ajwa, H. (2009). Characterizing the solid–solution partitioning coefficient and plant uptake factor of As, Cd, and Pb in California croplands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 129(1-3), 212–220.doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.09.001 • This paper proves nothing of the kind. How the company is using this paper to support their point is baffling. It is possible they mistook Log value ratios of uptake from soil as absolute concentrations of lead in plant tissue. This study cannot be applied to make the conclusions they’ve made. “All Athletic Greens products fall within FDA suggested guidelines for any/all of the chemicals listed by Prop 65 and can be safely consumed.” • It’s not quite that clear. The FDA is recommending less that 3 mcg/day in children and 12.5 mcg in adults. • AG = 0.22 mg/kg lead = 0.22 mcg/gram = 2.64 mcg/serving of lead. • A serving of AG equals almost an entire days lead for a child and over 1/5th of a daily serving for an adult, all before they’ve eaten any food for the day. The statement appears disingenuous. • This state also doesn’t address the likelihood that many parents are putting this product into their children’s morning smoothies. Lead exposure above these limits can damage brain development. “Athletic Greens prefers to comply with the Prop 65 warning label requirements, as a business decision, in order to avoid expensive, time-consuming, and business destroying litigation over Prop 65 compliance.” • This is a very strange way to spin the decision to comply with a consumer protection law, as if they are being magnanimous. “Athletic Greens believes that the limit for lead mandated by California Proposition 65 as reproductive toxicant is unduly strict when taking into consideration lead limits of other recognized government agencies such as FDA, EPA, USDA etc.” • Again, the FDA is recommending less that 3 mcg/day in children and 12.5 mcg in adults. • AG = 0.22 mg/kg lead = 0.22 mcg/gram = 2.64 mcg/serving of lead. • Almost equals an entire days lead for a child and over 1/5th of a daily serving for an adult, before they’ve eaten any food for the day. The statement appears disingenuous. • This state also doesn’t address the likelihood that many parents are putting this product into their children’s morning smoothies. “For chemicals that are listed as causing birth defects or reproductive harm, the “no observable effect level” is determined by identifying the level of exposure that has been shown to not pose any harm to humans or laboratory animals. Proposition 65 then requires this “no observable effect level” to be divided by 1,000 in order to provide an ample margin of safety. Businesses subject to Proposition 65 are required to provide a warning if they cause exposures to chemicals listed as causing birth defects or reproductive harm that exceed 1/l000th of the “no observable effect level.” • This is highly misleading. The same website (complete reference: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition-65-plain-language) states right above this that: “For chemicals that are listed as causing cancer, the "no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, a person exposed to the chemical at the “no significant risk level” for 70 years would not have more than a “one in 100,000” chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure.” • Lead is listed under both the NSRL (regarding cancer risk) column and MADL (regarding Reproductive risk) columns. Only the MALD column number is derived by reducing the number by a factor of 1000 as per Prop 65 law. The MALD (which is the true, unaltered setpoint) for lead is 15 mcg per day, but AG is implying by only referring to the NSRL column that the true setpoint for Lead should be 1000 X 0.5 mcg/day. This would be 500 mcg or 0.5 grams of lead per day, which is highly toxic. Athletic Greens’ understanding is that the use of a factor of 1/1,000th is no longer, if it ever was, scientifically defensible. • Again, they fail to mention the difference between the NSRL and the MALD (which is subect to the 1/1000th rule. They also fail to acknowledge that the FDA exposure levels is 12.5 mcg/day for adults and 3 mcg/day for children. This is per day totals and reflects all food consumption in addition to the supplements. • If one were to use instead the FDA advisory of no more than 12.5 mcg of lead per day and assume 15 servings of some “food” per day then the total acceptable exposure per serving would be 0.83 mcg of lead per serving, which is only 66% higher than the MALD set point. Using instead the MALD to rail against the 1/1000th rule obfuscates that this set point is only regarding overt birth defects, rather than lifetime risk of cancer. • Looking at it another way, if one were to lower the fraction denominator to meet the FDA 12.5 mcg/day (not per serving to be clear) then it still would be 40 times reduction. Then if you assume you have at least 15 servings of some “food” per day you would have to divide this by 15 again. This gives a fraction of 1/600th, which makes all of the complaining look a bit disingenuous.