A dietary supplement may be able to improve the lives of diabetics and the overweight according to Dr. Yaakov Nahmias.
Israeli scientists may have discovered an effective new way to treat high cholesterol and diabetes naturally. Dr. Yaakov Nahmias from the Benin School of Engineering and Computer Science at Hebrew University and his colleagues have discovered that naringenin, a molecule in grapefruits that gives the fruit its bitter taste, can help to treat arteriosclerosis, hyper-metabolism, and even diabetes.
The study, which was recently published in the journal PLoS One, explains that when a highly-bioavailable “nano-complex” of naringenin is consumed just before a meal that is high in fat and sugar, it can reduce the development of bad cholesterol by roughly 42 percent, and actually increase insulin sensitivity by 64 percent.
Dr. Nahmias and his colleagues allege that naringenin in its natural form is not very easily absorbed by the body. So they developed what they say is an improved version on the substance, which is surrounded by a ring of sugar called cyclodextrin, and that is 11 times more bioavailable than naringenin that comes straight from a grapefruit.
And you know what? The supplement is an outgrowth of nanotechnology research.
Wikipedia calls the grapefruit diet a fad diet.
The grapefruit diet, also known as the Hollywood Diet and erroneously as the Mayo Clinic Diet, is a short-term fad diet that has existed in the United States since at least the 1930s.
Which just goes to show you how much they know.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
8 responses to “Grapefruit”
“A short term fad” that’s been around for 80 years?
Can anyone edit Wiki?
Surely you read the entire article at NaturalNews and realized that Mike Adams and all his staff writers NaturalNews are cranks and full of BS? (Admittedly it’s BS that sounds really really good sometimes.)
Did you not read far enough to notice that this same article warns against nanotechnology that is not “green”… that it promotes colloidal silver as safe and effective?
Your credibility as an interpreter of science (in any field) is in danger when you link to NaturalNews as a reliable source.
Give your readers a reliable link UPFRONT instead of promoting a crank, pseudo-science site where the reliable source is listed at the very bottom and where they are subjected to numerous misleading (and exclusively self-referential) links in the article itself.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/thuo-pds052311.php
The research that this supplement is based on is here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018033
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012399
Oh, and another bone to pick — how does “not bioavailable in its natural form” translate to an insinuation that the “Grapefruit Diet is not a fad diet”?
Donna,
Let me start at the bottom: I believe the term is 11X more bioavailable.
Second – I’m aware of colloidal silver. I know that some people have poisoned themselves with it and others swear by it. It IS anti-bacterial you know.
Third,
The important stuff I posted. So you can do your own research. Which you did. Excellent.
Fourth,
My mate – who is an injecting diabetic – said she had noticed grapefruit juice helped her and she is going to focus more attention on that until naringenin (or whatever the new drug will be called) is available on the market. So anecdotal corroboration.
So my report got the important stuff out without reposting the crank stuff. If a crank site is posting good stuff I have no problem using them.
And I notice your first link contains the identical text I posted. Funny that.
You link a site in a positive way, you promote it. Now that I know you have no problem with crank sites as long as “some” of their stuff is good, do I need to wonder about the sites you link to where I do not have the background education to determine for myself if they are “cranky” or not?
If you had offered a disclaimer of sorts, warning your readers that they should not necessarily consider NaturalNews a good source for any other medical information, it would be different. You did not.
Also, the first link I posted certainly does NOT contain the identical text you posted. It does give the same information that the article you linked to gives before your link choice goes all quacky. And it does NOT contain links to other quackiness.
Donna,
I first read the article on a site with a dateline of Islamabad.
IMO anything had to be better than that. OTOH maybe I should have kept it for the irony.
So I picked the first one that had a better dateline.
My search key was “it can reduce the development of bad cholesterol by roughly 42 percent, and actually increase insulin sensitivity by 64 percent.”
You have just illustrated the importance of not linking to crank/quack sites.
Of course, if you’re taking a statin to get your cholesterol down, grapefruit can be downright toxic.