Diabetes News

Would someone please explain this to me? Why would someone even want to hold a title as dubious as the man who ate the most hotdogs in the shortest period of time?

Why would anyone in his right mind ever want to gobble down 59½ “HBDs” -- or hot dogs and buns, as the Associated Press put it?

So anyhow, 22-year-old Joey Chestnut of San Jose, California set a new record during the Southwest Regional Hot Dog Eating Championship at the Arizona Mills Mall in suburban Tempe.

No offense, but my reaction is, "Well, whooptydo."

The best part of this story is a quote from a wowed Ryan Nerz, who works for Major League Eating, a "world governing board for all stomach-centric sports."

"He’s unbelievable — he just keeps on going,” he gushed.

It certainly appears that this Major League Eating organization, as well as winner Joey Chestnut, have no clue or concern that America is in the midst of a horrific, life-threatening obesity crisis.

Clearly, anyone who cheers on or participates in such a potentially dangerous, gulping-down-food-as-fast-as-you-can contest is in dire need of my book SUGAR SHOCK!, which would explain to them that all those white-flour, nutrient-lacking buns -- or what I call "much-like-sugar carbs" -- can wreak tremendous havoc on your blood sugar levels. (Of course, I'm not even talking about all those disgusting hot dogs.)

Anyhow, I just had to rant about this disgusting event.

Note from Connie: News, revelations and insights about the Avandia-could-lead-to-heart-attacks scare are pouring in at a fast and furious clip. So, given my demanding schedule this week, SUGAR SHOCK! Blog researcher/writer Jennifer Moore brings you this latest update about the drug that's supposed to help type 2 diabetics.

The FDA is looking worse by the day. Now comes news, as reported by Stephanie Saul and Gardiner Harris at The New York Times, Anna Wilde Matthews and Jeanne Whalen of the Wall Street Journal, and Reuters that John Buse, M.D., Ph.D., president-elect of the American Diabetes Association, wrote the FDA a letter in 2000, warning our watchdog governmental agency about the dangers Avandia may pose to people's hearts.

Dr. Buse, who is also chief of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote that there was “a worrisome trend in cardiovascular deaths and severe adverse events” amongst patients taking Avandia. Dr. Buse also slammed GlaxoSmithKline, the Big Pharma maker and seller of the popular drug, for what he called its "pervasive and systemic efforts" to downplay Avandia's risks and overstate its upside, according to the New York Times.

This comes after news, which Connie posted about earlier on this SUGAR SHOCK! Blog, that Dr. Steven Nissen, the physician who first warned us of the dangers of the now withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, led a team of researchers to sound the alarms about Avandia in the latest issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, which spurred the FDA to issue a safety alert of this very popular medication.

One wonders why the FDA didn't speak up much sooner since they had ample evidence that Avandia could be dangerous to people who are already vulnerable to heart disease because of their diabetes.

Even GlaxoSmithKline told the FDA that Avandia raised the risk of heart attacks in its patients by 30%, according to Brain Wingfield of Forbes.com. Glaxo SmithKline's findings, which was revealed to the FDA back in 2005 and again in 2006, are very similar to those of Dr. Nissen and his team, who said that a type 2 diabetic would have a 28.9% chance of having a heart attack within 7 years of taking Avandia, according to the New York Times.

What's more, Stephanie Saul and Gardiner Harris of the Times reports, the FDA reprimanded GlaxoSmithKline for downplaying concerns about the drug's safety in 2001, a year after Dr. Buse wrote his rather troubling letter.

Predictably, Glaxo SmithKline issued a statement vigorously disputing Dr. Buse's analysis, calling it "unbalanced and unsubstantiated." That's a patently absurd position to take, given that Glaxo SmithKline itself admitted that the drug substantially raised heart attack risk. The pharmaceutical company can't have it both ways here.

To be fair, the Wall Street Journal makes the startling observation that Dr. Buse was a consultant for two companies marketing diabetes drugs competing with Avandia at the time he sent his warning to the FDA. And Dr. Buse has said that the FDA should wait for more data before taking any further on Avandia (though, tellingly, he doesn't recommend the drug to his own patients, The Times says).

But since Glaxo SmithKline itself revealed the drug's potential problems, and a second prominent, credible doctor did too, my inclination is to think Dr. Buse's position has a lot of merit. Glaxo SmithKline, on the other hand, is talking out of both sides of its mouth and has a vested interest--to the tune of $3 billion-a-year in sales, says the New York Times--in peddling the notion that Avandia's risks are overstated.

So while I find Glaxo SmithKline's behavior irresponsible, I'll save the bulk of my ire for the FDA, whose job first and foremost is to protect the public. Apparently, though, according to a very informative piece by Marilynn Marchione of the AP, which The Washington Post ran, the FDA doesn't always discover the risks of drugs it allows to hit the market.

In the case of Avandia, Marchione writes, the FDA didn't require Glaxo to show that Avandia had a clear clinical benefit to diabetic patients, like fewer hospitalizations or fewer serious problems with blood sugar, but was instead approved because it showed short-term improvements in certain blood sugar measurements. She writes that Avandia's dangers weren't clear until Dr. Nissen's team gathered all the pertinent data on the 28,000 subjects Glaxo SmithKline itself used in 42 experiments involving the drug.

Excuse me? Isn't it the FDA's job to make sure to get all the critical information about a drug in place before deciding that it can be sold to a trusting public? Shouldn't someone at the FDA have done what Dr. Nissen's team did, if not before approving Avandia for sale, certainly soon thereafter? Isn't that what our tax dollars go to the FDA to do?

Now, because of its apparent lapse, the FDA will have to answer to us and Congress in hearings on June 6. Additionally, Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Charles Grassley of Iowa have written the FDA demanding that the agency tell us what they knew about Avandia and when they knew it, and why they reacted in a "leisurely" fashion to Glaxo SmithKline's revelations about Avandia's cardiovascular risks, Forbes.com says.

The Forbes.com article also notes that the senators wrote a letter to Glaxo SmithKline, claiming that they've heard that the pharmaceutical giant silenced at least one employee who wanted to speak out about Avandia's cardiovascular risks. (Horrendous, if true.)

I can only hope that Avandia didn't cause a heart attack in any of the 6 million Americans who have taken the drug. What an appalling job by the FDA.

From Jennifer Moore for the SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

Note again from Connie: Thanks, Jennifer, for updating us. Folks, while you're learning about this scary drug disaster, make sure to read my follow-up press release, which quotes Dr. Stephen Sinatra (contributing author for SUGAR SHOCK!) pointing out that if you have type 2 diabetes or are at risk for the disease, you may not even need drugs after all. Kicking sugar, exercising, etc. may be the best treatment.

Oh no! Another nightmarish consequence of taking drugs!

The safety of Avandiaâ„¢ -- often prescribed to type 2 diabetics -- has been called into question by an eye-opening, scathing scientific article in today's New England Journal of Medicine. which finds, from reviewing 42 clinical trials, that the popular drug may raise the risk of heart attacks by 43 % and cardiovascular death by a whopping 64%.

The lead author of the original article is the respected Steven Nissen, M.D., chairman of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at the renowned Cleveland Clinic, and immediate past president of the prestigious American College of Cardiology. (Read his bio here.)

Avandia -- also known as rosiglitazone -- is widely used to help type 2 diabetics lower their blood glucose levels, and it is a $3 billion-a-year business now at risk of being drastically curtailed.

"Unfortunately, rosiglitazone appears to increase, rather than decrease, the most serious complication of diabetes, heart disease," said Dr. Nissen in a press release from the Cleveland Clinic.

Every news outlet was full of different takes on these scary conclusions.

• Stephanie Saul of the New York Times weighed in with an enlightening piece, in which she noted that Dr. Nissen was "one of the first doctors to raise questions about the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx, the Merck painkiller that was withdrawn from the market in 2004. His concerns about Avandia were first publicly raised last December in a letter in the Lancet."
• Julie Steenhuysen of Reuters pointed out that a congressional committee has already scheduled a hearing on the drug's safety. "Both the drug company and the FDA have some major explaining to do about what they knew about Avandia, when they knew it, and why they didn't take immediate action to protect patients," the reporter quotes Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee.
• Meanwhile, Marilynn Marchione of AP noted that although FDA officials issued a safety alert Monday, they "planned no immediate changes to the current side effect warnings on the drug's packaging." She reports that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, announced a hearing for June 6 on the FDA's role. She writes: And on the Senate floor, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, "criticized the agency for not acting more swiftly. "Do we have another Vioxx on our hands with Avandia? I am not sure, but I intend to find out," he said.
• Then, Seve Sternberg of USA Today talked about how nine months ago risks had been raised about the drug in an article with the alarming, but appropriate headline, "Diabetes drug called potential death risk."
• Meanwhile, TIME magazine's Jyoti Thottam offered a compelling overview of the scare and raised some pressing questions in an article entitled, "Is Avandia the next Vioxx?" She points out that Dr. Nissen told TIME that he began looking into Avandia because he was concerned by data from two of the largest studies of diabetic patients taking the drug. "The cardiovascular events were all going the wrong direction," he told the reporter. She writes: "Though the results weren't statistically significant, they pushed him to look at other data sets, including studies by the FDA and from the clinical-trials registry on GlaxoSmithKline's website. Nissen had gathered his data by April 24, and six days later submitted the paper to the Journal's editors."

You now can check out the FDA and drug-maker's responses.

• Here's the safety alert that the FDA rushed to issue.
• And now you can read GlaxoSmithKline's response to the NEJM's article.

More tomorrow on this new Avandia scare.

Coming up: Why don't we hear more about research and success stories, which definitely show that reducing or cutting out high-glycemic carbs (sugar and processed grains) and exercising may be the most effective ways to manage type 2 diabetes?

Yeah, I'm back after major computer woes for four long days!

And guess what? I'm definitely addicted. Of course, we're not talking about my needing those refined, culprit carbs that I so often discuss and disdain here because of the tremendous harm they can cause. No, I'm totally hooked on my computer. So it's with great relief that I'm back!

My computer woes all began Friday afternoon sometime when my machine just went kaput. First, the screen froze. Restarting didn't help. In fact, my computer wouldn't turn on no matter what I tried. As if that wasn't enough, then my broadband connection failed so that when I tried to use my Dell laptop, I could only use a laboriously slow dial-up connection. Incredibly annoying.

Thank goodness my amiable computer guy Craig was able to come over Saturday, and he then determined that my monitor had reached extinction. Now I was really bummed.

You see, this is no ordinary computer monitor. It's a Samsung 17-inch monitor that had a built-in TV, and it had stuck by me for the last six years, while I was researching and writing SUGAR SHOCK!

In other words, while working laboriously for hours on end for SUGAR SHOCK!, doing such painstaking projects like the footnotes or proofreading, etc., I could work and play at the same time -- i.e., watch TV in this little inset box and still write or edit. It was so cool!

Well, I'm a loyal sort of chick so I stood by my Samsung all weekend when the company wasn't open, which meant I wasn't online much. (Had lots of fun and did a considerable amount of cleaning around my place.)

So it wasn't until today that I learned my monitor was discontinued. The replacement monitor, which also has a built-in TV, wasn't in stock at any of the major computer stores. Then, the Samsung guy told me that fixing my monitor could take 2 weeks! Yikes! Impossible to wait that long. I have tons of work to do.

So today I bought a snazzy new 19-inch HP monitor (HP w1907). Amazing monitor -- quite wide, too. Only there's one catch: I can't watch TV at the same time now.

Anyhow, this was a fascinating experience showing me just how dependent I am on my PC.

Good news is this: If I buy a new computer which has a video output, I can watch TV again in the corner of the screen. Well, that's something to consider.

Schools across West Virginia are cutting fat and calories by "furtively supplementing hamburgers with soy and subbing applesauce for shortening in cake." the Associated Press reports.

So for instance, they're serving pizza a lot. But wait. It's more nutritious pizza, a school official contends.

In fact, as the AP notes, the head of the state's children's nutrition program admits that they're getting "a lot of criticism for serving pizza so often." But he's quick to point out that "the cheese is low fat and the crust is whole grain.” (This was Richard Goff, director of the state Department of Education’s Office of Child Nutrition.)

Frankly, I think we need to give kids a little more credit than this. You don't need to feed them what the AP calls "faux-junk food" to get them to eat more healthy foods.

It's just downright absurd to think that the only way you can tantalize children enough to enjoy nourishing meals is to serve dishes masquerading as junk food!

Just talk to officials across the country in schools that do serve their kids more nutritious fare, and you'll find they get intrigued by collard greens, squash, broccoli, asparagus, apples and more.

In fact, the AP's reporter (not mentioned by name) had the smarts to approach renowned nutrition expert Marion Nestle, Ph.D., a New York University nutrition professor, for a comment.

She makes the same point: "When you go into the schools that take responsibility, you see kids eating adult food and they’re liking it.”

You can learn about how kids are embracing real food across the country in the AFTERWORD to my book SUGAR SHOCK!, which is subtitled, "Rays of Hope and Signs of Promise."

On the one hand, I'm quite entertained. At the same time, I'm also saddened to think about what kinds of sugary, nutrient-lacking foods reporrters and editors consume at newsrooms across America.

Thanks to a playful, provocative piece in the Napa Valley Register, attention is now being directed to "The Newsroom Diet," which columnist Bill Kisliuk describes as "the special combination of idleness and nutrient-free office cuisine that fuels some of the finest print journalists in this land."

While Mr. Kisliuk's column is amusing, at the same time it offers a terribly sad commentary on what many journalists (and millions of Americans) thrive on today -- junk food in all its non-glory.

"The Newsroom Diet" piece also brings back many memories. Oh goodness, I well remember the candies, cookies and cakes that I used to consume while working as a staff reporter/columnist or reporting intern at several different newsrooms in various states.

But nowadays, I'm much more nutrition savvy and health minded. Today, I would never ever eat the sugary foods that I once used to over-consume. And today, I'm more healthy now than ever.

What it comes down to is this: Clearly the Napa Valley Register's Bill Kisliuk is like many journalists. He doesn't give much thought -- as I once did not either-- to the fact that what you eat not only affects your weight, but also your moods, concentration and energy levels -- all vitally important for a journalist frequently faced with pressing deadlines.

Clearly, Mr. Kisliuk just isn't hip to the many health hazards, as well as emotional ramifications, that can result from over-consuming these sugary, fatty foods.

But I'm here to help. In fact, today I plan to FedEx a press copy of my book SUGAR SHOCK! to Mr. Kisliuk to wake him up to the dangers of what he and others are doing.

Journalists across America, I empathize with your junk-food plight. I know what it's like to be in a newsroom where donuts, pies, cakes, pizza and other junk foods tempt you all too often.

Let me help you if you're one of those reporters who survives on this "Newsroom Diet" of sugary, fatty junk food. Say the word, and either my publicist or I will pop a copy of my book in the mail to you so that it can help you and your readers.

I'm sad.

What kind of marshmallow-obsessed nation has America come to that a clever MSNBC staffer -- associate editor Al Olson -- was driven to observe:

"What says Easter better than Peeps — everybody's favorite marshmallow treat?"

How tragic that it's become a custom to chomp on this confection that's loaded with sugar -- you'll find 9 teaspoons of sugar in a mere five pieces, according to the label for one brand I examined.

(That's right. Those cute, colorful candies are packed with sugar and corn syrup, along with gelatin, coloring, flavoring and preservatives. Even 3 teaspoons of the sugar are enough to throw your body out of balance, one expert told me.)

But back to Olson's compelling MSNBC commentary. The inquiring writer wanted to know: "But would you really want to eat a Peeps in the shape of Rosie O'Donnell? Or Will Ferrell?"

Well, it turns out that Just Born, Inc., the privately owned company out of Bethlehem, Penn. -- which makes the sugary, marshmallow concoction -- conducted its 2007 Celebrity PEEPS® Celebrity Survey asking sweet-toothed fans: If PEEPS® came to life, what male or female public person or celebrity might it become?

You've got to be kidding! (But you have to admit this is a clever publicity stunt to nab attention for those sugar-filled Peeps, which Just Born claims is the "number-one non-chocolate Easter candy" for over a decade.

Peeps fans -- over 800, reportedly -- weighed in, thanks to a survey conducted by International Communications Research. The top males they selected to come to life as Peeps are:

Will Ferrell, Johnny Depp, Jamie Foxx and Justin Timberlake.

The top females picked were:

Jessica Simpson, Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O'Donnell.

I suppose it is kind of humorous -- or gross, depending on your point of view -- to imagine Will Ferrell (whose most recent movie, "Blades of Glory," I saw last night) as an edible Peep. Or, I'm wondering: would some guys appreciate Jessica Simpson as a small, edible marshmallow treat?

Meanhwhile, MSNBC's Olson quotes Just Born's brand director Kathy Bassininski:

"We produce Peeps in a variety of shapes and colors to celebrate all seasons. Regardless of their shape or color, Peeps always maintain their sense of humor!”

Wait a minute here! Peeps maintain their sense of humor? Not if you eat a lot of those candies over a period of time -- something many Americans do!

It's simply not funny what can happen to you if you consume candies, cookies and other sweets often -- which is a typical American habit.

In fact, as I learned while interviewing some 250 experts for my book SUGAR SHOCK!, over-consuming junk food could lead you to gain weight, develop type 2 diabetes or hypoglycemia and even become moody, depressed or unfocused.

Now, you might be thinking, "Hey, Connie, people only pop Peeps in their mouths on Easter or other holidays."

Think again. If Just Born has its way, Peeps are always in season.

Besides, as GeekBabe speculates, "...in recent years, Peep fanciers have been more open, and have discovered each other, with the help of the Internet and other media. Peeps have become kind of a fad-food or cult-food in certain circles. A few Peep-a-holics have admitted to me that they were ashamed to admit to others that they enjoyed Peeps and consumed so many. Peepophiles have only recently begun to come out of the closet."

Peep-a-holics? Peepophiles?

That's right. Some people are evidently hooked on those confectionary Peeps. ...SUGAR SHOCK! here we come.

About the only plus side I can see of all this Peeps mania is that Just Born is promoting the licensing, marketing and manufacturing of non-edible Peeps.

Actually, I think this is a cool idea. In fact, I just bought a couple of peeping pens in purple, pink and blue. And you have to admit: They really are cut. Besides, they won't endanger your health the way those sugary marshmallow candies can.

So yeah, I can get behind the idea of popping non-edible Peeps into those Easter baskets.

Did you hear that a six-foot, nude chocolate Jesus Christ without loin cloth won't be shown in New York City this week due to an angry uproar from offended Catholics?

Yeah, this has to be one of oddest stories I've heard lately.

When word spread that the confectionary Christ -- with all his private parts uncovered -- was to be displayed, Catholics, including Cardinal Edward Egan, cancelled the exhibit at the Roger Smith Hotel in midtown Manhattan. Then, after the show was shut down, Matt Semler, the gallery's creative director, submitted his resignation, the Associated Press reports.

The whole idea of an immodest Christ being displayed during Holy Week riled up people, who flooded the art gallery with angry e-mails and phone calls, reportedly including death threats over the work of artist Cosimo Cavallaro.

Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, called the chocolate statue "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever," according to the AP. "It’s not just the ugliness of the portrayal, but the timing — to choose Holy Week is astounding," he said.

Although Cavallaro is known for quirky food art, this one has to be one of the strangest he's undertaken -- and certainly the one that most offended people. Past pieces, according to the AP, included "repainting a Manhattan hotel room in melted mozzarella, spraying five tons of pepper jack cheese on a Wyoming home, and festooning a four-poster bed with 312 pounds of processed ham."

I guess I'm baffled as to why the artist would even contemplate such a statue. How could he not know that it would cause an outrage?

This is about as off topic as you can get for what's supposed to be a blog about sugar news and tidbits.

Did you hear about the Maine man, whose resident mouse "taunted" him and scurried off with his dentures? Seriously, folks.

Thanks to MSNBC, I heard about this news story, which amuses me -- sorry Bill Exner of Waterville, Maine, I mean you no harm. It sure sounds like it must be challenging to hang onto your dentures with that pesky mouse around!

By the way, have you thought of putting these dentures in a case with a lid and then gluing the case to the surface of your nightstand? The rodent won't get to them that way. Or maybe you could just leave the darn dentures in your mouth?

Also, I'm just wondering, did I miss something? Why do you let this rodent stick around? Can't you take it to the nearby zoo if you don't want to hurt it?

Oh wait, incidentally, how can a mouse taunt you?

Now, sugary foods can taunt you and tempt you and torture you, right, sugar addicts out there?

OK, so much for my acting silly this afternoon.