...or what one of my readers asked yesterday, "So what DO you eat when you don't eat grains?"
The question is illustrative of how prevalent is grass seed in our diet--yes, all grains and cereals are grass seeds. Most Americans eat so much grain--cereal, bread, rice, pasta, corn, etc--that they cannot imagine eliminating it. It forms the backbone of the American diet. And it shows!
So let's talk about how we got here--from hunter/gatherer ancestors of which there are only a few scattered tribes left...They had no grocery stores. They had nature. They hunted and fished and gathered eggs and frogs and insects and shellfish if they were near the sea. They found leaves and twigs and roots that were tasty. They picked berries and other fruit and nuts when they found them. Grass seeds were too labor intensive to eat. The roots they found were full of fiber and often very colorful (not like a potato that is just chains of glucose with almost no nutrients.) The leaves and greens our ancestors ate were organic (of course) and fruit was seasonal.
The animals they ate roamed free eating natural stuff too. No cramming them into feed lots, no cramming corn and oats down their gullets and then shooting them full of antibiotics when they got sick. Those animals didn't have marbled meat. They were lean. But the humans from whom we decended ate the whole animal--fat, brain, heart, tongue, liver, kidneys, bones and meat--so they got the fattest parts of the animals besides the lean meat. That's our heritage. The BS we've been told (saturated fat causes heart disease, cholesterol is dangerous, whole grains are healthy) comes out of the agricultural complex, not our biology. Read my booklet (50 pages) "Inflammation Run Amok" for more details of why that BS is so wrong, or read
"Good Calorie Bad Calorie" by Gary Taubes, or read "The Great Cholesterol Con".
There was a big hoopla about "The China Study" a book written by a vegetarian named Campbell that looked at diseases in China. He concluded that animal products were the cause of disease in China. The data was revisited by a reseacher (also a vegan at the time) but she demonstrated how Campbell fudged to get his conclusions and that more correctly, wheat was highly correlated with heart disease, and those that ate more animal fat actually had lower disease. Read her blog here for a lot more detail. http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/02/the-china-study-wheat-and-heart-disease-oh-my/#more-532
So what do I eat now that I'm off grains? Well, it was touch and go for a while while I figured this out, but now I eat eggs and bacon, salads, vegetables and fruit, meat at most every meal, and full fat dairy and dairy products to my heart's content. I make a lot of soup. It's an easy way to get meat and veggies in one bowl and I can make a big pot of soup and eat it several days in a row. No sandwiches though. Taking a lunch is a little different now. I make beef jerky for travel sometimes. I have been known to take a carton of cottage cheese and fruit when I am away from home. I hope it goes without saying that I drink no sodas, juice or alcohol and about one pound of sugar a year--only incidentally, as in my homemade mango chutney.
I drink milk--but I'm not sensitive or allergic to milk. If you are, avoid it. Don't know? Try ten days with none and see if anything changes. I avoid vegetable fats. I use macadamia nut oil in salad dressing I make (oil and vinegar) butter and coconut oil for cooking now and then.
Meat and good animal fat and vegetables is very filling. Yes, it puts you out of step with America. But frankly, since all America is pretty sick and aging badly, being out of step is a good thing.
Read the book "The Primal Blueprint" by Mark Sisson. I think it is the best of the books about eating like our ancestors did and like we're designed for. The Primal/Paleo/Ancestral movement is huge and growing--and healthy!!
One more suggestion. Watch this 17 minute youtube video. If this doesn't convince you, I'll be very surprised. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KLjgBLwH3Wc It's a TED talk by a doctor who cured herself of Multiple Sclerosis (an incurable disease) and gives good info about mitochondria and nutrients.
One more comment, then I'm finished for now. If you have health issues now, all this information is far more important than if you do not. A primal/ancestral diet can cure what ails you--including the biggies (see video) and keep you healthy. What I'm pretty sure tho, is that the sicker you are, the more important it is to stick to it 100%. Every time you cheat (and I no longer even want to) you invite in damaging processes again. You can't heal damage while inflicting it!!!
Best wishes! And have a healthy and happy holiday season!
http://mindingthemiddleagedmiddle.com/ for e-books about this stuff!
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Preventing Cancer and other Noxious Stuff...
Remember last time in talking about cancer screenings I said I opt for preventing cancer rather than screening for it (as tho it were inevitable). That's because cancer (and a lot of other health disasters) are diseases of civilization. By that I mean we know that a "civilized" diet causes them. Our Paleolitic ancestors did not get cancer or heart disease or arthritis or alzheimers or get depressed or a million other things. Granted, they may have been eated by lions, tigers and bears, but they didn't get the diseases of civilization because their diet wasn't civilized.
Generally anyone with a brain, the time to look into this stuff and no agenda from agriculture, pharmaceuticals or other monied interests, has figured this out. That's why there is such a strong (non-mainstream but vocal and persuasive) movement toward Paleo, Primal or Ancestral diet.
Still, the powers that be must do studies and justify their existence and budgets. So here's a new one in Nutrition & Metabolism 2011, 8:75, by Klement RJ, et al, titled " Is there a role for carbohydrate restriction in the treatment and prevention of cancer?"
Well, duh!
Ok, my temper tantrum is over.
Here's what they conclude (the abstract of the paper):
Over the last years, evidence has accumulated suggesting that by systematically reducing the amount of dietary carbohydrates (CHOs) one could suppress, or at least delay, the emergence of cancer, and that proliferation of already existing tumor cells could be slowed down. This hypothesis is supported by the association between modern chronic diseases like the metabolic syndrome and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. CHOs or glucose, to which more complex carbohydrates are ultimately digested, can have direct and indirect effects on tumor cell proliferation: first, contrary to normal cells, most malignant cells depend on steady glucose availability in the blood for their energy and biomass generating demands and are not able to metabolize significant amounts of fatty acids or ketone bodies due to mitochondrial dysfunction.
Second, high insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 levels resulting from chronic ingestion of CHO-rich Western diet meals can directly promote tumor cell proliferation via the insulin/IGF-1 signaling pathway. Third, ketone bodies that are elevated when insulin and blood glucose levels are low, have been found to negatively affect proliferation of different malignant cells in vitro or not to be usable by tumor cells for metabolic demands, and a multitude of mouse models have shown anti-tumorigenic properties of very low-CHO ketogenic diets. In addition, many cancer patients exhibit an altered glucose metabolim characterized by insulin resistance and may profit from an increased protein and fat intake. In this review, we address the possible beneficial effects of low CHO diets on cancer prevention and treatment. Emphasis will be placed on the role of insulin and IGF-1 signaling in tumorigenesis as well as altered dietary needs of cancer patients.
If that's hard to understand, what they've said in a nutshell is that carbohydrates makes us sick. As I've said here and elsewhere, blood sugar and insulin cause most of the chronic inflammation that causes all disease. The body is a self healing, self regulating system that WILL stay healthy and functional if you give it what it needs and do not screw it up with anti-nutrients and toxins.
Our ancestors ate a low glycemic diet for thousands or perhaps millions of years. That enabled them to survive. Chances are high that your diet today (if you're a typical American) is a VERY high glycemic diet. That raises blood sugar to toxic levels and then raises insulin to toxic levels. THAT CAUSES DISEASE.
Ok, I know, I'm shouting, sorry, forgive me. If you want to figure out your chances of being sick, non functional and complaining about the aging process, look up the glycemic load of everything you put in your mouth for about three days. There's a handy site for looking up foods. http://nutritiondata.self.com/
Here's the thing. Glycemic load of 10 or below will not raise blood sugar into the red zone. Anything over 10 is progressively more and more toxic. Glycemic load is additive. If you eat a cup of chopped broccoli with a glycemic load of 4 you're good. But if you add a cup of brown rice with a glycemic load of 22, not only is your load not low but it's now into the high zone (over 20) at 26, and highly toxic.
Your ancestors didn't eat grains (grass seeds). You're not adapted for grains. They make you sick. The hype all over the media about WHOLE grains is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the Ameirican public. And don't get me started on sugar and vegetable oils that are just toxic as all get out!!!
So I suggest you read Dr. Briffa's post for yourself, here: http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/11/29/low-carbohydrate-diets-look-good-for-the-prevention-and-treatment-of-cancer/
but I will excerpt below his explanations for why (high glycemic) carbohydrates make you sick. In case you want to know the mechanisms...
1. Cancer cells feed preferentially on sugar (glucose)
Glucose (from sugary and starchy foods) provides the prime fuel for cancer cells, so a diet lower in carbohydrate may therefore reduce tumour development or progression.
2. Insulin and IGF-1 can stimulate tumour cell growth
High carbohydrate diets increase levels of insulin and what is known as insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) which stimulate tumour cell growth. A lower carbohydrate diet may reduce tumour proliferation as a result.
3. Ketones suppress cancer
Very low carbohydrate diets can lead to the production of ‘ketones’ (mainly produced from fat) that suppress tumours.
4. Low-carbohydrate and ‘ketogenic’ diets ‘starve’ cancer
Low-carbohydrate diets mimic caloric restriction and ketogenic diets mimic starvation – and caloric restriction/starvation is linked to reduce tumour development and progression.
5. Low carbohydrate diets can reduce inflammation
Inflammation is believed to be a risk factor in the development of cancer, and high-carb diets encourage inflammation. Low-carbohydrate diets have been found to be more effective than low-fat ones in terms of reducing markers of inflammation.
Generally anyone with a brain, the time to look into this stuff and no agenda from agriculture, pharmaceuticals or other monied interests, has figured this out. That's why there is such a strong (non-mainstream but vocal and persuasive) movement toward Paleo, Primal or Ancestral diet.
Still, the powers that be must do studies and justify their existence and budgets. So here's a new one in Nutrition & Metabolism 2011, 8:75, by Klement RJ, et al, titled " Is there a role for carbohydrate restriction in the treatment and prevention of cancer?"
Well, duh!
Ok, my temper tantrum is over.
Here's what they conclude (the abstract of the paper):
Over the last years, evidence has accumulated suggesting that by systematically reducing the amount of dietary carbohydrates (CHOs) one could suppress, or at least delay, the emergence of cancer, and that proliferation of already existing tumor cells could be slowed down. This hypothesis is supported by the association between modern chronic diseases like the metabolic syndrome and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. CHOs or glucose, to which more complex carbohydrates are ultimately digested, can have direct and indirect effects on tumor cell proliferation: first, contrary to normal cells, most malignant cells depend on steady glucose availability in the blood for their energy and biomass generating demands and are not able to metabolize significant amounts of fatty acids or ketone bodies due to mitochondrial dysfunction.
Second, high insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 levels resulting from chronic ingestion of CHO-rich Western diet meals can directly promote tumor cell proliferation via the insulin/IGF-1 signaling pathway. Third, ketone bodies that are elevated when insulin and blood glucose levels are low, have been found to negatively affect proliferation of different malignant cells in vitro or not to be usable by tumor cells for metabolic demands, and a multitude of mouse models have shown anti-tumorigenic properties of very low-CHO ketogenic diets. In addition, many cancer patients exhibit an altered glucose metabolim characterized by insulin resistance and may profit from an increased protein and fat intake. In this review, we address the possible beneficial effects of low CHO diets on cancer prevention and treatment. Emphasis will be placed on the role of insulin and IGF-1 signaling in tumorigenesis as well as altered dietary needs of cancer patients.
If that's hard to understand, what they've said in a nutshell is that carbohydrates makes us sick. As I've said here and elsewhere, blood sugar and insulin cause most of the chronic inflammation that causes all disease. The body is a self healing, self regulating system that WILL stay healthy and functional if you give it what it needs and do not screw it up with anti-nutrients and toxins.
Our ancestors ate a low glycemic diet for thousands or perhaps millions of years. That enabled them to survive. Chances are high that your diet today (if you're a typical American) is a VERY high glycemic diet. That raises blood sugar to toxic levels and then raises insulin to toxic levels. THAT CAUSES DISEASE.
Ok, I know, I'm shouting, sorry, forgive me. If you want to figure out your chances of being sick, non functional and complaining about the aging process, look up the glycemic load of everything you put in your mouth for about three days. There's a handy site for looking up foods. http://nutritiondata.self.com/
Here's the thing. Glycemic load of 10 or below will not raise blood sugar into the red zone. Anything over 10 is progressively more and more toxic. Glycemic load is additive. If you eat a cup of chopped broccoli with a glycemic load of 4 you're good. But if you add a cup of brown rice with a glycemic load of 22, not only is your load not low but it's now into the high zone (over 20) at 26, and highly toxic.
Your ancestors didn't eat grains (grass seeds). You're not adapted for grains. They make you sick. The hype all over the media about WHOLE grains is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the Ameirican public. And don't get me started on sugar and vegetable oils that are just toxic as all get out!!!
So I suggest you read Dr. Briffa's post for yourself, here: http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/11/29/low-carbohydrate-diets-look-good-for-the-prevention-and-treatment-of-cancer/
but I will excerpt below his explanations for why (high glycemic) carbohydrates make you sick. In case you want to know the mechanisms...
1. Cancer cells feed preferentially on sugar (glucose)
Glucose (from sugary and starchy foods) provides the prime fuel for cancer cells, so a diet lower in carbohydrate may therefore reduce tumour development or progression.
2. Insulin and IGF-1 can stimulate tumour cell growth
High carbohydrate diets increase levels of insulin and what is known as insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) which stimulate tumour cell growth. A lower carbohydrate diet may reduce tumour proliferation as a result.
3. Ketones suppress cancer
Very low carbohydrate diets can lead to the production of ‘ketones’ (mainly produced from fat) that suppress tumours.
4. Low-carbohydrate and ‘ketogenic’ diets ‘starve’ cancer
Low-carbohydrate diets mimic caloric restriction and ketogenic diets mimic starvation – and caloric restriction/starvation is linked to reduce tumour development and progression.
5. Low carbohydrate diets can reduce inflammation
Inflammation is believed to be a risk factor in the development of cancer, and high-carb diets encourage inflammation. Low-carbohydrate diets have been found to be more effective than low-fat ones in terms of reducing markers of inflammation.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Better Cancer Screening tool, if you must screen
In the last blog post I talked about the problem with typical cancer screening. namely mammograms. Today I want to give you a solution--or two.
First of all, this quote from Dr. David Jockers:
Research has shown that the major mechanism involved with all degenerative disease is inflammation. Most medical testing searches for disease processes that have already developed. They are looking downstream to the effect rather than upstream at the underlying cause. More advanced health care practitioners use instruments and technology that searches upstream for the cause of physiological abnormalities in the body.
So the best health strategy is to avoid inflammation and that, it turns out, is nearly 100% within your power. That's what I talk about in this blog/newsletter. BUT...if you've abused your body, have ignored the nutrition that it needs, then maybe testing for cancer is smart. It makes sense, however to do so in ways that do not add to the risk.
Enter Thermography. It is a screening that reads surface heat patterns in your body. Extra heat indicates extra blood flow and that is an indication of inflammation, i.e. disease processes. So here's what thermography shows in breast tissus.
Thermography is not invasive and does not expose you to ionizing ratiation, itself a cause of cancerous changes. So my first choice is diet and supplements to eliminate chronic inflammation--the major mechanism of disease. The human body is self-healing, self regulating and self correcting if given the raw materials to function correctly. By impication, if it's not functioning correctly--if there is disease process going on--you can still self-correct. Our culture has this erroneous assumption that diseases jump out and get us--especially when we are aging. WRONG!! Actually, we invite them in. I choose to recind that invitation! I hope that I'm encouraging you to do that too.
But, if you're worried about disease, choose screening that does not add to the body's toxic burden. Not so you will live forever, but so that whatever years you have ahead are great, fun, invigorating and thriving years! More information about how to tackle the chronic inflammation that's making you tired, painful, and sick found at http://mindingthemiddleagedmiddle.com/e-books.shtml for the booklet, "Inflammation Run Amok"
First of all, this quote from Dr. David Jockers:
Research has shown that the major mechanism involved with all degenerative disease is inflammation. Most medical testing searches for disease processes that have already developed. They are looking downstream to the effect rather than upstream at the underlying cause. More advanced health care practitioners use instruments and technology that searches upstream for the cause of physiological abnormalities in the body.
So the best health strategy is to avoid inflammation and that, it turns out, is nearly 100% within your power. That's what I talk about in this blog/newsletter. BUT...if you've abused your body, have ignored the nutrition that it needs, then maybe testing for cancer is smart. It makes sense, however to do so in ways that do not add to the risk.
Enter Thermography. It is a screening that reads surface heat patterns in your body. Extra heat indicates extra blood flow and that is an indication of inflammation, i.e. disease processes. So here's what thermography shows in breast tissus.
But, if you're worried about disease, choose screening that does not add to the body's toxic burden. Not so you will live forever, but so that whatever years you have ahead are great, fun, invigorating and thriving years! More information about how to tackle the chronic inflammation that's making you tired, painful, and sick found at http://mindingthemiddleagedmiddle.com/e-books.shtml for the booklet, "Inflammation Run Amok"
Friday, November 18, 2011
Cancer screenings and such
Dr. John Briffa in his post today, here, talks about the statistics regarding mammograms. We are often given high percentages of lives saved from mammograms. New studies now tell us the percentage of lives saved is way lower than the 25% number bandied about, perhaps as low as 3%. Why? Well, the cancer may have been easily detected by other means and treated successfully at a later date. The cancer may have been one the woman could die WITH--not of. Just because a mammogram detected a cancer early does not guarantee that it was life-saving! But those who sell mammograms don't necessarily want you to hear those statistics.
While we're on this subject, let's ask more questions--like is there a downside to mammograms? It turns out there are big ones, not the least of which is that mammograms are executed with ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation can cause genetic changes that result in cancers! WHAT? The diagnostic tool for cancer can cause cancer? What's with that?
It turns out there are some other problems with this cancer screening tool and others, too, that the purveyors of these tests do not tell you, although these downsides are well known, well documented and you OUGHT to know them!! How come? Well, I bet you thought medicine was about helping people be healthier, didn't you? No, FIRST, medicine is a money making business. And like all money-making businesses, the thing they're about (making money) takes precedence over all other concerns.
I know, I sound very cynical, don't I? Perhaps. And I don't think you should give up doctors and medicine. What I think is that you darn well ought to know more about what you're signing on for before you do. For more about the risks of various cancer screening tests -- the ones you don't hear from those who order, execute or profit from these tests, read my e-book, "How to be a Smarter Health Care Consumer" here.
Even more importantly, remember in a culture that promotes fear of cancer, we have a huge body of evidence that all cancers fall into the category of "diseases of civilization." Indigenous populations all over the earth for millions of years, but even today--when they eat their native diet--do not have cancers of any kind!
I just finished a book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Weston Price, written in 1939 after he and his wife traveled the world documenting native populations before and after they were exposed to 'civilized' foods. We've been sold a huge bill of goods about what's healthy eating--not the least of which is the whole grains crap and the low fat/saturated fat fiasco. So to wrap up this blog today, let me just say and cancer does not have to be a consideration for modern people, but if you believe conventional wisdom and eat that way (putting toxins in your mouth three times a day) maybe you have good reason to be afraid of cancer and other diseases of civilisation. But it doesn't have to be so.
Vibrant good health is your birthright, but you have to quit believing what you hear from the Medical Industrial Complex and what the grain growers and vegetable oil producers of the world would have you believe. Read more, follow the money and enjoy (or return to) your healthy birthright.
Ellie http://mindingthemiddleagedmiddle.com
While we're on this subject, let's ask more questions--like is there a downside to mammograms? It turns out there are big ones, not the least of which is that mammograms are executed with ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation can cause genetic changes that result in cancers! WHAT? The diagnostic tool for cancer can cause cancer? What's with that?
It turns out there are some other problems with this cancer screening tool and others, too, that the purveyors of these tests do not tell you, although these downsides are well known, well documented and you OUGHT to know them!! How come? Well, I bet you thought medicine was about helping people be healthier, didn't you? No, FIRST, medicine is a money making business. And like all money-making businesses, the thing they're about (making money) takes precedence over all other concerns.
I know, I sound very cynical, don't I? Perhaps. And I don't think you should give up doctors and medicine. What I think is that you darn well ought to know more about what you're signing on for before you do. For more about the risks of various cancer screening tests -- the ones you don't hear from those who order, execute or profit from these tests, read my e-book, "How to be a Smarter Health Care Consumer" here.
Even more importantly, remember in a culture that promotes fear of cancer, we have a huge body of evidence that all cancers fall into the category of "diseases of civilization." Indigenous populations all over the earth for millions of years, but even today--when they eat their native diet--do not have cancers of any kind!
I just finished a book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Weston Price, written in 1939 after he and his wife traveled the world documenting native populations before and after they were exposed to 'civilized' foods. We've been sold a huge bill of goods about what's healthy eating--not the least of which is the whole grains crap and the low fat/saturated fat fiasco. So to wrap up this blog today, let me just say and cancer does not have to be a consideration for modern people, but if you believe conventional wisdom and eat that way (putting toxins in your mouth three times a day) maybe you have good reason to be afraid of cancer and other diseases of civilisation. But it doesn't have to be so.
Vibrant good health is your birthright, but you have to quit believing what you hear from the Medical Industrial Complex and what the grain growers and vegetable oil producers of the world would have you believe. Read more, follow the money and enjoy (or return to) your healthy birthright.
Ellie http://mindingthemiddleagedmiddle.com
Saturday, November 12, 2011
This is So Frustrating
Stanford University just came out with a new study that says osteoarthritis is not just a disease of wear and tear on joints. It’s actually a disease process of the body’s inflammatory response that damages joints. WOW!
This is NOT new information. What this information is, is not mainstream, but very well known by all but the most mainstream of modern medicine. I’ve been saying that for a couple years, and I came to it quite late—unfortunately, so late that I now have four metal joints.
The very name of osteo arthritis tells us it is inflammation of joints. Here’s the frustrating part. In the article they do mention why a pill won’t cure it, then conclude with this: “And it is likely that a healthy diet makes a difference, too, with enough nutrients.”
Well, duh! But they do not say what constitutes a healthy diet, of course, because what’s a healthy diet for human beings (one that avoids all disease and disability) is not popular. It’s hard in our culture to eat a healthy diet because there are enormous financial and political interests pushing an unhealthy diet. And a huge medical industrial complex that thrives on your dis-ease.
No, the doctors didn’t help me when my joints were going to hell. They do not have any curative help for diabetics or wisdom for cancer patients beyond more toxicity. They’re not curing autoimmune diseases, or even the mental plagues (alzheimers, depression, brain fog, anxiety and aggression) or any of the other ills of “inflammation run amok” (title of my e-book about this stuff). Inflammation causes all health problems. ALL! Mental and physical. You are a self-healing, self-regulating biological system but it has to have the right fuel. Just like a car. You simply cannot put crap in the gas tank of a fine auto and expect it to run well. Why would anyone think you could put crap into a fine biological system and expect it to function well???
If I can find that out by reading a bunch of books and researching on the internet, anyone can. But few want to hear that. It means that the lifestyle you’re living (mostly food you put in your mouth) is causing all your health problems and so you are not a victim but completely responsible for how you feel.
I just got a new book, written by Weston Price in 1939. (that’s 72 years ago—not new, folks!) Dr. Price, a dentist, covered the entire globe with his wife documenting indigenous populations before and after they were exposed to the diet of civilization. Now, Dr. Price is a dentist and his interest was mostly in things like teeth, dental arch crowding and facial deformities. Duh, again. And this was new to me but of course makes absolute sense. The diet of civilization doesn’t just make us sick and psychotic, it also makes us ugly with crowded teeth, cavities, and facial deformities. (Healthy bone formation of the head and jaw is also dependent on good fuel).
This is not new stuff! We do not need Stanford to tell us that diet causes osteoarthritis. What frustrates me is that so few want to hear they are responsible for their own problems. To me it was a huge aha moment to realize I can feel good, stop the progression of my arthritis, and prevent a lot of the other things I see around me by putting better fuel into my body. I can feel great—not just good, but absolutely great, even at this age. The jokes about aging and all the stuff people think aging brings—NOT! Aging does not have to be a time of decline. You don’t have to have disease or even aches and pains.
Is it easy? No. You are bombarded day in and day out with enticements to eat crap. Much of what’s available in grocery stores is grown on depleted soils with few nutrients and it’s fertilized with petroleum. It’s hard to eat the fuel that makes you feel good. But here’s the truth:
IT’S SO WORTH THE EFFORT!!!
Read my e-book. Do your own research. Find out what creates disease and aging. Do you want to have an old age that is vibrant and vigorous or do you want health problems and mental fog? I plan on the former! And at 67, I’ve demonstrated to my own satisfaction that it works!!!
Short answers below. For the reasons that this works, see e-books or do your own research.
Things to eliminate:
sugar
grains (grss seeds--wheat, oats, corn, rice, etc)
vegetable oils
as many toxins as you can
Things to add:
More animal protein
More vegetables
More fruit
More animal fats
Judicious supplements (big a topic)
Best wishes for a wonderful, feel-good life ahead!
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
What does an Anti-inflammatory Diet and Lifestyle do for you?
Tomorrow is my birthday. I will then be 67. Not that I am particularly excited about another birthday, but I think there are some things worth noting. I never felt better in my life. I am pain free. My blood pressure is normal. I take no prescription drugs. I have lots of energy, more than people half my age. I am alert and my memory is as good as it's every been. Next weekend I will teach a workshop in Michigan for 7 or 8 full hours. At home I spend much of my day gardening and I'm writing a new book about superfruits and what I'm learning about gardening with exotics. Not bad for 67.
This morning in the tire store as I waited for tire rotation, I overheard two older women visiting and commiserating about the pains and problems of age. They were my age or younger. My heart goes out to them. Life is not much fun when you hurt and feel crappy. I know. I used to be there. It's not easy, but it's so so worth it to feel this good (and still losing weight) and enjoying life and activity so much!
Is it easy? Well, a lot easier now than it was a year ago. The food cravings are gone. The cooking part is easier because I know what works. I don't miss junk food or grains or things that make me hurt. I'm woefully not in step with my culture and I prefer not to put myself in situations where I have to explain why I don't want bread with my steak or dessert. I'm more self contained. And a whole lot happier.
I'm reading a book, "The Biology of Belief" by Bruce Lipton. It's good for a number of reasons. But here's something he mentions in one of his chapters. In 2000 the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that doctors are the third leading cause of death in the US. I've reported that many times. Those deaths are called iatrogenic, caused by the actions of treatment. 120,000 are deaths from adverse drug effects.
But here's the new information I had not known. Just three years later, Null et all reported (based on 10 years of government statistics) that iatrogenic cause of death is the number one killer in the US with 300,000 deaths from prescription drugs. I'm appalled! I am more committed to staying off prescription drugs and staying healthy the way I know works--diet, exercise, judicious supplements, staying out of doctor's offices and hospitals.
If you want to know how to stay healthy, read my booklet, "Inflammation Run Amok" for the why and the how of it. http://www.mindingthemiddleagedmiddle.com/e-books.shtml and "How to Be a Smarter Health Care Consumer." Among others also at that site. Join me in healing and preventing the problems that most of your peers are dealing with!
This morning in the tire store as I waited for tire rotation, I overheard two older women visiting and commiserating about the pains and problems of age. They were my age or younger. My heart goes out to them. Life is not much fun when you hurt and feel crappy. I know. I used to be there. It's not easy, but it's so so worth it to feel this good (and still losing weight) and enjoying life and activity so much!
Is it easy? Well, a lot easier now than it was a year ago. The food cravings are gone. The cooking part is easier because I know what works. I don't miss junk food or grains or things that make me hurt. I'm woefully not in step with my culture and I prefer not to put myself in situations where I have to explain why I don't want bread with my steak or dessert. I'm more self contained. And a whole lot happier.
I'm reading a book, "The Biology of Belief" by Bruce Lipton. It's good for a number of reasons. But here's something he mentions in one of his chapters. In 2000 the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that doctors are the third leading cause of death in the US. I've reported that many times. Those deaths are called iatrogenic, caused by the actions of treatment. 120,000 are deaths from adverse drug effects.
But here's the new information I had not known. Just three years later, Null et all reported (based on 10 years of government statistics) that iatrogenic cause of death is the number one killer in the US with 300,000 deaths from prescription drugs. I'm appalled! I am more committed to staying off prescription drugs and staying healthy the way I know works--diet, exercise, judicious supplements, staying out of doctor's offices and hospitals.
If you want to know how to stay healthy, read my booklet, "Inflammation Run Amok" for the why and the how of it. http://www.mindingthemiddleagedmiddle.com/e-books.shtml and "How to Be a Smarter Health Care Consumer." Among others also at that site. Join me in healing and preventing the problems that most of your peers are dealing with!
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Shame on AMA’s Archives of Internal Medicine
I'm borrowing today's post from the following website. http://www.anh-usa.org/shame-on-ama-archives-of-internal-medicine/
I saw the "news" blurb about how a new study says vitamins cause you to die sooner. Here's the bummer problem with media and with junk science. I was going to write something similar, but these folks have done it so well! Don't believe everything you read about health.
Did you hear the breaking news last night—that multivitamins may shorten your life? Here’s how junk science from the AMA set off the media frenzy.
Bloomberg phrased it this way: “Multivitamins and some dietary supplements, used regularly by an estimated 234 million US adults, may do more harm than good, according to a study that tied their use to higher death rates among older women.” The study’s authors outrageously concluded, “We see little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements.”
The study, published in the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) Archives of Internal Medicine, assessed the use of vitamin and mineral supplements in nearly 39,000 women whose average age was 62. The researchers asked the women to fill out three surveys, the first in 1986, the second in 1997, and the last in 2004, reporting what supplements they took and what foods they ate, and answering a few questions about their health.
That’s right, all the data was self-reported by the study subjects only three times over the course of the 19-year-long study. To say the data is “unreliable” would be a generous description. This kind of “data” has no place in a valid scientific study.
Then the researchers looked at how many of the women had died by 2008. They reported that the number of deaths were somewhat higher for women who took copper, a little bit lower for women who took calcium, but about average for most of the women.
In the study, all of the relative risks were so low as to be statistically insignificant, and none was backed up by any medical investigation or biological plausibility study. No analysis was done on what combinations of vitamins and minerals were actually consumed, and no analysis of the cause of death was done beyond grouping for “cancer,” “cardiovascular disease,” or “other”—there was certainly no causative analysis done. The interactions of potential compounding risk factors is always tremendously complex—and was ignored in this so-called study.
“Multivitamin” can mean many different things, and of course changed tremendously over the 19 years during which this “study” was conducted. Were they high quality? Were the ingredients synthetic or natural? How much of each nutrient was taken? Were they really taken at all? How good is anyone’s memory in describing what took place over many years? One would assume that that the women’s diets fluctuated greatly over the same period; when self-reporting only three times in 19 years, there is a great deal of information one would naturally leave out even if some of it was accurate. No analysis was done of the effect of supplements on the women’s overall health, nor of their effect on women of other ages.
In short, this study is less than useless: it is dangerous, because it is being used by the media and the mainstream medical establishment to blacken the eye of nutritional supplements using poor data, bad analysis, and specious conclusions—otherwise known as junk science.
I saw the "news" blurb about how a new study says vitamins cause you to die sooner. Here's the bummer problem with media and with junk science. I was going to write something similar, but these folks have done it so well! Don't believe everything you read about health.
Shame on AMA’s Archives of Internal Medicine
October 11, 2011Did you hear the breaking news last night—that multivitamins may shorten your life? Here’s how junk science from the AMA set off the media frenzy.
Bloomberg phrased it this way: “Multivitamins and some dietary supplements, used regularly by an estimated 234 million US adults, may do more harm than good, according to a study that tied their use to higher death rates among older women.” The study’s authors outrageously concluded, “We see little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements.”
The study, published in the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) Archives of Internal Medicine, assessed the use of vitamin and mineral supplements in nearly 39,000 women whose average age was 62. The researchers asked the women to fill out three surveys, the first in 1986, the second in 1997, and the last in 2004, reporting what supplements they took and what foods they ate, and answering a few questions about their health.
That’s right, all the data was self-reported by the study subjects only three times over the course of the 19-year-long study. To say the data is “unreliable” would be a generous description. This kind of “data” has no place in a valid scientific study.
Then the researchers looked at how many of the women had died by 2008. They reported that the number of deaths were somewhat higher for women who took copper, a little bit lower for women who took calcium, but about average for most of the women.
In the study, all of the relative risks were so low as to be statistically insignificant, and none was backed up by any medical investigation or biological plausibility study. No analysis was done on what combinations of vitamins and minerals were actually consumed, and no analysis of the cause of death was done beyond grouping for “cancer,” “cardiovascular disease,” or “other”—there was certainly no causative analysis done. The interactions of potential compounding risk factors is always tremendously complex—and was ignored in this so-called study.
“Multivitamin” can mean many different things, and of course changed tremendously over the 19 years during which this “study” was conducted. Were they high quality? Were the ingredients synthetic or natural? How much of each nutrient was taken? Were they really taken at all? How good is anyone’s memory in describing what took place over many years? One would assume that that the women’s diets fluctuated greatly over the same period; when self-reporting only three times in 19 years, there is a great deal of information one would naturally leave out even if some of it was accurate. No analysis was done of the effect of supplements on the women’s overall health, nor of their effect on women of other ages.
In short, this study is less than useless: it is dangerous, because it is being used by the media and the mainstream medical establishment to blacken the eye of nutritional supplements using poor data, bad analysis, and specious conclusions—otherwise known as junk science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)