Can exercise help overcome drug addiction?

Drug addiction is a public health crisis of epic proportions. Besides this, the illegal drug trade is closely associated with violent crime, and family breakdown. Many communities around the country are devastated by rampant drug addiction(which includes alcoholism) and violent crime. Virtually all of us know someone who is an addict or has someone in their family who is an addict.

The South Bronx in the 1970s. Drug abuse was a big contributor to the extreme urban decay of the South Bronx during this period. Drugs and crime are still a problem here. Photo by Mel Rosenthal, Duke University

Drug rehabilitation is rarely successful in the long-term, since most addicts relapse within a year or leave early. If the addict is poor, and/or has no family to support them, they all too often end up living on the streets, or in jail, or back in rehab. They are one of the most marginalized groups of people in the country, especially if they also suffer from mental illness, and are almost always unemployable. Needless to say, drug rehabilitation could use some serious improvement.

Now I am no expert on drug addiction, I have never used drugs, but not being an expert in something hasn’t stopped me from talking about it before. I often like to say that the best way to overcome a health-destroying addiction is to replace it with a good addiction. In my experience, this does appear to be work to some degree, although it is easier said than done.

Can exercise play this role, and should it be incorporated into drug treatment programs? We all know about the mood-enhancing effects of exercise, but let’s look at what our Danish friends at the Institute for Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, have to say in the study Exercise treatment for drug abuse–a Danish pilot study:

CONCLUSIONS:

The results show that physical exercise can provide important support in the treatment of drug abuse and that the main problem is maintaining change in behaviour and peer group influence to ensure long-term change.

A small study, but this sounds good to me. Even if it doesn’t help overcome addiction, exercise helps improve health in so many ways it should be included whenever possible.

I also found this very inspiring: Running for her life – Dedication carries woman beyond addiction, crime, and homelessness:

Kenyon is a recovering drug addict, a formerly homeless woman who stole from stores on Newbury Street to fund her habit, a child of alcoholic parents, a victim of domestic abuse, a convicted criminal who spent nine years bouncing between jails in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. And she is a marathon runner.

This is simply amazing. To go from being a homeless drug addict to peak physical condition to allow her to run marathons. That is resilience. Incredible resilience. I think all of us have this kind of resilience in us. It is beautiful thing, and almost magical.

So if you are out of shape, what is stopping you?

There is no magic in joggling

There are so many misconceptions surrounding joggling and the “Wild Juggling” blog, that it would be difficult to cover them all in one post. Now I would love to discuss the misconceptions about what joggling can do for your sex life. However, a more common yet disturbing misconception is how some people peddling quackery see me as some kind of natural ally, and have suggested through email that we guest blog on each other’s blogs. The truth of the matter is that I am no friend of quackery or as it is often called today, “alternative medicine”. There is nothing “alternative” I do that allows me to joggle for many miles every day. What falls under the label of “alternative medicine” is almost always unproven and therefore simply quackery. Sometimes the label “complementary” is used, or the hybridized “integrative”.

These labels are simply marketing terms for therapies based on prescientific ideas that have been justifiably disgarded by modern science. What do I mean exactly? I mean things like homeopathy, reiki, chiropractic, “energy” healing, acupuncture, and most supplements. To make the long story short, for homeopathy to work beyond its placebo effects, it would require overturning most of what we currently know about about physics and chemistry. That’s because one of the central tenets of homeopathy is that the more you dilute a medicine, the more powerful its effects. Another central tenet is “like cures like”, which means a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in a healthy person will cure the same disease in a sick person. And don’t forget that substance has to be diluted many times over until none of the substance is left to increase its potency.

Example: If X causes allergies in healthy people, giving X to a person with severe allergies should cure their allergies. Sounds ridiculous, right? If you don’t believe me, visit the Wikipedia article on homeopathy or read about it on some homeopathy site. Nothing I said about how it is supposed to work is an exaggeration.

Reiki, a form of “energy” healing, is similarly nonsensical. Dr Steven Novella does a good job of exposing Reiki for the quackery that it is:

Reiki is therefore a form of vitalism – the pre-scientific belief that some spiritual energy animates the living, and is what separates living things from non-living things. The notion of vitalism was always an intellectual place-holder, responsible for whatever aspects of biology were not currently understood. But as science progressed, eventually we figured out all of the basic functions of life and there was simply nothing left for the vital force to do. It therefore faded from scientific thinking. We can add to that the fact that no one has been able to provide positive evidence for the existence of a vital force – it remains entirely unknown to science.

Acupuncture, and the theories that underpin Ayurvedic and traditional Chinese medicine are similarly based on discredited prescientific ideas(like vitalism described above), and have virtually no scientific evidence proving their efficacy. This is why mainstream medical doctors generally do not approve of their use, not because of some “big pharma” conspiracy or “closed mindedness”.

Unfortunately, many alternative(quack) practitioners love to muddy the waters, to confuse people about what “alternative” really means, and also engage in bait-and-switch tactics to get people to accept their bizarre, discredited ideas. They often do this by mislabeling practices that are fully endorsed by scientific medicine as “alternative”, like exercise or dietary changes. Funny thing is, just about all doctors recommend exercise to their patients if they are not already doing so due to its numerous proven health benefits. Alternative practitioners did not invent exercise, so this is not an example of alternative medicine getting vindicated. Mainstream doctors also recommend their patients eat more fruits and vegetables, and have been doing so for a very long time, so there is nothing “alternative” about dietary change either, except for diets mostly based on pseudo-science.

Physicians regularly prescribe supplements or nutritional therapies to their patients, so this isn’t necessarily “alternative”. Admittedly, many nutritional therapies/supplements are something of a gray area between scientific and alternative medicine; it is unwise in most cases to ingest megadoses of nutrients on a daily basis, since getting a lot more than what you need isn’t necessarily better. A lot of megadose vitamin therapies are based on pseudo-science, and are potentially dangerous unless prescribed by a doctor.

Herbs, which can be thought of as “natural drugs” are an interesting case in that they also sort of inhabit a grey zone. Some doctors may occasionally prescribe or recommend them for non-serious conditions like coughs, or upset stomachs in the form of teas, but beyond this most are unproven or at best the results from studies are inconsistent. That said, many medical scientists study plants to help them discover new drugs, because of the many powerful pharmacological substances in plants(a fairly high percentage of pharmaceutical drugs are based on plant chemicals).

In pharmaceutical drugs, these chemicals tend to be more powerful and more reliable due to their isolation and the controlled conditions in which they are manufactured; in herbs, they are often a lot less potent due to the presence of other natural chemicals that negate their effects and plants will vary greatly over how much of the active chemical they produce. So many people will swear that an unproven herbal supplement they take works, but this is almost certainly due to the placebo effect. When it comes to alternative medicine in general, the only benefit anyone experiences is the placebo effect.

Some alternative practitioners may point to Yoga as a form of “alternative” medicine that works. The reality is that Yoga, divorced from its spiritual underpinnings is really just a form of exercise, and as already noted exercise has been proven to be an effective health booster. Meditation is a form of relaxation and may help train the mind to focus better, so it is similarly not “alternative”. Chiropractic has as its backbone many pseudo-scientific ideas about the spine, but some of the better chiropracters may mix in some of the latest physical therapy techniques, rendering this form of alternative therapy something of a mixed bag.

So no, there is nothing “alternative” that I am doing that allows me to joggle, though I often experiment with things that are at least scientifically plausible or from the grey area between scientific and alternative medicine. I frequently post about how certain foods, nutrients, or dietary approaches may boost athletic performance, aid recovery, or prevent disease, but this is just nutrition or falls into the category of “home remedy”. Optimal sports nutrition is not “alternative”, and I cite published scientific studies whenever possible to show if something works or not.

I am not in tune with any “supernatural” forces. There is no reiki, energy healing, homeopathy, chakras, traditional Chinese medicine, vitalism, or even caffeine in my approach to joggling and fitness. It is just one of the many glorious end products of eating a healthy plant-based diet, getting enough sleep, and a ton of practice. The mind-set I have is one of scientific skepticism, not of being in tune with some kind of “spirit-force” or whatever they are calling it these days.

I will simply not use or recommend something if there is no evidence to support it and/or if it is scientifically implausible. In fact, I probably wouldn’t be able to joggle at all if I wasted my time doing things that are based on nonsense or pseudo-science. So skepticism prevents me from wasting my time doing useless things, besides things that are potentially harmful. Ultimately, as someone once said, skeptics are the garbagemen of bad ideas, and no where is skepticism needed more than in health and fitness.

For more info on quackery and alternative medicine visit:

Science-Based Medicine

Quackwatch

No pain no gain

Who hasn’t heard this a billion times? I’m sure many of you reading this have even said this phrase, or repeated it like a mantra to yourself during difficult runs or workouts. It’s such a cliche. But more importantly, is it true?

On this blog, I do my best to avoid making assumptions. I prefer using skepticism when it comes to health and fitness. No idea is beyond question. If this means overturning what is considered “wisdom” by many, due to lack of evidence, then so be it. If it means offending people, then so be it, though offending anyone isn’t the intent. This is why, for example, I almost never do any stretching exercises and do not advocate it. There is no unequivocal scientific evidence in favor of stretching when it comes to preventing injuries or improving performance. See my “You don’t have to stretch!” post for more info.

As for the “no pain no gain” idea, it really is an overly simple dictum, to the point that it’s rather difficult to evaluate in any meaningful sense. And surely, few people actually take it literally. Obviously, beyond a certain pain threshold, few of us can continue exercising.

The subjective nature of pain also renders this saying not particularly meaningful or helpful. Not to mention the fact that we all have unique biochemistries, unique fitness goals, unique history of injuries and illnesses, and unique personalities. And while challenging yourself physically is a worthwhile goal that boosts health in ways that no drug can compete with, we have to know our limits. And to a large extent, even our “limits” can be highly subjective.

Like many people, even I believe a little bit of soreness after an intense run is generally a good thing. Note the “generally”. Sometimes the amount of pain we feel can be misleading; sometimes we don’t feel any pain or soreness until the day after the heavy workout.

All this ultimately boils down to yet another cliche – “listen to your body”. Unfortunately, many of us aren’t very good listeners, and our body, as alluded to before, isn’t always the best communicator. Sure, we know when we feel too exhuasted to go on, but we don’t often deal with extreme exhaustion after exercise; there’s a large grey area, and little objective criteria with which to make proper assessments. There’s a “little” pain, and “too much” pain on opposite sides of a pain continuum with so much grey area in between. This is one of the reasons I don’t use caffeine or other drugs – they cloud our judgement to the degree that they can make it almost impossible to listen to our body’s with any accuracy.

Knowing our Vo2 Max can be helpful to some degree, but it isn’t all that accurate and there are many other measurements. There’s also the “talk test” – if you can’t hold a conversation while doing intense cardio, you “may” be pushing yourself too hard.

So what can we do? Perhaps a more reliable “test” is to pay attention to our heart rate. If it isn’t back to normal after even intense exercise, this is usually a good indicator you are overdoing it. Or you are out of shape. Being fit means your body and your heart should have adapted to your fitness program. If it still beats fast well after(an hour or more) working out on a consistent basis, this may be a useful warning sign.

Besides this, avoid working out if you are in any kind of pain beyond minor soreness. If your legs hurt, exercise your arms and vice versa. Try to avoid becoming addicted to exercise and don’t try pushing yourself to your limits every time you exercise. Do this maybe once a week or a few times a month. Question every bit of fitness advice you receive and go ahead and make your fitness routine uniquely you; don’t try to be someone else, just because your friend benefitted from some new fitness program, doesn’t mean you will too. It seems everyone is an “expert” when it comes to fitness. Be careful who you get advice from, consider their credentials and experience. Unfortunately, even some people with multiple degrees and certification will spout pseudo-science.

So while “no pain, no gain” may have some truth to it, don’t take it as a commandment. It may even be harmful to follow it too literally. Whatever the case may be, now that it is spring, take advantage of the outside weather and get back into shape! You don’t need a gym membership. A park or the woods is way better.

Caffeine free living

Caffeine-free living isn’t very common in the western world, so a lot of people are surprised to learn I never drink coffee or any caffeinated beverages. Some people claim they can’t function without it – the very definition of addiction. In fact, caffeine addiction is the only socially approved chemical addiction throughout the world, with the exception of nicotine in increasingly fewer places. Several cups of coffee throughout the day is considered de rigueur at many jobs.

One of the reasons I don’t consume caffeine is because I do not like the idea of becoming addicted to any chemicals, even if caffeine isn’t all that dangerous at normal doses. Another reason is that instead of relying on caffeine to help stimulate me in the morning, I’d rather make sure I get enough sleep. Caffeine may help you overcome morning grogginess, but it can’t undo the damage caused by lack of sleep.

Instead of caffeine, I put a lot of red pepper on my breakfast, or I take it by the spoon. And/or I do some quick exercises while listening to music. Red pepper can be very stimulating, but unlike caffeine it isn’t addictive and doesn’t lead to withdrawal. Simply drinking water to rehydrate after so many hours of sleep also helps. Eating healthy, regular exercise, and getting enough sleep are all you need for optimal energy.

As much as I don’t like caffeine, I won’t deny that it appears to be beneficial for some forms of exercise. According to the Laboratory of Pharmacology, Faculty of medicine, University of Sfax, Tunisia that did a study on the Effects of morning caffeine’ ingestion on mood States, simple reaction time, and short-term maximal performance on elite judoists.:

In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that morning caffeine ingestion has ergogenic properties with the potential to benefit performance, increase anxiety and vigor, and decrease the simple reaction time.

I still wouldn’t want to use it after reading this. There are many other studies out there showing how caffeine is beneficial for exercise.

One of the biggest negatives of caffeine consumption is that it appears to promote fibrocystic breasts in women. The J Natl Cancer Inst., in the study, Caffeine consumption and fibrocystic breast disease: a case-control epidemiologic study.:

In a hospital-based case-control study that included 634 women with fibrocystic breast disease and 1,066 comparison women in Connecticut, the occurrence of fibrocystic breast disease was positively associated with average daily consumption of caffeine. Women who consumed 31-250 mg of caffeine/day had a 1.5-fold increase in the odds of disease, whereas women who drank over 500 mg/day had a 2.3-fold increase in the odds. The association with caffeine consumption was especially high among women with atypical lobular hyperplasia and with sclerosing adenosis with concomitant papillomatosis or papillary hyperplasia, both of which have been associated with an increased breast cancer risk. The association was specific to fibrocystic breast disease in that there was no association of caffeine consumption with fibroadenoma or other forms of benign breast disease.

According to the Mayo Clinic, fibrocysts in the breasts don’t increase the risk of cancer, but they do make it harder to detect cancer.

I posted the above studies on caffeine just to see what the science says about caffeine use. They are not a recommendation to take up coffee drinking or caffeine use if you are not already doing it. While it does improve athletic performance in many people, this doesn’t mean you absolutely must use it to become a better athlete. Even amphetamines improve athletic performance, but would you want to run the risk of amphetamine addiction, or suffer side effects, just so you can run a little faster or longer?

So while I am aware of the science of caffeine and its potential benefits, I choose not to use it. I am not being “ridiculous” or “foolish” for abstaining from caffeine. And for the record, I am not a Mormon or a member of a religious sect that forbids coffee or caffeine consumption.

Caffeine may not be a hard drug, but it isn’t harmless either.

Of drugs and juggling

As long as I can remember, I’ve had a deep fascination with addiction and drugs. The neighborhood I grew up in, though not necessarily a terrible one was surrounded by communities ravaged by drug addiction and the associated violence. The crack wars were raging and there were often spill-over effects into my usually peaceful neighborhood.

I remember the “troubled” kids at school, and the stories about their drug-addicted parents. There was the occasional death by overdose, leaving a child motherless or fatherless. I remember playing with friends in the park and discovering crack vials and hypodermic needles nestled in the grass. They often spooked us, since they indicated the presence of drug addicts in the park. We naively believed this drug paraphernalia and the drug addicts responsible for them weren’t supposed to be in our suburban park – this isn’t the south Bronx, this is the “safe” north Bronx.

The exact borders of that the hell-on-earth called the south Bronx was and still is disputed. Us kids who grew up painfully close to it always liked to think of it as being very far away, though it always crept a bit closer each year. We always knew not to walk too far toward it, lest our souls get destroyed, since we always heard horrible stories about it which indicated an absence of civilization there. I remember many childhood friends moving upstate to escape from the horrific violence and social decay that appeared to be crawling closer.

In response to this, the schools did all they could to terrify us kids so that we would never do drugs. They told us how bad drugs were, never to use them, and to say “no” to smoking since it is a “gateway” drug(yet so many adults, even the ones against drugs smoked, which confused us children). Anti-drug messages were plastered almost everywhere – it is a “war” after all. “Drugs” already struck terror in me due to a neighbor I knew who died from an overdose. And every now and then a celebrity would die from a drug overdose or get arrested for possessing drugs. It often seemed that all celebrities were drug addicts, for some perplexing reason, as if you needed to do drugs to be a celebrity. These “glamorous” celebrity drug addicts were in very sharp contrast to the filthy homeless drug addicts we regularly encountered around town.

I never did take any drugs and my friends for the most part were drug-free, but by high school I would witness kids bringing drugs to school and even smoking pot in the bathrooms. And so many students smoked cigarettes.

I always wondered how otherwise intelligent people could become addicted to substances that rob them of their health, and in a large enough dose, their life. It’s like these substances “trick” the mind in some ways, to get a person to do something that is not in their best interest. The “trick” is that drugs tend to make people feel wonderful; it’s an escape, its empowering. The anti-drug crusaders in grammar school tended to leave this out of their anti-drug diatribes(they seem funny in retrospect), which made drug addiction very mysterious to us.

There still is a certain element of mystery in all of this, even if we can understand how substances like cocaine or nicotine trigger the pleasure centers(especially on dopamine) of the brain. Science helps us understand addiction, but it currently offers little hope to people who want to overcome their addictions. Addictions are nowadays labeled “diseases” by the medical establishment, which always seemed bizarre to me.

Whatever it is, it is obvious that some people are more prone to addiction than others. Some people can snort cocaine occasionally and never become addicted. Most people who drink are not alcoholics. Some people are so hopelessly addicted that even the best detox and addiction treatments fail to help them. People like this are looked down on by society, and are often alienated from friends and family, especially if they turn to crime to support their addiction.

People who manage to overcome their addictions often do so by “fixing” the underlying psychological issues that drives them to do drugs as a form of “self-medication”. Indeed, psychiatric problems are often co-morbid with addictive behavior. If their psychiatric problem is treated properly, it is often much easier for them to overcome their addiction(except perhaps their doctor prescribed medication, assuming they need medication). It looks like replacing one addiction with another.

Another way some addicts become drug free is through religious rebirth. It’s almost a cliche: The addict has hit bottom, their entire life is one big hopeless mess. Even their families and friends have given up on them and they have no reason to live. But then they have this epiphany. They see the light. They hear or feel God, and they regain their strength and will to live. They manage to give up drugs by devoting themselves to God. In some ways, these religious feelings approximate the “high” they experienced through drugs, so this in turn may be another case of replacing one addiction with another addiction.

Some other addicts may overcome their addiction through sports or physical activity. It’s well known that vigorous exercise can cause a drug-like “high”, so this may be an ideal approach to overcoming addictions. This doesn’t mean it can help everyone. Yet again, this is replacing one addiction with another, though this is a much healthier, life-affirming addiction.

Which brings me to the subject of juggling. Can it help people overcome addiction? It is a physical activity and it can bring about a “high” if done long enough. It does require intense focus, to the point that a juggler can get lost in the activity and keep doing it for long periods of mine. Sort of like an addiction! I know of a few jugglers who can juggle for several hours straight with little to no breaks. Sometimes this includes me. But is this a kind of addiction, or do we only use “addiction” to refer to compulsively doing something that are detrimental to our health? Can juggling be a helpful replacement addiction to overcome deadlier additions?

As a person with a passion for juggling, I always run the risk of over-stating its benefits. It’s certainly not bad for you, but it is hardly a panacea, and there is little to no evidence it may be beneficial for your mental health in a manner different from other forms of exercise. What I mean is that the benefits of juggling may very well be generic effects, since it is a form of exercise, and any form of exercise that significantly raises your heart rate has benefits. We do know that exercise can be addictive for some people, and since juggling does count as exercise, it can also be addictive.

The brain is such a magnificent organ. No computer can come close to doing what it can do. Yet it still has serious flaws that can lead a person to do self-destructive things, regardless of how “smart” they are. Trying to outsmart an addiction is really just another way of saying we should try to outsmart ourself. Unfortunately, the smarter a person is, the easier it might be for them to rationalize their addiction.

Whatever you want to call it that is in the brain that leads to addiction, a “flaw” or “genetic predisposition”, it’s a part of being a complete human, and it’s a part of being uniquely you, and could just as easily be used to do good as do bad. For as François de La Rochefoucauld once said: “Our virtues are most frequently but vices disguised.”

Nanotechnology and fitness

Nanotechnology is an exciting new field of science and technology that will likely lead to all sorts of major advances in medicine, and technology in general. It is still in its infancy, but is already being used for drug delivery and in medical diagnostics. That said, it is not without risks. New nano-materials need to be carefully examined to limit toxicity and harm.

Carbon nanotube. Source: Public domain

Nanotechnology involves building and manipulating things at the atomic and molecular level, which would allow all sorts of unprecedented advantages over older technology(nanotubes and nanomaterials built from carbon at the atomic level are ultra-strong while being very light), especially in the field of medicine. It could revolutionize medicine as we know it.
According to: Nanotechnology and nanomedicine: going small means aiming big

Abstract

Nanotechnology is an emerging branch of science for designing tools and devices of size 1 to 100 nm with specific function at the cellular, atomic and molecular levels. The concept of employing nanotechnology in biomedical research and clinical practice is best known as nanomedicine. Nanomedicine is an upcoming field that could potentially make a major impact to human health. Nanomaterials are increasingly used in diagnostics, imaging and targeted drug delivery. Nanotechnology will assist the integration of diagnostics/imaging with therapeutics and facilitates the development of personalized medicine, i.e. prescription of specific medications best suited for an individual. This review provides an integrated overview of application of nanotechnology based molecular diagnostics and drug delivery in the development of nanomedicine and ultimately personalized medicine. Finally, we identify critical gaps in our knowledge of nanoparticle toxicity and how these gaps need to be evaluated to enable nanotechnology to transit safely from bench to bedside.

It sounds very promising when it comes to medicine, for treating and preventing heart disease and cancer. However, could nanotechnology help make those of us who are already fit and healthy even fitter? Could nano-engineering or nano-machines going through our bloodstream, or in our muscles help make us stronger, faster, more coordinated or even smarter? There’s also the possibility of nanotechnology leading to the creation of Iron Man suits. Just imagine armies of “Super Soldiers”!

This also leads to all sorts of ethical questions, especially in light of the Lance Armstrong doping scandal, but also when it comes to athletic competition in general. What kind of restrictions will there be on nanotechnology in athletic competition? Will they ban as-of-now inconceivable nano-devices that could strengthen the heart muscle and make it beat faster? What would be considered “cheating”? I realize this is all speculative and sounds like science fiction, but technology is moving so fast it is never too early to ask such questions.

Just think of a future in which athletes can have spare body parts if they badly damage a leg or arm, or use nanotechnology combined with biotechnology and stem cells to regrow bad knees. Or why stop there, maybe create hybrid cheetah/human legs for sprinters to help them run faster. Aging itself could even be haulted or reversed through repairing DNA and aged, cross-linked protein structures throughout the body. In a way, it will be like eugenics through technology.

Sounds impossible now, right? Just remember that so much of the technology we have today would have been unimaginable to people living 40 years ago, never mind 200 years ago. People 50 years from now will look upon and laugh at our most “advanced” tablet computers the same way we look at computers from the 1950s.

In some ways the future looks promising, in other ways it looks bleak. Let us hope that along with the billions of dollars being invested in nanotechnology, a lot of wisdom is also being invested in it.

Sugar – The Master of Disguise

When it comes to human nutrition, almost nothing compares to sugar. So much controversy and confusion surrounds this ubiquitous, largely maligned nutrient. Does it deserve its terrible reputation? And how many different names does sugar use these days?

Even a cursory review of sugar’s history makes it look like one of the most evil substances in human history. The institution of slavery in the Americas was founded largely to produce gargantuan amounts of sugar, to satisfy the insatiable sweet-tooths of Europeans, and nowadays food companies use sugar to get people addicted to their products. Sugar is also partially responsible for the obesity epidemic. No wonder some researchers want sugar to be classified as a drug. Also, is it a coincidence that the founder of the highly addictive Facebook, has a surname that literally means “Sugar-mountain” in German?

Obviously, it is a good idea to minimize or completely remove simple sugars from our diets, if only for our dental health. It is also highly immoral to enslave people, I do not recommend it. The links between sugar and poor dental health, and weight gain are impossible to deny.

At the same time, we all need sugar, since it is our body’s primary energy source. Sugar is a carbohydrate, and all carbohydrates are made of chains of the simplest sugar molecule, glucose, which is what all carbs are eventually broken down into during digestion.

Glucose(C6H12O6) molecule. Our primary source of fuel and the building block of all carbohydrates. Source: Wikipedia.

The problem is that our bodies are very good at absorbing simple sugars, which I’ll come back to. In prehistoric times, back before sugar became so easily available and we were often on the brink of starvation, this was a good thing and had survival value. It didn’t just absorb quickly but we evolved to enjoy its taste so we could seek out this calorie-loaded life-saver.

Nowadays, when relatively few of us are at risk for starvation in the developed world, and we don’t have to outrun sabre-tooth tigers, this love for sugar and super-efficient sugar absorption can wreak havoc on our delicate metabolism. If consumed in excess on a consistent basis or if an individual has a genetic predisposition, it can lead to a strong insulin response that over time may cause our cells to become less sensitive to insulin(insulin resistance). Along with weight gain, this may eventually lead to type II diabetes. Insulin is needed to help cells absorb glucose from the bloodstream.

Since we still need sugar, the way around this conundrum is to consume sugar in its more complex, slow to absorb form. This is where complex carbohydrates or starches come in. These long, complex chains of glucose are difficult to breakdown, so they are slowly absorbed and don’t mess up your metabolism. Whole grains are mostly starch; candy and grape juice are mostly simple carbohydrate or sugar.

So many different types of sugar, but they are all sugar.

Since sugar knows it has a bad reputation, it often tries to sneak its way into our diet under a number of different disguises. Some are clever, while some are not, but it helps to be mindful of them and to realize that there really is no “healthy” form of simple sugar.

Cane juice or evaporated/dehydrated cane juice – This is just sugar. It is often used in some “health” foods to fool people into thinking it is either refined sugar-free or that it is a healthy alternative to sugar. Nutritionally, it is sugar and has all the same effects. Sure, maybe there are trace amounts of minerals in it since it is less refined than white, powdered sugar, but it is still sugar.

Brown sugar – It’s sugar, but darker!

Maple syrup – Sugar from maple trees. It’s really just liquid sugar from maple trees, the product of the sap from maple trees getting boiled down(having water removed). It is mostly sucrose, the same sugar that table sugar consists of. Often has trace amounts of minerals but it is still sugar.

Honey – Sugar made by bees. Yes it may keep better, and maybe some forms have modest benefits, but nutritionally this is just sugar again.

High fructose corn syrup – Right now, there is an epic battle going on between refined sugar(usually sucrose) and HFCS, with both of them pointing the finger at the other saying he is the more evil one. It’s rather amusing to see products at stores with the label “has no high fructose corn syrup”, yet lists “sugar” as its main ingredient.

Yet there is practically no evidence that HFCS is worse than sucrose or other simple sugars. The problem with HFCS isn’t that it is HFCS, the problem is it is sugar. So it can’t be held as uniquely responsible for the obesity epidemic, compared to other forms of sugar.

Let’s have a look at what the science says. According to Moeller SM, Fryhofer SA, Osbahr AJ 3rd, Robinowitz CB; Council on Science and Public Health, American Medical Association in The effects of high fructose syrup(J Am Coll Nutr. 2009 Dec;28(6):619-26.):

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has become an increasingly common food ingredient in the last 40 years. However, there is concern that HFCS consumption increases the risk for obesity and other adverse health outcomes compared to other caloric sweeteners. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose (table sugar), consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose is so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose does. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiologic studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies, including those on the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to ban or otherwise restrict use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. Nevertheless, dietary advice to limit consumption of all added caloric sweeteners, including HFCS, is warranted.

This is also a good read based on science: Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain’t.

So no, there is no evidence that high fructose corn syrup was invented by the Devil to make children obese. It is no worse nor better than other forms of simple sugar, although some suggest it may be a little more addictive.

Agave nectar – It’s very similar to HFCS. Might as well just call it “high fructose agave syrup”. Just another form of sugar. I often see this used in “health” foods, as if it’s a healthier alternative to sugar or high fructose corn syrup, but there really isn’t any significant difference.

Just about anything ending in -ose is a sugar. “Dextrose” is just another way to say “glucose”. Even concentrated fruit juice is practically sugar. Fruit is definitely good to eat, but the most sugary ones like grapes and pears are loaded with fruit sugars. Rice syrup, barley malt syrup, and molasses are also sugar syrups or come awfully close. Even many fruit juices that don’t have added sugar are just sugar water drinks.

Sugar isn’t always horrible for you. After a long heavy workout, simple sugars are a great way to refuel. And while fruit contains a lot of fructose, it also has fiber, water(assuming its not dried), vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals, so its not just empty calories. Fruit is good, just go easy on the most sugary ones.

Sugar Alcohols

On the other hand, sugar alcohols don’t cause cavities or metabolic problems, and contain fewer calories than regular sugar. One type of sugar alcohol, xylitol, is almost as sweet as sucrose(table sugar), but unfortunately it is much more expensive and can cause gas and/or diarrhea if you are not used to it. Sorbitol is another sugar alcohol. Many sugar-free gums and candies have sugar-alcohols as sweeteners. I sometimes chew xylitol gum for dental health.

Do you think you could come up with some new names for sugar, to hide that it is sugar?

Related articles: 8 Surprising Reasons Agave Is Bad for You

Parkinson’s Disease and physical activity

Parkinson’s disease is a disorder of the central nervous system that slowly leads to almost total loss of motor function. At later stages, it can lead to dementia. The ultimate cause of this disease is not known, though genetics and exposure to toxins appears to play an important role. The proximate cause appears to be an accumulation of proteins in certain neurons, and lack of dopamine in the parts of the brain responsible for movement. “The discovery of dopamine deficiency in the parkinsonian brain” by Dr. O. Hornykiewicz gives a detailed account of how scientists unearthed the link between dopamine deficiency and Parkinson’s disease.

Parkinson’s disease is currently incurable, but it can be treated in its early stages by drugs and other interventions. As time goes by, and the disease progresses, these drugs become less effective. At more advanced stages, doctors may implant electrodes in the brain to provide “deep brain stimulation”, but not everyone responds well to such treatments.

Placement of an electrode into the brain. From Wikipedia.

There are of course other, less invasive ways to stimulate the brain to slow down the progression of the disease. According to research done by Rose MH, Løkkegaard A, Sonne-Holm S, Jensen BR, at the University of Copenhagen, high-intensity locomotor training can greatly improve Parkinson’s symptoms. Similar research conducted by Cakit BD, Saracoglu M, Genc H, Erdem HR, Inan L., at Ankara Education and Research Hospital, Turkey, show treadmill training can improve mobility in Parkinson’s patients, and reduce their fear of falling.

So it appears that regular exercise in the early stages of Parkinson’s can slow down the disease’s progression, with or without medication. David H. Blatt, M.D., who is himself a Parkinson’s sufferer and runs the website, Exerciseforparkinsons.com, recommends regular exercise to treat Parkinson’s, especially learning how to juggle. In his own words:

I believe that by practicing juggling I have substantially slowed the progression of my Parkinson’s disease. Juggling stimulates the brain – it forces the brain to quickly process complex, sensory input and then it forces the brain to direct muscles to move quickly in a complex, coordinated manner.

He has many inspiring videos on his website which demonstrate the benefits of his approach. Juggling and exercise may prevent other neurological conditions besides Parkinson’s, as my previous post demonstrated. I would love to see some studies to see if and how juggling helps Parkinson’s patients. As time goes by, the list of benefits of juggling and exercise in general continues to grow.