Predictors of Alzheimers

From an article on msn.com lifestyle titled "10 surprising Alzheimer’s predictors"

About 5.2 million Americans currently suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, and the aging population will drive that number to an estimated 7.1 million by 2025, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Researchers have identified several types of brain abnormalities in people with the disease, notably plaques made of clumps of beta-amyloid protein and tangles of a protein called tau. Both correlate with the death of brain cells, leading to progressive memory loss, dwindling social skills and, eventually, death. As Dr. Marwan Sabbagh, director of the Banner Sun Health Research Institute and co-author of "The Alzheimer’s Prevention Cookbook," puts it, Alzheimer’s memory loss goes beyond the usual “I forgot where I put my keys” to “I forgot what my keys are for.” Age, family history, having the Apolipoprotein E genotype and being female are the leading predictors of the disease. But researchers are finding other predictive correlations, especially in lifestyle.

Several biomarkers seem to correlate with Alzheimer’s, including certain proteins in spinal fluid or blood and mutations detectable by brain imaging. Michael Weiner, principal investigator for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and director of San Francisco’s Center for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Disease, works with PET scans of study participants’ brains. While definitive Alzheimer’s diagnoses have formerly been made postmortem, Weiner said he was surprised to discover he could detect the Alzheimer’s-correlated amyloid protein in living people. Brain changes can begin 25 years before the onset of the disease. A 2012 study led by Dr. Michelle Mielke of the Mayo Clinic found that women with the highest level of a fatty compound called serum ceramide in their blood were 10 times more likely to develop Alzheimer’s than women with lower levels of the compound. However, patients often avoid these types of tests for fear of losing medical insurance.

Heart history. Trouble with the vascular system is linked to Alzheimer’s. High blood pressure, especially in midlife, increases your risk. So can your heart history. People who have previously had a heart attack are more than twice as likely to develop dementia, whether it's Alzheimer’s or another type. Weiner emphasizes the importance of controlling your blood pressure. Decreasing stress also helps lower your risk of developing Alzheimer’s.

Diabetes and obesity. Insulin-resistant diabetes could double or even quadruple your chances of getting Alzheimer’s. An enzyme in your brain is responsible for decreasing both insulin and amyloid, so too much insulin may interfere with the enzyme’s ability to remove the amyloid. Obesity also increases your odds, especially for women, who may be three times as likely to develop Alzheimer’s as their thinner peers, according to the Fortanasce-Barton Neurology Center. Obese men increase their risk by about 30 percent. Exercise benefits both the obese and the diabetic. Dr. Joe Verghese, director of the Resnick Gerontology Center at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, prescribes physical activity and clean living. He admits that both he and his patients might rather take a pill than exercise and eat right. “I hate exercise,” he says. “But I do it because it’s good for me. A lot of this is common sense.”

Low education. Lower levels of formal education and a general lack of mental stimulation correlate with increased risk of Alzheimer’s. Verghese led a study that identified dancing as the most helpful physical activity for avoiding Alzheimer’s, partly due to the social aspect. “You don’t usually dance alone,” he says. “Social interaction has been said to reduce stress levels, which are bad for the brain.” Sabbagh agrees, noting, “People who do volunteering, traveling, crossword puzzles — you name it, those people tend to be better off intellectually.” But the science is fuzzy, he says, because socially engaged people tend to take better care of themselves in general. He’s also uncertain about the dose and intensity. “If I do three hours of volunteering or sudoku versus one hour, am I more protected?” he asks. And does he have to do the New York Times crossword, or is the one in his local Arizona paper sufficient?

Lack of fruits, vegetables and spices in diet. Diets low in vegetables may speed cognitive decline. One reason for this involves homocysteine, an amino acid in blood plasma. Higher levels seem to increase your risk of Alzheimer’s, among other deadly diseases. You need folate and other B vitamins to properly break down homocysteine. While all types of vegetables will help, Sabbagh recommends kale, squash, eggplant, collard greens and blueberries as cognitive superstars. Certain spices, notably cinnamon and turmeric, may also have a dramatic effect. “There’s clear evidence that people in India, at least from epidemiological data, have less Alzheimer’s,” says Sabbagh. “One of the environmental things people attribute it to is the presence of turmeric.” He also recommends following the Mediterranean diet.

Head traumas. Boxers’ cerebral spinal fluid contains elevated markers for Alzheimer’s disease, according to a 2006 study led by Henrik Zetterberg of the Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University in Sweden as well as a larger 2012 study led by Sanna Neselius at the same institution. In Alzheimer’s earliest stages, the disease can change levels of beta-amyloid and tau — proteins associated with clumps and tangles — in spinal fluid. Boxers who have the Apolipoprotein E genotype are at even greater risk. Alzheimer’s patients who suffered significant head injuries before age 65 showed symptoms at an earlier age than those who hadn’t had head injuries. Sabbagh recommends avoiding contact sports involving your head and using protective headgear.

Gait changes. A deteriorating gait and the inability to simultaneously walk and talk may indicate the onset of Alzheimer’s. “Walking while talking is a divided attention task,” says Verghese, who has long studied gait changes in patients with non-Alzheimer’s dementia. “Now, if you are in the early stages of dementia or actually have dementia, then this becomes more challenging because you have limited attention resources.” Five different studies presented at the 2012 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference tied gait change to the disease. Alzheimer’s correlated with slower and/or erratic walking and difficulty in performing such tasks as walking while counting backward.

Poor navigation. Since Alzheimer’s starts in the hippocampus, often called the brain’s seat of memory, disorientation is a hallmark of the disease. This accounts for why people with Alzheimer’s are notorious for wandering off and getting lost. “Navigational problems might arise very early in the course of cognitive decline,” says Verghese. He’s now working on a National Institutes of Health-funded study that looks at people’s ability to navigate and whether those who are navigationally challenged will face faster cognitive decline.

Depression and social withdrawal. People who suffer from depression earlier in life are more likely to develop Alzheimer’s as they age. A study by the Multi-Institutional Research in Alzheimer’s Genetic Epidemiology group, led by Robert Green of Harvard Medical School and published in Archives of Neurology in 2003, found a significant link between Alzheimer’s diagnoses and people who had shown symptoms of depression within the past year. So while doctors have long noted that people with Alzheimer’s tend to become depressed and withdraw socially, recent studies show that the depression predates dementia.

Sleep problems. Sleep disorders such as sleep apnea have been linked to cognitive deficits. Previous studies found Alzheimer’s plaque developing in mice’s brains when their sleeping schedules were significantly disrupted. A study released in 2012 correlated sleep disruption and Alzheimer’s in humans. The Washington University study, led by David Holtzman of the college's Department of Neurology, studied 145 cognitively normal people. Those with biomarkers for Alzheimer’s, as measured in their spinal fluid, were the worst sleepers. They spent more of their time in bed awake and napped more frequently during the day than those without the Alzheimer’s biomarkers. Sleep apnea is also linked to nighttime cardiac events and high blood pressure, both of which also correlate with Alzheimer’s.

A few lifestyle tips to end on hopeful note. Despite what he describes as nihilism about the disease within much of the medical community, Sabbagh emphasizes that there’s hope. Medications to treat the disease have improved in the past 16 years, he says. “The field itself is moving forward very rapidly. Granted, there are lots of frustrations and failures, but that doesn’t mean the science has stood still.” Sabbagh recommends making lifestyle changes as a preventative strategy right away. Eat your greens. Exercise. Value your social connections, and use your brain power. “You should not wait,” Sabbagh says, “because by the time you become symptomatic, the pathology in your brain is significant.”



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

OTC Daily Supplements: Centrum

This article was written by Josh Gitalis, clinical nutritionist and Functional Medicine Specialist, and posted on Meghan Telpner's blog under the title "The Truth Behind Centrum: Supplement Or Chemical Cocktail?" After 20+ years of taking OTC nutritional supplements, from Centrum to GNC and all other in-between, still getting sick and seeing no benefit, I believe people are wasting money on drug store, grocery store or most any OTC supplement. I am aware that many people take these sub-standard daily supplements without any thought, without any analysis on how or if they are improving their life. Unfortunately many will find the cheapest supplements,...and that's the results you get!

"The Truth Behind Centrum: Supplement Or Chemical Cocktail?"

One of the most popular supplements on the market is the multi-vitamin Centrum. What many people don’t realize is that this multi-vitamin is probably doing more harm than good. Is Centrum a vitamin supplement of synthetic chemical cocktail?

A Few Centrum Facts:

• Centrum is a product produced by the company Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

• The dosages of most of the nutrients in Centrum are negligible and not even close to therapeutic levels.

• The forms that the nutrients are provided in are the cheapest and the least absorbable forms.

• Supplements that come in tablet form are often hard to digest and contain binders and fillers (more on this below).

• Water-soluble nutrients (vitamin C and the B-vitamins) are either used or excreted within about 4 hours. Thus, a one-a-day multi is completely useless and a sure sign that it is of poor quality.

The Ingredients In Centrum:

• Calcium Carbonate This is the least absorbable forms of calcium on the market. A very small percentage is actually absorbed.

• Ferrous Fumarate This form of iron is incredibly constipating.

• Pregelatinized Corn Starch This is used as a binder to hold all of the ingredients together. It most likely a genetically modified corn which presents a number of problems for sensitive people.

• DL-Alpha Tocopherol This is vitamin E and they are using two forms. The “D” form which is natural and the “L” Form which is synthetic. The “L” form is used to “water-down” the more expensive more bioactive “D” form.

• BHT Butylated hydroxyanisole has been shown to be toxic to the liver, thyroid, kidney, lungs, and affecting blood coagulation. BHT can act as a tumour promoter.

• FD&C Yellow No. 6 Aluminum Lake Why is there food colouring in a health supplement?

• Gelatin Vegetarians watch out!

• Hydrogenated Palm Oil Hydrogenating any oil turns the oil rancid and makes it into a strong free radical. Free radicals promote cancer and heart disease.

• Nickelous Sulfate and Tin I have never come across any nutrition book discussing a nickel or tin deficiency. Have you? We most likely don’t need to supplement it.

• Sodium Benzoate A preservative that may cause organ toxicity.

• Talc Has been shown to cause cancer.

• Sodium Aluminosilicate Used as a food additive for its anti caking effect.

One of my rules when shopping for nutritional supplements is to never buy supplements in a drug store. Centrum is only available in drug stores and is advertised as the “#1-recommended doctor multivitamin” (doctors receive no more than 40 hours of nutrition training). When it comes to a multi-vitamin I recommend going to a health food store and talking to to a trained health practitioner in the supplements department about a good-quality multi-vitamin.

Tips For Choosing A Multi-Vitamin:

• Looks for a multi where the dosage is at least 2-3 capsules per day.

• You pay for what you get. The more expensive the multi is, the better the product.

• Don’t buy it if it says “doctor-recomended” on the label or if a pharmaceutical company distributes it.

• Consult with a certified nutritionist to determine the right multi-vitamin for you.

For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

Nutritional Deficit Disorder

This is an excellent article from the Dr. Sears Wellness Institute, titled "Nutritional Deficit Disorder: A Holistic Approach in Nutrition" and addresses what I have written about several times and that is too many children are diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and prescribed drugs, as opposed to at least attempting to treat ADD as a nutritional problem first. I have suggested to several parents, asking me about nutritional requirements and supplements for their ADD children, that trying to minimize high glycemic foods and providing their children with a quality daily nutritional supplements, including an Omega 3 supplement, is much less dangerous than the side effects from conventional prescription medications used to treat ADD, and ADHD for that matter. That's would I would do as a parent anyway.

Nutritional Deficit Disorder

An increasing number of kids are diagnosed with learning and behavior disorders. But rather than labeling these kids with ADHD, or the list of other “D” disorders, I focus on the impacts of nutrition and lifestyle choices, referring instead to it as a nutritional deficit disorder (NDD). Each year, the FDA is approving a record number of new drugs, many of which are for cancer treatment, rare diseases and hematology. Prescription drugs, however, are not limited to those medical uses. Children are increasingly being prescribed antipsychotic and antidepressants as young as 2 years old!

In 2014, 20,000 antipsychotic prescriptions were written for children 2 and younger, which is a 50% increase from 2013, and there were 83,000 prescriptions written for the antidepressant Prozac. Additionally, at least 10,000 children in that same age group were diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Wouldn’t it be better to focus on the how we feed our kids, rather than focusing on what pills we can give our kids? Since nutritional deficit disorder has the same behavior and learning implications of ADHD, I work with parents on understanding how they can naturally help their children before resorting to prescription pills.

The Pills and Skills Model of Health

My treatment for nutritional deficit disorder does not focus on what “magic pill” I can prescribe to help with the increasing number of learning, behavior and health issues that are ailing our kids (and adults alike). Instead I focus on what I call the pills and skills model to health – it’s not about what someone can take, rather what someone can do. Lifestyle and nutrition choices have a major impact on brain development and a child’s ability to perform in school.

The Hole

Pills can cause a problem that I dub “the hole.” Here’s how kids get into the hole. A child is prescribed a perk- up pill, such as an antidepressant. “I think he’s better,” parents report. So the doctor leaves the child on the pill. After a few months on the pill, the brain habituates to, or gets used to, the pill, and the effect wears off. Or the brain gets used to the pill producing an antidepressant effect, so the brain decreases its own production of happy hormones, a drug effect called down regulation. The wise doctor tries to take the patient off the pill. The child gets worse. Here’s the hole. Does the child get worse off the pill because he needs the pill, or is the getting worse really a withdrawal effect from the pill? There is often no way to tell.

The doctor is in the hole, and so are the parents and the child. So the child goes back on the pill – and stays on it for years – or the dose is increased, or more pills are added to counteract the unpleasant side effects of the first pill. The only way for everyone to get out of the hole is to do what is called a washout, which means taking the child off all pills for at least six weeks to see which symptoms are caused by the problem and which are caused by the pills. During a washout, the child may experience unpleasant withdrawal effects, such as anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, and mood swings. It hurts to get out of the hole, but a washout is often the only way to tell whether or not a child still needs the medicines. It’s best not to get into the hole in the first place!

Does your child have nutritional deficit disorder (NDD)?

The term nutritional deficit disorder (NDD) is something I use in my practice when parents express behavioral and learning issues with their children. Here are the main signs I look for when diagnosing a child with NDD:

•frequent mood swings
•unrelenting temper tantrums
•restless sleep
•poor attention span
•impulsive outbursts
•labeled with a “D”: ADD, ADHD, BPD, OCD, etc.
•behavior problems at school, home, and day care
•learning difficulties
•hyperactivity
•frequent infections
•dry, flaky, bumpy skin
•intestinal problems: refulx, abdominal discomforts, constipation, diarrhea
•vision problems
•frequent allergies
•dry, brittle hair
•brittle, thin nails
•very pale skin, especially on the earlobes

The First Step: Understanding

In understanding NDD, it’s important to analyze lifestyle and nutrition choices first. I noticed early in my practice working with families that kids who were raised with real food rather than junk food suffered less from the “D’s.” While there are many studies that support the axiom “you are what you eat,” those are found in journals like the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which don’t get read and appreciated by parents (or even by many doctors!).

Optimal growth and development occur when a growing body is in biochemical balance. In fact, a good definition of health itself could be “the state in which biochemical balance exists in the body,” a concept that has been appreciated in Eastern medicine for centuries. One reason we have so many “D’s” in our schools is that we have so many little bodies that are out of biochemical balance. This is not a result of the lack of care from parents, rather it’s that many parents just don’t know the facts. They are not convinced that fake food harms and real food helps growing brains and bodies.

Once you nourish your body with whole, fresh, natural, real foods and you start implementing this pure way of eating with your family, you’ll notice many positive side effects. For your kids, you can expect that their learning and behavior will change for the better. Why not try that before turning to prescription drugs?



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

ADHD Diagnoses Soar 43 Percent in United States

This article came from AFP, and addresses the growing trend of diagnosing children and the pre-disposition for medical professionals to only look at treating children with the ADHD label with prescription drugs which can have negative side effects.  It is a damn shame that these children are not first treated as having nutritional deficiencies before these drugs are considered. I have several friends and acquaintances who were told their children had ADHD and those kid's did much, much better after addressing daily nutrients with a quality nutritional supplement and including Omega 3 essential fatty acid into the diet as well.    

The prevalence of ADHD diagnoses soared 43 percent in the United States in the first decade of the century, with more than one in 10 youths now diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, researchers said Tuesday.  ADHD is the most commonly identified mental disorder in the United States, often treated with psychological therapy and prescription stimulants like Ritalin to improve behavior and focus.

Its precise causes are unknown, though some research has pointed to difficulties during pregnancy, exposure to toxins and family history as playing a role.

The findings in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry show that 12 percent of American children and teens had ADHD in 2011, a significant rise over the 8.4 percent reported by parents in the same survey taken in 2003.

When researchers looked specifically at teenagers, they found the diagnoses had risen 52 percent since 2003.  “This analysis suggests that 5.8 million US children ages five to 17 now have this diagnosis, which can cause inattention and behavioral difficulties,” said lead researcher Sean Cleary, an associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University.

While ADHD has traditionally been more common among boys than girls, researchers found that parent-reported prevalence for girls diagnosed with ADHD rose 55 percent in eight years – from 4.3 percent in 2003 to 7.3 percent in 2011.  Among boys, it rose 40 percent.  The data for the study came from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics, a part of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We found rising rates of ADHD overall and very sharp jumps in certain subgroups,” Cleary said.
Hispanics in particular reported an 83 percent rise in ADHD diagnosis during the eight-year study period.  The rate of ADHD rose 107 percent among non-English speakers, and 71 percent among children with parents in so-called “other” parent marital situations – such as living with a single father, legal guardian, or grandparent, the study found.

Study authors said their research was not designed to look for the underlying reasons for changes in prevalence. However, past studies have suggested the recent rise in US prevalence of ADHD may include changes in special-education policy or increased public awareness of ADHD.

Other studies have suggested that there has been no objective rise in ADHD since the 1960s, but rather changes in definition and diagnosis that account for more cases being recognized.
According to Andrew Adesman, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Cohen Children’s Medical Center of New York, the latest data is “not surprising” and “supports the general impression that more children and adolescents are being diagnosed with ADHD.”  However, Adesman – who was not involved in the study – said that while the statistics are convincing, “it does not help us understand why these increases are being observed.”

For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

GNC and Military Base Exchanges stop selling USPlabs products

GNC has ordered its 5,000 retail stores, including those located on military bases, to stop selling products made by USPlabs after the Dallas-based company’s executives were charged with allegedly lying to government regulators and the public about ingredients of at least two products.

GNC officials said Nov. 19 that while the criminal charges are not related to current products on the market, they were suspending sales of all products made by UPSlabs “in the best interest of our customers."

“While ... we have no reason to believe there are any health and safety issues with respect to any USPlabs products currently sold by GNC, it is in our best interest … to suspend the sale of the company’s products pending further review,” Michael Archbold, CEO of GNC, said in a news release.

After GNC made the announcement, the Marine Corps Exchange stopped selling a reformulated version of the workout booster Jack3d, according to a spokesman from the Marine Corps Non-Appropriated Funds Business and Support Services Division.

The Army and Air Force Exchange Service, which carries the USPlabs workout supplement Jack3d Micro, is “evaluating the situation and will decide soon on whether the product will continue to be stocked," a spokeswoman said.

Navy Exchange spokeswoman Kristine Sturkie said USPlabs products were carried by GNC stores and not sold in the service's exchanges.

USPlabs and its top executives face criminal charges following a Justice Department investigation that alleges key ingredients in workout boosters such as Jack3d and OxyElite Pro are synthetic stimulants rather than natural ingredients as claimed.

An 11-count indictment handed down in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in mid-November charges USPlabs, S.K. Laboratory and five company executives with unlawful sale of dietary supplements, conspiracy to commit money laundering, obstructing an FDA proceeding, wire fraud and food mislabeling.

The supplements Jack3d and OxyElite Pro contained 1,3 dimethylamylamine, or DMAA, or other ingredients the company claimed were naturally derived from plants, including geraniums or bael, a fruit common in India.

But the Justice Department said the two companies conspired with Chinese manufacturers to create a paper trail claiming the ingredients were natural in an effort to ensure U.S. retailers would sell the products, while the substances actually were synthesized chemical compounds.

The Defense Department removed products containing DMAA, including Jack3d, from base stores and on-base GNCs in 2013 after the supplements were implicated in the deaths of at least two soldiers who suffered heart attacks during physical training.

A follow-on investigation found insufficient evidence to prove the supplements caused the deaths, but investigators still decided that the ingredient posed enough of a health risk to keep it off the shelves of military stores.

In 2012, the FDA told companies selling products containing DMAA to stop using the ingredient.

USPlabs voluntarily destroyed $8 million worth of Jack3d and OxyElite Pro after the FDA move, but then reformulated the products, which made their way back to store shelves.v According court documents, the reformulated OxyElite Pro contained aegeline, which the company claimed was a natural extract but investigators allege is also a synthetic stimulant.

The company also added another ingredient, labeled as cynanchum auriculatum root extract, to OxyElite Pro to promote weight loss.

When the new formula went on the market in October 2013, more than 50 residents of Hawaii, including some military family members, developed acute hepatitis and liver failure. At least one person died and three required liver transplants.

According to the Justice Department, four defendants were arrested Nov. 17 and two agreed to self-surrender.

Article from Military Times

For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

11 Serious Lack of Vitamin D Warning Signs

Answers.com did a good deed publishing these warning signs of Vitamin D deficiency, in their article "11 Serious Lack of Vitamin D Warning Signs". I have long thought that Vitamin D supplements are a great optimizer and I take between 3,000 and 5,000 IU each day, while the FDA recommends between 400 and 800 IU - but again, they work for the government. What this article doesn't address is the potential boost to your general immune system. I haven't been sick in over 11 years, while working in cold weather, around animals and all sorts of chemicals and toxins. Vitamin D is a keeper in my nutrient regimen.

Muscle Weakness Muscle weakness is usually caused by a Vitamin D deficiency. Muscles have Vitamin D receptors. They must have a constant supply of Vitamin D to function. If your body has a deficiency of Vitamin D, your muscles will have trouble functioning.

Bone Pain Shunning the sun and being lactose intolerant can leave you with a deficiency of Vitamin D. This can lead to bone pain, which can be difficult to distinguish from muscle or joint pain, but generally manifests as a deep, full pain that can't be isolated to an exact area.

Constant Respiratory Problems Studies show that Vitamin D may help defend against respiratory illness. This is especially true in children. If your child has severe asthma, you may want to increase their Vitamin D intake.

Sweaty Head Years ago, doctors used to ask new mothers if their newborns' heads were sweating more than normal. This is apparently a very early sign that a baby is Vitamin D deficient. If you're breastfeeding, you'll need to increase your sun exposure or consume more foods rich in Vitamin D.

Depression According to the Vitamin D Council, this essential nutrient helps your brain's neurotransmitters produce the fluid serotonin. This produces our feelings of happiness. Studies have linked low levels of Vitamin D with episodes of depression. This happens especially during the winter months, because of the lack of sun during that time of year.

Chronic Infections The Mayo Clinic has advised that Vitamin D is crucial to our body's health. It is a necessary vitamin in helping our body fight infections. If you notice you or your child is prone to getting infections, you might want to ask your doctor to give you a Vitamin D blood test.

Cardiovascular Disease Articles published by the National Institutes of Health have shown that deficiencies in Vitamin D can lead to congestive heart failure. Make sure your body maintains the proper amounts to guard against the risk. Home tests are available to check if you have a lack of Vitamin D.

Psoriasis Although psoriasis is not always caused by a lack of Vitamin D, it's used in treatment. The Mayo Clinic claims that if you have a lack of Vitamin D it will be harder for your body to defend itself against psoriasis.

Chronic Pain Studies have shown that low Vitamin D levels impact a person's chances of having chronic pain. People with darker skin are more prone to these effects, because they need more sun exposure to actually absorb any Vitamin D.

Tiredness Vitamin D is one of the necessary vitamins for your body to create energy. Without it you can end up feeling tired most of the day. This will make it hard for you to get around or even get to work. You should consult your doctor if you have constant feelings of tiredness.

Hypertension Harvard University conducted a study on women. The study showed that women with low levels of Vitamin D have a 67 percent increased risk of hypertension. If you suffer from anxiety, you may want to consider purchasing Vitamin D supplements and adding them to your daily routine.

Crankiness Vitamin D also affects the levels of serotonin in your brain, which is what impacts your mood. If you're feeling cranky, it might be because you're not producing enough serotonin!

Chronic Kidney Disease Kidneys are necessary to making the active form of Vitamin D for our bodies. Plus, as you get older, your kidneys are not as efficient at processing Vitamin D. Be sure to get some sun or take a supplement (and if you take a supplement, also take Vitamin K2 to activate the right proteins).

Reduced Endurance If you're an athlete and you're seeing your endurance decay for no apparent reason, it might be because you have low Vitamin D levels. Get enough Vitamin D to stay in your top performance level. You can obtain it in powder form to mix with your smoothies or protein shakes.

You're 50 or older If you're 50 or older, chances are you have a Vitamin D deficiency. The body simply doesn't produce as much Vitamin D as you get older, and so you should always make sure you're getting enough Vitamin D through other sources.



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

Nutritional Science Isn’t Very Scientific

Nutritional Science Isn’t Very Scientific is the title of an article posted on slate.com

The author, Heather Tirado Gilligan, say's that the research behind dietary recommendations is a lot less certain than you think.
The potato industry recently scored a big victory, in what sounds at first like a familiar story of Big Ag winning out over public health. Eight years ago, over allegations of insufficient nutritional value, potatoes were excluded from a government program that helps pregnant women and young children improve their diets. The rationale was that aid recipients in the Women, Infants, and Children program already ate plenty of white potatoes, a widely consumed vegetable in the U.S.

But in February, potatoes were back on the menu after a fierce multiyear lobbying campaign by the National Potato Council. Nutritionist Marion Nestle and other progressive reformers called foul, denouncing the change. “Really?” Nestle scoffed. “I have a hard time believing that WIC recipients are suffering from lack of potatoes in their diets.” Several watchdog groups and the national WIC advocacy group opposed the change, too. “It’s disappointing that politics has trumped science,” Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told reporters.

But did science really lose? In this case, the potato industry had science on its side, the outcry from nutritionists notwithstanding. Despite the common belief that potatoes are nutritionally null, a report released in February by the Institute of Medicine, an independent nonprofit, shows that white potatoes are an inexpensive source of potassium, fiber, and other needed nutrients, and one that people actually enjoy eating.

The takeaway from the potato controversy is not that lobbyists sometimes base their campaigns on real science. Rather it’s that the David-and-Goliath narrative of science versus Big Ag may be blinding us to another, even bigger problem: the fact that there is often very little solid science backing recommendations about what we eat.

Most of our devout beliefs about nutrition have not been subjected to a robust, experimental, controlled clinical trial, the type of study that shows cause and effect, which may be why Americans are pummeled with contradictory and confounding nutritional advice. Nutritional bad guys that have fallen from grace in the national consciousness—white potatoes, eggs, nuts, iceberg lettuce—have been redeemed years later. Onetime good guys, like margarine and pasta, have been recast as villains. Cholesterol is back in the probably-won’t-kill-you column after being shunned for 40 years, as of the latest nutritional advice from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in February. (That advice was still too timid, according to Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Steve Nissen, who also wants the nutritional guidelines to admit our best evidence suggests fat isn’t bad for you either). And then there’s salt—don’t eat too little, says the newest research. You could die.

Amid the growing concern that nutritional advice to avoid high-fat food led to overconsumption of carbohydrates and caused spikes in illnesses like Type 2 diabetes, more and more scientists are starting to worry publicly that the basis of our dietary advice is scientific quicksand.

How potatoes were born again is a telling example of the uncertain foundation of nutrition. Potatoes had a bad rap in part because they are usually eaten deep fried, but even when they are not, they have a high glycemic index, according to prominent Harvard nutritionist Walter Willett. A high GI means that foods quickly turn into sugar (glucose) in the body and may eventually lead to heart disease and other illnesses, especially among diabetics, according to an analysis of data from the Nurse’s Health Study at Harvard, which Willett oversees. He placed potatoes in the same naughty group as candy in his influential 2005 book Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating. One of his studies concluded that white potatoes are worse than soda, leading the L.A. Times to dub spuds public enemy No. 1 in 2011.

So how, just a few years later, did white potatoes return to the list of healthy foods? The IOM committee found a lack of evidence supporting claims that the tubers are unhealthy. WIC only pays for fresh produce, or frozen or canned fruits and veggies with nothing added, so there is no worry women in the program are using their vouchers for potato chips. No one contests the positives of potatoes—much needed micronutrients and fiber—and there isn’t enough proof, they found, that the GI is important to health. So white potatoes got the green light.

Willett calls the IOM potato report “myopic,” because other vegetables have the same needed nutrients as potatoes without the possible dangers of high GI foods that his studies have shown. And because micronutrient deficiency isn’t our biggest dietary problem, Willett told me in a recent email exchange, “obesity is likely to be of greater concern.” In other words, why take the risk on a possible downside to eating potatoes when you don’t need to?

Many nutritional studies are observational studies, including massive ones like the Nurses’ Health Study. Researchers like Willett try to suss out how changes in diet affect health by looking at associations between what people report they eat and how long they live. When many observational studies reach the same conclusions, Willett says, there is enough evidence to support dietary recommendations. Even though they only show correlation, not cause and effect, observational studies direct what we eat.

Apart from their inability to determine cause and effect, there’s another problem with observational studies: The data they’re based on—surveys where people report what they ate the day (or week) before—are notoriously unreliable. Researchers have long known that people (even nurses) misreport, intentionally and unintentionally, what they eat. Scientists politely call this “recall bias.”

The coupling of observational studies and self-reported data leads some observers to the conclusion that we know neither how Americans do eat nor how they should eat. A recent PLOS One article even suggests that several national studies use data that is so wildly off base that the self-reported caloric intake is “incompatible with survival.” If people had eaten as little as they reported, in other words, they would be starving.

Peter Attia, a medical researcher and doctor, started questioning the basis of dietary guidelines when he saw that following them didn’t work for his patients. They didn’t lose weight, even when they virtuously stuck with their diets. When he took a look at the research supporting the advice he was giving to his patients, he saw shoddy science. Attia estimates that 16,000 nutritional studies are published each year, but the majority of them are deeply flawed: either poorly controlled clinical trials, observational studies, or animal studies. “Those studies wouldn’t pass muster in another field,” he told me.

Attia co-founded the nonprofit Nutrition Science Initiative. NuSI has about $40 million from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to support clinical trials in nutrition rigorous enough to tell us what to eat. Its goal is to answer one fundamental question about how we should eat: Are low-fat or low-carb diets better for health?

The NuSI projects are not the first clinical trials in nutrition, and Willett pointed out to me that previous big and expensive trials have failed because people don’t follow their randomly assigned diet—and that is one key reason that the field has depended so heavily on observational studies. NuSI-funded trials try to correct for this problem: In one of the studies, subjects are isolated in a clinical residence for eight weeks at a time and every morsel of food they eat is controlled. In another, 150 overweight or obese subjects, all college students, faculty, and staff, eat every meal in a special dining hall. In the third study, participants aren’t isolated but are assigned to either a low-fat or low-carb diet and record what they’ve eaten immediately after they eat to sidestep recall bias. In two or three years, Attia estimates, results will be available.

Even if the participants in the NuSI studies do follow their diets perfectly, and even if researchers establish whether low-fat or low-carb is better, that won’t necessarily establish whether we should eat more or less of individual foods. What kind of carbs are good for you, and should potatoes specifically be avoided? Which vegetables should you be eating more of? It would take hundreds of clinical trials to come up with solid advice about which foods to eat and which to avoid—especially since genetic variations mean that different people have different nutritional needs.

In the meantime, should dietary recommendations end until we have solid clinical trials to show how to navigate our bewildering array of food choices? Should the government stop creating random purchasing restrictions for people who need help getting food on the table? One interesting bit of advice came in the many discussions following the IOM’s recent reversal on cholesterol—cardiologist Steve Nissen suggested that any recommendations come with a side of brutal honesty. “We are all guessing,” he said. “And we have to be more humble about telling people what we know and what we don’t know.”



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

Redesigned Nutrition Labels

From the article "How the Redesigned Nutrition Facts Label Can Change the Way America Eats", from Yahoo!

In the 23 years since the nutrition facts label first appeared on the backs of most packaged foods, there has only been one significant change — the addition of trans fat numbers in 2006. But since 1992, critics have derided the label for not reflecting the way modern Americans eat, being hard to read and use, and not including enough information about everything from sugar to caffeine content. Food companies and consumer groups have tried to create more readable solutions — making health claims like “good source of fiber” or putting select nutritional information on the front of the package — to varying results.

But within the next few years, consumers can expect a complete transformation. The first redesign was announced by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2014 and last month, the FDA added another proposed change. The changes, in tandem, will affect both the labels’ design and what they actually measure, reconsidering serving sizes and point out different nutritional information. But according to FDA press officer Lauren Kotwicki, shoppers shouldn’t expect to see new labels in the grocery aisles just yet. First, the new rules have to be finalized by the FDA: The organization takes public comments and advice from dietary, regulatory, and other groups within the agency into consideration before approval (the newest proposals are open for public comment until October 13, 2015). Since the process takes place within one agency, it’s difficult for outsiders to track how long it may take to get a final ruling — or how many more proposals will emerge before the changes are finalized.

But once that has happened, the FDA has proposed to allow manufacturers up to two years to comply with the new regulations. Though there could be further additions to the redesign, here are the changes consumers should know:

Serving sizes updated:

By law, serving sizes on packaged food have to reflect how much people actually eat in one sitting — not, as widely assumed, the “suggested” serving size. The standards for current serving sizes were last updated in 1994 and are based on Nationwide Food Consumption Surveys from 1977-78 and 1987-88. According to the FDA, newer data shows that about 17 percent of these sizes no longer fit with American eating habits. If consumers across the United States are eating more — regularly finishing a half-pint of ice cream by themselves during one movie — then the nutrition facts label should list that pint as two servings, not four servings as currently listed.

Currently, food packages that contain between 150 and 200 percent of the “reference amounts customarily consumed” (RACC, aka “how much people tend to eat in one meal”) can be listed as more than one serving. The FDA has proposed ending that allowance: Since these portions are only slightly larger than “regular” or average RACCs, people often end up treating them as a single serving. Fifteen-ounce soups and 20-ounce sodas, for example, will both be listed as one serving if the proposed changes become law. Products containing between 200 and 400 percent of the RACC could also be required to have a dual-column label which lists nutritional information both per serving and per package, since it’s possible that people will eat them in one sitting. (Think of eating a pint of ice cream by yourself or an entire package of cookies.)

However, not everyone thinks that this proposed change is for the best. Harvard’s Behavioral Science and Regulation Group notes that “more than half of consumers perceive the term ‘serving size’ to be a recommended serving size, not an amount customarily consumed.” Since so much of nutritional information is based on the idea of eating an amount that’s “good for you,” it isn’t much of a stretch for consumers to apply this idea to serving sizes, too,“ the HBSRG writes. This basic misunderstanding could lead to people consuming more than they otherwise would if serving sizes became larger.

The label will be easier to read:

Unless you’re keen to count calories, the old nutrition facts label made it difficult to tell just how much you were eating at a glance. To remedy the problem, the FDA has proposed overhauling the design to make servings, calories, and daily values of various nutrients clearer. Both calories and serving sizes will appear in larger, bolded type, and the percent of daily values column has been moved to the left side to allow eaters easier scanning. (If you happen across a number higher than 25 percent, it’s an automatic tip off that this food may not be a healthy choice.)

The FDA is also planning to insert a footnote that explains what "daily values” actually mean. The nutrition facts label currently carries the somewhat vague footnote: “Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.” To make things clearer, the FDA has proposed changing the footnote to read, “The percent daily value (%DV) tells you how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet. 2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice.” Yet this label still may not go far enough for shoppers who may make decisions in as little as one third of a second.

The FDA also proposed an “alternate format” for the label which categorizes nutrients into three categories: quick facts (including fat, carbs, sugars, and protein), “avoid too much” (saturated and trans fat, sodium, carbohydrates, and added sugars), and “get enough” (mostly vitamins and nutrients like fiber). The alternate format has gotten less press coverage than the main redesign, but comes closer to the simplified nutritional information championed by food advocates.

Nutritional Updates and Added Sugars:

Some important changes that easily slip under the radar of anyone who isn’t a professional nutritionist are those that come from a modern understanding of a healthy diet. Daily values for sodium, dietary fiber, and Vitamin D will be updated and manufacturers will, for the first time, be required to list potassium and Vitamin D on labels. Vitamins A and C will be “included on a voluntary basis.” These changes have less to do with the nutrients themselves than the types of deficiency-related diseases that are common in the United States. While most people get more than enough Vitamins A and C, segments of the population still suffer from high blood pressure (which can be reduced with higher potassium intake). Vitamin D deficiencies still cause rickets in children or osteoporosis in adults, among other health problems.

And since, as the FDA states, we now know that “the type of fat is more important than the amount” of fat, the general category “Calories from Fat” will be removed from the label — though total fat, saturated fat, and trans fat will continue to appear.

But the recent proposal to include “added sugars” in addition to total quantity of sugar on the nutrition facts label is easily the most controversial change suggested by the FDA. According to Kotwicki, the agency took this step because of a recommendation in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans “to reduce intake of calories from solid fats and added sugars.” As critics have pointed out, naturally occurring and added sugars are physiologically indistinguishable. However, foods with high levels of natural sugars — like fruit or milk — are very different in overall nutrition from those with an abundance of added sugar — soda or cookies.

The nutrition facts label has been lumped into the category of things laypeople aren’t meant to understand.

Unsurprisingly, those most vehemently against this proposed change are groups like the American Bakers Association, the Sugar Association, and the cranberry industry (which relies on large quantities of sugar to combat the cranberry’s tartness). In the latter example, juice brand Ocean Spray is encouraging its employees to write-in to the FDA, with a provided “sample letter” arguing that “the proposed FDA Rule places the viability of our multi-generational family farms in jeopardy.” It asks for an exemption on behalf of all cranberry products to avoid “unintended negative consequences” toward the otherwise healthy fruit.

The last two decades have been transformational for American attitudes toward food. Awareness of diet-related diseases and rising obesity rates has increased, along with the popularity of local and organic foods. The nutrition facts label has, for too long, been lumped into the category of things laypeople aren’t meant to understand. Finally, consumers and regulatory agencies alike are realizing that this information is something everyone should grasp.



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

The Precursor to Diabetes Almost No One Knows They Have

This article, from Reuters, talks about patients who learn of their status of pre-diabetes, also called Metabolic Syndrome X, who can alter their lifestyle and likely would be able to reverse their disease. It's really simple, but not easy to do as change is uncomfortable to humans, but eating low glycemic foods, ensuring you get the nutrients in the right doses/amounts, and live some type of physical lifestyle is the formula. There it is, simple, but not easy to do.


Only about one in eight people with so-called pre-diabetes, often a precursor to full-blown disease, know they have a problem, a U.S. study found. Lacking awareness, people with the elevated blood sugar levels were also less likely to make lifestyle changes such as getting more exercise or eating less sugary food that might prevent them from ultimately becoming diabetic.

“People with pre-diabetes who lose a modest amount of weight and increase their physical activity are less likely to develop diabetes,” lead study author Dr. Anjali Gopalan, a researcher at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, said by email. “Our study importantly shows that individuals with pre-diabetes who were aware of this diagnosis were more likely to engage in some of these effective and recommended healthy lifestyle changes." Globally, about one in nine adults have diabetes, and the disease will be the seventh leading cause of death by 2030, according to the World Health Organization. Most of these people have Type 2, or adult-onset, diabetes, which happens when the body can’t properly use or make enough of the hormone insulin to convert blood sugar into energy.

Average blood sugar levels over the course of several months can be estimated by measuring changes to the hemoglobin molecule in red blood cells. The hemoglobin A1c test measures the percentage of hemoglobin - the protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen - that is coated with sugar, with readings of 6.5 percent or above signaling diabetes. But A1C levels between 5.7 percent and 6.4 percent are considered elevated, though not yet diabetic. More than one third of U.S. adults have such elevated blood sugar levels and each year about 11 percent of them progress to having full-blown diabetes, Gopalan and colleagues note in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. To gauge awareness of this heightened diabetes risk among people with the condition, researchers weeded out people who said they already had the disease. Then, they reviewed A1c test results for the rest.

Out of 2,694 adults with test results showing elevated A1c, only 288 people were aware of their status. People who were aware of their condition were about 30 percent more likely to exercise and get at least 150 minutes of moderate activity each week. They were also about 80 percent more likely to attempt weight loss and to have shed at least 7 percent of their body weight in the past year.

In 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-backed independent panel that reviews medical evidence, said that screening for diabetes risk does help to identify people headed for full-blown disease and can help some of them to avert it with medication and lifestyle changes. It’s possible that some patients in the current study had been told about their status but didn’t recall or didn’t understand the specific way researchers asked about the condition, said Dr. Laura Rosella, a public health researcher at the University of Toronto.

"The health care provider has to tell the patient that they don’t meet the criteria fordiabetes but they aren’t quite out of the woods, which can be a challenging concept to get across,” Rosella, who wasn’t involved in the study, said by email. “This challenge could explain the low awareness." Some patients may also have been tested for diabetes using another measurement known as an oral glucose tolerance test, which can get different results than screening for A1c, said Dr. Robert Cohen, a diabetes specialist at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. "People can pass by one and miss by the other and it is confusion,” Cohen, who wasn’t involved in the study, said by email. “Many labeled as pre-diabetes by A1c would havediabetes if tested by the gold standard oral glucose tolerance test.”



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

Vitamins Under Fire - What you Need to Know About Nutritional Supplements

Even if a supplement manufacturer follows what is known as food grade Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), they are only required to have about 20% of what they say on the label actually in the tablet.

Unless you take supplements from a nutritional company that follows pharmaceutical grade GMP, you really have no assurance that what is on the label is in the tablet. Companies that voluntarily produce their products in a pharmaceutical grade fashion are required to have 100% of what is on the label in the tablet.

Many companies put a label on their bottles saying "they follow GMP", but the question do you follow food grade GMP or pharmaceutical grade GMP? So comparing labels from a food grade supplement to a supplement made under pharmaceutical GMP is comparing apples and oranges.

The video below titled "Vitamins on Trial" is by Jordan Kemper, a nutritional expert, who simplifies many difficult to understand facts about nutritional supplementation.

This video also address the lack of nutrients in our foods and the amount of food you would have to eat in order to get the optimal amount of nutrients. For example: The optimal amount of Vitamin E is 400 IU a day which would require you to consume over 28 lbs of spinach.

At the 18 minute mark, the video instructs you in a short test you can perform in your home with your supplements to see what anti-oxidant protection your OTC supplement provides. This is simply dissolving one of your supplements in a small bowl of water and placing a cut up apple into the water. If you are taking one of 40% or so of supplements that don't dissolve - then good luck. If your supplement dissolves see how long it takes the apple to oxidize.

At the 21 minute mark you will see the explanation on why we call the RDA a tired, old, and minimal recommendation. So go ahead and watch this exceptional video.



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

8 Foods Nutritionists Won’t Eat

An article by Faith Xue, can't remember where I saw it.

From daily probiotics to things like millet falafel with avocado relish, we’re endlessly fascinated by the foods nutritionists eat. They’re the ones who know the effect foods can have on their bodies after all, so we can only assume they choose to eat only the best and healthiest. On the flip side, we’re just as—if not more—fascinated by the foods nutritionists won’t eat. A splurge is a splurge, but what indulgences are 100% off limits because they’re just that bad? Curious, we spoke with three certified nutritionists—Elissa Goodman, Meryl Pritchard, and Kelly Leveque—and asked them to share a few of the foods on their “do not touch with a ten-foot pole” list. Keep scrolling to see them all!

Soda
“Soda is not a food, and is way over-consumed in today’s diet,” Pritchard says. “There are about 40 grams of sugar in one single can—anything that contains over 8 grams of sugar is too much for me!” Goodman agrees, saying that that the artificial sweeteners in soda (and other junk food) actually contribute to obesity and diabetes, even though they were created to solve those issues. “Basically, artificial sweeteners trick your body into believing you’ve just consumed sugar,” she says. “This has dramatic effects on both your waistline, as well as your insulin sensitivity. Artificial sweeteners have been linked to infertility and cancer as well.” She says to read labels and be cautious of ingredients like neotame, sucralose, advantame, saccharin, and acesulfame potassium (acesulfame K).

High Fructose Corn Syrup
Leveque she says she avoids this ingredient commonly found in junk foods and condiments “like the plague.” She explains that fructose is 100% metabolized in your liver and undergoes something called the Maillard reaction, which leads “to the formation of superoxide free radicals… that can result in liver inflammation.” It also turns into fat faster than any other carb, and is linked to metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance, she says. And if you reach for agave because you think it’s healthier, it’s time for a wake-up call. “I avoid agave because it’s 90% fructose and the closest thing to high fructose corn syrup,” she warns. “It’s used as a sugar a lot in ‘health’ foods.”

Industrial Seed Oils
Industrial seed oils like soybean, safflower, corn, and cotton are called that because they’re highly processed and chemically extracted, and usually need to be deodorized in order to be edible. Yikes. “They oxidize quickly, which create loads of free radicals,” Leveque says. “They’re also full of Omega-6, which further throws off the imbalance of omega fatty acids in the body.” Instead of industrial seed oils, try oils that are high in omega-3 and monosaturated fats, like coconut, olive, macadamia, and avocado oil. And in case you were wondering, yes, industrial oils are the ones used for all your guilty-pleasure deep-fried dishes. “The oils in deep fried foods are usually cheap and full of trans fat, which is the worst type of fat you can consume,” Pritchard say. “It can cause heart disease among many other health issues. I stear clear of this fat at all times."

Processed Soy
Soy has been both celebrated and shunned over the years, but Leveque says the processed version is definitely on her “avoid at all costs” list. “Free glutamic acid, or MSG, which is a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing,”she says. “Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and can lead to infertility and promote breast cancer in adult women.” She notes how the FDA never approved GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status for soy protein isolate, because of concern regarding the presence of toxins and carcinogens in processed soy. “And the FDA approves everything, so that should tell you something!” she says.

Processed Meats
“Processed meats typically come from animals which are held in confined spaces, spreading disease and being exposed to a number of hormones and antibiotics,” Goodman says. “They’re also filled with sodium nitrate, which is used to chemically flavor, preserve, and add color.” The downside? When your body is exposed to nitrates, Goodman says it converts them into cancer-causing chemicals. Processed meats include salami, sausages, deli ham, and yes, bacon. Sigh.

Microwave Popcorn
Are you ready for this news? (Probably not.) Your favorite at-home movie snack is straight up dangerous to your health. “Perfluoroalkyls are synthetic chemicals that are added to wrappers, especially in the fast food industry, to prevent grease from leaking through,” Goodman says. “Microwave popcorn bags are lined with these chemicals. Once heated, these chemicals leach into the popcorn itself. This creates highly damaging effects on your endocrine system, creating both developmental and reproductive risks. Researchers have also linked these chemicals to cancer, increased LDL cholesterol, decreased immune function, thyroid disease and infertility.” Looks like we’ll be making our popcorn fresh from now on…

Margarine
“Margarine is highly processed vegetable oil, which is packed with trans fats,” Goodman says. “In fact, it’s made from the cheapest, lowest quality oils.” Remember our previous slide about industrial seed oils? Well, margarine is made with them. During this high heat process of turning liquid oil into a solid, free radicals are formed, which can increase your risk of cancer, heart disease, and hormonal imbalances. Margarine and other butter substitutes contain a high number of additives and chemicals, Goodman says, as well as omega-6 fatty acids, which off-sets the ideal omega-3 to omega-6 ratio.

Fat-Free Foods
Here’s the thing about fat-free foods—you might feel like you’re making a healthier decision because in most people’s minds, “fat” equals “bad”, but in reality, these overly-processed foods are actually quite damaging to your health. “The food industry began replacing animal fats with unsaturated vegetable oils, which has led to an increased consumption of trans fats.” Goodman explains. “In order to compensate, manufacturers add high concentrations of sugar as well. These highly refined sugars cause your blood sugar to spike, increasing your risk of weight-gain, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.”



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

How I Healed Myself With Small Changes

Great article and lesson to all by Kimberly Petrosino, a health coach and author, posted on the Huffpost Healthy Living site.

"What is wrong with me?" I wondered. I thought I was making all the right decisions - I had started swapping white bread and pasta for whole grains, I cut meat out of my diet, I was drinking diet soda instead of regular soda and eating snacks marked "low fat," but I was still carrying about fifty pounds too much on my five-foot frame. Like many others, I thought 'health' meant simply the difference between calories in and calories out. What I didn't know was that I was hurting my body in ways I never even knew were affected by nutrition. I was stressed out, depressed, and my skin was prone to terrible breakouts. One night in January 2012 I decided to go out for a run, which completely uncharacteristic of me. That night was a turning point, although of course I didn't realize it at the time. When I couldn't run to the end of my block without the crushing feeling that my lungs might explode, I was devastated. That was my wake up call, and I vowed right then and there to take control of my health.

MyAchingKnees comment: "I vowed right then and there to take control of my health." Powerful words right there. You have to take responsbility and get in charge of your own health - there is no two ways about it. Question what you read and are told; question your physicians; don't give up, even if you fall off the heathy living wagaon, get right back on. Realize this - Nobody.....NOBODY,....... is going to be as concerned for your health than you are.

I took up running, thirty seconds on and thirty seconds off. When that was comfortable, I would select a point in the near distance, such as a stop sign, and run to that point. When I reached one goal, I set another. I invested in a blender and started drinking smoothies every morning because I couldn't stand the taste of vegetables. I drank more water, phasing out the diet soda. The more I learned about nutrition and what health really meant, the more able I was to tune in to what my body was asking me for. I stopped being concerned with losing weight and focused simply on becoming healthy. I realized how stress was affecting my well-being and learned to manage it, spending more time with myself doing things I loved. I eventually came to know this as "self love" -- and it is a crucial part of a healthy lifestyle.

MyAchingKnees comment: "thirty seconds on and thirty seconds off"....that's exactly how it starts, bit by bit, small step by small step. You may just eliminate your daily donut, one day a week. Then next week, go two days without donuts....you get the idea. Change is uncomfortable. Big change is near imposible, but it you knock it of in small chunks it is doable!

There are two morals to this story. The first is that "health" is defined by far more than the food on your plate and the number of miles you run. Everything you do contributes to your health, from your sleeping habits to your self care ritual to your stress level to your relationships. The second is that the journey to a healthier lifestyle is just that -- a journey. It's not an "all-or-nothing" situation. Just because you can't run a marathon right now, doesn't mean you can't move your body at all. Walk around the block. Tomorrow, walk a little further. Get clear on your goal and break it down into small, attainable steps. It will take time but if it's something you truly desire, it will be worth it.

Today, three years after my failed attempt at running, I have one half marathon under my belt and am training for my second. Brussels sprouts are my favorite thing ever, and I make time for myself every single day. I am down to my goal weight and have been for a while now. I truly healed myself with small changes, and you can too! Take some time to really assess your lifestyle and your goals. Get crystal clear on what you really want. Then create small, actionable steps to get yourself there!

You Go Girl!



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

Can You OD On Vitamin Pills?

by Korin Miller posted on Yahoo! Health

Khloe Kardashian posted this photo of her supplement regimen that she’s taken to go with her on a trip to Armenia. “Vitamin party!”, she says. “I don’t have a pillbox because for all the pills I take, the pull box is large and bulky.” But is it too much?

It’s a mantra many of us heard on repeat as kids: “Take your vitamins!” Despite recent research that has questioned the effectiveness of vitamin supplements — and even their safety — Nielsen data has shown that the vitamin supplement industry is still growing.

MyAchingKnees comment:  The effectiveness of supplements is going to largely be determined by the quality of manufacture.  Don't expect your supplements to do wonders for you if you buy them off the shelf at the grocery store or one of those department store sized vitamin stores selling food grade products.    

“Keeping Up with the Kardashians” star Khloe Kardashian seems to be doing her part to keep supplement sales up, posting a new photo on Instagram of all of the vitamins she took on on her current trip to Armenia. It’s hard to tell exactly how many vitamins she’s taking, but it appears to be about 23 a day. That’s right—a day.

Is that even healthy? While 23 vitamins a day is admittedly a little extreme, New York City registered dietitian Jessica Cording tells Yahoo Health that the right supplement intake really depends on a patient’s needs.

“Vitamin supplements are really to address gaps in your diet,” she says. “If you’re eating a balanced diet, you’re probably meeting your basic needs unless you have an underlying deficiency.”

MyAchingKnees comment: I believe we need to buy and eat the best foods we can find - et as low glycemic and as non-GMO as you can, but no matter how hard you work to buy and consume the best  foods, you are still going to have some sort of nutritional deficiency. It's because the foods that are available now are greatly reduced in their nutritional value.

Which supplements do we actually need?

While there are a lot of supplements we don’t really need, Donald Hensrud, MD, medical director of the Mayo Clinic’s Healthy Living Program, tells Yahoo Health there are a few most people should consider.

Vitamin D

The first is vitamin D, which studies have shown can improve bone health, as well as muscle and immune function. “It’s been estimated that 20-50 percent of the U.S. population may have low vitamin D levels,” he says. “Now that people are aware of the relationship between sun exposure and skin cancer, they’re staying out of the sun more. That’s one of the sources of vitamin D.” He recommends that people look for a vitamin D3 supplement, aiming to take 1,000 units a day.

Calcium

The second supplement Hensrud recommends is calcium, which is widely known to help bone health. However, he notes that too much calcium has been linked with heart disease, so it’s best to stick with the recommended daily allowance (1,000 mg a day for most adults).

Probiotics

Cording suggests that people also consider taking a probiotic supplement. “So much of our health relies on the health of our gastrointestinal tract,” she says. “Keeping that in working order is important.”

And yes, it’s possible to take too many supplements!

While some supplements can be beneficial to your health, both Cording and Hensrud warn that it’s possible to take too many vitamins — and the fallout of that overdose depends on what kind of vitamins you take. Many water-soluble vitamins like C and B will just move through your body when taken in excess. “With many supplements, you’re pretty much paying for expensive urine,” says Cording.

There are a few water-soluble vitamins to be wary of, though. Hensrud points out that ingesting too much vitamin B6 can cause nerve problems and overdosing on niacin may lead to liver damage or even liver failure.

Large doses of fat-soluble vitamins like A, E, D, and K will store in your body fat and can cause problems ranging from gastrointestinal distress to more serious issues. Two clinical studies conducted in the mid-1990s on the effects of beta-carotene and vitamin A supplements on smokers were halted after participants showed an increased risk of lung cancer, heart disease, and death.

While some vitamin supplements can enhance your overall health, both experts say it’s most important to get your recommended vitamins and minerals from a diet heavy in fruits and vegetables. “A plant-based diet with a variety of foods from different sources goes a long way toward reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease, and other health issues,” says Hensrud.

Interested in trying new supplements to fill gaps in your diet? Consult your doctor first to make sure there aren’t any potential interactions with any medication you may be taking.

MyAchingKnees comment: By all means, consult your Doctor. I'm sure he has a huge background in nutritional medicine and is not beholding to any prescription medications companies (sarcasim font).



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

16 Cancer Causing Foods You Probably Eat Every Day

An older article reposted on Natural Health News and Discovery. While it is the easy answer to say that some of our foods cause cancer, it is not that much harder to understand that it is largely the nutrients we consume or don't consume that affect our bodies response to the toxics, infections and stress of daily life. In other words, you could do away with all the foods on this list and still be sick or get cancer.   It is common sense that the better and broader the nutrients you consume, the better you can ward off sickness and degenerative diseases, one of which is cancer.

16 Cancer Causing Foods You Probably Eat Every Day

It’s probably not something you think about every day, whether or not the foods you are eating could contain carcinogens, but with almost 1.5 million people diagnosed with some type of cancer just last year, perhaps it’s time to look at what is in our foods that could be causing such a huge number of new cancer patients. Here is a list of the top 10 foods that you most likely consume every day that may contain carcinogens or be suspected of causing cancer.

1. Microwave Popcorn

Those little bags of popcorn are so convenient to just stick in the microwave, you wouldn’t think for a minute that they could be dangerous to your health, but they are. First, let’s talk about the bag itself. According to Wikipedia, conventional microwave popcorn bags are lined with a chemical called perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA). This is a toxin you can find in Teflon also. According to a recent study at the University of California, PFOA is linked to infertility in women. Numerous studies in lab animals and humans show that exposure to PFOA significantly increases the risk of kidney, bladder, liver, pancreas and testicular cancers. You can read more about this substance and the above mentioned studies at cancer.org.

Now, let’s talk about the contents. Although every manufacturer uses slightly different ingredients, most of them use soybean oil (a GMO product) as well as various preservatives such as propyl gallate, a chemical that is causes stomach problems and skin rashes.

Now they don’t actually say they are using GMO corn kernels, but that’s because the government says they don’t have to. Even if they don’t use GMO corn, you can bet they aren’t using organic corn! Also, applied to the popcorn itself, is a chemical called diacetyl. Use of this chemical caused Conagra Foods to remove it from their brand of popcorn, ACT, because it was causing lung diseases in the workers at their factory.

2. Soda Pop

Perhaps you heard about the recent study that was published in May in the American Journal of Nutrition? It found that people who consumed more than one soda per day had a higher risk of stroke than people who did not drink sodas.

Loaded with sugar, sodas are an empty source of calories that cause weight gain and contribute to the nationwide epidemic of obesity. Drinking large amounts of this rapidly digested sugar causes your blood sugar to spike which can lead to both inflammation and insulin resistance. Soda is often the root cause of gastro-esophageal reflux disease, which is when the contents of the stomach leak into the esophagus causing not only pain but an actual burning of the esophagus from stomach acid.

Although sodas are not a direct cause of ulcers, they are known to irritate and make those with ulcers have more pain. Sodas also contain artificial colorings and food chemicals like derivative 4-methylimidazole (4-MI); no wonder soda pop has been shown to cause cancer.

3. Canned Tomatoes

Actually, most canned foods are a concern because of what the can is lined with. The lining of almost all canned foods are made with a chemical called bisphenol-A, or BPA. A study published in May of 2013 by the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences showed that BPA actually affects the way genes work inside the brain of rats.

Even the FDA agrees that there is a problem with BPA as it is supporting efforts to either replace or at the very least, to minimize the amounts found in canned foods. You know it must be bad when even the very lax FDA is concerned! Tomatoes are exceptionally dangerous due to their high acidity, which seems to cause BPA to leech from the lining of the can into the tomatoes themselves.

The level of BPA can be so high in fact; you should seriously consider not feeding them to children. Due to FDA laws, there are no standards for labeling BPA so simply because a can does not say it has it does not mean that it does not contain BPA. Be safe and avoid cans. Cook fresh or buy glass bottles.

4. Processed Meats

What exactly are processed meats? This is a long list that includes, but is not limited to, sausages, hot dogs, bacon, most lunch meats like bologna or pimento loaf. Researchers who wrote in the journal of BMC Medicine said that the excessive salts and chemicals that are used when making processed meats are damaging to your health.

The study showed that 1 in every 17 people who were involved in the study died and those who ate 160 grams or more of processed meats increased their risk of early death as much as 44 percent within 12 years as opposed to those who ate 20 grams or less. This study involved people from 10 European countries and went on for almost 13 years.

All these processed meats contain numerous chemicals and preservatives, including sodium nitrates, which make them, look appealing and fresh but are well known carcinogens. Smoking meats seem to be particularly bad as the meat picks up tar from the smoking process. Yes, tar, the same deadly ingredient that cigarette smoke contains

5. Farmed Salmon

Although fish sounds like one of the healthiest foods possible, farmed salmon is one you should avoid. Unfortunately, more than 60 percent of the salmon consumed in the USA is farm raised. These fish are fed unnatural diets and are contaminated with chemicals, antibiotics, pesticides, and other known carcinogens.

They live in very crowded conditions which results in these fish having 30 times the number of sea lice than wild salmon. (Doesn’t that sound appetizing?) Farmed salmon are fed chemicals to make their meat that reddish pink color that should occur naturally but doesn’t because of the diet of chicken litter that they are fed. Also, due to their diet, they have less of the healthy omega-3 that we think we are getting when we consume fish.

Studies have also shown that farmed salmon contain high levels of PCB’s, mercury, and cancer causing dioxins. Avoid farmed salmon and buy it canned or look for labels in your market that state the fish you are buying is wild sockeye salmon.

6. Potato Chips

Yes, we know, potato chips are cheap, great tasting, quick snack, however, the negative effects they have on your body may not be worth the little bit of pleasure you derive from these crispy snacks. Potato chips are high in both fat and calories, which are sure to bring on weight gain. A study done in the New England Journal of medicine found that eating just 1 once of potato chips per day caused an average 2 pound weight gain in one year.

Besides being full of trans-fats which can cause high cholesterol in most people, they have excessive sodium levels which, for many people, cause high blood pressure. Potato chips have artificial flavors, numerous preservatives, and colors as well, which is something else your body doesn’t need. Potato chips are fried in high temperatures to make them crispy but this also causes them to make a material called acrylamide, a known carcinogen that is also found in cigarettes. It’s hard to say no to your kids demands for chips sometimes, therefore, as a sneaky alternative, buy them baked potato chips or tortilla chips which are at least lower in both fat and calories.

Air popped popcorn and whole wheat pretzels are another healthier option. Or try baked apple chips or banana chips which are dehydrated. Both are crispy and are far healthier than regular potato chips.

7. Hydrogenated Oils

Let’s start from the point that all hydrogenated oils are vegetable oils. Vegetable oils cannot be extracted naturally like butter is, vegetable oils must be chemically removed from their source, and then they are changed to be more acceptable to consumers. They are frequently deodorized and colored to look appealing.

All vegetable oils contain high levels of Omega–6 fatty acids. An excess of Omega- 6 fatty acids cause health problems, such as heart disease and in increase in various cancers, especially skin cancer. You need a good balance of both Omega 3 and Omega 6. Try to get plenty of Omega 3 every day. You can do this in the form of supplements and grass fed meats, also fatty fish such as salmon and mackerel are a very good source of Omega 3.

Hydrogenated oils are used to preserve processed foods and keep them looking appealing for a long as possible. Hydrogenated oils influence our cell membranes’ structure and flexibility, which is linked to cancer.

8. Foods that are highly salted, pickled, or smoked

Foods that are cured by use of nitrates or nitrites act as preservatives as well as adding color to the meat. Although nitrates do not cause cancer in and of themselves, under certain conditions these chemicals change once they are inside the body into N-nitroso composites. It’s this N-nitroso that is associated with a greater increase the risk of developing cancers.

Smoking foods such as meat or nuts causes these food items to absorb considerable amounts of the tar that smoke produces. Tar is a known carcinogen. Meats such as bacon, sausage, bologna, and salami are high in fat and salt.

Pickled foods are also very high in salts. There is overwhelming evidence that eating these types of foods greatly increases the risk of colorectal cancer and higher rates of stomach cancer. The rates of stomach cancer are much greater in places such as Japan where a traditional diet contains many foods that are highly salted, and/or smoked.

9. Highly processed white flours

Most of you have already heard by now that white flour is not a good thing, but you most likely have no idea just how bad it really is for your health. Refining grains destroys its natural nutrients. Mills are no longer content with waiting for their flour to whiten with time; mills now bleach flour with a chemical called chlorine gas.

The EPA states that chlorine gas is a dangerous irritant that is not safe to inhale and in large quantities can be lethal. White flour lurks in many processed foods. White processed flour has a very high glycemic rate which quickly raises the blood sugar level and insulin levels, which can be a direct cause of diabetes, not to mention it is believed that it spreads cancer cells by feeding the cells directly.

Cancerous tumors feed mostly on the sugars in your bloodstream. By avoiding refined grains such as white flour, you can avoid, or at the very least, starve tumors.

10. GMO’s

Genetically modified organisms, more commonly called GMO’s, are foods that have been modified by chemicals and grown with chemicals. In a study done by Dr. Pusztai at the Rowett Institute in Scotland, rats were fed GMO foods, especially potatoes. ALL rats showed damaged immune systems, pre-cancerous cell growths, along with smaller brains and livers, in just the first 10 days of the project.

American consumers believe that the FDA has approved these GMO foods and this is simply not the case. The FDA has NO testing procedures for GMO foods, NONE. The only human study ever published showed that those foreign genes that are present in GM food transfer to the DNA in the bacteria in our digestive systems.

We, the American consumer, are the guinea pig (or rat) in this case. Unfortunately, almost all grains, including soybeans, wheat, and corn, have been grown via GMO’s. GMO’s do not have to be listed on food labels, so read carefully and look for labels that state the food is GMO free.

11. Refined Sugars

Refined sugars are not only known to spike insulin levels, but also to be the most preferable food for cancer cells, thus promoting their growth. Cancers seem to have a sweet tooth. This is a known fact that has been around for many years.

The Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, back in 1931, first discovered that tumors and cancers both use sugars to “feed” themselves and/or to increase in size. In order to proliferate, cancer cells seem to prefer feeding on fructose-rich sweeteners like high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS); the reason is that HFCS is being metabolized by cancer cells most quickly and easily.

Now it is clear why high-fructose corn syrup is considered the worst offender. And since cakes, pies, cookies, sodas, juices, sauces, cereals, and many other extremely popular, mostly processed, food items are loaded with refined sugars and HFCS in particular, this helps explain why cancer rates are on the rise these days.

12. Artificial Sweeteners

Most people use artificial sweeteners to either lose weight or because they are diabetic and must avoid sugar. The main problem in all this is that there are numerous studies that show people who consume artificial sweeteners on a regular basis, such as in sodas, or coffee sweeteners, actually gain weight. It also does little or nothing to help those with diabetes.

In fact, artificial sweeteners actually make it even more difficult to control their blood sugar levels and worsen conditions that are related to diabetes such as cataracts and gastro paresis. Sometimes aspartame has been found to cause convulsions, which some people will mistake for an insulin reaction.

Not to mention that artificial sweeteners inhibit your body’s ability to monitor its daily calorie consumption and make the body crave even more sweets. Well, we’ve already discussed how refined sugars can cause cancer. There is mounting evidence that the chemicals that make up these sweeteners, especially aspartame, break down in the body into a deadly toxin called DKP. When your stomach processes this chemical, it in turn produces chemicals that can cause cancer, especially brain tumors.

13. Diet Anything

Diet foods, including frozen foods, or prepackaged foods labeled as “diet” or “low fat”, including diet sodas, generally contain aspartame, which is a chemical, artificial sweetener that we talk about in detail above. There are numerous studies showing that aspartame causes many diseases and sicknesses such as cancers, birth defects, and heart problems.

All “diet” food is chemically processed and made from super refined ingredients, excessive sodium levels, as well as artificial colors and flavors to make it taste good. Don’t ever forget, artificial anything is NOT real food! Although the FDA says that all these added chemicals are safe to eat, you might want to take their advice with a grain of salt. After all, don’t they also tell you that sugar and vegetable oils are safe to eat? (Not to mention GMO’s and fast food!)

There have been many studies that show that these additives, for some people, can actually be addicting. They feed that “feel good” part in your brain, similar to cocaine! Well, that actually makes sense because if you become addicted to these foods, the companies making them are certain to score a lot of money, aren’t they? Be smart and eat nature’s own, natural “diet” food; fruits and vegetables! (Organic, of course!)

14. Alcohol

An American study that followed the diet and lifestyles of more than 200,000 women for almost 14 years found that postmenopausal women who drank one drink per day or less had an almost 30 percent increase in breast cancer rates compared to women who did not drink at all. Alcohol use is the second leading cause of cancer, right behind tobacco use.

While a moderate or low consumption of alcohol can be healthy and lead to a reduced risk of heart disease, excessive drinking is known to cause heart failure, stroke, and sudden death. In 2007, experts working for the World Health Organizations International Agency for Research on Cancer looked at the scientific evidence regarding cancer and alcohol use from 27 different studies. They found sufficient evidence to state that excessive alcohol use is the main cause of mouth, esophagus, liver, colon, mouth, rectum, and female breast cancers.

Don’t fret! You can still enjoy that glass of wine with dinner, but, for your health’s sake, no more than one!

15. Red Meat

For those of you, who love your T-bone steak, calm down. There is evidence that shows that red meat is actually a good thing in your diet, in small, infrequent amounts, Grass fed beef contains conjugated linoleic acid that actually fights against certain cancers. However, in a study done over a 10 year period, eating red meat every day, even a small amount, such as that quarter pound hamburger you like to enjoy at lunch, increased a man’s risk of dying from cancer by 22 percent and a woman’s chance by 20 percent.

A separate research study has shown that eating a lot of red meat increased the risk of breast, prostate, and colon cancer. Red meat seems particularly dangerous when talking about colon cancer. A study done in the US followed almost 150,000 people between the ages of 50 and 74. This study showed that the long term consumption of red meat significantly increased the amount of colon cancer found in the subjects studied.

On the other hand, the long term consumption of fish and poultry appeared to be protective in nature. Enjoy that T-bone, but not every night, perhaps not even every week. Save those steaks for a once in while treat and be sure you are consuming grass fed, organic beef for your best health.

16. Non-organic fruits

Fruits that are non-organic are contaminated with some very dangerous pesticides such as atrazine, thiodicarb, and organophosphates, as well as high nitrogen fertilizers. Atrazine is banned in European countries but still used here. This is a weed killer that causes severe problems in humans, especially in our reproductive capabilities.

A 2009 study found that when pregnant women drank water contaminated with atrazine, their babies had reduced body weights. Were you aware that the sewage from cities in the USA (nicely called bio solids) is used in the fields of farms in the USA as a form of fertilizer? You will never find organic food being cultivated in composted human sewage waste! Conventional foods are also subjected to an enormous amount of these types’ chemicals as well as hormones, to make the fruit and veggies grow bigger.

Apples are probably the worst offenders with pesticides showing on more than 98 per cent of all apples tested. Fruits with a 90 per cent positive rate of pesticide residue included oranges, strawberries, and grapes. Washing fruit does not remove 100 per cent of the residue. Pesticides are toxic chemicals to insects as well as human beings.

For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.