Tag Archives: Sports Nutrition

A Special Report on Vitamin D

That One Critical Nutrient Your Multivitamin May Not Have Enough of

Did you know that vitamin D is not really a vitamin?  Vitamin D is actually turned into a hormone by the body.  This hormone is called “activated vitamin D” or “calcitriol.”

Your body will make vitamin D when exposed to sunlight.

Vitamin D
Vitamin D found to influence over 200 genes, highlighting links to disease

I grew up in Washington State where it always seemed to rain a lot.  As a kid I was forced to take cod liver oil as a supplement.  I was too young to figure out why at the time, but it contained vitamin D and I wasn’t getting enough of it.  This was to help my bones as well as to prevent rickets.   Research is now showing that vitamin D may be a very important part of treating a whole list of serious long term health problems.

It is estimated that 75% of Americans are deficient in this vitamin

Yet, experts estimate that adequate supplementation with this nutrient can reduce your risk of developing cancer by up to 77%, and cut your risk of developing heart disease by as much as 53%.

You may be wondering what is this incredibly important nutrient that can reduce your risk of cancer and heart disease, but is not included in sufficient amounts in virtually any of the multivitamins out there?

It’s actually a vitamin that our bodies can produce, yet most of us don’t have enough of.

You may have guessed it – it’s vitamin D.

The problem with ALL multivitamins on the market is that they don’t have enough of the “sunshine vitamin”.

You see, most multivitamins only include the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of the various vitamins and minerals. 

The RDA is a minimum number set by the government to ensure people don’t develop acute vitamin deficiency diseases like scurvy, pellagra, and beriberi.

Personally, I am not interested in merely surviving — I want to thrive. I want to enjoy OPTIMAL health.

Therefore I take MORE than the minimal amount of each vitamin. 

And so should YOU.

To achieve OPTIMAL health, you need to take the OPTIMAL amounts of vitamin D.

Currently the RDA (minimum amount) for vitamin D is set at 400 IU.  

They haven’t revisited that number in more than 20 years.  

When these numbers were set in the mid-1990s, most members of the medical community didn’t look at vitamin D as being all that important.  

They agreed we needed some of it to aid in the absorption of calcium in order to maintain strong bones and healthy teeth. 

Here’s the problem with the amounts, though… 

In the last 10 years, numerous studies around the world have shown that vitamin D is a lot more important than we once thought.  

In fact, it could very well be THE most important vitamin there is.  

It reduces the risk of developing most cancers. 

It fights heart disease, diabetes and bone loss. 

It cuts the risk of developing multiple sclerosis. 

How?

By unlocking over 200 DNA blueprints needed by your body’s cells for growth and immunity. 

But don’t take my word for it. See the results of the latest research from the Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford in the UK: 

What does this mean for you?

It means that supplementing with vitamin D can help keep you healthy for much longer. It will also greatly reduce the risk of developing debilitating diseases.

There are no shortcuts. 

Lying out in the sun exposing your entire body to sunlight will absolutely raise your vitamin D levels. 

There are, however, risks that could counter the effect of any vitamin D you create doing that.  

Risks like sunburn and skin cancer to name just two. 

Getting some sun is fine. In fact, it’s a great idea.  

Just be smart about it and give your body the proper support with a good vitamin D supplement.

Vitamin D
Promotes Heart, Immune And Bone Health

 

Fetal Exposure to Pollutants Produces Childhood Obesity

Fetal Exposure to Pollutants Produces Childhood Obesity

Have you ever wondered why some infants seem to be naturally heavier than others, even though they may not necessarily be eating more? New research is confirming this may have something to do with a baby’s exposure to certain pollutants within the womb.

Research from Spain’s Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology has confirmed that exposure to certain environmental pollutants in the womb produces a greater incidence of obesity and rapid growth among infants and children.

In the most recent study, the researchers followed over 4,600 infants between 2003 and 2008 who were between the age of six months and fourteen months. Within this population they identified 1,285 children who had experienced rapid growth during their first year and 1,198 overweight babies by the time they were 14 months of age.

During the last trimester of pregnancy the mothers’ blood was collected and analyzed for a number of pollutants, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) and hexachlorobenzene (HCB).

The researchers then collected data relating to the body mass index of each child – measuring that at six months and then again at 14 months.

The researchers found that DDE and HCB were both associated with rapid growth among the infants as well as being overweight at fourteen months.

The researchers concluded:

“Prenatal exposure to DDE and HCB may be associated with early postnatal growth. Further research is needed to evaluate the persistence of these associations at older ages.”

Other research finds similar results for older children

This study confirms an earlier study done by some of the same researchers. This study, however, focused upon children who were older – with an average age of 6.5 years.

This study followed 344 Spanish children between 1997 and 1998, comparing their body mass index at 6.5 years old with their exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), and/or dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) within the womb.

This study again found that the incidence of obesity among the children was significantly higher for those with higher exposures to PCBs and DDE. The increased obesity rate among th

Fruit Restriction Advice for Type 2 Diabetics Proven WRONG

Fruit Restriction Advice for Type 2 Diabetics Proven WRONG

Fruit Restriction Advice for Type 2 Diabetics Proven WRONG

Danish hospital researchers have proven that the typical recommendation among conventional doctors and nutritionists to type 2 diabetics to lay off the fruit is quite simply wrong.

The research comes from the Department of Nutrition of Denmark’s West Jutland Regional Hospital. The researchers tested fruit consumption on 63 men and women who had been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The researchers randomized the participants into two groups. One group was given the advice to eat at least two fruits a day, while the other was given the more common conventional medicine advice to eat no more than two fruits a day. This advice accompanied the other typical medical and nutritional advice typically given to diabetics.

The participants then recorded their fruit consumption each day for three months. Before and after the trial began the patients were tested for HbA1c status, body weight and waist circumference. Because many of the patients were overweight, their diet plan also included strategies for weight loss.

The HbA1c test shows the mean glucose levels over the past three months. It illustrates glucose control among diabetics. Less than 5.6% or lower is considered normal, while 5.7 to 6.5 is considered pre-diabetic, and more than 6.5% is considered diabetic. The patients studied were all over 6.5%.

After the three months on their new diets, the patients were all re-tested, and their fruit consumption was analyzed together with their HbA1c results, weight and waist size.

The researchers found that those on the high fruit diet had little difference in their relative HbA1c levels, amount of weight loss or waist size as compared to the group that consumed less fruit.

The researchers concluded that:

A recommendation to reduce fruit intake as part of standard medical nutrition therapy in overweight patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes resulted in eating less fruit. It [consuming less fruit] had however no effect on HbA1c, weight loss or waist circumference. We recommend that the intake of fruit should not be restricted in patients with type 2 diabetes.”

In fact, when the data is looked at more closely, those who ate more fruit had slightly more weight loss and lower ending waist circumference than those who ate less fruit.

The high-fruit diet group had an average weight reduction of 2.5 kilos while the low-fruit diet group had a 1.7 kilogram average loss in weight. Meanwhile, the high-fruit diet group had an average waistline shrinkage of 4.3 centimeters, while the low-fruit diet had an average shrinkage of 3.0 centimeters.

The reason why this nutritional advice of lower fruit consumption has been erroneous is that conventional medicine has failed to understand the importance of consuming the fibers within fruits: They have assumed the sugar levels of fruit without the fiber. Whole fruits contain a number of long-chain polysaccharides – such as pectin and others – which have been shown to reduce glycemic levels and balance blood sugar.

This reality – that fruits pose no threat to type 2 diabetics – has been in front of conventional medicine for over two decades. Research at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis in the early nineties – published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition – tested seven diabetic men with bananas of various ripeness. Their testing illustrated that the ripeness of the bananas had no effects upon the patients’ levels of glucose, insulin, C-peptide and glucagon. This should have led to the immediate abandonment of this notion that fruit is not advisable for diabetics.

In fact, the precisely opposite is true.

Just about every whole fruit will contain both soluble and insoluble fiber – often at precisely the perfect levels for our digestive tract. Fiber levels among popular fruits range from a low of about three grams for every 100 calories to a high of seven to over eight grams per 100 calories – among raspberries, blackberries (about a cup), prunes and figs. An apple or pear will contain close to four grams each.

Fruit juices, on the other hand, present the sugar of fruits without their fiber. Thus fruit juices are a quite different thing altogether.

Most health-oriented nutritionists suggest that between 30 and 40 grams a day of fiber is best, while some suggest as low as 25 is okay. Most Americans eat between 10 and 15 grams per day. Fiber is critical to maintaining blood sugar balance.

Soluble fiber – also called water-soluble – has been shown to lower cholesterol because it prevents bile from reabsorption – as bile acids are produced from cholesterol. Fiber will attach bile acids and escort them out of the body. Soluble fiber also slows carbohydrate absorption and decreases insulin requirements. These together help balance blood sugar levels. Insoluble fiber attaches to toxins and waste material in the digestive tract and escorts them out of the intestines.

Fruits make up one of the best ways to get both soluble and insoluble fiber. Other ways include whole grains and seeds.

You can learn more about this article at: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fruit-restriction-advice-type-2-diabetics-proven-wrong

Healthy Nutrition

Glucose Regulation Complex* (Vegetarian) 60 ct.

Helps Retain Normal Blood Sugar Levels*

Along with achieving a healthy weight through diet and exercise, Glucose Regulation Complex, a unique blend of scientifically supported minerals, a botanical, and antioxidants, can help retain normal blood-sugar levels.*

Come check out my website to learn more about Glucose Regulation Complex.

‘Hidden Dangers’ of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About

‘Hidden Dangers’ of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About

Study Finds Women Still Suffering 3 Years After Breast Cancer False-Positive

Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the promotion of breast cancer itself. 

A new study published in the Annals of Family Medicine titled, Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography, brings to the forefront a major underreported harm of breast screening programs: the very real and lasting trauma associated with a false-positive diagnosis of breast cancer.[1]

The study found that women with false-positive diagnoses of breast cancer, even three years after being declared free of cancer, “consistently reported greater negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes.”

The psychosocial and existential parameters adversely affected were:

  • Sense of dejection
  • Anxiety
  • Negative impact on behavior
  • Negative impact on sleep
  • Degree of breast self-examination
  • Negative impact on sexuality
  • Feeling of attractiveness
  • Ability to keep ‘mind off things’
  • Worries about breast cancer
  • Inner calm
  • Social network
  • Existential values

What is even more concerning is that “[S]ix months after final diagnosis, women with false-positive findings reported changes in existential values and inner calmness as great as those reported by women with a diagnosis of breast cancer.”

In other words, even after being “cleared of cancer,” the measurable adverse psychospiritual effects of the trauma of diagnosis were equivalent to actually having breast cancer.

Given that the cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography is at least 50%,[2] this is an issue that will affect the health of millions of women undergoing routine breast screening.

The Curse of False Diagnosis and ‘Bone-Pointing’

Also, we must be cognizant of the fact that these observed ‘psychosocial’ and ‘existential’ adverse effects don’t just cause some vaguely defined ‘mental anguish,’ but translate into objectively quantifiable physiological consequences of a dire nature.

For instance, last year, a groundbreaking study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that, based on data on more than 6 million Swedes aged 30 and older, the risk of suicide was found to be up to 16 times higher and the risk of heart-related death up to26.9 times higher during the first week following a positive versus a negative cancer diagnosis.[3]

This was the first study of its kind to confirm that the trauma of diagnosis can result in, as the etymology of the Greek word trauma reveals, a “physical wound.” In the same way as Aborigonal cultures had a ‘ritual executioner’ or ‘bone pointer’ known as a Kurdaitcha who by pointing a bone at a victim with the intention of cursing him to death, resulting in the actual self-willed death of the accursed, so too does the modern ritual of medicine reenact ancient belief systems and power differentials, with the modern physician, whether he likes it or not, a ‘priest of the body.’; we must only look to the well-known dialectic of the placebo and nocebo effects to see these powerful, “irrational” processes still operative.

Millions Harmed by Breast Screening Despite Assurances to the Contrary

Research of this kind clearly indicates that the conventional screening process carries health risks, both to body and mind, which may outstrip the very dangers the medical surveillance believes itself responsible for, and effective at, mitigating.  For instance, according to a groundbreaking study published last November in New England Journal of Medicine, 1.3 million US women were overdiagnosed and overtreated over the past 30 years.[4] These are the ‘false positives’ that were never caught, resulting in the unnecessary irradiation, chemotherapy poisoning and surgery of approximately 43,000 women each year.  Now, when you add to this dismal statistic the millions of ‘false positives’ that while being caught nevertheless resulted in producing traumas within those women, breast screening begins to look like a veritable nightmare of iatrogenesis.

And this does not even account for the radiobiological dangers of the x-ray mammography screening process itself, which may be causing an epidemic of mostly unackowledged radiation-induced breast cancers in exposed populations.

For instance, in 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme,” revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times – but possibly as much as six times – more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.[5]

Even the breast cancer treatment protocols themselves have recently been found to contribute to enhancing cancer malignancy and increasing mortality. Chemotherapy and radiation both appear to enrich the cancer stem cell populations, which are at the root of breast cancer malignancy and invasiveness. Last year, in fact, the prestigious journal Cancer, a publication of the American Cancer Society, published a study performed by researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center showing that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumors than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.[6]

What we are increasingly bearing witness to in the biomedical literature itself is that the conventional breast cancer prevention and treatment strategy and protocols are bankrupt.  Or, from the perspective of the more cynical observer, it is immensely successful, owing to the fact that it is driving billions of dollars or revenue by producing more of what it claims to be fighting.

The time has come for a radical transformation in the way that we understand, screen for, prevent and treat cancer. It used to be that natural medical advocates didn’t have the so-called peer-reviewed ‘evidence’ to back up their intuitive and/or anecdotal understanding of how to keep the human body in health and balance. That time has passed. GreenMedInfo.com, for instance, has over 20,000 abstracts indexed in support of a return to a medical model where the ‘alternative’ is synthetic, invasive, emergency-modeled medicine, and the norm is using food, herbs, minerals, vitamins and lifestyle changes to maintain, promote and regain optimal health.

You can learn more about this article at: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/hidden-dangers-mammograms-every-woman-should-know-about

Healthy Nutrition

GLA Complex 60 ct.

GLA, Vitamin E, and Sunflower Seed Oil

GLA is used by many women to maintain a sense of well-being throughout their monthly cycle. This Shaklee formula contains GLA (gamma linolenic acid), an omega-6 fatty acid that our bodies use to form prostaglandins—potent, hormone-like substances that help the body to regulate many normal bodily processes.*

Come check out my website to learn more about GLA Complex.

What is it about Cow’s Milk that Causes Constipation in Children?

What is it about Cow’s Milk that Causes Constipation in Children?

What is it about Cow's Milk that Causes Constipation in Children?

Many studies have illustrated the ability of cow’s milk to produce constipation in children, and it is a known allergen. University and Health Department researchers from Australia recently investigated cow’s milk and proved once again that feeding children homogenized, pasteurized milk can produce constipation. Meanwhile other studies show that dairy with probiotics can actually relieve constipation. What is going on here?

The researchers tested 13 children in one trial and 39 children in a second trial. The average age of the children was about 6 and a half year’s old. All the children were diagnosed with having chronic constipation (diagnosis = Chronic Functional Constipation).

In the first trial, nine children were given soy milk instead of cow’s milk and the others continued the cow’s milk. This followed a period where no milk was fed to the children (washout period).

All the children given the soymilk all had a resolution of their constipation. This also occurred in the washout period.

These results were confirmed using a crossover design, which allowed each group to reverse their protocol after another washout period.

The second trial also tested for casein type – using A1 milk or A2 milk type casein. The results determined that there was little difference between the two milks given – they both showed increased constipation compared to the washout period – when milk was withheld from their diets.

 

Due to the casein study, the researchers concluded that there was likely something else other than casein that was causing the constipation. In their conclusion they wrote:

The results of Trial 1 demonstrate an association between constipation and cow’s milk consumption while trial 2 failed to show an effect from type of casein. Some other component in cow’s milk common to both A1 and A2 milk may be causing a problem in these susceptible children. Investigations into the immunological or biochemical mechanism occurring in CFC are required, including investigations of the intolerance reactions and how they affect nerves in the gastrointestinal tract.”

Meanwhile, a number of studies have shown that dairy-fermented probiotics actually can relieve constipation.

In one, from Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, twenty children with an average age of a little over seven years old found that a daily dose of dairy-fermentedBifidobacterium breve significantly increased bowel movements and significantly decreased abdominal pain among the children.

Another children’s study – this also using twenty constipated children – found those given a daily mixture of probiotics including Bifidobacteria bifidum, B. infantis, B. longum, Lactobacilli casei, L. plantarum and L. rhamnosus, also experienced significantly increased bowel movements and a resolution to their constipation.

In addition to this, several studies on adults have found that yogurt or milk fermented with probiotics can significantly reduce constipation.

Because breast milk and raw milk of various types naturally contain probiotics, and since constipation has been specifically connected with drinking homogenized, pasteurized cow’s milk, we must assume that whatever the element is within homogenized, pasteurized cow’s milk that is causing the constipation, it is being neutralized by the probiotics within raw milks and yogurt products.

In fact, there is significant evidence to suspect that beta-lactoglobulin may be the culprit from milk that produces the constipation – although we probably still cannot completely eliminate the effects of casein. In fact, the A1 or A2 casein groups in the Australian study does not prove that casein is not involved. The researchers noted this clearly in their discussion:

It seems that it is not the β casein moiety, in cow’s milk that is causing constipation or if it is, it is not the section that differs between the A1 and A2 variants.”

And there is clear evidence that both beta-lactoglobulin and casein are both in fact neutralized – actually hydrolyzed – by probiotic species.

This means that these two large proteins – not only suspected as culprits in constipation, but also among milk allergies – are largely neutralized by probiotics. This explains why probiotic-supplemented milks or yogurts are curative for constipation.

And this is why raw milk that has been properly tested will likely not have the same effects as homogenized, pasteurized milk with regard to constipation and allergenicity. While this has not been studied directly, we can logically arrive at this conclusion using the evidence showing that yogurt and cow’s milk fermented with probiotics can resolve constipation.

When milk is pasteurized, the probiotics within the milk are killed and thus not given a chance to continue feeding on the milk’s sugars (yogurt is also naturally low in lactose). But this also means the probiotics will not be able to neutralize the milk proteins such as casein and beta-lactoglobulin within the pasteurized milk.

You can learn more about this article at: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/what-it-about-cows-milk-causes-constipation-children

Healthy Nutrition

Shakleekids™ Incredivites™ Multivitamin 120 ct.

Supernutrition for Superkids

Shakleekids Incredivites is the first children’s chewable multivitamin in the U.S. with lactoferrin, which helps kids’ immune systems stay supercharged.* Packed with 23 essential nutrients, it’s the world’s best kids’ supplement-with 600 IU of vitamin D to support strong bones and teeth, and 100% of the Daily Value of all eight B vitamins and vitamin C. Just two a day and off they play. Now that’s incredible!

Come check out my website to learn more about ShakleeKIds Incredivites Multvitamins.