Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

[BroJones]

So, I agree with the analysis of jonesde, but I'm willing to look at an important fundamental question here and discontinue my responses to personal attacks or other diversions at this time -- Here is the question I wish to research:

QUESTION: Is it true that the practice of conventional medicine including doctor error and pharmaceutical side-effects is among the leading causes of death in the United States?

As stated in a Dr Mercola article:

Conventional medical care was not listed as a top cause of death, even though research points to adverse drug reactions, medical errors, hospital-acquired infections, unnecessary procedures and other consequences of modern medicine as a leading cause of death.

The foregoing is strikingly different from what appears in your post of May 28, 7:44 p.m. (in red ink in large font): The CDC Left Conventional Medical Care Off of Their Death List--It Should be #1.

Case closed.

I quoted from Dr. Mercola for Question #1 -- but to satisfy a concern, then, without diverting from the question #1, let us add a second question:


QUESTION #2: Is it true that the practice of conventional medicine including doctor error and pharmaceutical side-effects is the #1 leading cause of death in the United States?
Including: "adverse drug reactions, medical errors, hospital-acquired infections, unnecessary procedures and other consequences of modern medicine" - Dr Mercola

The case is not closed, unless one is closed-minded. The research continues.

[BlueMoon5]

So, I agree with the analysis of jonesde, but I'm willing to look at an important fundamental question here and discontinue my responses to personal attacks or other diversions at this time -- Here is the question I wish to research:

QUESTION: Is it true that the practice of conventional medicine including doctor error and pharmaceutical side-effects is among the leading causes of death in the United States?

You already gave your answer to that question; spinning your way out of it won't work. To wit:
1) This statement by Dr. Mercola appears on your post of May 28, 5:12 p.m. (large font, red ink): THE CDC LEFT CONVENTIONAL MEDICAL CARE OFF OF THEIR DEATH LIST--IT SHOULD BE #1 [emphasis added].

2) In your post of the same date, 7:44 p.m., you repeat Dr. Mercola's statement and then write: "I subscribe to info from Dr. Mercola. . . . Let's start with his report on the biggest killer in the USA--not heart disease or cancer, but rather. . .injury and death from doctor-prescribed drugs!" [emphasis added]. That constitutes a straightforward endorsement of Dr. Mercola's claim.

3) Finally, after I challenged the appropriateness of Dr. Mercola's statement and your agreement with it, you changed your position, citing your desire to research the question, "Is it true that the practice of conventional medicine including doctor error and pharmaceutical side-effects is among the leading [emphasis added] causes of death in the U.S.?"

Good luck with your research.

[BroJones]

When I said "I subscribe to info from Dr. Mercola", that means I have a subscription to his emailed newsletters -- it does not mean that I agree with all his statements. Further, I already (yesterday) clarified that I do not agree with everything Dr. Mercola says.

I DO appreciate the fact that he provides references to peer-reviewed papers, not just "anecdotal" support such as you admit you purport -- unlike you, BM5, Dr. Mercola provides solid, published references!

[BlueMoon5]

: This, on the other hand IS an ad-hominem argument. It basically says that alternatives to mainstream medicine are only trusted by "minors and the credulous", and more specifically "Ethnic minorities, immigrants, and younger people". In addition to being racist and classist, this quote ignores the facts of the matter and does EXACTLY what you are accusing DrJones of doing, ie distracting and distorting the matter and arguing with false logic.

The dispatch with which the race card is played these days scrambles the mind. Dr. Beaven stated facts re. people who tend to rely on alternative medicine in his part of the world. By your lights, the following statements are racist, even though they are absolutely, certifiably true:

1) African Americans have higher rates of mortality than does any other racial or ethnic group for 8 of the top 10 causes of death.[8]
2) The cancer incidence rate among African Americans is 10% higher than among European Americans.[9]
3) U.S. Latinos have higher rates of death from diabetes, liver disease, and infectious diseases than do non-Latinos.[10]
4) Adult African Americans and Latinos have approximately twice the risk as European Americans of developing diabetes.[9]
5) Native Americans suffer from higher rates of diabetes, tuberculosis, pneumonia, influenza, and alcoholism than does the rest of the U.S. population.[11]
6) European Americans die more often from heart disease and cancer than do Native Americans, Asian Americans, or Hispanics.[8]
7) White Americans have far higher incident rates of melanoma of the skin or skin cancer than any other race/ethnicity in the US. In 2007 incident rates among white American males were approximately 25/100,000 people, whereas the next highest group (Hispanics and natives) has an incidence rate of approximately 5/100,000 people.[12]

(Source: Wikipedia, "Race & Health in the United States")

[Rob]

I DO appreciate the fact that he provides references to peer-reviewed papers, not just "anecdotal" support such as you admit you purport -- unlike you, BM5, Dr. Mercola provides solid, published references!

But BM cites Wikipedia regularly. :-B

[karend77]

When I said "I subscribe to info from Dr. Mercola", that means I have a subscription to his emailed newsletters -- it does not mean that I agree with all his statements. Further, I already (yesterday) clarified that I do not agree with everything Dr. Mercola says.

I DO appreciate the fact that he provides references to peer-reviewed papers, not just "anecdotal" support

Having these peer reviewed papers or studies is so important to have. When you want to try an alternative treatment and go to your "regular" doctor, having these printed out in hand, helps the doctor feel comfortable with a personalized treatment plan that they can be on board with. Been there, done that.

[BroJones]

When I said "I subscribe to info from Dr. Mercola", that means I have a subscription to his emailed newsletters -- it does not mean that I agree with all his statements. Further, I already (yesterday) clarified that I do not agree with everything Dr. Mercola says.

I DO appreciate the fact that he provides references to peer-reviewed papers, not just "anecdotal" support

Having these peer reviewed papers or studies is so important to have. When you want to try an alternative treatment and go to your "regular" doctor, having these printed out in hand, helps the doctor feel comfortable with a personalized treatment plan that they can be on board with. Been there, done that.

An excellent point, Karend! I totally agree.
For example, if one has a problem with cholesterol, as I have had in the past, he can research published peer-reviewed papers on what works for lowering cholesterol -- more natural methods, without using Statin pharmaceuticals which have such bad side-effects in many cases. (There are also published studies documenting that.)

The point is -- YOU have become in charge of your own health, because you are armed with FACTS in published papers, and you are now HIRING your doctor to help you!
BRAVO!

That is exactly what I'm hoping for -- people who seek out the facts and TAKE CHARGE OF THEIR LIVES RATHER THAN PUTTING THEIR TRUST IN GOV'T OR DOCTORS OR ... ETC ... TO TAKE CARE OF THEM = relieving (or depriving) themselves of their God-given decision-making responsibility.

Let's keep our freedom and our self-determination, which is moral agency.

[BlueMoon5]

When I said "I subscribe to info from Dr. Mercola", that means I have a subscription to his emailed newsletters -- it does not mean that I agree with all his statements. Further, I already (yesterday) clarified that I do not agree with everything Dr. Mercola says.

That's a fair and appropriate explanation. And, in fact, I considered the idea that by "subscribe" you did, indeed, mean a subscription. However,
given the extent to which you cut-and-paste Dr. Mercola's articles, sometimes commenting positively about them (and endorsing them), my alternative reading was not unreasonable. Actually, in your construction, "subscribe" works well as a double entendre.

[BlueMoon5]

I DO appreciate the fact that he provides references to peer-reviewed papers, not just "anecdotal" support such as you admit you purport -- unlike you, BM5, Dr. Mercola provides solid, published references!

But BM cites Wikipedia regularly. :-B

Wikipedia certainly has its detractors, but I think the following is instructive:

"Wikipedia itself is strong on self-assessment. Encyclopedia editors address accuracy in the entry Reliability of Wikipedia, compiling the results of international third-party assessments across a variety of disciplines. The consensus: the encyclopedia is as accurate as other encyclopedias. And as Cathy Davidson, Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke University, points out in We Can't Ignore the Influence of Digital Technologies (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 2007), unlike comparable print sources, Wikipedia errors can be corrected and often are in a matter of hours after publication. Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy.
While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative scholarship. Researching with Wikipedia points out that few articles are of encyclopedic quality when they first appear—they may be unbalanced, biased, and incomplete, and it takes time for contributors to find consensus. Wikipedia for Academic Use advises users to explore whether articles represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Each of Wikipedia's own articles fostering critical thinking includes links to further analysis and comment on the encyclopedia's value and utility." (Teaching History, "Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?" Lee Ann Ghajar)

[karend77]

Wikipedia certainly has its detractors, but I think the following is instructive:

"Wikipedia itself is strong on self-assessment. Encyclopedia editors address accuracy in the entry Reliability of Wikipedia, compiling the results of international third-party assessments across a variety of disciplines. The consensus: the encyclopedia is as accurate as other encyclopedias. And as Cathy Davidson, Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke University, points out in We Can't Ignore the Influence of Digital Technologies (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 2007), unlike comparable print sources, Wikipedia errors can be corrected and often are in a matter of hours after publication. Wikipedia credibility is more an issue of who writes what and when they write than it is a problem of accuracy.
While accuracy may not be Wikipedia's major deterrent, the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative scholarship. Researching with Wikipedia points out that few articles are of encyclopedic quality when they first appear—they may be unbalanced, biased, and incomplete, and it takes time for contributors to find consensus. Wikipedia for Academic Use advises users to explore whether articles represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Each of Wikipedia's own articles fostering critical thinking includes links to further analysis and comment on the encyclopedia's value and utility." (Teaching History, "Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?" Lee Ann Ghajar)

Wikipedia is a good source in general. However, my experience with alternative therapies shows that the authors or contributors to wiki sometimes are biased. A particular alternative drug therapy that has shown great results, no side effects and has several small peer reviews and studies to prove this, is totally ignored by wiki, with the entry from them poo-poohing this therapy. Forgive me for being cynical, but big pharma companies have long arms and deep pockets, even on supposedly "non-biased" resources such as wiki.

[jonesde]

QUESTION: Is it true that the practice of conventional medicine including doctor error and pharmaceutical side-effects is among the leading causes of death in the United States?

That may be difficult to prove, given who controls the numbers in that game.

Whether or not that is the case, it is much easier to prove by legal code and case history that government licensed medical doctors and government licensed and regulated pharma companies are given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to cases involving death because of their services or products.

People often forget the other side of licensing and regulation: there is an initial benefit of the doubt (assumption of innocence until proven otherwise) because these entities have been "vetted" by diligent public servants. That benefit of the doubt allows avoidance of arrest and prosecution in many cases.

Consider the opposite with natural and alternative therapies. In the very few cases where people have died and any blame could be placed on the therapy, there is no benefit of the doubt because the person is seen as a dissident or a belligerent, and so the initial assumption is guilt unless there is significant proof of innocence.

But wait, don't we have an effective justice system in this country?

Consider that 99% of the most serious criminal cases, namely felonies, are resolved with a plea bargain after pressure is applied by law enforcement and government attorneys offices. Of the remaining 1% around 2/3 are found guilty.

In other words, if you are charged with a felony you have around a 0.33% (1 in 300) chance of avoiding a criminal conviction.

The initial benefit of the doubt isn't a small thing, and in fact it makes ALL the difference with our current railroad legal system.

Whether or not this is the leading cause of death, consider the legal liability factor that protects such behavior and incentivizes carelessness as long as the proper paperwork and legal compliance songs and dances have been performed.

[Rob]

Wikipedia is a secondary source. At best, it contains references to primary sources. :ymcowboy:

[BlueMoon5]

Wikipedia is a secondary source. At best, it contains references to primary sources. :ymcowboy:

And that "best" is invaluable. As Ms. Ghajar states, ". . .the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative scholarship."

[jonesde]

Wikipedia is a secondary source. At best, it contains references to primary sources. :ymcowboy:

And that "best" is invaluable. As Ms. Ghajar states, ". . .the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative scholarship."

Wikipedia is a great resource. It's actually a great example of how open communication with feedback and frequently siting sources can result in something quite useful.

It's amazing how different people interested in a wide variety of topics can volunteer and effectively work together even in face of disagreements to create and maintain some great resources.

Yes, there are corporate profiles and a lot of bias there, but usually someone else interested in the topic will flag that bias or lack of substantiation, and casual readers will see those warnings until changes are made and they are cleared.

It is certainly not always 100% truth, but has been shown to be much better than even highly paid professional researchers who often publish without adequate peer review, and more significantly once published the content is nearly set in stone and there is little room for public comments to help refine or correct the content.

[BlueMoon5]

Wikipedia is a secondary source. At best, it contains references to primary sources. :ymcowboy:

And that "best" is invaluable. As Ms. Ghajar states, ". . .the collaborative nature of the wiki invites greater scrutiny and analysis. Here, again, Wikipedia helps users navigate the perils, pitfalls, and strengths of open, collaborative scholarship."

Wikipedia is a great resource. It's actually a great example of how open communication with feedback and frequently siting sources can result in something quite useful.

It's amazing how different people interested in a wide variety of topics can volunteer and effectively work together even in face of disagreements to create and maintain some great resources.

Yes, there are corporate profiles and a lot of bias there, but usually someone else interested in the topic will flag that bias or lack of substantiation, and casual readers will see those warnings until changes are made and they are cleared.

It is certainly not always 100% truth, but has been shown to be much better than even highly paid professional researchers who often publish without adequate peer review, and more significantly once published the content is nearly set in stone and there is little room for public comments to help refine or correct the content.

Well said, jonesde. Thank you.

[Fairminded]

I think one of the most important things children aren't being taught (and grownups for that matter) is that what they read in textbooks or newspapers or online resources, what they see and hear from the media, and what they're told by others, is only the first step on the path towards the truth, not its conclusion. If they could look at each bit of information objectively, rather than clinging to the ones they agree with in the face of contrary evidence, they'd be far more open to really learning.

Sadly, even popular science these days seems to be steeped in the mire of caving to the bias of authority figures with high prestige in the field, rather than the scientific method which has fallen by the wayside.

[BroJones]

Good point, Fairminded. Again -- it comes down to taking responsibility for doing our own studies and making our OWN decisions.

Today Dr. Mercola discusses fats, good and bad. I agree with him and with several studies that show that trans-fats (e.g., in Crisco and margarine) are VERY BAD for humans. Do you disagree bluemoon?

By Dr. Mercola

A little over 100 years ago a German scientist wrote a letter to a company that made soap, and in so doing changed the way the world cooks its food. The soap company, Procter & Gamble, bought the scientist's idea—and Crisco was born.

At this time in history, people used animal fats for cooking in the form of lard and butter. And while Crisco was purposely formulated to resemble lard and cook like lard, it was nothing like lard. The rest of the story, as related in The Atlantic, is a tale of marketing successi.

When Marketing Alters Dietary Recommendations...

Recipe in hand, Procter & Gamble launched a massive sales strategy for Crisco that rivals even some of the biggest sales pitches today, and won over the cooks of the world. According to The Atlantic:

"Never before had Procter & Gamble -- or any company for that matter -- put so much marketing support or advertising dollars behind a product. They hired the J. Walter Thompson Agency, America's first full service advertising agency staffed by real artists and professional writers.

Samples of Crisco were mailed to grocers, restaurants, nutritionists, and home economists. Eight alternative marketing strategies were tested in different cities and their impacts calculated and compared. Doughnuts were fried in Crisco and handed out in the streets. Women who purchased the new industrial fat got a free cookbook of Crisco recipes. It opened with the line, "The culinary world is revising its entire cookbook on account of the advent of Crisco, a new and altogether different cooking fat." Recipes for asparagus soup, baked salmon with Colbert sauce, stuffed beets, curried cauliflower, and tomato sandwiches all called for three to four tablespoons of Crisco."

Since advertising claims back then were unregulated, Procter and Gamble sold this plant-based product (known today as hydrogenated vegetable oil) as being healthier than animal fats, and consumers believed it. It took 90 years before researchers finally discovered that this new, "better-for-you" compound, which we call trans fat today, actually increases your risk of getting heart disease. As stated in the featured Atlantic article:

"It is estimated that for every two percent increase in consumption of trans fat (still found in many processed and fast foods) the risk of heart disease increases by 23 percent. As surprising as it might be to hear, the fact that animal fats pose this same risk is not supported by science."

Not only that; research has also found that trans fats contribute to cancer, bone problems, hormonal imbalance and skin disease; infertility, difficulties in pregnancy and problems with lactation; low birth weight, growth problems, and learning disabilities in children. It's so bad for your health that one U.S. government panel of scientists determined that man-made trans fats are unsafe at any level...

What History Can Teach Us

The article in The Atlantic, which is excerpted from the book The Happiness Diet by Drew Ramsey, MD and Tyler Graham, is a fascinating piece of history, and well worth reading in its entirety. It adeptly describes the cultural backdrop that led to this "fake lard" being accepted and embraced, not to mention the sheer power of aggressive marketing. Here's just a short excerpt of this excellent piece. For more, please see the original article, or the book, The Happiness Diet:

"... Thanks to Procter & Gamble the United States boosted the production of a waste product of cotton farming, cottonseed oil... Before processing, cottonseed oil is cloudy red and bitter to the taste because of a natural phytochemical called gossypol... and is toxic to most animals, causing dangerous spikes in the body's potassium levels, organ damage, and paralysis. An issue of Popular Science from the era sums up the evolution of cottonseed nicely: "What was garbage in 1860 was fertilizer in 1870, cattle feed in 1880, and table food and many things else in 1890."

But it entered our food supply slowly. It wasn't until a new food-processing invention of hydrogenation that cottonseed oil found its way into the kitchens of America's restaurants and homes.

Edwin Kayser, a German chemist, wrote to Procter & Gamble on October 18, 1907, about a new chemical process that could create a solid fat from a liquid. The company's researchers had been interested in producing a solid form of cottonseed oil for years, and Kayser described his new process as "of the greatest possible importance to soap manufacturers." The company purchased US rights to the patents and created a lab on the Procter & Gamble campus, known as Ivorydale, to experiment with the new technology. Soon the company's scientists produced a new creamy, pearly white substance out of cottonseed oil. It looked a lot like the most popular cooking fat of the day: lard. Before long, Procter & Gamble sold this new substance (known today as hydrogenated vegetable oil) to home cooks as a replacement for animal fats."

The Saturated Fat Myth

The myth that saturated fat causes heart disease has undoubtedly harmed an incalculable number of lives over the past several decades. While it may have begun as an unsupported marketing strategy for Crisco, this mistaken belief began solidifying in the mid-1950's when Dr. Ancel Keys published a paper comparing saturated fat intake and heart disease mortality. Keys based his theory on a study of six countries, in which higher saturated fat intake equated to higher rates of heart disease. However, he conveniently ignored data from 16 other countries that did not fit his theory.

Had he chosen a different set of countries, the data would have shown that increasing the percent of calories from fat reduces the number of deaths from coronary heart disease. And, if all 22 countries for which data was available at the time of his study are included, you find that those who consume the highest percentage of saturated fat have the lowest risk of heart disease.

Unfortunately, the idea that saturated fat is bad for your heart has become so ingrained in the medical and health community that it's very difficult to break through that misinformation barrier. Still, the fact of the matter is that the saturated fat-heart disease link was a hypothesis that did not stand up to further scrutiny. Gary Taubes discussed this lack of evidence in an interview I did with him last year.

Total Video Length: 1:22:58
Download Interview Transcript

Less Saturated Fat in Your Diet = Higher Risk of Heart Disease

Since the introduction of low-fat foods, heart disease rates have progressively climbed, even as studies kept debunking Keys research—repeatedly finding that saturated fats in fact support heart health. For example:

* A meta-analysis published two years agoii, which pooled data from 21 studies and included nearly 348,000 adults, found no difference in the risks of heart disease and stroke between people with the lowest and highest intakes of saturated fat.
* In a 1992 editorial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Dr. William Castelli, a former director of the Framingham Heart study, statediii:

"In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol. The opposite of what… Keys et al would predict…We found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active."

* Another 2010 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a reduction in saturated fat intake must be evaluated in the context of replacement by other macronutrients, such as carbohydratesiv. When you replace saturated fat with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, you exacerbate insulin resistance and obesity, increase triglycerides and small LDL particles, and reduce beneficial HDL cholesterol. The authors state that dietary efforts to improve your cardiovascular disease risk should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intake, and weight reduction.

The Cholesterol Myth

Another example of tragically incorrect diet advice is the idea that dietary cholesterol is bad for your heart. Just as the saturated fat myth created an entire industry of harmful low-fat products, the cholesterol myth has given rise to a similar industry of highly processed fake foods posing as healthier alternatives. Take Egg Beaters for example. Introduced in 1972, Egg Beaters has been hailed as a healthy substitute for whole chicken eggs. It basically contains egg whites with added flavorings, vitamins and gum thickeners, providing you with no or low saturated fat and cholesterol, and fewer calories than regular eggs.

This is a tragedy, considering how nutritious whole eggs are—provided they're from organically raised free-ranging hens. For example, egg yolks have one of the highest concentrations of biotin found in nature. So for 40 years, many Americans have deprived themselves of one of the most nutritious foods on the planet, while epidemiological studies repeatedly show that dietary cholesterol is not related to coronary heart disease incidence or mortality, so there's no reason to fear eggs!

Your Body NEEDS Saturated Fat

But let's get back to the issue of saturated fats versus trans fats found in Crisco and other vegetable oils. Foods containing saturated fats include:

* Meat
* Dairy products
* Tropical oils like coconut and palm oil

These (saturated) fats from animal and vegetable sources provide a concentrated source of energy in your diet, and they provide the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone-like substances. When eaten as part of your meal, they increase satiety by slowing down absorption. In addition, they act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Dietary fats are also needed for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, for mineral absorption, and for a host of other biological processes.

Saturated fats are the preferred fuel for your heart, and are also used as a source of fuel during energy expenditure. Furthermore, saturated fats:
Provide building blocks for cell membranes, hormones, and hormone-like substances Act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K Are required for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, and for mineral absorption
Act as antiviral agents (caprylic acid) Help lower cholesterol levels (palmitic and stearic acids) Modulate genetic regulation and help prevent cancer (butyric acid)

Trans Fat and Sugar are the True Culprits of Heart Disease

Now, some research still suggests there is an association between fat and heart disease. The problem is that most such studies make the crucial error of not differentiating between saturated fat and trans fat. Additionally, the other primary ingredient in processed food that plays a role in heart disease is sugar, specifically fructose. Most researchers have failed to control for these variables. If researchers were to more carefully evaluate the risks of heart disease by measuring the levels of fructose, trans fat, and saturated fat, they would likely validate what I've been teaching for decades.

Both fructose and trans fat are known to increase your LDL levels, or "bad" cholesterol, while lowering your levels of HDL, known as "good" cholesterol, which, of course is the complete opposite of what you need in order to maintain good heart health.

It can also cause major clogging of arteries, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems. It's important to realize that it's virtually impossible to achieve a nutritionally adequate diet that has no saturated fat. What you don't need, however, are trans fats and fructose in excess of 15 grams per day. Since the average adolescent is now consuming in the neighborhood of 75 grams of fructose per day, one can begin to understand why we obesity and heart disease are at epidemic levels.

Healthy Fat Tips to Live By

Remember, you do need a certain amount of healthy fat, while at the same time you'll want to avoid the unhealthy varieties. The easiest way to accomplish this is to simply eliminate processed foods, which are high in all things detrimental to your health: sugar, carbs, and dangerous types of fats. And don't fall for labeling tricks designed to hide trans fat content.

In recent years many food manufacturers have removed trans fats from their products. However, the FDA allows food manufacturers to round to zero any ingredient that accounts for less than 0.5 grams per serving. So while a product may claim that it does not contain trans fats, it may actually contain up to 0.5 grams per serving. If you eat a few servings, you're quickly ingesting a harmful amount of this deadly fat. So to truly avoid trans fats, you need to read the label and look for more than just 0 grams of trans fat. Check the ingredients and look for partially hydrogenated oil. If the product lists this ingredient, it contains trans fat.

After that, these tips can help ensure you're eating the right fats for your health:

* Use organic butter (preferably made from raw milk) instead of margarines and vegetable oil spreads. Butter is a healthy whole food that has received an unwarranted bad rap.
* Use coconut oil for cooking. It is far superior to any other cooking oil and is loaded with health benefits. (Remember that olive oil should be used COLD, drizzled over salad or fish, for example, not to cook with.)
* Following my nutrition plan will automatically reduce your modified fat intake, as it will teach you to focus on healthy whole foods instead of processed junk food.
* To round out your healthy fat intake, be sure to eat raw fats, such as those from avocados, raw dairy products, and olive oil, and also take a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fat, such as krill oil.

As for how much fat you might need, government guidelines are sorely in need of reconsideration. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends between 20-35 percent for adults, and 25-35 percent for children between the ages of four and 18. The US Department of Agriculture's dietary guidelinesv are even more ill-advised, recommending you to consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fats.

As I and other nutritional experts have warned, most people actually need upwards of 50-70 percent healthful fats in their diet for optimal health! My personal diet is about 60-70 percent healthy fat, and both Paul Jaminet, PhD., author of Perfect Health Diet, and Dr. Ron Rosedale, M.D., an expert on treating diabetes through diet, agree that the ideal diet includes somewhere between 50-70 percent fat.

References:

* i The Atlantic April 26, 2012
* ii American Journal of Clinical Nutrition March 2010;91(3):535-46
* iii Archives of Internal Medicine July 1992;152(7):1371-2
* iv American Journal of Clinical Nutrition March 2010: 91(3): 502-509
* v US Department of Agriculture's dietary guidelines

[BroJones]

Here's that question again, in case you missed it, BM5:

I agree with him and with several studies that show that trans-fats (e.g., in Crisco and margarine) are VERY BAD for humans. Do you disagree bluemoon?

Today's article is written by Dr. Jeff Spencer, and posted at Mercola's site:

By Dr. Jeff Spencer

We've all found ourselves at certain times in our lives having to put important activities down to address things requiring immediate attention. One of the most often first items chopped from schedules during those pressing times is exercise.

Exercise is an easy item to chop from the calendar in challenging times as its offers back a nice chunk of time, usually somewhere between 20 and 60-minutes, and easy to "get back to later" when life "calms down".

The challenge then becomes to "get back to it later" as when exercise is out of sight its out of mind and the longer its stayed away from it is often more and more difficult to get back to and many times never is until a health crisis demands it be returned to. But, the good news is, when it's time to get back to exercising it is easy to get back to and stick with following some very simple and effective strategies.

1. Pick up slightly below where you left off – It is vital when returning to exercise that you resist the temptation to start back where you discontinued. When exercise is discontinued the body's fitness gains from training slowly begin to diminish to a level equal to the where the body currently needs to perform at which is less than it was required to when exercising regularly.

When an exercise journal is maintained it is much easier to know exactly where you discontinued and where to begin again than if no journal was kept and an estimation of where you left off is relied on to establish the starting point for resuming training. Once you've determined what your last exercise workout was, reduce that workout by 20% for two weeks to create a fitness base to resume exercising at again that can be done safely and effectively without exposing yourself injury or excess soreness.
2. Don't Try To Catch Up – When resuming back to exercise there's the over-whelming tendency to try to catch up to your previous level too fast that most often results in burnout, excess soreness and needless injury. The best fitness gains will occur when you maintain a regular fitness program that balances the ideal exercise to rest ratio that leaves at least one day between similar workouts.

For example, if you train on Monday then train again on Wednesday allowing your body to recover on Tuesday. It is also acceptable periodically to allow two or three days between training sessions when your schedule only permits this. The idea is to be regular and not try to catch up. You will find that when you exercise regularly and allow for adequate body recovery between workouts you will be back to your peak fitness level where you previously left off much sooner than expected.

3. Praise, Rather Than Beat Yourself Up – An all too frequent personal response to discontinuing exercise and then resuming it is to beat one's self up for discontinuing exercise in the first place. If you've ever felt like this then welcome to the club as it is a deeply ingrained human nature reflex we all have that never serves us well, and can paralyze us from moving forward creating the erroneous belief that we don't have the self-control and capacity to move forward.

This, of course, is a complete myth, and the reality is that at any time we have the capacity to move forward and return to exercise by simply starting again close to where we left off and doing it from a position of love for self and praise for our commitment to get back to exercising, rather from a position of being self-defeating from self-judgment. Trust me, you can do this and often do it quickly when done from a position of self-respect and empathy.

4. Show up on time – The fastest way to get back to regular exercise is to show up and start exercising on time. Being on time is your single most important sign of respect for yourself and belief in self is an essential ingredient in gaining and maintaining fitness momentum.

To show up on time, have your exercise gear, clothes, equipment and water packed and ready in advance of exercising so you have everything you need to show up on time and get the workout completed on time and not risk being deflected and not finishing the workout from getting bogged down in trying to getting everything ready to workout.

Another important rule of thumb is to give yourself extra time to get to your workout as there's usually less time than we allow to start a workout and showing up late can reduce our belief in self that we can maintain a regular exercise schedule.

5. Write Training Times Down – Always write your exercise sessions into your calendar as when it's written its more likely to get done especially much more so than if we try to commit it to memory. Most have found that if they write their workout times in their calendars at least for the next two months running it provides the best level of commitment to maintain long-term fitness habits.

One month doesn't convey enough commitment as it looks like there's an "out" on the calendar and doesn't inspire confidence in the program where 3-months can be a bit too long and have a tinge of emotional dread and being locked in that can discourage people from the long-term commitment needed to create a life of lasting fitness gains.

6. Attend a regular class – A great way to re-enter the world of exercise is to attend an exercise class regularly. There are many advantages to taking an exercise class. Usually, there are people in the same boat of getting back to exercise and this creates a fellowship of group support to make that transition easier than if trying to go it alone.

The reality is everyone goes through peaks and valleys of enthusiasm for exercise and it's much easier to discontinue exercise when doing it in isolation than when belonging a group dynamic with an accountability component to it. Another part of human nature is that we'll often attend a class with others to support them than we will to support ourselves and that's why having accountability partners creates win-win for everyone.

Getting back to exercise isn't always easy for many reasons but the good news is that it can be done and with a proven structure propelling that re-enty it can be done much more easily with joy, confidence and results. The biggest challenge often is getting beyond the belief it can't be done since the wagon was jumped off of making it impossible to jump back onto again. That mind-myth has no basis in reality and when over-ridden with a sensible, workable plan, steady fitness gains can be achieved and maintained for a lifetime.

About the Author

Dr. Jeff Spencer, Olympian, ICA "Sports Chiropractor of the Year", and author is one of America's top builder of champions.

"Dr. Magic", as Dr. Spencer's often referred to, has been directly involved in 40+ World, Olympic, National and Tour de France championships. He has worked with NASCAR champion Bobby LaBonte, World Series MVP Troy Glaus, rock legend U2, and most known for helping Lance Armstrong win all 7 of his Tour de France victories on site. Dr. Spencer has also worked his "magic" with PGA, WTA, and Supercross champions, ultra-successful entrepreneurs and business standouts, NFL, MLB athletes, as well as Motocross and Formula 1 drivers.

Spencer received his master's in physical education and his undergraduate degree from University of Southern California and his doctor of chiropractic degree summa cum laude from Cleveland Chiropractic College in Los Angeles. He has taught post-graduate sports rehabilitation courses and frequently lectures on health, fitness, and wellness.

Dr. Spencer is the author of the acclaimed book, Turn It Up! How To Perform At Your Highest Level For A Lifetime and audio program "The Top 10 Tactics From The Champions Playbook".

[BroJones]

Today's article regards the importance of SLEEP and how to overcome insomnia:

By Dr. Mercola

Researchers have learned that circadian rhythms—the 24-hour cycles known as your internal body clock—are involved in everything from sleep to weight gain, mood disorders, and a variety of diseases.

Your body actually has many internal clocks—in your brain, lungs, liver, heart and even your skeletal muscles—and they all work to keep your body running smoothly by controlling temperature and the release of hormones.

It's well known that lack of sleep can increase your chances of getting sick. A new study shows just how direct that connection is.

The research found that the circadian clocks of mice control an essential immune system gene that helps their bodies sense and ward off bacteria and viruses. When levels of that particular gene, called toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9), were at their highest, the mice were better able to withstand infections.

Interestingly, when the researchers induced sepsis, the severity of the disease was dependent on the timing of the induction.Severity directly correlated with cyclical changes in TLR9.

According to the authors, this may help explain why septic patients are known to be at higher risk of dying between the hours of 2 am and 6 am.

Furthermore, they also discovered that when mice were vaccinated when TLR9 was peaking, they had an enhanced immune response to the vaccine. The researchers believe vaccine effectiveness could be altered depending on the time of day the vaccination is administered...

According to study author Erol Fikrig, professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Medicinei:

"These findings not only unveil a novel, direct molecular link between circadian rhythms and the immune system, but also open a new paradigm in the biology of the overall immune response with important implications for the prevention and treatment of disease. Furthermore, patients in the ICU often have disturbed sleep patterns, due to noise, nocturnal light exposure and medications; it will be important to investigate how these factors influence TLR9 expression levels and immune responses."

Lack of Sleep Worsens Stress-Related Immune Depression

One of the first studies to provide direct evidence linking sleep with the human stress-immune relationship dates back to 1998ii. Stress is also known to interfere with immune system function, and has been found to increase susceptibility to the common cold and slow wound healing.

In that 1998 study, the researchers discovered that people who were more likely to awaken during the first sleep cycle also tended to have lower levels of natural killer cells (NKC). Overall, the age of the patient was the greatest determinant of NKC level, but sleep disturbances were responsible for about 12 percent of the variance in NKC level.

Are You Living in Sync with Your Natural Body Clock?

Sleeping well is one of the cornerstones of optimal health, and if you ignore your poor sleeping habits, you will, in time, pay a price. In general, you will feel best and maintain optimal health when your lifestyle is in line with your circadian rhythm. It's wise to establish healthful routines of eating, exercising and sleeping, and to stick to them every day, including the weekends.

Unfortunately, sleep deprivation is such a chronic condition these days that you might not even realize you suffer from it. Your circadian rhythm has evolved over many years to align your physiology with your environment. However, it operates under the assumption that you are behaving as your ancestors did. Historically, humans have slept at night and stayed awake during the day. If you stay up late at night, depriving yourself of sleep, you send conflicting signals to your body.

As a result, you body gets confused and doesn't know whether it should be producing chemicals to help you sleep, or gear up for the beginning of a new day.

Melatonin is another chemical closely tied to your circadian rhythm. It's a pineal hormone and a very potent antioxidant, created in your brain during sleep.

Among its many functions, it slows the production of estrogen and is well known to suppress tumor development, which is why insomnia may increase your risk of cancer. Melatonin also helps suppress harmful free radicals. Melatonin production can be severely disrupted simply by exposing yourself to bright light late at night. Just switching a bedside lamp on and off in an otherwise pitch-black room produces a drop in melatonin levels. This is why it's so important to turn off the lights as the evening wears on, and avoid watching TV and working on the computer late at night.

How Sleep Influences Your Physical Health

Without good sleep, optimal health may remain elusive, even if you eat well and exercise (although those factors will tend to improve your ability to sleep better). Aside from directly impacting your immune function, another explanation for why poor sleep can have such varied detrimental effects on your health is that your circadian system "drives" the rhythms of biological activity at the cellular level. Hence disruptions tend to cascade outward throughout your entire body. For example, besides impairing your immune function and raising your cancer risk, interrupted or impaired sleep can also:

Increase your risk of heart disease. Harm your brain by halting new cell production. Sleep deprivation can increase levels of corticosterone (a stress hormone), resulting in fewer new brain cells being created in your hippocampus.
Aggravate or make you more susceptible to stomach ulcers. Contribute to a pre-diabetic state, making you feel hungry even if you've already eaten, which can wreak havoc on your weight.
Raise your blood pressure. Contribute to premature aging by interfering with your growth hormone production, normally released by your pituitary gland during deep sleep (and during certain types of exercise, such as high intensity interval training).
Worsen constipation. Increase your risk of dying from any cause.


Furthermore, lack of sleep can further exacerbate chronic diseases such as:

Parkinsons Alzheimers Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Gastrointestinal tract disorders Kidney disease Behavioral problems in children
Are Sleeping Pills a Good Option When You Can't Fall Asleep?

If you have trouble sleeping, you're not alone. According to the National Sleep Foundation's (NSF) 2010 "Sleep in America Poll," only four in 10 respondents said they got a good night's sleep every night, or almost every night, of the weekiii. But please don't make the mistake of resorting to sleeping pills. At best, they're ineffective. At worst, they can be dangerous.

According to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data, over-the-counter sleep products such as Tylenol PM and Excedrin PM don't offer any significant benefit to patients. In 2007, an analysis of sleeping pill studies financed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that sleeping pills like Ambien, Lunesta, and Sonata reduced the average time to go to sleep by just under 13 minutes compared with sugar pills -- hardly a major improvement.

You'd be far better off putting your money toward authentic solutions to help you sleep, like installing black-out drapes in your bedroom, than on sleeping pills, as they may actually make it more difficult for you to get a good night's rest naturally.

If anything, you could consider taking a melatonin supplement, which will help boost sleepiness.

Ideally it is best to increase your melatonin levels naturally, of course, by exposing yourself to bright sunlight in the daytime (along with full spectrum fluorescent bulbs in the winter) and complete darkness at night. If you do this regularly, you will promote proper functioning of your natural circadian rhythm, which is essential for a proper sleep cycle. However, if that isn't possible, you can consider a melatonin supplement. It's is a completely natural substance, made by your body, and has many health benefits in addition to sleep. In scientific studies, melatonin has been shown to increase sleepiness, help you fall asleep more quickly and stay asleep, decrease restlessness, and reverse daytime fatigue. I prefer to use a sublingual melatonin product because it is absorbed much faster and therefore works more quickly.

Keep in mind you typically only need a very minute amount. Taking higher doses, such as 3 mg, can sometimes have the reverse effect. So start with as little as 0.25mg or 0.5mg and play around with it to see what dosage works best for you.

How to Optimize Your Sleep

Below are several of my top guidelines for promoting good sleep. For a comprehensive sleep guide, please see my article 33 Secret's to a Good Night's Sleep.

1. Avoid watching TV or using your computer at night—or at least about an hour or so before going to bed—as these technologies can have a significantly detrimental impact on your sleep. TV and computer screens emit blue light; nearly identical to the light you're exposed to outdoors during the day. This tricks your brain into thinking it's still daytime, thereby shutting down melatonin secretion.

Under normal circumstances, your brain starts secreting melatonin between 9 or 10 pm, which makes you sleepy. When this natural secretion cycle is disrupted, due to excessive light exposure after sunset, insomnia can ensue.
2. Sleep in complete darkness, or as close to it as possible. Even the slightest bit of light in the room can disrupt your internal clock and your pineal gland's production of melatonin and serotonin. Even the tiniest glow from your clock radio could be interfering with your sleep. So close your bedroom door, and get rid of night-lights. Refrain from turning on any light at all during the night, even when getting up to go to the bathroom. Cover up your clock radio.

Make sure to cover your windows—I recommend using blackout shades or drapes.
3. Keep the temperature in your bedroom no higher than 70 degrees F. Many people keep their homes and particularly their upstairs bedrooms too warm. Studies show that the optimal room temperature for sleep is between 60 to 68 degrees. Keeping your room cooler or hotter can lead to restless sleep. This is because when you sleep, your body's internal temperature drops to its lowest level, generally about four hours after you fall asleep. Scientists believe a cooler bedroom may therefore be most conducive to sleep, since it mimics your body's natural temperature drop.
4. Take a hot bath 90 to 120 minutes before bedtime. This increases your core body temperature, and when you get out of the bath it abruptly drops, signaling your body that you are ready for sleep.
5. Check your bedroom for electro-magnetic fields (EMFs). These can disrupt your pineal gland and the production of melatonin and serotonin, and may have other negative effects as well. To do this, you need a gauss meter. You can find various models online, starting around $50 to $200. Some experts even recommend pulling your circuit breaker before bed to shut down all power in your house.
6. Move alarm clocks and other electrical devices away from your bed. If these devices must be used, keep them as far away from your bed as possible, preferably at least three feet. This serves at least two functions. First, it can be stressful to see the time when you can't fall asleep, or wake up in the middle of the night. Secondly, the glow from a clock radio can be enough to suppress melatonin production and interfere with your sleep.

Cell phones, cordless phones and their charging stations should ideally be kept three rooms away from your bedroom to prevent harmful EMF's.
7. Avoid using loud alarm clocks. It is very stressful on your body to be suddenly jolted awake. If you are regularly getting enough sleep, an alarm may even be unnecessary.

I gave up my alarm clock years ago and now spontaneously awake without an alarm. On those rare occasions that I do need to get up early to catch a flight, I have used a sun alarm clock. The Sun Alarm™ provides an ideal way to wake up each morning if you can't wake up with the REAL sun. Combining the features of a traditional alarm clock (digital display, AM/FM radio, beeper, snooze button, etc) with a special built-in light that gradually increases in intensity, this amazing clock simulates a natural sunrise. It also includes a sunset feature where the light fades to darkness over time, which is ideal for anyone who has trouble falling asleep.

REFERENCES

* i Circadian clock governs highs and lows of immune response
* ii Sleep as a mediator of the stress-immune relationship, Psychosomatic Medicine January 1, 1998 vol. 60 no. 1 48-51
* iii Sleep in America Poll 2010, National Sleep Foundation,

Sources:

* The Huffington Post February 16, 2012
* Immunity February 16, 2012
* Yale Daily News February 28, 2012
* Eurekalert February 16, 2012

[Elizabeth]

I am a fan of Dr Mercola, it is good to read his advise and try to remember some of it at least

[BroJones]

I am a fan of Dr Mercola, it is good to read his advise and try to remember some of it at least

Right! Thanks S&N, and welcome to the forum.

[Elizabeth]

Thanks Dr.Jones

[Elizabeth]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... artTest_A2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As if the health hazards of genetically altered food crops weren’t bad enough, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has also been deemed a major health hazard both to the environment, and to animal- and human health. It is toxic to human cells, and according to a French research team, it is also carcinogenic. The team has studied the herbicide extensively, and published at least five articles on glysphosate’s potential for wide-ranging environmental and human harmi. Their research shows that glyphosate:

Causes cell cycle dysregulation, which is a hallmark of tumor cells and human cancers
Inhibits DNA synthesis in certain parts of the cell cycle—the process by which cells reproduce that underlies the growth and development of all living organisms
Impedes the hatchings of sea urchins. (Sea urchins were used because they constitute an appropriate model for the identification of undesirable cellular and molecular targets of pollutants.) The delay was found to be dose dependent on the concentration of Roundup. The surfactant polyoxyethylene amine (POEA), another major component of Roundup, was also found to be highly toxic to the embryos when tested alone, and could therefore be a contributing factor

[BlueMoon5]

Good point, Fairminded. Again -- it comes down to taking responsibility for doing our own studies and making our OWN decisions. Today Dr. Mercola discusses fats, good and bad. I agree with him and with several studies that show that trans-fats (e.g., in Crisco and margarine) are VERY BAD for humans. Do you disagree bluemoon?

You say "margarine [is] VERY BAD for humans" and ask if I disagree. As is typical of absoluists (their simplistic world is black and white--no shades of grey), they seek a yes/no answer to the question; hence, the following (a Mayo Clinic reprint) my help to enlighten them.

"Which spread is better for my heart — butter or margarine?

Answer from Jennifer K. Nelson, R.D., L.D.

Margarine usually tops butter when it comes to heart health.

Margarine is made from vegetable oils, so it contains no cholesterol. Margarine is also higher in 'good' fats — polyunsaturated and monounsaturated — than butter is. These types of fats help reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or 'bad,' cholesterol when substituted for saturated fat.

Butter, on the other hand, is made from animal fat, so it contains cholesterol and high levels of saturated fat.

But not all margarines are created equal. Some margarines contain trans fat. In general, the more solid the margarine, the more trans fat it contains. So stick margarines usually have more trans fat than tub margarines do. Trans fat, like saturated fat, increases blood cholesterol levels and the risk of heart disease. In addition, trans fat lowers high-density lipoprotein (HDL), or 'good,' cholesterol levels. So skip the stick and opt for soft or liquid margarine instead.

Look for a spread with the lowest calories that tastes good to you, doesn't have trans fats and has the least amount of saturated fat. When comparing spreads, be sure to read the Nutrition Facts panel and check the grams of saturated fat and trans fat. Also, look for products with a low percent Daily Value for cholesterol.

If you have high cholesterol, check with your doctor about using spreads that are fortified with plant stanols and sterols, such as Benecol and Promise Activ, which may help reduce cholesterol levels."

(Source: Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/butter ... ne/AN00835" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

[BroJones]

Caught ya twisting my words again, BM5!

DrJones wrote:Good point, Fairminded. Again -- it comes down to taking responsibility for doing our own studies and making our OWN decisions. Today Dr. Mercola discusses fats, good and bad. I agree with him and with several studies that show that trans-fats (e.g., in Crisco and margarine) are VERY BAD for humans. Do you disagree bluemoon?

Note that I clearly said it was the TRANS-FATS for example IN Crisco and Margarine ARE very bad for humans --
Which you twist around and change the meaning:

BM5: You say "margarine [is] VERY BAD for humans" and ask if I disagree. As is typical of absoluists (their simplistic world is black and white--no shades of grey), they seek a yes/no answer to the question; hence, the following (a Mayo Clinic reprint) my help to enlighten them. "Which spread is better for my heart — butter or margarine?"

That was not my question at all -- even though you put it in quote marks -- "Which spread is better for my heart — butter or margarine?"

Then in your quote from Jennifer Nelson, we find agreement with me that trans-fats are bad!!

But not all margarines are created equal. Some margarines contain trans fat. In general, the more solid the margarine, the more trans fat it contains. So stick margarines usually have more trans fat than tub margarines do. Trans fat, like saturated fat, increases blood cholesterol levels and the risk of heart disease. In addition, trans fat lowers high-density lipoprotein (HDL), or 'good,' cholesterol levels. So skip the stick and opt for soft or liquid margarine instead.

Exactly -- it is the TRANS-FATS IN MARGARINE AND CRISCO that are bad for humans, and truly I am an "absolutist" (NOT a relativist) on that point, it is scientific fact -- just as I said BEFORE YOU TWISTED MY WORDS AROUND. TSK TSK.