Remember when defrost meant all day on the counter? Or when popcorn was only made on the stove? How about reheating actually included having to find a clean pan? Food preparation has significantly changed in the past thirty years, and not always for the better. In conjunction with this change, society is setting a pace for us that few can maintain. Work all day, run the kids all night, home maintenance all weekend, and somewhere in the middle we're supposed to find time to plan our meals so we can eat right. It's not always easy to be in the kitchen preparing real food, and so many rely on the quick and easy, which often includes the microwave.
As a rule, it is best to avoid using microwaves to reheat or prepare our food. Ever put bread in the microwave? What happens? It comes out nothing like it went in. It's rubbery in some areas, and gooey in others. Microwaves change the chemical properties of food, which make it less able to be utilized by our bodies. That, however, is not really the worst part of microwave use. The most dangerous aspect of microwaves is when we put food into plastic containers and then heat it. Simply put, any form of plastic in a microwave is deadly.
Most everyone realizes that plastic isn't meant to be eaten, but rarely do we really contemplate what happens when we heat plastic next to food. Plastic is a petroleum product, so it is fat soluble, and when it is warmed, it softens. When we use plastic containers in the microwave, some of the plastic will invariably end up leaching into our food. Few would call this a good thing, but it seems even fewer really understand the consequences of plastic in our bodies. Petroleum products in general, and plastics specifically, are hormone disruptors. That means that when they enter the body, they mess with the natural cycling and signaling of our hormones.
Hormones play an extremely delicate balancing act in us. Most often, we have several hormones working in harmony to bring normal function in the body. When one hormone is elevated or lowered, it creates abnormal function. In the case of petroleum products and plastics, the hormones that are affected are the estrogens. Plastics in the body act as estrogens. They find the receptors that estrogens bind to, and stimulate them. Unlike estrogens however, which will leave after a short time and move on to be degraded, plastics continue to stimulate that receptor over and over, and are very difficult for the body to eliminate, so will often go on to over-stimulate other receptors as well. This creates significant imbalances in the body, and specifically induces estrogen dominance.
Estrogen dominance creates significant problems, including feminization of males, infertility in both sexes, quicker onset of menarche (first menstrual cycle), increased symptoms of PMS and menopause, and acceleration of many types of cancer. I firmly believe that many of the symptoms that revolve around sex hormones today are at least partly related to the plastics that we have introduced into our diet through the use of plastics in the microwave. Whether it's the cheap throw-away containers, the expensive hard plastic, or the "microwave" safe bags that our frozen veggies are sold in, no plastic is safe to be put in the microwave.
A safer use of the microwave would be putting the food in glass or ceramic containers for reheating. Neither of these can leach into the food, which means you are not picking up unwanted chemicals as you warm things back up. I'm not saying that microwave use is good for our food. We can, however, make it much safer if we keep anything that is petroleum based far away from them.
In our fast paced society, microwaves have become a mainstay, and plastic containers the standard. The combination, however, is a deadly mix of hormone disruption that, until it is stopped, will continue to subvert the health of Americans. You can significantly improve your health and the health of your family by simply avoiding food that is heated in any plastic container. In my opinion, there is no such thing as "microwave safe" plastic.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
How Big is Your Cookie?
Think of your favorite holiday or family event. Invariably, it will revolve around some sort of feast. Somewhere mixed in with that feast will be a table filled with desserts: cookies, pies, cakes, brownies, bars, ice cream, candy, everything sweet and delicious to our palate. Hovering around that table you will find the youngest at the gathering; little hands reaching up to snatch another cookie from the pile, stuffing a whole piece of cake into their mouth before it gets taken away, or literally diving face first into the heaping bowl of ice cream. We've all seen it. And we've all probably smiled at their tactics, turned away, and not had another thought about it. It's a sad day in the lives of our children.
When parents fill the plates of little ones during these times of feasting, they usually do a pretty good job of controlling the kids' portions. Rarely do I see a huge pile of turkey, green beans, or broccoli on the plates at the kids' table. Most often, it is a mixture of what they know the kids will consume with the least amount of effort expended by the parents. After all, we want to have a little time to celebrate as well. The rub comes when the main course has been packed away and the dessert table has been unfurled. It seems our notion of portions goes completely berserk then.
Let's face it; when it comes to portions, size really does matter. You can't expect a 98 pound woman to eat the same amount as a 250 pound man. That's just common sense, right? If you saw that woman eating the same amount, you'd think "what a pig", and expect that at the next gathering she would have added considerable girth if she continues. Yet, we completely ignore that concept when it comes to our kids and dessert. Let's take that same 250 pound man and his 50 pound son. Dad is five times the size of junior. His main course plate is overfilled with mouthwatering foods that he only gets a few times per year. If he's lucky, he might even have room for seconds. Junior's plate, on the other hand, is modest in comparison, and rarely would we expect him to go back for seconds. Now it's time for dessert.
Dad and son head over to the heaping repast, and dad picks out his favorite piece of pie. Junior wants some too, so he cuts a slightly smaller piece, and hands it over. Here's where I get confused. Dad is five times junior's size, eats at least three to four times that of his son at the main course, and then gives his son a dessert that is 75% of the size he'll eat. How does this make sense? If we look at it from a size perspective, Junior's piece of pie would be the equivalent of dad eating almost half the pie.
At my own family gatherings, I've seen many of my nieces and nephews hanging around the dessert table working on their fourth, fifth, or even sixth serving before mom, dad, or grandparent intervene and tell them "only one more, and then you're done". That's the same as mom, dad, or grandparent saying to themselves, "I've had 25 cookies, another five and I'll be done". In whose world would this be OK? Look at the size of the kids and look at the size of the adults. You can't let kids have the adult portion or more of dessert and expect them to be attentive, mello, and compliant. Instead, you can expect them to be belligerent and bounce off the walls. We see the rate of childhood obesity skyrocketing, and we can't add two and two together and learn to make proper portion sizes for our kids. I'm completely baffled on this. When did common sense leave?
I realize most kids love their sweets, but it is up to their parents to learn portion control. Look at what you would reasonably eat and look at your size. Then look at their size, and decrease the portion accordingly. If kids want to pig out on vegetables and protein, I doubt you'll find much of an issue with their health. Overindulging on sweets, on the other hand, can lead to a life of obesity and chronic disease. Do what is right for your kids: give them their correct portion.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
When parents fill the plates of little ones during these times of feasting, they usually do a pretty good job of controlling the kids' portions. Rarely do I see a huge pile of turkey, green beans, or broccoli on the plates at the kids' table. Most often, it is a mixture of what they know the kids will consume with the least amount of effort expended by the parents. After all, we want to have a little time to celebrate as well. The rub comes when the main course has been packed away and the dessert table has been unfurled. It seems our notion of portions goes completely berserk then.
Let's face it; when it comes to portions, size really does matter. You can't expect a 98 pound woman to eat the same amount as a 250 pound man. That's just common sense, right? If you saw that woman eating the same amount, you'd think "what a pig", and expect that at the next gathering she would have added considerable girth if she continues. Yet, we completely ignore that concept when it comes to our kids and dessert. Let's take that same 250 pound man and his 50 pound son. Dad is five times the size of junior. His main course plate is overfilled with mouthwatering foods that he only gets a few times per year. If he's lucky, he might even have room for seconds. Junior's plate, on the other hand, is modest in comparison, and rarely would we expect him to go back for seconds. Now it's time for dessert.
Dad and son head over to the heaping repast, and dad picks out his favorite piece of pie. Junior wants some too, so he cuts a slightly smaller piece, and hands it over. Here's where I get confused. Dad is five times junior's size, eats at least three to four times that of his son at the main course, and then gives his son a dessert that is 75% of the size he'll eat. How does this make sense? If we look at it from a size perspective, Junior's piece of pie would be the equivalent of dad eating almost half the pie.
At my own family gatherings, I've seen many of my nieces and nephews hanging around the dessert table working on their fourth, fifth, or even sixth serving before mom, dad, or grandparent intervene and tell them "only one more, and then you're done". That's the same as mom, dad, or grandparent saying to themselves, "I've had 25 cookies, another five and I'll be done". In whose world would this be OK? Look at the size of the kids and look at the size of the adults. You can't let kids have the adult portion or more of dessert and expect them to be attentive, mello, and compliant. Instead, you can expect them to be belligerent and bounce off the walls. We see the rate of childhood obesity skyrocketing, and we can't add two and two together and learn to make proper portion sizes for our kids. I'm completely baffled on this. When did common sense leave?
I realize most kids love their sweets, but it is up to their parents to learn portion control. Look at what you would reasonably eat and look at your size. Then look at their size, and decrease the portion accordingly. If kids want to pig out on vegetables and protein, I doubt you'll find much of an issue with their health. Overindulging on sweets, on the other hand, can lead to a life of obesity and chronic disease. Do what is right for your kids: give them their correct portion.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
American's Favorite Addiction
Addiction has become a huge issue in America today. Where we once had only alcohol and tobacco as common addictive substances, the list of things to become addicted to has grown exponentially. Now we can choose from a wide variety of illicit or prescription drugs and have added other whole categories, like sex and pornography, gambling, video games, and social media. For some reason, Americans have a hard time practicing moderation, and seem to take everything to excess. Yet, I don't think any of those listed rank as our favorite addiction. That role seems to be reserved exclusively for our favorite pick-me-up: caffeine.
You say caffeine isn't an addiction? I beg to differ. What do you call someone who can't function normally without a drug, craves the drug when it isn't in the system, and experiences withdrawal symptoms when the drug is taken away? I call that person an addict! Those are all classic signs of addiction, and quite likely, common signs exhibited by many of those reading this, especially if it's early in the morning.
Caffeine has been utilized for thousands of years, mostly consumed as coffee or tea. Until sanitation practices become standard in the early 20th century, coffee and tea were some of the only "safe" beverages you could consume, since you boiled the water before making either. The boiling effectively killed most of the nasty critters that would make us sick. The other "safe" choice was beer or wine. Here, the alcohol kept the bugs from getting a foothold. So, yes, caffeine has been an integral part of our development. But, that doesn't mean it's been consumed at the rate it is today, nor does it mean that it is beneficial to our health.
In today's America, caffeine has become the new cigarette. It's legal, it can be consumed anywhere, and it gives us a pick-me-up fix that we crave. It has been added to everything from soda to energy drinks to super charged coffee. You can even get it in pill form if you don't care for the flavors available. Caffeine has become a multi-billion dollar, Wall Street traded industry, all focused on helping us get our fix. One local coffee shop even says "Life is short, stay awake for it", a blatant hook to infer you'll miss out on life without their addictive product.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the flavor of a good cup of coffee, and I regularly drink a variety of teas. However, I do everything I can to do so safely, meaning I avoid as much caffeine as possible. Why you ask? What's the big deal about being addicted to this meek and mild drug? It's the affect on our stress response that I care about.
In my blog How Full is Your Barrel?, I talk about how stress is cumulative to our bodies, regardless of the type of stressor. What seems to be forgotten, is that research has clearly shown that caffeine increases your body's reaction to stress, meaning that when you consume this drug, your barrel gets smaller. If on a normal day, you had a certain amount of stress, it would cause a certain reaction in your body. On a day you have caffeine, that same amount of stress causes an exaggerated reaction in the body, so you have a higher chance of symptoms "spilling" out. This exaggerated response happens for 24 hours after you ingest caffeine, and is not something to which the body adapts. It matters not if you are a pot a day of Jo drinker or if you just have an occasional can of caffeinated soda; the reaction will be there.
If the stress and caffeine link weren't bad enough, there's another not so small issue that isn't well known. Every 8 oz cup of caffeinated coffee (equal to about a 12 oz soda, 16 oz of black tea, or 32 oz of green tea), will take about 80 mg of calcium with it when it leaves in the urine. In today's world of Sally Field peddling osteoporosis drugs on the TV, no one seems to be talking about one of the easiest prevention strategies: stop using all the caffeine.
But, you say, coffee and caffeine are GOOD for us, haven't you heard the news? Yes, I've seen multiple attempts by the caffeine industry to convince the gullible public into believing that their product is at worst harmless, but probably beneficial to you. I keep coming back to the stress reaction. The more stress in your life, the quicker it will destroy your body and mind (I'll explain more in future blogs). Stress is killing us, and we're finding ways to justify our use of an addictive product that exaggerates our stress response and makes us more prone to osteoporosis. That just doesn't pass the common sense smell test.
Does that mean you have to swear off all coffee and tea? Why, not at all. You just have to work to keep the caffeine down. Coffee can be decaffeinated by 98%, so decaf is just fine. Just fine that is, as long as it is safely decaffeinated. Most coffee is decaffeinated with either dichloromethane (shown to cause cancer) or ethyl acetate (breaks down into ethanol). Neither one is necessarily safe for consumption in my view. A safer method to decaffeinate is the Swiss Water Process method. This process utilizes no chemicals to take the caffeine out, but a simple diffusion method that leaves a coffee bean with most, if not all, of the original flavor without the caffeine. Look for a coffee that is labeled "naturally decaffeinated", "Swiss Water Processed" or "chemical free". All of these will be utilizing the same safe decaffeination
Enjoying your morning doesn't have to be dictated by when you get your jolt of caffeine. A good night's sleep will do wonders to reduce the "need" for caffeine (more to come on that as well). Caffeine has no qualities that are beneficial when compared to what it takes from us. To have good health, you really must learn to give up the addiction and "just say no" to the drug.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
You say caffeine isn't an addiction? I beg to differ. What do you call someone who can't function normally without a drug, craves the drug when it isn't in the system, and experiences withdrawal symptoms when the drug is taken away? I call that person an addict! Those are all classic signs of addiction, and quite likely, common signs exhibited by many of those reading this, especially if it's early in the morning.
Caffeine has been utilized for thousands of years, mostly consumed as coffee or tea. Until sanitation practices become standard in the early 20th century, coffee and tea were some of the only "safe" beverages you could consume, since you boiled the water before making either. The boiling effectively killed most of the nasty critters that would make us sick. The other "safe" choice was beer or wine. Here, the alcohol kept the bugs from getting a foothold. So, yes, caffeine has been an integral part of our development. But, that doesn't mean it's been consumed at the rate it is today, nor does it mean that it is beneficial to our health.
In today's America, caffeine has become the new cigarette. It's legal, it can be consumed anywhere, and it gives us a pick-me-up fix that we crave. It has been added to everything from soda to energy drinks to super charged coffee. You can even get it in pill form if you don't care for the flavors available. Caffeine has become a multi-billion dollar, Wall Street traded industry, all focused on helping us get our fix. One local coffee shop even says "Life is short, stay awake for it", a blatant hook to infer you'll miss out on life without their addictive product.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the flavor of a good cup of coffee, and I regularly drink a variety of teas. However, I do everything I can to do so safely, meaning I avoid as much caffeine as possible. Why you ask? What's the big deal about being addicted to this meek and mild drug? It's the affect on our stress response that I care about.
In my blog How Full is Your Barrel?, I talk about how stress is cumulative to our bodies, regardless of the type of stressor. What seems to be forgotten, is that research has clearly shown that caffeine increases your body's reaction to stress, meaning that when you consume this drug, your barrel gets smaller. If on a normal day, you had a certain amount of stress, it would cause a certain reaction in your body. On a day you have caffeine, that same amount of stress causes an exaggerated reaction in the body, so you have a higher chance of symptoms "spilling" out. This exaggerated response happens for 24 hours after you ingest caffeine, and is not something to which the body adapts. It matters not if you are a pot a day of Jo drinker or if you just have an occasional can of caffeinated soda; the reaction will be there.
If the stress and caffeine link weren't bad enough, there's another not so small issue that isn't well known. Every 8 oz cup of caffeinated coffee (equal to about a 12 oz soda, 16 oz of black tea, or 32 oz of green tea), will take about 80 mg of calcium with it when it leaves in the urine. In today's world of Sally Field peddling osteoporosis drugs on the TV, no one seems to be talking about one of the easiest prevention strategies: stop using all the caffeine.
But, you say, coffee and caffeine are GOOD for us, haven't you heard the news? Yes, I've seen multiple attempts by the caffeine industry to convince the gullible public into believing that their product is at worst harmless, but probably beneficial to you. I keep coming back to the stress reaction. The more stress in your life, the quicker it will destroy your body and mind (I'll explain more in future blogs). Stress is killing us, and we're finding ways to justify our use of an addictive product that exaggerates our stress response and makes us more prone to osteoporosis. That just doesn't pass the common sense smell test.
Does that mean you have to swear off all coffee and tea? Why, not at all. You just have to work to keep the caffeine down. Coffee can be decaffeinated by 98%, so decaf is just fine. Just fine that is, as long as it is safely decaffeinated. Most coffee is decaffeinated with either dichloromethane (shown to cause cancer) or ethyl acetate (breaks down into ethanol). Neither one is necessarily safe for consumption in my view. A safer method to decaffeinate is the Swiss Water Process method. This process utilizes no chemicals to take the caffeine out, but a simple diffusion method that leaves a coffee bean with most, if not all, of the original flavor without the caffeine. Look for a coffee that is labeled "naturally decaffeinated", "Swiss Water Processed" or "chemical free". All of these will be utilizing the same safe decaffeination
Enjoying your morning doesn't have to be dictated by when you get your jolt of caffeine. A good night's sleep will do wonders to reduce the "need" for caffeine (more to come on that as well). Caffeine has no qualities that are beneficial when compared to what it takes from us. To have good health, you really must learn to give up the addiction and "just say no" to the drug.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
How Full is Your Barrel?
Americans are more stressed out today than at any other point in our history I believe. Some of that comes from increased expectations with less reward, some is from the diet and lifestyle we have created, and some is from our environment. Whatever the source, our bodies have a specific reaction to stress, and if left unchecked for too long, stress can lead to serious health consequences. When I lecture to peace officers or doctors about stress, I can find a detrimental reaction in every body system in response to stress.
Even though our bodies have a singular reaction to stress, all stressors can be put into three distinct classic categories. Either they will fall into chemical, physical, or emotional. I'm leaning toward adding a new, fourth category that is energetic, since technically that can't fit into any of the others, and yet we are finding it too is a stressor.
Chemical stressors include such things as what we eat, drink, and breathe, and everything contained by each. Food can be very good for us, or it can be a stressor if it is highly processed, missing key components or categories, or if it is contaminated with anything from pesticides and herbicides to pathogenic bacteria. Our beverage choices have a huge impact, since most in America rely on dehydrating beverages like soda, coffee, energy drinks, or alcohol to replenish water, which only leads to more need. Other beverages like milk, fruit juices, and sport drinks are loaded with excess calories that are difficult for the body to process. Our air, even on the best of days, is sadly polluted. Last I heard, running a marathon in downtown Minneapolis was like smoking two packs of cigarettes. Add to all of this the drugs we take voluntarily or involuntarily through our air, food, and water sources, and chemical stressors are at a level unseen in human history.
Emotional stressors come in only a few forms for most of us: friends, family, and money. While some would add work, boss, co-workers, and a variety of others, I believe that if you took money out of the equation, most of those stressors would leave as well. While friends are supposed to not be a stressor, they can be as well. And, we all know that we can choose our friends, but we can't choose our families. From any generational perspective, family is probably one of the biggest causes of emotional stress.
Physical stress shows up in anything we actually do, or don't do. Exercise, while a stressor, is good for us. A lack of it, is a physical stressor. Prolonged positions, repetitive motions, and injuries are all examples of physical stressors. I believe physical stressors, while not declining, have changed in the last hundred years or so. We were once a very physical society. Whether we worked the farm, mill, store, or home, most had a very physical life. Today, we have conveniences that take most of this physicality away, leaving us with a lack of physical activity, which is in itself a significant stressor.
Energetic stressors including things like electromagnetic waves from our buildings' electrical supply, cell phones, wifi, blue tooth sets, and a whole host of other devices that we have come to rely on, unknowing their true effects on individual or societal health. This category could not have been imagined by the developers of the stress concept any more than the automobile could have been imagined by those who lived two hundred years ago, yet from what is being found, it is a true stressor to the body.
Whether emotional, chemical, physical, or energetic in origin, the reaction created in the body doesn't change, but is compounded with increasing amounts of stress. Think of your body as a barrel and stress is water. Every day you put in the "normal" stressors in your life; you put a certain amount of water for each of the stressor types: physical, chemical, emotional, and energetic that you constantly encounter. The water gets higher, and higher, and higher, until it's almost at the brim. Then you have something happen in your life that is a significant stressor. You lose your job; a parent dies; you have a motor vehicle accident; you get a staph infection; or anything else that creates stress in the body. There's no place left to put any more water, and it spills out of the barrel. But, where does it go? There's no "ground" around our barrel, so what happens to that water? It expresses as disease in your weakest area.
The type of stressor is irrelevant; the expression will be whatever your body has the least strength to protect. I have seen many patients over the years that have had physical stressors like motor vehicle accidents develop colds within a week of being in the accident. Did the accident expose them to the virus? Doubtful. I have seen a multitude of others that lose their spouse, and end up in significant physical pain for at least the next year. Did they do anything differently over that year that would have explained the increased pain? More than likely not. The source type doesn't matter, you will express in your weakest area. For some that means physical pain; things like lower back or neck pain or headaches. Some have chemical weaknesses and develop diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. Others have emotional weaknesses and may develop depression, anxiety, or eating disorders.
Our bodies can only handle so much stress before our barrel is full of water, and it begins spilling into our weakest areas, where we develop symptoms. That means when we look at symptom reduction and healing, stress reduction can often have a profound impact. With chiropractic, I am removing physical stress. With clinical nutrition I'm removing chemical stress. Either one might might allow for more reserve to fight other stressors. We can't always look to specific sources of symptoms, sometimes they simply are the body's expression of weakness due to stress. Just how full is your barrel? Is it time to "empty" it a little? I'll be talking more about stress in future blogs, and how you can make your barrel larger, or your water level lower.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Even though our bodies have a singular reaction to stress, all stressors can be put into three distinct classic categories. Either they will fall into chemical, physical, or emotional. I'm leaning toward adding a new, fourth category that is energetic, since technically that can't fit into any of the others, and yet we are finding it too is a stressor.
Chemical stressors include such things as what we eat, drink, and breathe, and everything contained by each. Food can be very good for us, or it can be a stressor if it is highly processed, missing key components or categories, or if it is contaminated with anything from pesticides and herbicides to pathogenic bacteria. Our beverage choices have a huge impact, since most in America rely on dehydrating beverages like soda, coffee, energy drinks, or alcohol to replenish water, which only leads to more need. Other beverages like milk, fruit juices, and sport drinks are loaded with excess calories that are difficult for the body to process. Our air, even on the best of days, is sadly polluted. Last I heard, running a marathon in downtown Minneapolis was like smoking two packs of cigarettes. Add to all of this the drugs we take voluntarily or involuntarily through our air, food, and water sources, and chemical stressors are at a level unseen in human history.
Emotional stressors come in only a few forms for most of us: friends, family, and money. While some would add work, boss, co-workers, and a variety of others, I believe that if you took money out of the equation, most of those stressors would leave as well. While friends are supposed to not be a stressor, they can be as well. And, we all know that we can choose our friends, but we can't choose our families. From any generational perspective, family is probably one of the biggest causes of emotional stress.
Physical stress shows up in anything we actually do, or don't do. Exercise, while a stressor, is good for us. A lack of it, is a physical stressor. Prolonged positions, repetitive motions, and injuries are all examples of physical stressors. I believe physical stressors, while not declining, have changed in the last hundred years or so. We were once a very physical society. Whether we worked the farm, mill, store, or home, most had a very physical life. Today, we have conveniences that take most of this physicality away, leaving us with a lack of physical activity, which is in itself a significant stressor.
Energetic stressors including things like electromagnetic waves from our buildings' electrical supply, cell phones, wifi, blue tooth sets, and a whole host of other devices that we have come to rely on, unknowing their true effects on individual or societal health. This category could not have been imagined by the developers of the stress concept any more than the automobile could have been imagined by those who lived two hundred years ago, yet from what is being found, it is a true stressor to the body.
Whether emotional, chemical, physical, or energetic in origin, the reaction created in the body doesn't change, but is compounded with increasing amounts of stress. Think of your body as a barrel and stress is water. Every day you put in the "normal" stressors in your life; you put a certain amount of water for each of the stressor types: physical, chemical, emotional, and energetic that you constantly encounter. The water gets higher, and higher, and higher, until it's almost at the brim. Then you have something happen in your life that is a significant stressor. You lose your job; a parent dies; you have a motor vehicle accident; you get a staph infection; or anything else that creates stress in the body. There's no place left to put any more water, and it spills out of the barrel. But, where does it go? There's no "ground" around our barrel, so what happens to that water? It expresses as disease in your weakest area.
The type of stressor is irrelevant; the expression will be whatever your body has the least strength to protect. I have seen many patients over the years that have had physical stressors like motor vehicle accidents develop colds within a week of being in the accident. Did the accident expose them to the virus? Doubtful. I have seen a multitude of others that lose their spouse, and end up in significant physical pain for at least the next year. Did they do anything differently over that year that would have explained the increased pain? More than likely not. The source type doesn't matter, you will express in your weakest area. For some that means physical pain; things like lower back or neck pain or headaches. Some have chemical weaknesses and develop diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. Others have emotional weaknesses and may develop depression, anxiety, or eating disorders.
Our bodies can only handle so much stress before our barrel is full of water, and it begins spilling into our weakest areas, where we develop symptoms. That means when we look at symptom reduction and healing, stress reduction can often have a profound impact. With chiropractic, I am removing physical stress. With clinical nutrition I'm removing chemical stress. Either one might might allow for more reserve to fight other stressors. We can't always look to specific sources of symptoms, sometimes they simply are the body's expression of weakness due to stress. Just how full is your barrel? Is it time to "empty" it a little? I'll be talking more about stress in future blogs, and how you can make your barrel larger, or your water level lower.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Healthy Skin Isn't Tough
I want to finish this week talking about general skin health. I've spent a good amount of time in my blog so far discussing different aspects of health, many of which have related directly to our skin. In Healthy Cavemen Didn't Live in Caves, I discussed the smoke and mirrors behind the sunscreen industry and debunked some skin cancer claims. I talked about proper hand washing techniques in Lengthen Your Life #1 and how that can extend your life. This week's If You Wouldn't Eat it, Don't Put it on Your Sking was all about increasing awareness that your skin is an absorptive organ, and it's no different than eating your cosmetics. And finally, in We're All Really Doughnuts, I talked about the direct relationship between your outer, or "dry", and inner, or "wet", skin, and that we usually have issues with our "dry" skin because of what's happening to our "wet" skin, or digestive tract. Here are more things that I see as relating to your skin that are important to your health.
If your skin is dry, it's likely that your diet is deficient in good fat. Believe it or not, fat really is good for us, and certain fats, we can't be healthy without. In Minnesota, especially in winter, dry cracked skin is an epidemic. I have had several patients ask if there is something they can do nutritionally to help this, and the answer is usually yes: increase your fish oils until your skin isn't dry anymore. As much as many would like it to be otherwise, you can't just add any fat and get soft supple skin. Some fats make us healthier, and some don't. When it comes to our skin health, the fish oils (EPA and DHA), are important for the production of sebum, which is the waxy-like coating that keeps our skin moist.
Fish oils, like all nutritional supplements, are not all created equal. Only a few companies worldwide have facilities that can distill these oils, so everyone has to get their products from the same places. You would think that would ensure quality across the board, right? Wrong. That means that the cleanest, freshest, and most pure oil is sold to whoever is willing to pay the most. The next batch, which won't be quite as clean, nor as fresh, and will have more contaminants, will be sold to the next highest. This cycle will continue until all the oil is sold; high quality or not. That means for a company to get pure oil that has no contaminants and is not rancid, they have to pay a hefty price. So when you go to a "Wall" store (Walmart, Walgreens, Wall Drug), and buy a bottle of 500 capsules for $10, you more than likely won't be getting a very good product. Good safe fish oils are not cheap.
Depending on the person, most will find if they take between 1500-2100mg of EPA and 900-1500mg of DHA, their skin will start healing properly and become more soft and supple. Some may have to increase it more, but especially in winter, you'll find it rarely takes less than a total of 2000mg.
Dry skin can have another cause that is often overlooked. I discussed hand washing in a previous blog which explained my theories of how we over soap our hands. This applies to our bodies as well. The sebum coating that is washed away every time we wash our hands is also washed away when we use soap or body wash on our bodies. It is even worse for the body, since many like a scalding hot shower, especially in the depths of winter, when our skin is driest anyway. I argue that washing your whole body with soap every day is not only unnecessary, but is significant cause of dry skin.
Soap and body wash has the purpose of cleaning our skin from dirt and grease. Unless the skin has dirt or grease on it, there is simply no purpose to use soaps all the time, with the exception of washing places where smelly apocrine glands are located: the armpits, groin, and anal regions. Sweat from eccrine glands (the rest of the body) does not have an odor, and so does not really need to be washed away, Our skin is meant to have this sebum protection. Washing the rest of the body, especially in hot water, only further dries the barrier that we rely on to protect us from invaders.
Soft supple skin is not hard to maintain year round, unless you are following the hygiene and dietary practices of average American adults. If you take care of yourself correctly, and follow my advice, you'll find that others will be asking you how you keep your skin so nice, when theirs is dry, cracked, and weathered.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
If your skin is dry, it's likely that your diet is deficient in good fat. Believe it or not, fat really is good for us, and certain fats, we can't be healthy without. In Minnesota, especially in winter, dry cracked skin is an epidemic. I have had several patients ask if there is something they can do nutritionally to help this, and the answer is usually yes: increase your fish oils until your skin isn't dry anymore. As much as many would like it to be otherwise, you can't just add any fat and get soft supple skin. Some fats make us healthier, and some don't. When it comes to our skin health, the fish oils (EPA and DHA), are important for the production of sebum, which is the waxy-like coating that keeps our skin moist.
Fish oils, like all nutritional supplements, are not all created equal. Only a few companies worldwide have facilities that can distill these oils, so everyone has to get their products from the same places. You would think that would ensure quality across the board, right? Wrong. That means that the cleanest, freshest, and most pure oil is sold to whoever is willing to pay the most. The next batch, which won't be quite as clean, nor as fresh, and will have more contaminants, will be sold to the next highest. This cycle will continue until all the oil is sold; high quality or not. That means for a company to get pure oil that has no contaminants and is not rancid, they have to pay a hefty price. So when you go to a "Wall" store (Walmart, Walgreens, Wall Drug), and buy a bottle of 500 capsules for $10, you more than likely won't be getting a very good product. Good safe fish oils are not cheap.
Depending on the person, most will find if they take between 1500-2100mg of EPA and 900-1500mg of DHA, their skin will start healing properly and become more soft and supple. Some may have to increase it more, but especially in winter, you'll find it rarely takes less than a total of 2000mg.
Dry skin can have another cause that is often overlooked. I discussed hand washing in a previous blog which explained my theories of how we over soap our hands. This applies to our bodies as well. The sebum coating that is washed away every time we wash our hands is also washed away when we use soap or body wash on our bodies. It is even worse for the body, since many like a scalding hot shower, especially in the depths of winter, when our skin is driest anyway. I argue that washing your whole body with soap every day is not only unnecessary, but is significant cause of dry skin.
Soap and body wash has the purpose of cleaning our skin from dirt and grease. Unless the skin has dirt or grease on it, there is simply no purpose to use soaps all the time, with the exception of washing places where smelly apocrine glands are located: the armpits, groin, and anal regions. Sweat from eccrine glands (the rest of the body) does not have an odor, and so does not really need to be washed away, Our skin is meant to have this sebum protection. Washing the rest of the body, especially in hot water, only further dries the barrier that we rely on to protect us from invaders.
Soft supple skin is not hard to maintain year round, unless you are following the hygiene and dietary practices of average American adults. If you take care of yourself correctly, and follow my advice, you'll find that others will be asking you how you keep your skin so nice, when theirs is dry, cracked, and weathered.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
We're All Really Doughnuts
Where does your skin stop? We usually take the largest organ of our body for granted, expecting it to cover and protect us, but where exactly does it end? At what point is there no longer skin? I ask this question because it's a concept that most, even in the medical world, really haven't spent much time thinking about.
When I ask this question to students, I get a variety of quizzical looks. They aren't really sure why the question is pertinent. If pressed, most say that the skin stops at the lips, nostrils, eye sockets, ear drum, urethra, and anus (all the openings). I then ask, "well, does it really?" I admit this line of thinking is really a trick question. I don't see any end to the skin; it is one large continuous sheet, we just can't see all of it. We are much like a doughnut, with one side of the "hole" being our nose and mouth, and the other being our anus.
Modern Medicine has, in my opinion, chopped the skin into two different segments and given each a specialty. The outer or "dry" skin has been given to the dermatologists, while the inner or "wet" skin has been given to the gastroenterologists or ears/nose/throat specialists. If we start looking at the skin as a whole, both wet and dry at once, we see connections that are often overlooked.
Wet skin, or our digestive tract, is a long tube that allows for the holding and processing of a variety of building blocks, energy sources, minerals, vitamins, and other food stuffs to replenish and rebuild ourselves. It has a specific structure that allows for absorption of certain things while maintaining its barrier function to keep other things out. That is, providing it is working properly. I contend that due to a variety of factors, most of our digestive tracts have suboptimal or downright improper function, either not allowing for proper absorption of what we need or improper barrier protection from that which we don't.
When the wet skin is subjected to certain stressors, its function can become impaired. These stressors can include everything from emotional stress to imbalanced intestinal bacteria to high sugar intake to low fiber intake to alcohol consumption to prescription drug use. Our modern American diet and lifestyle wreaks havoc on our wet skin, slowly and silently degrading our life. But if you look closely for the right things, you may see its cry for help.
Because I see the skin as one continuous sheet, I look for connections that Modern Medicine doesn't. When I see the dry skin having problems, I work with the patient to focus instead on improving the health of the wet skin. More often than not, the expression of dry skin problems is really a wet skin issue. Things like psoriasis, acne, rosacea, eczema, and many other "skin" problems, are really reactions to what is happening in our intestinal tract, or the wet skin. Because we cannot see inside, we often don't make that connection, but it is usually there. When I am able to help patients heal their wet skin, it is amazing for them to see their dry skin start to heal and look normal, often for the first time in decades.
I firmly believe that if we carefully looked at medical records of both gastroenterology and dermatology patients, we would see that many conditions have overlaps that are being ignored. Others are just put off as medically "normal", even though the health of the wet skin is far from good. When we start to look at the skin as a whole system, both wet and dry, and use integrated treatment protocols that can actually heal the wet skin, I believe we'll see a whole lot less "dry" skin problems. Until then though, we'll continue to spend millions of dollars putting things on the outside, when the problem is on the inside.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
When I ask this question to students, I get a variety of quizzical looks. They aren't really sure why the question is pertinent. If pressed, most say that the skin stops at the lips, nostrils, eye sockets, ear drum, urethra, and anus (all the openings). I then ask, "well, does it really?" I admit this line of thinking is really a trick question. I don't see any end to the skin; it is one large continuous sheet, we just can't see all of it. We are much like a doughnut, with one side of the "hole" being our nose and mouth, and the other being our anus.
Modern Medicine has, in my opinion, chopped the skin into two different segments and given each a specialty. The outer or "dry" skin has been given to the dermatologists, while the inner or "wet" skin has been given to the gastroenterologists or ears/nose/throat specialists. If we start looking at the skin as a whole, both wet and dry at once, we see connections that are often overlooked.
Wet skin, or our digestive tract, is a long tube that allows for the holding and processing of a variety of building blocks, energy sources, minerals, vitamins, and other food stuffs to replenish and rebuild ourselves. It has a specific structure that allows for absorption of certain things while maintaining its barrier function to keep other things out. That is, providing it is working properly. I contend that due to a variety of factors, most of our digestive tracts have suboptimal or downright improper function, either not allowing for proper absorption of what we need or improper barrier protection from that which we don't.
When the wet skin is subjected to certain stressors, its function can become impaired. These stressors can include everything from emotional stress to imbalanced intestinal bacteria to high sugar intake to low fiber intake to alcohol consumption to prescription drug use. Our modern American diet and lifestyle wreaks havoc on our wet skin, slowly and silently degrading our life. But if you look closely for the right things, you may see its cry for help.
Because I see the skin as one continuous sheet, I look for connections that Modern Medicine doesn't. When I see the dry skin having problems, I work with the patient to focus instead on improving the health of the wet skin. More often than not, the expression of dry skin problems is really a wet skin issue. Things like psoriasis, acne, rosacea, eczema, and many other "skin" problems, are really reactions to what is happening in our intestinal tract, or the wet skin. Because we cannot see inside, we often don't make that connection, but it is usually there. When I am able to help patients heal their wet skin, it is amazing for them to see their dry skin start to heal and look normal, often for the first time in decades.
I firmly believe that if we carefully looked at medical records of both gastroenterology and dermatology patients, we would see that many conditions have overlaps that are being ignored. Others are just put off as medically "normal", even though the health of the wet skin is far from good. When we start to look at the skin as a whole system, both wet and dry, and use integrated treatment protocols that can actually heal the wet skin, I believe we'll see a whole lot less "dry" skin problems. Until then though, we'll continue to spend millions of dollars putting things on the outside, when the problem is on the inside.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Monday, August 8, 2011
If You Wouldn't Eat it, Don't Put it on Your Skin
I am always amazed at the variety of concoctions and potions on the shelves as you walk down the isle at a store dedicated to skin care. From astringents to lotions to acne preparations to sunscreens, we spend a tremendous amount of money trying to make our outward appearance just right. We rely on the FDA to monitor and regulate these products, but do you really know anything about that process? After all the debacles in the past decade relating to improperly approved drugs and outbreaks of food borne diseases, should we blindly rely on the FDA for anything?
Most would assume that any cosmetic product must be labeled with all the ingredients as would any food product. After all, what's the purpose of having an ingredient label if it doesn't list everything included? What isn't readily made public is that cosmetic products have their own unique set of regulations that has nothing to do with drugs or food. Cosmetic manufacturers are extremely protective of their ingredient lists, and have convinced the FDA that putting everything in the ingredient list is not necessary. We can trust the manufacturers to make sure what they put in is considered safe. Or can we?
Over the years, I have done a significant amount of work with patients trying to balance their hormones. In today's toxic environment, that can be difficult, but it can be done. Along this path, I have come across several patients whose hormone levels were extremely unusual. As we investigated further, we had several of the potions and concoctions that they used on their skin tested to see if they could be interfering with their natural regulatory mechanisms. What we found was that almost all commercially prepared skin lotions have added hormones that are not listed on the label. These include estrogens, progesterone, testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone. The manufacturers and FDA would say that these hormones have only a local effect and are good for your skin. They do nothing systemically to the body. I would have to disagree.
Transdermal (or through the skin) absorption is a common drug and hormone delivery method. You can find everything from hormone creams to nicotine patches on the market, and we readily accept that these products deliver their dose directly through the skin into the blood stream. Common sense tells us that when the lotion we apply to our face, hands, or feet "disappears", it goes into our skin. But where does it go from there? It only has a short distance to cover before it finds the bloodstream, and from there affects our whole body. So the question follows "would you eat your favorite lotion?" Would you take the creams, astrigents, or cleansers and put them in your mouth, chew thoroughly, and gulp it down? That is exactly what we are doing every time we put something on our skin, and due to the inadequate oversight of the FDA, we don't even have the information available to us that will tell us what's in the product.
I am not a huge proponent of government regulation. It often leads to unnecessary complications. But, in the case of the FDA, they are blatantly ignoring their duty to the public by letting manufacturers omit ingredients in their products. I don't want to expose myself to hormones in lotions, and I certainly don't want it on my kids. We have enough disruption to our hormonal system in today's environment without adding it to our potions and lotions. Until the FDA starts protecting the public properly, be careful what you put on your skin. It may not taste very good.
Look for future blogs that will expose more lies with the truth the "experts" are ignoring or hiding. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Most would assume that any cosmetic product must be labeled with all the ingredients as would any food product. After all, what's the purpose of having an ingredient label if it doesn't list everything included? What isn't readily made public is that cosmetic products have their own unique set of regulations that has nothing to do with drugs or food. Cosmetic manufacturers are extremely protective of their ingredient lists, and have convinced the FDA that putting everything in the ingredient list is not necessary. We can trust the manufacturers to make sure what they put in is considered safe. Or can we?
Over the years, I have done a significant amount of work with patients trying to balance their hormones. In today's toxic environment, that can be difficult, but it can be done. Along this path, I have come across several patients whose hormone levels were extremely unusual. As we investigated further, we had several of the potions and concoctions that they used on their skin tested to see if they could be interfering with their natural regulatory mechanisms. What we found was that almost all commercially prepared skin lotions have added hormones that are not listed on the label. These include estrogens, progesterone, testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone. The manufacturers and FDA would say that these hormones have only a local effect and are good for your skin. They do nothing systemically to the body. I would have to disagree.
Transdermal (or through the skin) absorption is a common drug and hormone delivery method. You can find everything from hormone creams to nicotine patches on the market, and we readily accept that these products deliver their dose directly through the skin into the blood stream. Common sense tells us that when the lotion we apply to our face, hands, or feet "disappears", it goes into our skin. But where does it go from there? It only has a short distance to cover before it finds the bloodstream, and from there affects our whole body. So the question follows "would you eat your favorite lotion?" Would you take the creams, astrigents, or cleansers and put them in your mouth, chew thoroughly, and gulp it down? That is exactly what we are doing every time we put something on our skin, and due to the inadequate oversight of the FDA, we don't even have the information available to us that will tell us what's in the product.
I am not a huge proponent of government regulation. It often leads to unnecessary complications. But, in the case of the FDA, they are blatantly ignoring their duty to the public by letting manufacturers omit ingredients in their products. I don't want to expose myself to hormones in lotions, and I certainly don't want it on my kids. We have enough disruption to our hormonal system in today's environment without adding it to our potions and lotions. Until the FDA starts protecting the public properly, be careful what you put on your skin. It may not taste very good.
Look for future blogs that will expose more lies with the truth the "experts" are ignoring or hiding. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Lengthen Your Life #3
The third thing I tell my students will statistically increase life expectancy is to optimize your Vitamin D levels. While this may seem like a small thing, it is huge when it comes to improving your health.
First and foremost, Vitamin D is not really a vitamin. Yes, our bodies cannot function without it, but we are supposed to able to make Vitamin D from exposing our skin to UVB radiation. Vitamin D is truly a hormone called calcitriol. It is more like the estrogens or testosterone in function than Vitamins A, E, or K, the other vitamins that are soluble in fat. I would wager a guess that due to our fear of sun exposure today (see my blog Healthy Cavemen Didn't Live in Caves), we are more deficient in this hormone than any other "vitamin".
The Human Genome Project was a huge undertaking by the US government scientists to map all of the genes that govern our physiology. Expected to find genes numbering in the hundreds of thousands and take decades, this project took only a few years and discovered we had a paltry 30,000 genes. Since the completion of this project, we have found that of these, about 3,000, or a full 10% are modulated by Vitamin D. That means that these genes will either be turned up, down, on, or off by being exposed to this wondrous hormone. A partial list of conditions that repeated research has shown are positively influenced by Vitamin D include a wide array of cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, endocrine diseases, anxiety, depression, dementia, anemia, common cold, influenza, HIV/AIDS, MRSA, prostate dysfunction, fibromyalgia, osteoporosis, autism, MS, ALS, dental caries (cavities), asthma, COPD, acne, psoriasis, POCS, and pre-eclampsia among a host of others. Overwhelming evidence is being accumulated that maternal and early childhood Vitamin D deficiency is a likely cause of asthma, several auto-immune diseases including Type I diabetes, and autism.
As I have started investigating Vitamin D levels in my patients, I have been appalled by the deficiency epidemic. I have yet to find a single patient, even in the middle of summer, that has met the absurdly low medical minimum without supplementation. Even those on supplements rarely breach this threshold and some without have not even had detectable levels in their blood. Could you imagine the body functioning even remotely close to normal with levels of other hormones that were undetectable? No. Unfortunately, this epidemic is being exacerbated and perpetuated by the "experts" in our policy making agencies, especially at the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB). In their most recent policy statement of November, 2010, they decided that a 6 pound infant needs about the same amount of the hormone Vitamin D as does a 450 pound man. In whose world does that make sense? Shouldn't that make either one toxic or deficient? Are they ignoring the biochemistry and research, or is there some other motive for them dooming millions of Americans to a shortened life of reduced health? You have to wonder; if they can get Vitamin D that wrong in the face of so much evidence, can we count on them to be correct with ANYTHING?
Vitamin D is measured in the blood as 25-hydroxy-Vitamin D3 (calcidiol). Vitamin D that was made in the skin is converted into this form by the liver, and goes on to the kidneys to be converted into 1,25-dihydroxy-Vitamin D3 (calcitriol). Calcitriol, while most bio-active, is not easily measured, so calcidiol is the standard. Modern Medical ranges for this hormone are 32-100 ng/ml. Unfortunately, as with most medical ranges, we see little or no benefit from only have a level of 32. Real benefits start with levels at above 50, and optimal levels for the general populace is between 65-80. Patients with cancer should be attaining levels of 80-100. Others, like those with autism, require levels well in excess of the medical range of 100, which causes may allopathic doctors to hyperventilate and demand an instant stop to all supplementation, even though most often the symptoms of autism are significantly reduced when patients hit this range.
How much sun exposure or supplementation does it take to reach levels of 65-80? That all depends on individual genetic expression and liver and kidney health. I have seen it take as little as 2,000 IU per day and as much as 75,000 IU per day. As I said earlier, I have never seen even medical minimum levels in Minnesota without supplementation, even in the height of summer. Should you take supplements to be safe and what if you end up taking too much? The simple answer is yes but verify. If you are taking less than 2,000 IU per day as an adult, you can feel safe that your chance of being toxic is about the same as winning the PowerBall. If you decide to take more than 2,000 IU per day, I highly recommend you have your Vitamin D levels checked after one month of supplementation to see where your levels are. If they are inadequate, increase. If they are in the 65-80 range, stay at that dose. If you're over 100, back your dose down until you hit the optimal range.
Looking at the biochemistry of Vitamin D and the multitude of conditions it impacts, I cannot understand why our FNB is deciding to recommend the majority of Americans continue their Vitamin D deficient state. Again, we must hold the "experts" feet to the fire - they are for some reason ignoring evidence and creating unneeded sickness. Look for future blogs that will expose more lies with the truth the "experts" are ignoring or hiding. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
First and foremost, Vitamin D is not really a vitamin. Yes, our bodies cannot function without it, but we are supposed to able to make Vitamin D from exposing our skin to UVB radiation. Vitamin D is truly a hormone called calcitriol. It is more like the estrogens or testosterone in function than Vitamins A, E, or K, the other vitamins that are soluble in fat. I would wager a guess that due to our fear of sun exposure today (see my blog Healthy Cavemen Didn't Live in Caves), we are more deficient in this hormone than any other "vitamin".
The Human Genome Project was a huge undertaking by the US government scientists to map all of the genes that govern our physiology. Expected to find genes numbering in the hundreds of thousands and take decades, this project took only a few years and discovered we had a paltry 30,000 genes. Since the completion of this project, we have found that of these, about 3,000, or a full 10% are modulated by Vitamin D. That means that these genes will either be turned up, down, on, or off by being exposed to this wondrous hormone. A partial list of conditions that repeated research has shown are positively influenced by Vitamin D include a wide array of cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, endocrine diseases, anxiety, depression, dementia, anemia, common cold, influenza, HIV/AIDS, MRSA, prostate dysfunction, fibromyalgia, osteoporosis, autism, MS, ALS, dental caries (cavities), asthma, COPD, acne, psoriasis, POCS, and pre-eclampsia among a host of others. Overwhelming evidence is being accumulated that maternal and early childhood Vitamin D deficiency is a likely cause of asthma, several auto-immune diseases including Type I diabetes, and autism.
As I have started investigating Vitamin D levels in my patients, I have been appalled by the deficiency epidemic. I have yet to find a single patient, even in the middle of summer, that has met the absurdly low medical minimum without supplementation. Even those on supplements rarely breach this threshold and some without have not even had detectable levels in their blood. Could you imagine the body functioning even remotely close to normal with levels of other hormones that were undetectable? No. Unfortunately, this epidemic is being exacerbated and perpetuated by the "experts" in our policy making agencies, especially at the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB). In their most recent policy statement of November, 2010, they decided that a 6 pound infant needs about the same amount of the hormone Vitamin D as does a 450 pound man. In whose world does that make sense? Shouldn't that make either one toxic or deficient? Are they ignoring the biochemistry and research, or is there some other motive for them dooming millions of Americans to a shortened life of reduced health? You have to wonder; if they can get Vitamin D that wrong in the face of so much evidence, can we count on them to be correct with ANYTHING?
Vitamin D is measured in the blood as 25-hydroxy-Vitamin D3 (calcidiol). Vitamin D that was made in the skin is converted into this form by the liver, and goes on to the kidneys to be converted into 1,25-dihydroxy-Vitamin D3 (calcitriol). Calcitriol, while most bio-active, is not easily measured, so calcidiol is the standard. Modern Medical ranges for this hormone are 32-100 ng/ml. Unfortunately, as with most medical ranges, we see little or no benefit from only have a level of 32. Real benefits start with levels at above 50, and optimal levels for the general populace is between 65-80. Patients with cancer should be attaining levels of 80-100. Others, like those with autism, require levels well in excess of the medical range of 100, which causes may allopathic doctors to hyperventilate and demand an instant stop to all supplementation, even though most often the symptoms of autism are significantly reduced when patients hit this range.
How much sun exposure or supplementation does it take to reach levels of 65-80? That all depends on individual genetic expression and liver and kidney health. I have seen it take as little as 2,000 IU per day and as much as 75,000 IU per day. As I said earlier, I have never seen even medical minimum levels in Minnesota without supplementation, even in the height of summer. Should you take supplements to be safe and what if you end up taking too much? The simple answer is yes but verify. If you are taking less than 2,000 IU per day as an adult, you can feel safe that your chance of being toxic is about the same as winning the PowerBall. If you decide to take more than 2,000 IU per day, I highly recommend you have your Vitamin D levels checked after one month of supplementation to see where your levels are. If they are inadequate, increase. If they are in the 65-80 range, stay at that dose. If you're over 100, back your dose down until you hit the optimal range.
Looking at the biochemistry of Vitamin D and the multitude of conditions it impacts, I cannot understand why our FNB is deciding to recommend the majority of Americans continue their Vitamin D deficient state. Again, we must hold the "experts" feet to the fire - they are for some reason ignoring evidence and creating unneeded sickness. Look for future blogs that will expose more lies with the truth the "experts" are ignoring or hiding. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Lengthen Your Life #2
The second recommendation I give my students often gets me a roll of the eyes and a few nervous laughs. Be monogamous, but only with someone else who is monogamous with you. I know in today's new age, take care of yourself first, enjoy life to its fullest, friends with benefits mentality that may seem prudish, but the reality is that multiple sex partners decrease your life expectancy. Whether you are a Darwin quoting natural selection theorist or a Bible carrying creationist, both worlds have their own reasons for recommending monogamy. Unfortunately, what's being taught in the high school health classes only tell a fraction of truth.
From the Biblical perspective, monogamy is a basic tenet. Maybe He put the nasty critters that like to live in those intimate places down here to remind us that He said find one and stick with them. I know my chaplain friends would have hours they could spend on that subject.
Natural selection would look at monogamy and say that within one generation of a monogamous planet, we could eradicate a whole host of diseases. In Pathology, we talk about a wide variety of conditions that Modern Medicine is trying to either find vaccines to prevent or treatments to cure. The conditions I'm talking about have two modes of transmission. One is skin to skin contact and the other is body fluid transmission. Skin to skin transmission includes conditions like pubic lice, genital warts, herpes simplex, HPV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, trichomoniasis, and mulloscum contagiosum. Body fluid transmitted conditions include hepatitis B and C and HIV/AIDS.
Most have heard of some of these conditions, but they aren't always aware of the consequences of them. We've learned that HPV causes cervical cancer in some women. What we're learning is that it may also be the cause of other cancers in areas like the mouth and throat (no offense to our former president, but that means oral sex is still sex). Gonorrhea and chlamydia are often asymptomatic in women, but can cause infertility if left untreated. Hepatitis B and C can end up killing your liver, which in turn makes your body unable to control blood sugar or detoxify the blood. In the end, many of these conditions have a significant chance of shortening your life, but all are preventable with proper protection - right? WRONG
Those conditions that are transmitted by skin to skin contact will NOT be deterred by using any type of barrier protection. Sex is a contact sport. It doesn't work well without skin to skin contact. As to the body fluid transmission, let's look at the critter size.
Condom manufacturers and the CDC show failure rates utilizing these products at anywhere from 1-30%. They understand that if 100 heterosexual couples used condoms, where one of the couple is a fertile ovulating woman and the other is a virile man, somewhere between 1 and 30 of those women will become pregnant from that encounter. Some of this is due to misuse of the product, but the rest is due to either product failure during the act or poor product quality and excessively large pores in the product. Here it really does come down to size matters. If we consider the hepatitis and HIV viruses, and compare them with a sperm cell, what's the difference in size? If the viruses were about the size of a baseball or softball, then a sperm would be 50 yards long. Yes, that's half a football field compared to a few inches. You could only fit 15 sperm cells in the period at the end of this sentence. Yet, in the same space you could fit over 6,000 AIDS viruses, over 14,000 hepatitis B viruses, and over 16,000 hepatitis C viruses. We are expecting a product that fails to keep something as large as a sperm from being transmitted, yet we tell everyone that it will protect them from getting the diseases that are miniscule in comparison. Either the "experts" don't know their stuff, or they don't care, and are telling blatant lies. Either way, there is no such thing as "safe sex".
Everything from gonorrhea to syphilis to hepatitis to AIDS could literally be wiped off the face of the planet if only we could learn to control ourselves, but the "experts" have led us to believe that we are safe with "protection". It seems they are more concerned with finding vaccines to inject us with or treatments to sell us than empowering us with the information that would make us healthier. It's time to stop lying to the public and let them make decisions based on correct information. Monogamy will statistically increase your life expectancy. Find one partner who will commit to only you, and you'll both live longer.
Look for future blogs that will expose more lies with the truth the "experts" are ignoring or hiding. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
From the Biblical perspective, monogamy is a basic tenet. Maybe He put the nasty critters that like to live in those intimate places down here to remind us that He said find one and stick with them. I know my chaplain friends would have hours they could spend on that subject.
Natural selection would look at monogamy and say that within one generation of a monogamous planet, we could eradicate a whole host of diseases. In Pathology, we talk about a wide variety of conditions that Modern Medicine is trying to either find vaccines to prevent or treatments to cure. The conditions I'm talking about have two modes of transmission. One is skin to skin contact and the other is body fluid transmission. Skin to skin transmission includes conditions like pubic lice, genital warts, herpes simplex, HPV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, trichomoniasis, and mulloscum contagiosum. Body fluid transmitted conditions include hepatitis B and C and HIV/AIDS.
Most have heard of some of these conditions, but they aren't always aware of the consequences of them. We've learned that HPV causes cervical cancer in some women. What we're learning is that it may also be the cause of other cancers in areas like the mouth and throat (no offense to our former president, but that means oral sex is still sex). Gonorrhea and chlamydia are often asymptomatic in women, but can cause infertility if left untreated. Hepatitis B and C can end up killing your liver, which in turn makes your body unable to control blood sugar or detoxify the blood. In the end, many of these conditions have a significant chance of shortening your life, but all are preventable with proper protection - right? WRONG
Those conditions that are transmitted by skin to skin contact will NOT be deterred by using any type of barrier protection. Sex is a contact sport. It doesn't work well without skin to skin contact. As to the body fluid transmission, let's look at the critter size.
Condom manufacturers and the CDC show failure rates utilizing these products at anywhere from 1-30%. They understand that if 100 heterosexual couples used condoms, where one of the couple is a fertile ovulating woman and the other is a virile man, somewhere between 1 and 30 of those women will become pregnant from that encounter. Some of this is due to misuse of the product, but the rest is due to either product failure during the act or poor product quality and excessively large pores in the product. Here it really does come down to size matters. If we consider the hepatitis and HIV viruses, and compare them with a sperm cell, what's the difference in size? If the viruses were about the size of a baseball or softball, then a sperm would be 50 yards long. Yes, that's half a football field compared to a few inches. You could only fit 15 sperm cells in the period at the end of this sentence. Yet, in the same space you could fit over 6,000 AIDS viruses, over 14,000 hepatitis B viruses, and over 16,000 hepatitis C viruses. We are expecting a product that fails to keep something as large as a sperm from being transmitted, yet we tell everyone that it will protect them from getting the diseases that are miniscule in comparison. Either the "experts" don't know their stuff, or they don't care, and are telling blatant lies. Either way, there is no such thing as "safe sex".
Everything from gonorrhea to syphilis to hepatitis to AIDS could literally be wiped off the face of the planet if only we could learn to control ourselves, but the "experts" have led us to believe that we are safe with "protection". It seems they are more concerned with finding vaccines to inject us with or treatments to sell us than empowering us with the information that would make us healthier. It's time to stop lying to the public and let them make decisions based on correct information. Monogamy will statistically increase your life expectancy. Find one partner who will commit to only you, and you'll both live longer.
Look for future blogs that will expose more lies with the truth the "experts" are ignoring or hiding. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Lengthen Your Life #1
When I teach pathology, I always start the class with three things that will statistically increase your chances of living a longer life. Here's #1: wash your hands properly and often, but not too often.
Admit it; somewhere deep down inside, we've all become germaphobes. We've been indoctrinated into Modern Medicine's (I capitalize that just as I would any religion, but that's another blog), fear that all those critters we can't see will take over the world and replace us if we don't kill them all. In that vein, when I ask people why they wash their hands, it's all about washing away germs, not about keeping their hands healthy.
There are millions of bacteria on our hands at any given time, and the majority of them do absolutely nothing bad to us. In fact, almost all of them are beneficial for us. They help us dispose of the outer layer of skin and take up space so pathogenic bacteria have a harder time finding room to take hold. Some even produce their own "antibiotics" that keep pathogenic bacteria at bay. These are GOOD for us, and we want them around.
Our skin is covered with a waxy-like substance called sebum. It protects our skin from drying out and has anti-bacterial properties that keep bad bugs from proliferating. This sebum coating is especially important during the winter months in temperate climates, since humidity is so low moisture readily leaves the skin.
The second question I usually ask is "what is the purpose of soap?" Again, the answer usually has something to do with germs and washing them away. Yet, when we look at the research, we see that soap only slightly increases the number of bugs that get washed away. What really washes away the bugs is not soap, but friction. Soap has little to do with germs.
Soap is there to do one thing: clean our skin when we are dirty or greasy. If our hands are dirty or greasy, soap is a great thing. If they aren't, all we are doing is washing away the coating of sebum that our skin spent energy making to protect us. Washing that away leaves us prone to dryer skin, which often cracks (especially in the winter), increasing our risk of infections from any bugs that do manage to colonize our skin.
The type of soap is also important. I will begrudgingly admit that after several years, the AMA and CDC changed their recommendations and got it right. Do NOT use anti-bacterial soap. This is laden with chemicals that are toxic to not only bacteria, but us as well, and end up only drying your hands further and increasing the numbers of antibiotic resistant bacteria. My recommendation is finding a local small businessperson who has spent their time learning how to make soap. Or, spend the time yourself and make your own. Short of that, I hesitate to recommend liquid soaps due to their additives, and most often tell others to find the soap that has the least amount of "stuff" added to it, especially fragrances.
We can't forget water temperature, length of wash, and how often. Leave the hot water for your whites and hit the luke-warm range. It will leave more sebum on the skin. As to length, choose your favorite of several songs and sing a verse: Happy Birthday, Twinkle Twinkle, There's a Hole in My Bucket, whatever you'd like to have stuck in your head for a while. How often depends on your activities. Of course, after using the restroom, but beyond that, it depends on how you treat your hands. Wash them with soap when dirty or greasy, but otherwise, just use friction and time when you have the need.
Also, stay away from those anti-bacterial dispensers as much as possible. If you happen to work in a hospital environment, it's a different story, the bugs there are some of the most lethal critters on the planet. But short of that, just wash your hands properly, and chances are, you'll be increasing your life expectancy.
Continue to visit my blog to find more updates on ways to stay healthy naturally. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Admit it; somewhere deep down inside, we've all become germaphobes. We've been indoctrinated into Modern Medicine's (I capitalize that just as I would any religion, but that's another blog), fear that all those critters we can't see will take over the world and replace us if we don't kill them all. In that vein, when I ask people why they wash their hands, it's all about washing away germs, not about keeping their hands healthy.
There are millions of bacteria on our hands at any given time, and the majority of them do absolutely nothing bad to us. In fact, almost all of them are beneficial for us. They help us dispose of the outer layer of skin and take up space so pathogenic bacteria have a harder time finding room to take hold. Some even produce their own "antibiotics" that keep pathogenic bacteria at bay. These are GOOD for us, and we want them around.
Our skin is covered with a waxy-like substance called sebum. It protects our skin from drying out and has anti-bacterial properties that keep bad bugs from proliferating. This sebum coating is especially important during the winter months in temperate climates, since humidity is so low moisture readily leaves the skin.
The second question I usually ask is "what is the purpose of soap?" Again, the answer usually has something to do with germs and washing them away. Yet, when we look at the research, we see that soap only slightly increases the number of bugs that get washed away. What really washes away the bugs is not soap, but friction. Soap has little to do with germs.
Soap is there to do one thing: clean our skin when we are dirty or greasy. If our hands are dirty or greasy, soap is a great thing. If they aren't, all we are doing is washing away the coating of sebum that our skin spent energy making to protect us. Washing that away leaves us prone to dryer skin, which often cracks (especially in the winter), increasing our risk of infections from any bugs that do manage to colonize our skin.
The type of soap is also important. I will begrudgingly admit that after several years, the AMA and CDC changed their recommendations and got it right. Do NOT use anti-bacterial soap. This is laden with chemicals that are toxic to not only bacteria, but us as well, and end up only drying your hands further and increasing the numbers of antibiotic resistant bacteria. My recommendation is finding a local small businessperson who has spent their time learning how to make soap. Or, spend the time yourself and make your own. Short of that, I hesitate to recommend liquid soaps due to their additives, and most often tell others to find the soap that has the least amount of "stuff" added to it, especially fragrances.
We can't forget water temperature, length of wash, and how often. Leave the hot water for your whites and hit the luke-warm range. It will leave more sebum on the skin. As to length, choose your favorite of several songs and sing a verse: Happy Birthday, Twinkle Twinkle, There's a Hole in My Bucket, whatever you'd like to have stuck in your head for a while. How often depends on your activities. Of course, after using the restroom, but beyond that, it depends on how you treat your hands. Wash them with soap when dirty or greasy, but otherwise, just use friction and time when you have the need.
Also, stay away from those anti-bacterial dispensers as much as possible. If you happen to work in a hospital environment, it's a different story, the bugs there are some of the most lethal critters on the planet. But short of that, just wash your hands properly, and chances are, you'll be increasing your life expectancy.
Continue to visit my blog to find more updates on ways to stay healthy naturally. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)