A Healthy Alternative to Soda

We all know that soda is bad for us, right? Then why do we drink so much of it? It's refreshing, it's energizing, it's sweet, its addicting. A 12 oz. soda contains 9-11 teaspoons of sugar. Can you imagine trying to eat that many teaspoons of sugar? Yet many drink way more than 12 ounces of soda each day.

I love soda as much as the next guy, but I know it is a very unhealthy behavior.(Even diet soda, but I'll leave that for another post.) Instead of completely going without there are some healthy alternatives. We can drink water, Crystal Light, whole juices, etc. However, my favorite substitute for soda is called Zevia. Zevia is a carbonated beverage that comes in a variety of flavors. It contains zero calories and no sugar. It is sweetened naturally with stevia. Now, it doesn't taste exactly the same but it very satisfying.

Here in Arizona I have found it at Sprouts and Target.

Does Lactic Acid Cause Muscle Soreness?

The short answer is no. Lactic acid build up in the muscle does not cause muscle soreness. Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) is caused by micro tears in the muscle fiber during exercise. Over a day or two inflammation and swelling (inside the muscle) occur causing the soreness.

Lactic acid is a byproduct of glycolysis (breakdown of carbs into energy). As you exercise, especially as you increase the intensity throughout the exercise, lactic acid builds up in the muscles. However, the lactic acid is quickly converted back to pyruvic acid and placed back into the system to be used again. Most of the lactic acid build up is removed within minutes and is completely gone after about an hour.

Now you know. Lactic acid does not cause muscle soreness, working hard does.

The facts: Metformin vs Lifestyle interventions on Diabetes.

In 2002 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study (Volume 346 number 6) that took people with impaired glucose intolerance (this is the step before being diagnosed with diabetes) and divided them into three groups.  One group was given "normal care" which consisted of Metformin (popular glucose controlling agent) and the second group was not given any drugs but was instructed to exercise and change their eating habits.  The third group was given a placebo.  The subjects were followed for 4 years and at the end of that time were assessed as to who progressed to full fleg diabetes.  It was found that the Metformin group when compared to the placebo group had 1/3 fewer incidents of diabetes!  This is great and was lauded as such, I quote  

“In 2002, researchers showed that metformin reduced by 1/3 the number of those with prediabetes—people with impaired glucose tolerance—that progressed to diabetes during a 3 yr period…. Thanks to the curiosity, ingenuity, and determination of scientists from various fields, we now have powerful new weapons to combat an old debilitating disease.”

Patlak M. Combating Diabetes. FASEB J 16:1853, 2002

There is one problem here, the group that was not mentioned i.e. the group not given any drugs but that was instructed to eat right and exercise reduced there incidence of diabetes by 1/2!  As the scientific community praises the then new wonder drug, those who didn't take it but changed their lifestyle were far better off.

One final note, the lifestyle intervention group only lost about 5 pounds over the course of the 4 years, thus signifying that pounds lost is not as important as being physically active.

Lets pass on the operation Doctor!

650,000-1,000,000 Stents (mesh 'tube' inserted into a natural passage/conduit in the body) are placed in patients with coronary stenosis (narrowing of an artery) every year.  This costs about $10,000 per patient!  Do the math and that's a lot of money spent on one procedure.  There may be a better alternative.  A study that came out in 2004 took a group of individuals who had stable coronary artery disease.  Half were assigned to normal treatment, i.e. stenting, while the other half received no stenting but exercised 20 minutes/day at about 70% of max HR.  The subjects were followed for one year.  At the end of the study it was found that there were significantly less subjects in the exercise group who had ischemic (restriction of blood supply) events when compared to the ones who received stents (6 in the exercise group compared to 21 in the stent group).  Talk about being able to save money!  Exercise was a superior solution to stenting!  When we exercise we exert pressure on our arterial walls.  This is a good thing and causes dialation of the arteries.  Exercise allows this to happen throughout our entire vascular system while stenting only increases the diameter in one region. 

"Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Compared with Exercise Training in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease"  2004.