Beware Statin Drugs 01/20/2011
Two years ago, a study known as the JUPITER trial suggested the cholesterol-lowering statin drug might prevent heart-related death in many more people than just those with high cholesterol. Now, however, researchers say that the JUPITER results are flawed -- and that they do not support the benefits initially reported. Not only is there no "striking decrease in coronary heart disease complications", but a new report has also called into question drug companies' involvement in such trials. ABC News reports: "... major discrepancies exists between the significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and heart attacks reported in the JUPITER trial and what has been found in other research ... 'The JUPITER data set appears biased,' [the researchers] wrote in conclusion." Sources: ABC News June 29, 2010 Video Transcript Dr. Mercola's Comments: Tens of millions of Americans are taking cholesterol-lowering drugs—mostly statins—and some "experts" claim that many millions more should be taking them. I couldn't disagree more. Statins are HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, that is, they act by blocking the enzyme in your liver that is responsible for making cholesterol (HMG-CoA reductase). The fact that statin drugs cause side effects is well established—there are now 900 studies proving their adverse effects, which run the gamut from muscle problems to increased cancer risk. For starters, reported side effects include:
Statins currently available on the U.S. market are:
The ONLY subgroup that might benefit are those born with a genetic defect called familial hypercholesterolemia, as this makes them resistant to traditional measures of normalizing cholesterol. And, even more importantly, cholesterol is NOT the cause of heart disease. If your physician is urging you to check your total cholesterol, then you should know that this test will tell you virtually nothing about your risk of heart disease, unless it is 330 or higher. HDL percentage is a far more potent indicator for heart disease risk. Here are the two ratios you should pay attention to:
Your body NEEDS cholesterol—it is important in the production of cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps your brain form memories and is vital to your neurological function. There is also strong evidence that having too little cholesterol INCREASES your risk for cancer, memory loss, Parkinson's disease, hormonal imbalances, stroke, depression, suicide, and violent behavior. Parents Beware: Outrageous New Push to Put Kids on Statin Drugs!In a bold attempt to increase profits before the patent runs out, Pfizer has now introduced a chewable kid-friendly version of Lipitor. Its US patent for Lipitor expires in November 2011, and seeking to boost sales of the drug, children have become the new target market, and the conventional medical establishment is more than happy to oblige. Researchers and many doctors are now calling for universal school screening of children to check for high cholesterol, to find those "in need of treatment." In addition, older siblings, parents and other family members might be prompted to get screened as well, the researchers say, which would uncover additional, previously undiagnosed adults in need of the drug. This is clearly NOT the way to improve public health. On the contrary, it could produce a new, massive wave of extremely dire health consequences in just a few years time. So rather than improving school lunches, which would cost about a dollar a day per child, they'd rather "invest" ten times that for tests and drugs that in no way, shape, or form address the root cause, which is an improper, unhealthy diet! All they're doing is allowing all the industries to maintain or increase their profits: Big Pharma; Big Sugar; Big Corn and the processed food industry. Who pays? You, and your children! And in far more ways than one! I will address this issue in depth in a future article, so please stay tuned… If You Take Statins, You MUST Take CoQ10If you take statin drugs without taking CoQ10, your health is at serious risk. Unfortunately, this describes the majority of people who take them in the United States. CoQ10 is a cofactor (co-enzyme) that is essential for the creation of ATP molecules, which you need for cellular energy production. Organs such as your heart have higher energy requirements, and therefore require more CoQ10 to function properly. Statins deplete your body of CoQ10, which can have devastating results. Physicians rarely inform people of this risk and only occasionally advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement. As your body gets more and more depleted of CoQ10, you may suffer from fatigue, muscle weakness and soreness, and eventually heart failure. Coenzyme Q10 is also very important in the process of neutralizing free radicals. So when your CoQ10 is depleted, you enter a vicious cycle of increased free radicals, loss of cellular energy, and damaged mitochondrial DNA. If you decide to take a CoQ10 supplement and are over the age of 40, it is important to choose the reduced version, called ubiquinol. Ubiquinol is a FAR more effective form—I personally take 1-3 a day since it has such far ranging benefits. Optimizing Your Cholesterol Levels, NaturallyThere's really no reason to take statins and suffer the damaging health effects from these dangerous drugs. The fact is that 75 percent of your cholesterol is produced by your liver, which is influenced by your insulin levels. Therefore, if you optimize your insulin level, you will automatically optimize your cholesterol. It follows, then, that my primary recommendations for safely regulating your cholesterol have to do with modifying your diet and lifestyle:
Vit D ... all about it! 01/04/2011
a) Vitamin D and Weight Loss b) Vitamin D is an Essential Hormone c) Sunshine = Vitamin D a) Vitamin D and Weight Loss What’s behind the synergy of vitamin D levels and weight gain or loss? We’ve known for a few years that vitamin D and weight are linked, but the debate has been how. People who are overweight or obese tend to have low vitamin D levels. What came first? The obesity or the vitamin D loss? A new study from the University of Minnesota and presented at the Endocrine Society’s 91st Annual Meeting measured vitamin D levels in 38 men and women before putting them on a calorie-restricted diet. Bottom line—the higher the pre-diet vitamin D levels, the greater the weight loss, particularly weight around the middle, which is notoriously hard to lose and is associated with insulin resistance. The researchers suggest that adding a vitamin D supplement to a diet plan could enhance weight loss. Other researchers theorize that vitamin D deficiency contributes to insulin resistance, one of the primary causes of weight gain. Taking a vitamin D supplement without changing eating habits will probably not magically make the fat melt away. A 2008 study done in Norway simply gave vitamin D or a placebo to 334 overweight people and found no significant weight loss difference in the vitamin D group at the end of 12 months. Vitamin D has become a nutritional darling in the past few years, and for good reason. A deficiency has been strongly linked to osteoporosis, many types of cancer, depression and other mood disorders, diabetes, heart disease and poor immune function. b) Vitamin D is an Essential Hormone VITAMIN D NUTRIENT REVIEW This essential vitamin is really an essential hormone. by Bill Sardi From time to time news reports surface about a “cancer cluster” among workers in a building. Often the workers have been assigned to dark basement offices or sealed clean-rooms where they must wear spacesuit–like garb. After an indoor environmental examination, investigators often are unable to correlate any factor in the building with the cancer cases. But what if, rather than a cancer-causing agent, the cancer cases are attributable to a missing protective factor? Given a growing body of evidence linking cancer with vitamin D deficiency, a question surfaces: Are indoor workers getting sufficient sunlight to make enough vitamin D to protect them from cancer? Vitamin D is formed in the skin of animals and humans by the action of short-wave ultraviolet light, the so-called fast-tanning sun rays. Precursors of vitamin D in the skin are converted into cholecalciferol, a weak form of vitamin D3, which is then transported to the liver and kidneys where enzymes convert it to 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, the more potent form of vitamin D3. Fat-soluble vitamin D supplements are available in two forms. Vitamin D3 is believed to exhibit the most potent cancer-inhibiting properties and is the preferred form of the vitamin. More than 10 substances belong to a group of steroid compounds that exhibit vitamin D activity. Vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol), derived from plants and yeast, is a form of the vitamin commonly added to milk and some nutritional supplements. The first vitamin D to be discovered was a crude mixture called vitamin D1; it is not available as a supplement. Although vitamin D isn’t found in quantity in very many foods, it is acquired from foods such as egg yolks, butter, cod liver oil and from cold-water fish such as salmon, herring and mackerel. Cancer Prevention Evidence of vitamin D's protective effect against cancer is compelling. For more than 50 years, documentation in the medical literature suggests regular sun exposure is associated with substantial decreases in death rates from certain cancers and a decrease in overall cancer death rates. Recent research suggests this is a causal relationship that acts through the body's vitamin D metabolic pathways. For instance, some evidence points to a prostate, breast and colon cancer belt in the United States, which lies in northern latitudes under more cloud cover than other regions during the year. Rates for these cancers are two to three times higher than in sunnier areas. Dark-skinned people require more sun exposure to make vitamin D. The thickness of the skin layer called the stratum corneum affects the absorption of UV radiation. Black human skin is thicker than white skin and thus transmits only about 40 percent of the UV rays for vitamin D production. Darkly pigmented individuals who live in sunny equatorial climates experience a higher mortality rate (not incidence) from breast and prostate cancer when they move to geographic areas that are deprived of sunlight exposure in winter months. The rate of increase varies, and researchers hesitate to quote figures because many migrant black populations are likely to also have poor nutrition and deficient health care that confound statistics somewhat. Although excessive sun exposure may give rise to skin cancer, researchers as early as 1936 were aware that skin cancer patients have reduced rates of other cancers. One researcher estimates moderate sunning would prevent 30,000 annual cancer deaths in the United States. Vitamin D may also go beyond cancer prevention and provide tumor therapy. Much ado has been made of pharmaceutical angiogenesis inhibitors—agents that help inhibit the growth of new, undesirable blood vessels that tumors require for nutrient supply and growth. Laboratory tests have shown vitamin D to be a potent angiogenesis inhibitor. Vitamin D also works at another stage of cancer development. Tumor cells are young, immortal cells that never grow up, mature and die off. Because vitamin D derivatives have been shown to promote normal cell growth and maturation, drug companies today are attempting to engineer patentable forms of vitamin D for anti-cancer therapy. D Is for Strong Bones Up until now, vitamin D has been better known for its ability to promote bone strength by increasing calcium absorption. Supplemental vitamin D has been shown to reduce hip fracture risk among elderly women when combined with supplemental calcium. In one study of 3,270 healthy women, mean age 84, 1,634 received 1.2 g calcium and 800 international units (IU) vitamin D3, while the other 1,636 received placebo. During the 18-month study, the supplemented group experienced 43 percent fewer hip fractures, 32 percent fewer nonvertebral fractures, and a 2.7 percent increase in bone density of the proximal femur [upper thigh] vs. the 4.6 percent bone density decrease seen in the placebo group. Other studies bear out vitamin D's importance to bone health, to the point where it's now widely known that vitamin D deficiency is associated with hip fractures, and that supplementation helps. Unfortunately, not everyone is getting enough vitamin D. A recent study showed that 37 percent of adult hospital patients were deficient in vitamin D upon admission. Two-thirds of these patients did not consume enough vitamin D from dietary sources. Surprisingly, 46 percent of those who took daily multivitamins (most of which provide 400 IU) were also in a state of deficiency. Experts now suggest people take 600 IU vitamin D daily, and up to 800 IU a day for elderly patients, because as people age they do not produce vitamin D from sun exposure as easily as they did when younger. How Much Vitamin D? The U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of vitamin D is 200 IU. Yet, studies have shown that 200 IU per day has no effect on bone status. Reinhold Vieth, Ph.D., of the University of Toronto, published a landmark review of vitamin D in the May 1999 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Vieth says adults may need, at a minimum, five times the RDA, or 1,000 IU daily, to adequately prevent bone fractures, protect against some cancers and derive other broad-ranging health benefits. Vieth says the 1989 RDA of 200 IU is antiquated, and the newer 600 IU Daily Reference Intake (DRI) dose for adults older than 70 is still not adequate. Even the 2,000 IU upper tolerable intake, the official safety limit, does not deliver the amounts of vitamin D that may be optimal, Vieth says. On a sunny summer day, total body sun exposure produces approximately 10,000 IU vitamin D. As a result, concerns about toxic overdose with dietary supplements that exceed 800 IU are poorly founded, Vieth says. His review indicates a person would have to consume almost 67 times more vitamin D than the current 600 IU recommended intake for older adults to experience symptoms of overdosage. Vieth believes people need 4,000 to 10,000 IU vitamin D daily and that toxic side effects are not a concern until a 40,000 IU per day dose. Harvard researchers agree with Vieth. They suggest that older adults, sick adults, and “perhaps all adults” need 800 to 1,000 IU daily. They indicate that daily doses of 2,400 IU—four times the recommended intake—can be consumed safely. Those who do follow the suggestion to consume more vitamin D may want to watch for toxicity symptoms of headache, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, loss of appetite and dry mouth—though these are not usually seen outside of underlying health conditions such as kidney or parathyroid hormone dysfunction. Vitamin D is not prevalent in foods. A study conducted at the Bone Research Laboratory at Boston University School of Medicine revealed that fortified milk may not be a reliable source of vitamin D. Only 29 percent of commercial milk samples tested were within 80 to 120 percent of the amount stated on the label. Vitamin D milk fortification procedures vary widely from dairy to dairy. Some dairies place their vitamin D preparations in refrigerated storage, and others do not, which may affect the vitamin D content of the final product. Since vitamin D is produced naturally within the body, technically it is a hormone. Vitamin D precursors require cholesterol for conversion into the hormone-vitamin. Without adequate sun exposure, vitamin D precursors turn to cholesterol instead of the vitamin. If You're Not Getting Enough Sun, Consider a Supplement Sunshine is still the most economical and beneficial way to improve circulating vitamin D levels. Sunning before 10 a.m. and after 3 p.m. avoids the sun's harshest UV radiation. People who are homebound or who live in areas of winter cloud cover and northern latitudes where the sun is so low in the winter sky that the atmosphere absorbs all the UV radiation needed to convert vitamin D should consider naturally compounded vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) supplements. Bill Sardi is a health journalist and consumer advocate in Diamond Bar, Calif. His recent publications include The Iron Time Bomb (Purity Pub., 1999) and All About Eyes Naturally (Avery Publishing Group, 2000). Reprinted with permission from www.askbillsardi.com. For a list of references for this article, please visit www.askbillsardi.com. c) Sunshine = Vitamin D THE BEST WAY TO GET VITAMIN D IS TO LET THE SUN SHINE IN Vitamin D is an essential part of the body’s arsenal in fighting cancer, so the practice of zealously avoiding exposure to the sun may be contributing to vitamin D deficiency and subsequently to an increased risk of cancer. Research published in the British Medical Journal (vol. 237, p.316) on multiple sclerosis (MS) suggests that children who were exposed to the sun an average of two to three hours a day in the summer are a third less likely to develop MS. When the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays are absorbed by the skin, a biochemical process begins in which an active form of vitamin D is created. You can also get vitamin D from foods such as oily fish, and to a much lesser extent dairy products, but sunshine is by far our most important source of this essential vitamin. In addition to its role in enabling calcium to be absorbed from the gut, new research is showing that vitamin D stops the out-of-control cell growth that characterizes cancer. A number of population studies are suggesting that the less sunshine we get, the higher our risk is for cancers of the colon, prostate, breast, lung and, believe it or not, skin. Is Tanning Healthy or Harmful? How much sun should you get? According to Michael Holick, a researcher and author of the book, The UV Advantage, between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. in the summer (when the sun is most intense), a Caucasian with medium-fair skin living in Boston needs five to eight minutes of sunshine without sunblock. People who live further north and/or have darker skin need more time and conversely, people who live closer to the equator and have fairer skin need less time. There is considerable controversy about whether the process of skin tanning is beneficial and protective against the sun’s harmful rays, or whether tanning is actually a symptom of skin damage. Although repeated sunburns are correlated with later skin cancers, people who are brown from spending their lives working outside in the sun do not necessarily have higher rates of skin cancer: factors such as light skin, freckles, numerous moles, genetics and exposure to radiation and arsenic are greater risk factors. Don’t depend on sunblock to protect you from the harmful effects of the sun. Despite 20 years of widespread sunblock use, the rate of skin cancer in industrialized countries has not declined. This may be partially due to the fact that most sunblock protects against the sun’s UVB rays, but not against the more deeply-penetrating UVA rays, which don’t burn the skin but still damage it. The bottom line on healthy sunning is to avoid sunburn; in fact, you should be out of the sun long before your skin starts turning red. We now have a medical term in common usage for the cluster of problems caused by poor diet and obesity: metabolic syndrome. The term has actually been in use in medical research since the mid-1960s, but wasn’t widely recognized or accepted by the medical community until a few years ago. Metabolic syndrome describes an obese person with central or abdominal obesity (a fat stomach) who also tends to have a poor cholesterol profile, high blood sugar and insulin and the attendant insulin resistance, high blood pressure, and clogged arteries. In other words, diabetes and/or heart disease waiting to happen. Hormonally, a woman with metabolic syndrome tends to have high androgen (male hormone) levels, high estrogen levels (the fat cells are making estrogen from androgens), high cortisol and low thyroid. In other words, breast cancer waiting to happen. Men with metabolic syndrome tend to have low testosterone and high estrogen. In other words, prostate problems waiting to happen. Both men and women with metabolic syndrome are more prone to inflammation, which predisposes one to heart disease, arthritis and headaches. The Mediterranean Diet A group of European countries participated in a 12-year study of the effects of a Mediterranean diet and healthy lifestyle on metabolic syndrome symptoms. Associated with that study, a group from Italy recruited people who actually had metabolic syndrome and instructed them to adhere to a Mediterranean diet for about two years. The results of both were published in JAMA in September. Not surprisingly, the two-year diet researchers concluded that, “A Mediterranean-style diet might be effective in reducing the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome and its cardiovascular disease,” which is a roundabout way of saying that most of the participants were healthier at the end of the study. The large 12-year study concluded that, “Among individuals aged 70 to 90 years, adherence to a Mediterranean diet and healthful lifestyle is associated with a more than 50% lower rate of all-causes and cause-specific mortality.” In other words those who didn’t smoke, got some exercise, used alcohol in moderation, and ate plenty of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes and olive oil had half the chance of dying as those who didn’t lead a healthy lifestyle. More specifically, those who maintained all four low risk factors had a 65 percent lower death rate. Insulin, Androgens and Women’s Health And speaking of metabolic syndrome, one of the key issues addressed in the “…Breast Cancer” book is the role of excess sugar and carbohydrates in setting the stage for breast cancer. A study published in September 2004 in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention showed that women who ate the most carbohydrates had more than double the risk of breast cancer compared to women who ate the least carbohydrates. Excess glucose (from sugar and carbohydrates) in the bloodstream, raises insulin levels which increases androgen (male hormone) levels in women. In plain English this means that if you eat excess sugar and carbs you’ll make excess male hormones. This was underscored in a Johns Hopkins study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in September 2004 which showed that women with metabolic syndrome have high androgen levels. An aside: This study is particularly interesting because it showed that only excess “free” or bioavailable androgens were strongly associated with metabolic syndrome, which means that conventional blood tests didn’t show this effect. “Free” hormones are what is measured by saliva hormone testing. In the few years before his death, Dr. Lee lobbied hard to get across the point that conventional blood tests of hormone levels are almost meaningless in assessing hormone status because they don’t measure bioavailable hormones. High insulin and the resulting high androgens are the underlying cause of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) which can cause terrible ovarian pain, PMS and excess hair growth. The typical doctor will give women with PCOS potent diabetes drugs to help control insulin levels, but a much simpler, healthier and more direct solution is to eat differently, get some exercise and push up the levels of the mother hormone, PROGESTERONE, by applying a good 4% natural progesterone cream. rEAD MORE http://www.naturone.com Belly fat is the trendy new “no no” for women—everybody’s talking about it. But I beg to differ. For a menopausal woman, a little bit of belly fat is natural, healthy and put there for a purpose, which is to make estrogen. I understand perfectly well how much we would all like to maintain that youthful slim profile, but aging gracefully may well mean that we surrender to some belly fat. I’m not talking about a flabby fat-laden, carbohydrate-and-high insulin-induced belly that creates multi-layerd muffin tops; or a pregnancy-like bloated constipation belly; or the low pooch of a high cortisol stress-induced belly; I’m talking about the normal roundness of belly that comes with middle age and menopause, that’s nearly impossible to get rid of, even with diet and exercise. As we approach our 50s, the ovaries wind down their production of progesterone and estrogen, but they keep making androgens (male hormones) well into our 70s. Belly fat converts androgens into estrogen, in both men and women. (Which is why men with a lot of belly fat start to look, well… feminine.) Although excessive estrogen can predispose women to breast and uterine cancer, the amount created by a little menopausal belly fat is often just enough to maintain good skin tone, keep the brain clicking, create some vaginal lubrication and encourage bone maintenance. It’s the thin menopausal woman with a flat belly who is most likely to have hot flashes, wrinkles, brain fog, vaginal dryness and thinning bones. The “Blue Zone” episodes on Oprah showcased cultures worldwide with the longest-lived and healthiest populations. These vignettes of rural mountain communities focused primarily on thin, muscular old men who had spent their lives working outside. The old women were there in the background and while their arms were thin and muscled, they were universally thick around the middle. I did some research on body weight and death rates in older women. Sure enough, it’s well established that once you’re menopausal, falling into the “overweight” category reduces your risk of death. Again, it’s important to make the distinction between overweight and obese. At any age, obesity will increase your risk of dying. I agree that if you’re 30 or even 40 and have significant belly fat, that’s unhealthy and is probably due to poor diet and lack of exercise. But a bit of a belly in a menopausal woman is undoubtedly a feature of healthy aging. READ MORE /naturone.html The NEW Peak Fitness Program Peak fitness is a term to represent a comprehensive exercise program that includes far more than typical cardio training. The major change is that once or twice a week you do peak exercises, in which you raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, and then you recover for 90 seconds. You would repeat this cycle for a total of eight repetitions. These cycles are preceded by a three minute warm up and two minute cool down so the total time investment is about 20 minutes. The intensity is absolutely individual. For some it may be as simple as fast walking alternating with slow walking. You can improvise it into just about any type of exercise, and you really don't require a gym membership or any equipment to do it. If you do have access to equipment, using an elliptical or recumbent bike work really well. One of the major reasons I am so enthusiastic about peak fitness is that it can actually increase your growth hormone level. In order to better grasp the benefits of peak fitness exercises, you first need to understand that you have three different types of muscle fibers: slow, fast, and super-fast. And only ONE of these muscles will impact your production of a vital hormone called HGH, or human growth hormone, which is KEY for strength, health and longevity. Currently, the vast majority of people, including many athletes such as marathon runners, only train using their slow muscle fibers, which has the unfortunate effect of actually causing the super fast fibers to decrease or atrophy. In fact, neither traditionally performed aerobic cardio nor strength training will work anything but your slow muscles. These are the red muscles, which are filled with capillaries and mitochondria, and hence a lot of oxygen. Next you have the fast type of fiber which is also red muscle, and oxygenates quickly, but is five times faster than the slow fibers. Power training, or plyometrics burst types of exercises will engage these fast muscles. The super-fast ones are the white muscle fibers. They contain far less blood and less densely packed mitochondria. These muscle fibers are what you use when you do anaerobic short burst exercises. High intensity burst cardio is the form of exercise that will engage these super fast fibers. They're ten times faster than slow fibers, and this is the key to producing growth hormone! Are You in Somatopause (Age Related Growth Hormone Deficiency?) As you reach your 30s and beyond, you enter what's called "somatopause," when your levels of HGH begin to drop off quite dramatically, because they begin leading increasingly more sedentary life styles. This is part of what drives your aging process. Children and most animals in the wild do not run marathons or lift weights, they move at high speeds for very short periods of time and then rest. This is natural and what optimizes the production of growth hormone. The higher your levels of growth hormone, the healthier and stronger you're going to be. And the longer you can keep your body producing higher levels of HGH, the longer you will experience robust health and strength. Benefits of Peak Fitness Exercises Once you regularly participate in these 20 minute exercises about twice a week, most people notice the following benefits: · Lowers your body fat · Dramatically improves muscle tone · Firms your skin and reduces wrinkles · Boosts your energy and sexual desire · Improves athletic speed and performance · Allows you to achieve your fitness goals much faster How to Properly Perform Peak Fitness Exercises to Increase Your Growth Hormone Levels First of all, please remember that you can perform this with any type of exercise, and you can easily perform this by walking or running on flat ground or doing Pilates and varying the gentle exercises with the vigorous exercises. You want to exercise vigorously enough so you reach your anaerobic threshold as this is where the "magic" happens that will trigger your growth hormone release. Whatever activity you choose, by the end of your 30 second period you will want to reach these markers: · It will be relatively hard to breathe and talk because you are in oxygen debt · You will start to sweat profusely. Typically this occurs in the second or third repetition unless you have a thyroid issue and don't sweat much normally. · Your body temperature will rise · Lactic acid increases and you will feel a muscle "burn" If you are using cardio equipment like an elliptical or bike, you don't need to reach any "magical" speed. It's highly individual, based on your current level of fitness. But you know you're doing it right when you're exerting yourself to the point of typically gasping for breath, after a short burst of activity. An added boon is that you'll save a tremendous amount of time because peak fitness will cut your hour-long cardio workout down to a total of 20 minutes or so, including your recovery time, warm-up and cool down. If you can do a peak fitness workout twice a week, and follow the dietary recommendations I'll go over next, you will increase your production of growth hormone. Dietary Recommendations to Maximize Growth Hormone Release To maximize your growth hormone release you need to: · Get a good night's sleep · Avoid a high fat meal prior to exercising · Drink plenty of water · Eat healthy carbs (think vegetables) and high quality protein · Optimize your vitamin D levels · Avoid sugar, especially fructose The last part is absolutely crucial. If you consume sugar or fructose, especially within two hours post-exercise, you will increase somatostatin which will in turn obliterate the production of growth hormone! This is yet another example of why gulping down sports drinks that are chockfull of high fructose corn syrup can do your body more harm than good, and will just shut down your body's production of HGH and negate many of the benefits from your exercise. By now, you probably know that what you eat has a profound impact on your health. The mantra, “You are what you eat” is really true. But you need to consider not only WHAT you buy, but how you cook it. Eating most of your food raw is ideal. But most of us are not going to be able to accomplish a completely raw diet, and we’ll end up cooking some percentage of our food. Smart food preparation starts with high quality foods and food preparation and that means saying sayonara to your microwave oven. Need to sterilize a dishcloth? Use your microwave. But zapping your casserole is a BAD idea if you are interested in preparing healthy food. Why the no nukes policy? When it comes to microwave ovens, the price for convenience is to compromise your health. In this article, I will review what we know about the effects microwaves on your food and on your body. Sad State of Our Soils Over the past century, the quality of fresh food has declined due to soil depletion, unsustainable farming practices, overproduction of crops, and the use of pesticides and herbicides. You can no longer assume you’re getting all of the vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and phytonutrients you need by eating a multitude of fresh produce—even if you’re eating organically. Not surprisingly, a calorie today will provide you less nutrition than a calorie from 100, or even 50 years ago. Three recent studies of historical food composition have shown 5 to 40 percent declines in some of the minerals in fresh produce, and another study found a similar decline in our protein sources.[1] So now, more than ever, you must be careful to maximize the “bang for your buck” when it comes to the foods you eat. Research shows that your microwave oven will NOT help you in these efforts—and in fact will threaten your health by violently ripping the molecules in your food apart, rendering some nutrients inert, at best, and carcinogenic at its worst. Convenience Comes at Significant Toxic Threat to You and Your Family Microwaves heat food by causing water molecules in it to resonate at very high frequencies and eventually turn to steam which heats your food. While this can rapidly heat your food, what most people fail to realize is that it also causes a change in your food’s chemical structure. There are numerous issues that have emerged since microwave ovens were first introduced to consumers more than 40 years ago, besides depleting your food’s nutritional value, which will be addressed a bit later. The first thing you probably noticed when you began microwaving food was how uneven the heating is. “Hot spots” in microwaved food can be hot enough to cause burns—or build up to a “steam explosion.” This has resulted in admonitions to new mothers about NOT using the microwave to heat up baby bottles, since babies have been burned by super-heated formula that went undetected. Another problem with microwave ovens is that carcinogenic toxins can leach out of your plastic and paper containers/covers, and into your food. The January/February 1990 issue of Nutrition Action Newsletter reported the leakage of numerous toxic chemicals from the packaging of common microwavable foods, including pizzas, chips and popcorn. Chemicals included polyethylene terpthalate (PET), benzene, toluene, and xylene. Microwaving fatty foods in plastic containers leads to the release of dioxins (known carcinogens) and other toxins into your food. [8] [2] One of the worst contaminants is BPA, or bisphenol A, an estrogen-like compound used widely in plastic products. In fact, dishes made specifically for the microwave often contain BPA, but many other plastic products contain it as well. Microwaving distorts and deforms the molecules of whatever food or other substance you subject to it. An example of this is blood products. Blood is normally warmed before being transfused into a person. Now we know that microwaving blood products damages the blood components. In fact, one woman died after receiving a transfusion of microwaved blood in 1991 , which resulted in a well-publicized lawsuit. Microwave Radiation Leakage You may have heard that there is some danger of microwaves escaping from your microwave while it’s operating. This was more of a risk with earlier models than with recent ones, which undergo more rigorous testing. Theoretically, there are very small amounts of radiation leakage through the viewing glass, but the FDA reports these levels are “insignificant” and “well below the level known to harm people.” The FDA has been regulating microwave ovens since 1971 through its electronic product radiation control program, which is mandated by the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act[3] . The FDA limits the amount of microwaves that can leak from an oven throughout its lifetime to 5 milliwatts (mW) per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface. Because microwave energy decreases dramatically as you move away from the source of the radiation, a measurement made 20 inches from your oven would be approximately one-hundredth of the value measured at 2 inches.[2] The federal standard also requires all ovens to have “two independent interlock systems that stop the production of microwaves the moment the latch is released or the door is opened.” And a monitoring system is also required, which stops the operation if one or both interlock systems fail. You would think, with all these tests and regulations, that you’d be safe. However, according to Powerwatch, a non-profit independent organization with a central role in the microwave radiation debate: “Even when the microwave oven is working correctly, the microwave levels within the kitchen are likely to be significantly higher than those from any nearby cellular phone base-stations. Remember also that microwaves will travel through walls if the microwave oven is against an inside wall.” Powerwatch also states that we don’t really know if the current regulations about leakage are truly safe and recommends ovens be checked at least annually, since microwave emissions can change with normal use. You might also consider purchasing a $20 testing device that allows you to check the radiation in your home. Make sure that, if you are going to use your microwave for cleaning sponges or for any use at all, regularly examine the door and hinges to make sure they are sealing properly. If the door doesn’t close correctly, or if it’s warped, bent, or otherwise damaged, don’t use it at all! Since your eyes are known to be particularly susceptible to microwave radiation (high microwave exposures are known to cause cataracts), I recommend stepping away from your microwave while it’s in use. New Study Confirms Microwaves Affect Your Heart A recent study examining the effects 2.4 GHz radiation (which is the frequency of radiation emitted by Wifi routers and microwave ovens) on the heart was just completed. The study found “unequivocal evidence” that microwave frequency radiation affects the heart at non-thermal levels that are well below federal safety guidelines, according to Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University[4] . Dr. Havas says: “This is the first study that documents immediate and dramatic changes in both heart rate and heart rate variability caused by an approved device that generates microwaves at levels well below (0.3 percent) federal guidelines in both Canada and the United States.” No longer can skeptics claim that microwaves produce no immediate biological effects at ordinary household levels! The study will be appearing in a peer-reviewed journal sometime during the summer of 2010. If you are experiencing rapid or irregular heartbeat, pain or pressure in your chest, you will want to visit your physician and share this video with him or her (second video on this page). There is also evidence that this same frequency of radiation causes blood sugar to spike in susceptible individuals and may actually be the cause of one type of diabetes. For details about this, watch the first video below. Microwaving Also Zaps the Nutrients Right Out of Your Food There has been surprisingly little research on how microwaves affect organic molecules, or how the human body responds to consuming microwaved food. Wouldn’t you expect that a product that sits in more than 90 percent of kitchens, as well as practically every break room in the country, would have been thoroughly investigated for safety? The handful of studies that have been done generally agree, for the most part, that microwaving food damages its nutritional value. Your microwave turns your beautiful, organic veggies, for which you’ve paid such a premium in money or labor, into “dead” food that can cause disease! Heating food, in and of itself, can result in some nutrient loss, but using microwaves to heat food introduces the additional problem of the “microwave effect,” a phenomenon that will be discussed in detail later. The majority of studies on microwaves and nutrition were conducted prior to 2000, I suspect because the focus of radiation research of late has shifted toward a more ominous threat: environmental radiation from electromagnetic devices, such as cell phones and computers, which has mushroomed into a gigantic cloud of electrosmog worldwide over the past decade. Nevertheless, some excellent scientific data has been gathered regarding the detrimental effects of microwaves on the nutrients in your food: · A study published in the November 2003 issue of The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture[5] found that broccoli "zapped" in the microwave with a little water lost up to 97 percent of its beneficial antioxidants. By comparison, steamed broccoli lost 11 percent or fewer of its antioxidants. There were also reductions in phenolic compounds and glucosinolates, but mineral levels remained intact. · A 1999 Scandinavian study of the cooking of asparagus spears found that microwaving caused a reduction in vitamin C[6] . · In a study of garlic, as little as 60 seconds of microwave heating was enough to inactivate its allinase, garlic’s principle active ingredient against cancer[7] . · A Japanese study by Watanabe showed that just 6 minutes of microwave heating turned 30-40 percent of the B12 in milk into an inert (dead) form[8] . This study has been cited by Dr. Andrew Weil as evidence supporting his concerns about the effects of microwaving. Dr. Weil wrote: · “There may be dangers associated with microwaving food... there is a question as to whether microwaving alters protein chemistry in ways that might be harmful." · A recent Australian study[9] showed that microwaves cause a higher degree of “protein unfolding” than conventional heating. · Microwaving can destroy the essential disease-fighting agents in breast milk that offer protection for your baby. In 1992, Quan found that microwaved breast milk lost lysozyme activity, antibodies, and fostered the growth of more potentially pathogenic bacteria[10] . Quan stated that more damage was done to the milk by microwaving than by other methods of heating, concluding: “Microwaving appears to be contraindicated at high-temperatures, and questions regarding its safety exist even at low temperatures.” · Another study about breast milk/infant formula by Lee in 1989[11] found vitamin content becomes depleted by microwaving, and certain amino acids are converted into other substances that are biologically inactive. Some altered amino acids are poisons to the nervous system and kidneys. (Numerous authors mention this study, yet I was unable to find the original article/study, so I cannot personally validate.) Although many of the above studies are not new, there is certainly ample evidence that microwaving is NOT good for your food. How Your Microwave Actually Heats Your Food Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation—waves of electrical and magnetic energy moving together through space. EM radiation ranges from very high energy (gamma rays and x-rays) on one end of the spectrum to very low energy (radio waves) on the other end of the spectrum. Microwaves are on the low energy end of the spectrum, second only to radio waves. They have a wavelength of about 4.8 inches—about the width of your head. Microwaves are generated by something called a magnetron (a term derived from the words “magnet” and “electron”), which is also what enabled airborne radar use during WWII. Hence the early name for microwave ovens: radar ranges. A magnetron is a tube in which electrons are subjected to both magnetic and electrical fields, producing an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency of about 2,450 megaHertz (MHz), which is 2.4 gigaHertz (GHz). Microwaves cause dielectric heating. They bounce around the inside of your oven and are absorbed by the food you put in it. Since water molecules are bipolar, having a positive end and negative end, they rotate rapidly in the alternating electric field. The water molecules in the food vibrate violently at extremely high frequencies—like millions of times per second—creating molecular friction, which heats up the food. If the food or object place in the microwave had no water it would not be able to have this resonance heating type effect and would remain cool. Or, as investigative journalist William Thomas[12] calls it, “electrical whiplash.” Structures of the water molecules are torn apart and forcefully deformed. This is different than conventional heating of food, whereby heat is transferred convectionally from the outside, inward. Microwave cooking begins within the molecules where water is present. Contrary to popular belief, microwaved foods don’t cook “from the inside out.” When thicker foods are cooked, microwaves heat the outer layers, and the inner layers are cooked mostly by the conduction of heat from the hot outer layers, inward. Since not all areas contain the same amount of water, the heating is uneven. Additionally, microwaving creates new compounds that are not found in humans or in nature, called radiolytic compounds. We don’t yet know what these compounds are doing to your body. In addition to the violent frictional heat effects, called thermic effects, there are also athermic effects, which are poorly understood because they are not as easily measured. It is these athermic effects that are suspected to be responsible for much of the deformation and degradation of cells and molecules. [13] As an example, microwaves are used in the field of gene altering technology to weaken cell membranes. Scientists use microwaves to actually break cells apart. Impaired cells then become easy prey for viruses, fungi and other microorganisms.8 Another word for these athermic effects is the “microwave effect,” a subject of controversy that I’ll get into a bit later. Microwave Sickness When your tissues are directly exposed to microwaves, the same violent deformations occur and can cause “microwave sickness.” People who have been exposed to high levels of microwave radiation experience a variety of symptoms, including: · Insomnia, night sweats, and various sleep disturbances · Headaches and dizziness · Swollen lymph nodes and a weakened immune system · Impaired cognition · Depression and irritability · Nausea and appetite loss · Vision and eye problems · Frequent urination and extreme thirst There is a good amount of data emerging that people are suffering, to various degrees, these kinds of symptoms from living next to cell phone towers and other high-frequency radiation emitting antennas, which emit microwaves around the clock. According to Professor Franz Adelkofer, a leading scientist in the area of biological effects of EMF fields: "There is real evidence that hyperfrequency electromagnetic fields can have geno-toxic effects. And this damaged DNA is always the cause of cancer. We’ve found these damaging effects on the genes at levels well below the safety limits. That’s why we think it’s urgent to base our safety limits on the biological effects, not the thermic ones. They should be based on biology, not on physics.” Twenty Years of Russian Research Supports Microwave Concerns The Nazis are credited with inventing the first microwave-cooking device to provide mobile food support to their troops during their invasion of the Soviet Union in World War II[14] . These first microwave ovens were experimental. After the war, the US War Department was assigned the task of researching the safety of microwave ovens. But it was the Russians who really took the bull by the horns. After the war, the Russians had retrieved some of these microwave ovens and conducted thorough research on their biological effects. Alarmed by what they learned, the Russians banned microwave ovens in 1976, later lifting the ban during Perestroika. Twenty years of Russian research (and German studies as far back as 1942 Berlin) make a strong argument against the safety of microwave cooking. Their findings led the Russian government to issue an international warning about possible biological and environmental damage associated with the use of microwave ovens and other similar frequency electronic devices (e.g. mobile phones). I was not able to personally evaluate any of these older bodies of research, since those documents are now difficult to track down, so I can’t attest to their methodology or conclusions. All you can do is weigh their findings appropriately, as best you can. The Powerwatch article cited above summarizes the Russian research quite well, which I will duplicate below. · Russian investigators found that carcinogens were formed from the microwaving of nearly all foods tested. · The microwaving of milk and grains converted some of the amino acids into carcinogenic substances. · Microwaving prepared meats caused the formation of the cancer-causing agents d-Nitrosodienthanolamines. · Thawing frozen fruits by microwave converted their glucoside and galactoside fractions into carcinogenic substances. · Extremely short exposure of raw, cooked or frozen vegetables converted their plant alkaloids into carcinogens. · Carcinogenic free radicals were formed in microwaved plants—especially root vegetables. · Structural degradation leading to decreased food value was found to be 60 to 90 percent overall for all foods tested, with significant decreases in bioavailability of B complex vitamins, vitamins C and E, essential minerals, and lipotropics (substances that prevent abnormal accumulation of fat). I might add that this finding is supported by the 1998 Japanese study by Watanabe7 about vitamin B12 in milk, cited above. The Swiss Clinical Study: Hans Hertel Some fairly compelling evidence supporting the destructive effects of microwaves comes from a highly cited study by a Swiss food scientist named Hans Hertel. Dr. Hertel was the first scientist to study the effects of microwaved foods on the blood and physiology of human beings. His small study, coauthored by Dr. Bernard Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry, revealed the degenerative forces produced by microwave ovens on the foods they cooked. Dr. Hertel concluded that microwave cooking changed the nutrients in the food, and that changes took place in the blood that could cause negative health effects. Hertel’s conclusions were that microwaving food resulted in: · Increased cholesterol levels · Decreased numbers of leukocytes (white blood cells), which can suggest poisoning · Decreased numbers of red blood cells · Production of radiolytic compounds · Decreased hemoglobin levels, which could indicate anemia Not surprisingly, Dr. Hertel's study was met with great resistance from those with much to lose. A gag order against Dr. Hertel was issued by a Swiss trade organization in 1992, which was later removed in 1998. But an American journalist, Tom Valentine, published the results of Hertel’s study in Search for Health in the spring of 1992[15] . The study was not without its shortcomings. It involved only eight participants, of which Hertel was one. As compelling as his findings were, his methodology did not stand up to the scientific rigors of the field. In spite of Hertel’s methodological shortcomings, his findings do raise concerns about what this form of radiation is doing to your food and should be taken as a launching point to larger, more robust studies in the future. Hertel wrote: “There are no atoms, molecules, or cells of any organic system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any period of time. This will happen even given the microwave oven’s low power range of milliwatts.” And then there is the issue of biophotons. Possible Microwave Effects on Your Biophotons Biophotonics is the study, research, and applications of photons in their interactions within and on biological systems. Much of the work in the area of biophotons was done in Germany. Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt discusses biophotons in our 2008 interview. Biophotons are the smallest physical units of light that are stored in and used by all biological organisms—including you. Vital sun energy finds its way into your cells via the food you eat, in the form of these biophotons. Biophotons contain important bio-information and are very important to many vital processes in your body. They are partly responsible for your feeling of vitality and well-being. You gain biophotons by eating foods rich in them, such as naturally grown fresh vegetables and sun-ripened fruits, which are rich in light energy. The more light energy a food is able to store, the more nutritious it is. If the “microwave effect” exists (as you shall see, there is a huge amount of evidence that it does), then microwaves can potentially destroy biophotons in the same way that it alters other structures, rendering your food dead and lifeless. It seems quite plausible that microwaves could disrupt or destroy biophotons, since they are capable of breaking apart DNA bonds! As far as I can find, there haven’t been any studies of the direct effects of microwave radiation on biophotons, but it seems like an important angle of investigation for the future. Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Non-Ionizing Radiation One of the basic controversies about the effects of microwaves centers on whether or not microwaves exert some sort of force beyond heat, commonly called “microwave effect” or “athermic effect.” It is first necessary that you understand the difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. There are two basic forms of radiation: ionizing and non-ionizing[16] : 1. Ionizing Radiation: Creates charged ions by displacing electrons in atoms, even without heat. Examples are radiation emitted from radioactive substances in rocks and soil, cosmic rays of the sun, and radiation from man-made technology such as x-rays machines, power stations, and nuclear reactors. 2. Non-ionizing Radiation: Can change the position of atoms but not alter their structure, composition, and properties. Examples are visible light, ultraviolet and infrared waves, waves from radio or television, cellular phones, microwaves, and electric blankets. Despite not being able to break atoms apart, non-ionizing radiation (such as microwaves) CAN cause physical alterations. For example, sunlight can damage your skin and eyes. Overexposure to radiation can affect tissues by causing molecular damage, DNA mutations, and other changes that can lead to cancer. The serious concern is, with all of this radiation surrounding us from cell and cordless phones, radio towers, satellites, broadcast antennas, military and aviation radar, home electronic devices, computers and Internet, we are all part of an involuntary mass epidemiological experiment, on a scale never before seen in the history of the human race. And the truth is that we don’t really KNOW what long term, low-level (but persistent) radiation does to us—even the non-ionizing type. But here are some of the things we DO KNOW:[17] · Effects at low levels can be more noticeable than at higher levels. There is something called a “window effect,” meaning an effect occurring only at specific frequencies or power densities, but not occurring just above or below them. A number of studies demonstrate effects of microwave radiation on blood cells via this phenomenon. · For a complete discussion of this, you can read Microwaving Our Planet, written by Arthur Firstenberg, president of the Cellular Phone Taskforce. · Cindy Sage of Sage Associates, an environmental consulting firm, has compiled a comprehensive list of studies[18] showing biological effects at radiofrequency exposure levels far below what would be explainable as “thermic effects” and well within the range you are commonly exposed to every day. · Resonance intensifies biological effect. Resonance occurs when a form of radiation has a similar frequency as a body part. For example, microwave frequencies are similar to the frequencies of your brain! · Studies are typically done for short exposure periods, at higher intensities. Scientists claim that duration of exposure is equally important to intensity of exposure, but is often NOT studied, and that long-term, low-level exposure can have effects equivalent to short-term, more intense exposure. · The effects of radiation are cumulative. Your body becomes more sensitive to it over time. · There are no longer any control groups, since human beings are all now exposed to such pervasive radiation. Lack of a control group makes it even more challenging to conduct meaningful studies. The point is, standing in your kitchen while your microwave is zapping your dinner, night after night, will not make you glow in the dark.But over the months and years, what is the cumulative effect on your body and health? Why expose yourself to these potential dangers when there are safer alternatives for cooking available? Is Microwaving Food Any More Dangerous than Heating it with a Conventional Oven? Some experts claim that the effects microwaves have on molecules can all be explained simply as the “thermic effect” of heating—in other words, microwave cooking is no more detrimental to food than conventional heating. They argue that, since microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, then it’s impossible for them to damage your blood cells, or eradicate the folic acid in your spinach. Others have proposed there is some sort of “microwave effect” that causes changes in the molecules in a way that conventional heating does not. For many years, the party line was that “microwave effect” is a myth. However, study after study has resulted in evidence to the contrary, showing effects that cannot be explained away as simple thermal effects. In a letter entitled “DNA and the Microwave Effect”[19] (sourced as Penn State University, 2001), the author reviews the history of the controversy surrounding the microwave effect and the research findings to date. He explains that, although fundamentals of thermodynamics and physics would tell you the microwave effect is impossible, studies keep turning up evidence of its existence. Some of the main points made in the letter are the following: · Microwave heating and conventional heating may appear identical on a “macro” level, but the two appear very different on amolecular level. · Microwaves are effective for sterilization, which has been studied for several decades. There is controversy, however, is about whether it’s the heat they generate or if it’s something else altogether. · One scientist (Kakita 1995[20] ) was successful in demonstrating that microwaves are capable of extensively fragmenting and destroying viral DNA, something that cannot be accomplished by heating alone. · Multiple studies offer evidence that there are multiple mechanisms for breaking apart DNA without ionizing radiation, but no theory currently exists to explain this phenomenon. Some scientists are taking advantage of the microwave effect and using microwaves in the laboratory to greatly accelerate chemical reactions, sometimes by a factor of a thousand, resulting in the completion of reactions in minutes that formerly took days or months and a lot of toxic chemicals[21] . This newly found interest in “microwave chemistry” has spurred skeptic scientists into taking another look at what microwaves actually do and how they do it. Sometimes common sense trumps empirical evidence. The Penn State letter/article said it best: “...It would seem there is reason to believe that the microwave effect does indeed exist, even if it cannot yet be adequately explained. What we know at present is somewhat limited, but there may be enough information already available to form a viable hypothesis. The possibility that electromagnetic radiation in the non-ionizing frequency range can cause genetic damage may have profound implications on the current controversy involving EM antennae, power lines, and cell phones.” Breaking Free of Your Microwave: A Few Basic Tips Am I asking you to toss your microwave oven into the nearest dumpster? Not necessarily. It can be a useful tool for cleaning. But if real estate in your kitchen is at a premium, it should probably be the first thing to go. You really CAN survive sans microwave—people are living quite happily without one, believe it or not. You just have to make a few small lifestyle adjustments, such as: · Plan ahead. Take your dinner out of the freezer that morning or the night before so you don’t end up having to scramble to defrost a 5-pound chunk of beef two hours before dinnertime. · Make soups and stews in bulk, and then freeze them in gallon-sized freezer bags or other containers. An hour before meal time, just take one out and defrost it in a sink of water until it’s thawed enough to slip into a pot, then reheat it on the stove. · A toaster oven makes a GREAT faux-microwave for heating up leftovers! Keep it at a low temperature — like 200-250 degrees F — and gently warm a plate of food over the course of 20-30 minutes. Another great alternative is a convection oven. They can be built in or purchased as a relatively inexpensive and quick safe way to heat foods · Prepare your meals in advance so that you always have a good meal available on those days when you’re too busy or too tired to cook. · Try eating more organic raw foods. This is the best way to and improve your health over the long run. References: [1] Davis D R. (February 1, 2009) “Declining fruit and vegetable nutrient composition: What is the evidence?” American Society of Horticultural Science [2] Rust S and Kissinger M. (November 15, 2008) “BPA leaches from ‘safe’ products” Journal Sentinel Online [3] “Microwave oven radiation,” Food and Drug Administration [4] Havas M. “DECT phone affects the heart!” [5] Vallejo F, Tomas-Barberan F A, and Garcia-Viguera C. “Phenolic compound contents in edible parts of broccoli inflorescences after domestic cooking” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (15 Oct 2003) 83(14);1511-1516 [6] Kidmose U and Kaack K. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica B 1999:49(2):110-117 [7] Song K and Milner J A. “The influence of heating on the anticancer properties of garlic,” Journal of Nutrition 2001;131(3S):1054S-57S [8] Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Abe K, Tamura Y, and Nakano Y. J. Agric. Food Chem. Feb 26 1998;46(4):1433-1436 [9] George D F, Bilek M M, and McKenzie D R. “Non-thermal effects in the microwave induced unfolding of proteins observed by chaperone binding,” Bioelectromagnetics 2008 May;29(4):324-30 [10] Quan R (et al) “Effects of microwave radiation on anti-infective factors in human milk,” Pediatrics 89(4 part I):667-669. [11] Lee L. “Health effects of microwave radiation-microwave ovens,” Lancet December 9, 1989 (Article) [12] Thomas W. “Cooked” Alive.com [13] “Microwave oven and microwave cooking overview,” Powerwatch [14] “History of microwave ovens” Green Health Watch [15] “Microwave ovens: A danger to your health?” (January 26, 2010) Nutritional and Physical Regeneration [16] Villablanca E (December 19, 2007) “Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation: Their difference and possible health consequences” [17] “Health effects of microwave radiation (Western view)” [18] Sage C. “Reported biological effects from radiofrequency non-ionizing radiation” Wave-Guide.org [19] Penn State University. “DNA and the microwave effect” posted from MailBag (April 8, 2002) [20] Kakita Y, Kashige N, Murata K, Kuroiwa A, Funatsu M and Watanabe K. "Inactivation of Lactobacillus bacteriophage PL-1 by microwave irradiation" Microbiol. Immunol. 1995;39:571-576. [21] Adams C. (May 6, 2005) “Does microwaving kill nutrients in food? Is microwaving safe?” The Straight Dope Another eye opener from Dr Mercola 12/09/2010
Eating This "Healthy" Food? It Could be Slowly and Silently Killing You by The Weston A. Price Foundation - The Weston A. Price Foundation provides accurate information about nutrition and is dedicated to putting nutrient-dense foods back on American tables. Members receive a lively and informative quarterly journal and email updates on current issues and website events. Visit their at www.westonaprice.org Are you confused about soy? The Weston A. Price Foundation has compiled a list of soy dangers and myths to get the truth out once and for all. Soy Dangers Summarized · High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking, but only with long fermentation. High-phytate diets have caused growth problems in children. · Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals, soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth. · Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women. · Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease. · Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body's requirement for B12. · Soy foods increase the body's requirement for Vitamin D. Toxic synthetic Vitamin D2 is added to soy milk. · Fragile proteins are over-denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein. · Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines. · Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods to mask soy's unpleasant taste. · Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum, which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys. Myths and Truths About Soy Here we dispel the myths of the "Diet Dictocrats" and reveal the scientific validity behind our wise ancestors' nutrient-dense diets. Myth: Use of soy as a food dates back many thousands of years. Truth: Soy was first used as a food during the late Chou dynasty (1134-246 BC), only after the Chinese learned to ferment soybeans to make foods like tempeh, natto and tamari. Myth: Asians consume large amounts of soy foods. Truth: Average consumption of soy foods in Japan and China is 10 grams (about 2 teaspoons) per day. Asians consume soy foods in small amounts as a condiment, and not as a replacement for animal foods. Myth: Modern soy foods confer the same health benefits as traditionally fermented soy foods. Truth: Most modern soy foods are not fermented to neutralize toxins in soybeans, and are processed in a way that denatures proteins and increases levels of carcinogens. Myth: Soy foods provide complete protein. Truth: Like all legumes, soybeans are deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cystine. In addition, modern processing denatures fragile lysine. Myth: Fermented soy foods can provide vitamin B12 in vegetarian diets. Truth: The compound that resembles vitamin B12 in soy cannot be used by the human body: in fact, soy foods cause the body to require more B12 Myth: Soy formula is safe for infants. Truth: Soy foods contain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit protein digestion and affect pancreatic function. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors led to stunted growth and pancreatic disorders. Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D, needed for strong bones and normal growth. Phytic acid in soy foods results in reduced bioavailabilty of iron and zinc, which are required for the health and development of the brain and nervous system. Soy also lacks cholesterol, likewise essential for the development of the brain and nervous system. Megadoses of phytoestrogens in soy formula have been implicated in the current trend toward increasingly premature sexual development in girls and delayed or retarded sexual development in boys. Myth: Soy foods can prevent osteoporosis. Truth: Soy foods can cause deficiencies in calcium and vitamin D, both needed for healthy bones. Calcium from bone broths and vitamin D from seafood, lard and organ meats prevent osteoporosis in Asian countries—not soy foods. Myth: Modern soy foods protect against many types of cancer. Truth: A British government report concluded that there is little evidence that soy foods protect against breast cancer or any other forms of cancer. In fact, soy foods may result in an increased risk of cancer. Myth: Soy foods protect against heart disease. Truth: In some people, consumption of soy foods will lower cholesterol, but there is no evidence that lowering cholesterol with soy protein improves one's risk of having heart disease. Myth: Soy estrogens (isoflavones) are good for you. Truth: Soy isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disrupters. At dietary levels, they can prevent ovulation and stimulate the growth of cancer cells. Eating as little as 30 grams (about 4 tablespoons) of soy per day can result in hypothyroidism with symptoms of lethargy, constipation, weight gain and fatigue. Myth: Soy foods are safe and beneficial for women to use in their postmenopausal years. Truth: Soy foods can stimulate the growth of estrogen-dependent tumors and cause thyroid problems. Low thyroid function is associated with difficulties in menopause. Myth: Phytoestrogens in soy foods can enhance mental ability. Truth: A recent study found that women with the highest levels of estrogen in their blood had the lowest levels of cognitive function; In Japanese Americans tofu consumption in mid-life is associated with the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease in later life. Myth: Soy isoflavones and soy protein isolate have GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status. Truth: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) recently withdrew its application to the FDA for GRAS status for soy isoflavones following an outpouring of protest from the scientific community. The FDA never approved GRAS status for soy protein isolate because of concern regarding the presence of toxins and carcinogens in processed soy. Myth: Soy foods are good for your sex life. Truth: Numerous animal studies show that soy foods cause infertility in animals. Soy consumption enhances hair growth in middle-aged men, indicating lowered testosterone levels. Myth: Soybeans are good for the environment. Truth: Most soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered to allow farmers to use large amounts of herbicides. Myth: Soybeans are good for developing nations. Truth: In third-world countries, soybeans replace traditional crops and transfer the value-added of processing from the local population to multinational corporations. Soy Infant Formula: Birth Control Pills for Babies Babies fed soy-based formula have 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen compounds in their blood than babies fed milk-based formula. Infants exclusively fed soy formula receive the estrogenic equivalent of at least four birth control pills per day. Male infants undergo a testosterone surge during the first few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those of an adult male. During this period, baby boys are programmed to express male characteristics after puberty, not only in the development of their sexual organs and other masculinity traits, but also in setting patterns in the brain characteristic of male behavior. In animals, studies indicate that phytoestrogens in soy are powerful endocrine disrupters. Soy infant feeding -- which floods the bloodstream with female hormones that inhibit testosterone -- cannot be ignored as a possible cause of disrupted development patterns in boys, including learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder. Male children exposed to DES, a synthetic estrogen, had testes smaller than normal on maturation and infant marmoset monkeys fed soy isoflavones had a reduction in testosterone levels up to 70 percent compared to milk-fed controls. Almost 15 percent of white girls and 50 percent of African-Americans girls show signs of puberty, such as breast development and pubic hair, before the age of eight. Some girls are showing sexual development before the age of three. Premature development of girls has been linked to the use of soy formula and exposure to environmental estrogen-mimickers such as PCBs and DDE. Intake of phytoestrogens even at moderate levels during pregnancy can have adverse affects on the developing fetus and the timing of puberty later in life. Dr. Mercola's Comments: If you were to carefully review the thousands of studies published on soy, I believe you would reach the same conclusion as I have—which is, the health risks associated with unfermented soy products FAR outweigh any possible benefits. However, there's an important distinction that must be made any time you talk about soy, and that is the difference between traditionallyfermented and unfermented soy products. For centuries, Asian people have been consuming fermented soy products such as natto, tempeh, and soy sauce, and enjoying the health benefits associated with them. Fermented soy does not wreak havoc on your body like unfermented soy products do. Additionally, there's the issue of eating genetically modified (GM) soy. In the US, over 90 percent of all soy grown is genetically modified Roundup Ready soy, which has an array of additional health hazards all of its own. Unfortunately, many Americans who are committed to healthy lifestyles have been mislead and grossly manipulated into believing that unfermented and processed soy products like soymilk, soy cheese, soy burgers and soy ice cream are health foods. As the Weston A. Price Foundation so clearly shows (above), this is far from true. Health Dangers of Soy Dr. Kaayla Daniel, author of The Whole Soy Story, points out thousands of studies linking soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, immune-system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders and infertility—even cancer and heart disease. If you have symptoms of any of the following diseases, I would strongly urge you to take a closer look at your diet and eliminate unfermented soy: · Breast cancer · Brain damage · Infant abnormalities · Thyroid disorders · Kidney stones · Immune system impairment · Severe, potentially fatal food allergies · Impaired fertility · Danger during pregnancy and nursing What Soy Products are Good For You? The only soy with health benefits is organic soy that has been properly fermented, and these are the only soy products I ever recommend consuming. After a long fermentation process, the phytate and "anti-nutrient" levels of soybeans are reduced, and their beneficial properties become available to your digestive system. The primary fermented soy products I recommend are: · Tempeh a fermented soybean cake with a firm texture and nutty, mushroom-like flavor. · Miso, a fermented soybean paste with a salty, buttery texture (commonly used in miso soup). · Natto, fermented soybeans with a sticky texture and strong, cheese-like flavor. · Soy sauce, which is traditionally made by fermenting soybeans, salt and enzymes; be wary because many varieties on the market today are made artificially using a chemical process. Please note that tofu is NOT on this list. Tofu is not fermented, and is therefore not among the soy foods I recommend. There's little doubt that one of the best ways to improve your health is to make sure you're eating plenty of fresh, minimally processed high quality vegetables, ideally locally-grown and organic, with a majority of them consumed raw. One simple way to boost your vegetable intake is to juice them. Juicing organic vegetables is highly recommended to givie you a radiant, energetic life, and truly optimal health. I simply do not know of any other single nutritional intervention that has a more profound influence on health than eating and/or juicing fresh, organic vegetables. Are All Vegetables the Same? If you were to get all of your vegetables from conventionally farmed sources, this would be better for your health than eating no fresh vegetables at all. However, conventionally farmed vegetables are not your best choice. Organic vegetables are a much better option. Why? Organic farmers (and many small, local organic farms working without certification), must use different standards when growing vegetables. These standards include never using: Pesticides Synthetic Fertilizers Sewage sludge Genetically modified organisms Ionizing radiation The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers 60 percent of herbicides, 90 percent of fungicides, and 30 percent of insecticides to be carcinogenic, and most are damaging to your nervous system as well. In fact, these powerful and dangerous chemicals have been linked to numerous health problems such as: Neurotoxicity Disruption of your endocrine system Carcinogenicity Immune system suppression Male infertility and reduced reproductive function Miscarriages Parkinson's disease This information alone should give you pause when considering whether to buy local, organic vegetables or not. But I encourage you to do further research about organic versus conventional farming conditions. I believe that after researching the facts and statistics, you'll come to the conclusion that organic vegetables are far more nutritious than conventionally farmed vegetables. Conventional Fruit and Vegetable Pesticide Loads Certainly helpful to your decision about which vegetables should be purchased organic and which conventional veggies may be safe, is the measured pesticide loads found on conventionally farmed fruits and vegetables. Of the 43 different fruit and vegetable categories tested by the Environmental Working Group and included in their Shoppers' Guide to Pesticides in Produce, these 12 fruits and vegetables had the highest pesticide load, making them the most important to buy or grow organic: Peaches Apples Sweet bell peppers Celery Nectarines Strawberries Cherries Lettuce Grapes (imported) Pears Spinach Potatoes In contrast, these foods were found to have the lowest residual pesticide load, making them the safest bet among conventionally grown vegetables: Broccoli Eggplant Cabbage Banana Kiwi Asparagus Sweet peas (frozen) Mango Pineapple Sweet corn (frozen) Avocado Onion So if you need to work within a certain budget, use this information to help guide you to the best choices when it comes to lowering your overall pesticide exposure. The Importance of Fresh Vegetables Buying your vegetables from a local organic source is the ideal way to ensure that your vegetables are both fresh and high-quality. I strongly advise you to avoid wilted vegetables of any kind, because when vegetables wilt they loose much of their nutritional value. In fact, wilted organic vegetables may actually be less healthy than fresh conventionally farmed vegetables! Another reason to buy your organic vegetables from a local source is that fresher vegetables also contain the highest amounts of biophotons. What are Biophotons? Biophotons are the smallest physical units of light, which are stored in, and used by all biological organisms – including your body. Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp was the first to suggest that this light inside all biological organisms must originate, at least in part, from the foods you eat. When you eat plant foods, the light waves (photons) are thought assimilate into the cells in your body. The purpose of these biophotons is much more important than many have realized, because they are the transmitters of important nutritional bio-information used in many complex vital processes in your body. Every living organism emits biophotons, or low-level luminescence (light with a wavelength between 200 and 800 nanometers). It is thought that the higher the level of light energy a cell emits, the greater the vitality and potential for the transfer of light energy to your body. In other words, the more light that a food is able to store, the more nutritious it is when you consume it. Fresh, organic vegetables are naturally rich in this biophoton light energy. Illness Can Occur When Biophoton Emissions are Out of Sync Research by Dr. Popp also showed that the light emissions of healthy people follow a set of biological rhythms by day and night and also by week and month. However, in his studies, the light emissions from cancer patients had no such rhythms and appeared scrambled, which suggests that their cells were no longer communicating properly. Likewise, according to Dr. Popp's research, multiple sclerosis patients were taking in too much light, leading to what he considered confusion on a cellular level. Even stress can influence your biophoton emissions, causing them to increase when stress increases. It's also known that cancer-causing chemicals alter your body's biophoton emissions, interrupting proper cellular communication, while certain natural substances can help to restore proper cellular communication. For instance, Dr. Popp found that mistletoe appeared to restore biophoton emissions of tumor cells to a normal level! Interestingly, even conventional medicine confirmed that mistletoe extract does appear to have a beneficial effect on cancer, with one study published in Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine showing that mean survival rates nearly doubled among breast cancer patients who received mistletoe extract. An Important Tip for Gathering Valuable Light Energy As regular readers know, I've long recommended eating a diet of mostly RAW food to stay optimally healthy. This is because living raw foods contain the most biophoton light energy that your body needs. The greater your store of light energy from healthy raw foods (this should not be confused with your vitamin D status, which is produced by the sun on your skin), the greater the power of your overall electromagnetic field, and consequently the more energy is available for healing and maintenance of optimal health. I firmly believe it's only a matter of time before the importance of light energy in your health and well-being becomes more widely recognized and applied in the field of medicine. Until then, remember that your body is not only made up of tissue, blood vessels and organs. It's also composed of light. Reasons to Juice As I mentioned at the beginning, one of the best ways to get ample amounts of raw vegetables into your diet is through juicing. Many people see juicing as inconvenient, but with the proper juicer it really is not very time consuming at all. The fact is, many people initially think that juicing will be a real chore, but most are pleasantly surprised to find it's much easier than they thought. There are three main reasons why you will want to consider incorporating organic vegetable juicing into your optimal health program: Juicing helps you absorb more nutrients from the vegetables. Juicing allows you to efficiently consume more vegetables. Juicing can add a wider variety of vegetables into your diet. However, you should only start by juicing vegetables that you enjoy eating non-juiced. The juice should taste pleasant -- not make you feel nauseous. It is very important to listen to your body when juicing. Your stomach should feel good all morning long. If it is churning or growling or generally making its presence known, you probably juiced something you should not be eating. Personally, I've noticed that I can't juice large amounts of cabbage, but if I spread it out, I do fine. Please review my comprehensive vegetable juicing instructions for more information. What are the Best Vegetables for Good Health? Whether you're munching them raw or juicing, some vegetables contain more health building nutrients than others. This list details some of the best and worst vegetables for your health. Highly Recommended Vegetables Asparagus Escarole Avocado (actually a fruit) Fennel Beet greens Green and red cabbage Bok Choy Kale Broccoli Kohlrabi Brussel sprouts Lettuce: romaine, red leaf, green leaf Cauliflower Mustard greens Celery Onions Chicory Parsley Chinese cabbage Peppers: red, green, yellow and hot Chives Tomatoes Collard greens Turnips Cucumbers Spinach Dandelion greens Zucchini Endive Use sparingly due to high carbohydrate levels Beets Jicima Carrots Winter Squashes Eggplant Vegetables to Avoid Potatoes Tips to Make Your Juice Taste Better If you would like to make your juice taste a bit more palatable, especially in the beginning, you can add these elements: Coconut: This is one of my favorites! You can purchase the whole coconut or use unsweetened shredded coconut. It adds a delightful flavor and is an excellent source of fat to balance your meal. Coconut has medium chain triglycerides, which have many health benefits. Cranberries: Researchers have discovered that cranberries have five times the antioxidant content of broccoli, which means they may help protect against cancer, stroke and heart disease. Limit the cranberries to about 4 ounces per pint of juice. Lemons and Limes: You can also add half a lemon or lime (leaving much of the white rind on).. Fresh ginger: This is an excellent addition if you can tolerate it. It gives your juice a little "kick"! And, as an added boon, researchers have found that ginger can have dramatic effects on cardiovascular health, including preventing atherosclerosis, lowering cholesterol levels, and preventing the oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL). Nutritional Typing and Juicing Vegetables According to Nutritional Typing principles, if you are a carb type, vegetable juicing is STRONGLY recommended. With patients in our clinic, we strongly encourage it if they expect to regain their health. If you are a mixed type, it is certainly useful to juice. However, protein types need to follow some specific guidelines to make it work for them, which I'll review below. I used to charge a fee for my nutritional typing program; however I'm now able to offer this exceptional tool for FREE, so I urge you to take advantage of this opportunity. You can find the free online typing test here. This program can help guide your food choices even further. We use to charge $29 for this test but I wanted to make it available for everyone, so please take advantage of this free test to help you learn what foods will improve your health. Protein Types and Juicing Vegetables If you are a protein type, juicing needs to be done cautiously. The only vegetables that should be juiced are your prime protein type vegetables, which are celery, spinach, asparagus, string beans and cauliflower (including the base). Also, to make drinking vegetable juice compatible with protein type metabolism (which needs high amounts of fat), it is important to blend a source of raw fat into the juice. Raw cream, raw butter, raw eggs, avocado, coconut butter, or freshly ground flax seed are the sources of raw fat I most recommend. In addition to adding a source of raw fat to your juice, you may also find that adding some, or even all, of the vegetable pulp into your juice helps to make drinking the juiced vegetables more satisfying. Final Thoughts about Vegetables The truth is, scientists really don't know all that much about nutrients, and taking isolated nutrients through supplements is not always a good idea, since it's been shown that using supplements can actually lead to negative health consequences. A much better way to get the vital nutrients your body needs is through eating whole, fresh organic vegetables. I recommend at least one third of your total diet be eaten raw, and a great way to do this is through incorporating juicing into your eating plan. Personally, I aim for consuming about 80 percent of my food raw, including raw eggs, dairy and meat. Be sure to also take into account your Nutritional Type, because some people definitely function better with more vegetables in their diets than others. Again, to take my free online nutritional typing test, see this link. But I want to emphasize that eating any vegetable is better than eating no vegetables at all, so don't get down on yourself if you're able to juice organic fresh vegetables only a few times a week. Even if you have to start slowly, I think you'll soon begin to notice positive changes to your health when you increase your intake of fresh vegetables. Even better, review my nutrition plan, which can help you take a comprehensive look at your overall health as it relates to food, and may even help you to change the way you think about eating. First Post! 11/29/2010
Start blogging by creating a new post. You can edit or delete me by clicking under the comments. You can also customize your sidebar by dragging in elements from the top bar. | Sally LongdenI am a keen follower of Dr Mercola who is a font of information on all aspects of health. He is a medical doctor but specialized as an osteopathic physician who practices a "whole person" approach to medicine, treating the entire person rather than just symptoms. Focusing on preventive health care. They help patients develop attitudes and lifestyles that don't just fight illness, but help prevent it too. ArchivesJanuary 2011 Categories |
RSS Feed