If you want to use this article on your site please click here.This content can be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. where applicable, any other use, permission is required in writing from Dr. Mercola.
© Copyright 2010 Dr. Joseph Mercola. all rights reserved.
If you want to use this article on your site please click here.This content can be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. where applicable, any other use, permission is required in writing from Dr. Mercola.
© Copyright 2010 Dr. Joseph Mercola. all rights reserved.
Indiana Business Journal reports that the proteins from genetically modified crops exhibiting in Indiana waterways.
According to the Journal, the University of Notre Dame and Loyola University looked at 217 streams, ditches and drains near Indiana cornfields and found to be genetically modified (GM) bug-killing protein in 50 of them.
Proteins are genetically modified maize and other crops that are designed to produce their own pesticide when insects bite them, but when the farmers mow the fields, the residue remains from crushed plants – and it is to find their way into waterways.
"Protein made the runoff to surface water and leaves and stems, sometimes wash to streams," said Journal. "And protein 1350. the investigation was carried out six months after the harvest. "
Paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, says, it is not known whether the trace levels of proteins is a threat to aquatic animals in the water.
But either way – it is still married, and it is a poison that was in 85 percent of THE U.S. corn crop last year.
I've discussed the variables that can boost or hinder the benefits of your exercise routine in a number of previous articles, and I'll summarize them again below, but this study is unique in that it shows how your choice of cool-down routine can affect your post-exercise appetite.
Jumping into the pool after strenuous exercise can feel heavenly, but according to these preliminary findings, you may want to reconsider taking that dip if you're trying to lose weight.
The study was limited to 10 participants, so it may be premature to draw concrete conclusions. But if you're trying to shed a few pounds, these recommendations may be worth considering.
The participants were evaluated three times. Each 40-minute run was followed by one of three different 20-minute cool-downs:
Immersion in cold water (59 degrees Fahrenheit) Immersion in tepid water (91 degrees Fahrenheit) No immersion; sitting restingAfter each test, they were served a buffet breakfast and allowed to eat as much as they wanted.
Blood samples were collected to evaluate blood glucose, lactate, and the appetite-regulating hormones leptin and ghrelin.
Interestingly, after water immersion, the subjects:
Consumed an average of 80 to 108 more calories Consumed more carbs and protein Had reduced leptin levels Had increased ghrelin levelsLeptin plays a role in decreasing your appetite while ghrelin tends to increase it, so the changes in both of these hormones post-water immersion are indications of increased appetite, or reduced satiety.
Granted, more research is needed to confirm these findings, and it's possible that cold water immersion causes other metabolic changes that may counteract the slight increase in calorie consumption...
Not sure how I will apply results of this research personally though. In the summer months when I do my Peak 8 exercises I am drenched in sweat and typically find it very relaxing to jump in my in-ground outdoor pool. Since I really don't need to lose any weight, I will likely continue the practice as I find it refreshing. I will not even have the choice though until next May.
Aside from abstaining from a dip in the pool, there are a number of other pre- and post-exercise strategies you may want to keep in mind in order to boost your weight loss potential and optimize the health benefits of exercise.
Remember, exercise changes your biochemistry, and you can aid or hinder these beneficial changes, depending on what you chose to eat before and directly after exercise.
Let's review:
You may have heard that exercising on an empty stomach will help burn more fat, and there seems to be some truth to that, although it might not be appropriate for everyone.
Exercising vigorously when you're blood sugar is low could lead to dizziness and poor performance, and exercising while hungry can also lead to overeating afterwards.
Personally, I believe the best approach is to use some common sense and listen to your body. For example, if you feel weak or nauseous while exercising on an empty stomach, you may want to at least eat a small meal before exercising.
That said, the reason why fasting before exercise seems to work is because the fat burning processes in your body are controlled by your sympathetic nervous system (SNS). The SNS is inherently activated by exercise and lack of food. The combination of fasting and exercising maximizes the impact of cellular factors and catalysts (cyclic AMP and AMP Kinases), which force the breakdown of fat and glycogen for energy.
So, when you exercise on an empty stomach, you're actually forcing your body to burn fat.
However, as I just mentioned, fasting prior to exercise can reduce your performance. Fortunately, there is a better, and probably more efficient, way to boost fat burning without fasting.
A recent study published in the journal Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise found that consuming 20 grams of whey protein 30 minutes before resistance training can boost your body's metabolism for as much as 24 hours after your workout.
It appears as though the amino acids found in high quality whey protein activate certain cellular mechanisms (mTORC-1), which in turn promote muscle protein synthesis, boost thyroid function, and also protect against declining testosterone levels after exercise.
In practical terms, consuming 20 grams of whey protein before exercise and another serving afterward will most likely yield the double benefit of increasing both fat burning and muscle build-up at the same time.
One of the worst foods you can eat prior to exercising is carbohydrates, as carbs will inhibit the SNS and reduce the fat burning effect of your exercise. Instead, this type of meal will activate your parasympathetic nervous system (PSNS), which promotes energy storage—the complete opposite of what you're aiming for.
Personally I do strength training three times a week and will typically consume a whey protein meal one hour before, one hour after, and three hours after, to provide the fuel for muscle growth. This is not as necessary for non-strength training exercises, however.
So, fasting, or even better, consuming high quality whey protein prior to exercise can boost fat burning. But equally important is what you do afterwards.
Again we find that sugar is at the bottom of the list.
In fact, consuming sugar (including starchy carbs that convert to sugar, and sugary energy drinks) within two hours of high intensity Peak 8 exercises will negatively affect your:
Insulin sensitivity, and Human growth hormone (HGH) productionBoth of these factors are very important for optimal health and longevity.
Impaired insulin sensitivity (insulin resistance) is the underlying cause of type 2 diabetes and a significant risk factor for other chronic diseases such as heart disease.
Meanwhile, maintaining your HGH levels (which tend to drop off after the age of 35) will help keep your body strong and your health robust.
The beneficial impact of a low-carb post-exercise meal on your insulin sensitivity was recently confirmed by a study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology. And hghmagazine.com clearly explains how consuming sugar/fructose, including that from fruit juices, within this two-hour window will decimate your natural HGH production:
"A high sugar meal after working out, or even a recovery drink (containing high sugar) after working out, will stop the benefits of exercise induced HGH. You can work out for hours, then eat a high sugar candy bar or have a high sugar energy drink, and this will shut down the synergistic benefits of HGH.
… If you miss reaching HGH release during working out, you will still receive the calorie burning benefit from the workout. However, you'll miss the HGH "synergy bonus" of enhanced fat burning for two hours after working out.
This is an extremely important fact to remember if you want to cut body fat and shed a few pounds.
So, to further reduce body fat while enhancing your insulin sensitivity and promoting HGH production, you'll want to eat a low-carbohydrate meal within that two-hour window.
One of the explanations for why a low-carb meal after exercise works is because carbs prevent the production of the hormone somatostatin. One of the primary purposes of this hormone is to inhibit the production of human growth hormone. So, by reducing somatostatin, you're not hindering HGH production.
Fitness expert Phil Campbell further explains how you can maximize your HGH production by limiting sugar intake for two hours post exercise, in this article on HowToBeFit.com.
Since I've just discussed HGH, I want to remind you that there is only ONE specific type of exercise that promotes the production of HGH in your body, and that is high-intensity interval training such as Peak 8.
Virtually all exercises -- certainly most conventional cardio or standard aerobics -- fail miserably when it comes to increasing growth hormone. Peak 8 exercises, however, are proven to boost natural HGH production.
Peak 8 type exercises can also dramatically improve your cardiovascular fitness and fat-burning capabilities in a fraction of the time. For more in-depth information about Peak 8 exercises, please see this previous article, as it is very important to perform these exercises properly.
Clearly, if you decide to use the only type of exercise that will increase growth hormone, then it would be a shame to wipe out this great fantastic benefit with foolish food choices like sugar/fructose/carbs.
Now, there is a minute group of elite and professional athletes who are actively competing and therefore less concerned with increasing growth hormone than with performance. For these athletes, consuming some carbs, preferably dextrose-based, during the two-hour recovery phase is probably a good idea in order to improve their recovery time.
But for the average person, forfeiting the benefits of HGH is both unnecessary and unwise.
In 1980, paid for them in the lowest income bracket 0,1% (one-tenth of one percent) of the nation's income tax. Those in the highest income bracket paid 64.8 percent of the Bill.
Suppose the nation income tax bill for the 1980 was $ 100. the whole group of those who earned at least the amount of income contributed $ 1 on $ 100 owed, while the highest paid workers picked up nearly $ 65 or $ 100.
2005, the lowest paid workers contributed less than nothing $ 100 tax bill and the Group on the other end of the spectrum paid approximately $ 86 of Bill.
In the case of it sounds fair enough ', where the income disparity of the two groups, let us look at it a different way.
By combining the three groups of citizens makes the least amount of income in 1980, which was 60 percent of the tax payer population, we see that this 60 percent – around half the tax-paying public – picked up only 15.1 per cent of the Bill.
The two highest wage-earning groups, which account for 40 percent of the taxpayers, picked up the remaining 85 percent of the Bill.
Now let us look at 2005. the lowest three groups kick in only 0.6 percent of the tax bill, while the two highest groups pay approximately 99 percent of the Bill.
It was 2005. it is now, by 2010, and the obvious question is, how can the upper income-earning groups, which are also the groups provides employment, production and welfare in this country, continue to afford this trend?
Frequent readers of my newsletter is not foreign for the tanks that, when a culture moves away from a traditional natural diet, diseases such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and cancer, inevitably seem to follow.
For review, I will list some properties to consider typical of the Western diet:
When you read about this list or drag, is it any wonder that 70 percent of Americans are overweight or obese?
It does not take much of a leap of imagination to come to the conclusion that the typical Western diet really only benefits large companies producing cheap food.
This is not a new idea, but Michael Pollan raises several interesting points about why you are led to believe that the food in their supermarkets are "healthy", when the result of eating these foods would seem to indicate otherwise.
Pollan calls on our Western food ideology "nutritionalism", which he defines as believing that nutrients are the most important component in food, and because the nutrients are invisible and not well understood, we must "experts" to tell us which foods are good.
Pollan argues that when we accept this ideology that "experts" tell us what is healthy, instead of eating whole, natural foods, as they exist in nature, are we destined for believing everything food manufactures tell us.
Why is this bad?
Because the largest employer of the "experts" is the food industry for yourself!
Today, it seems the same each item on your supermarket shelf "promotes good health"--you see claims on cereal boxes full of processed cereals and sugar, low fat desserts and snack foods filled with sugar and countless other products, all argue one so-called health advantage "discovered" by "experts".
The problem is to tell you the food producers only one side of the story!
Food manufacturers will tell, one ingredient in the product is "healthy", while ignoring all the other ingredients, not there!For example, according to Pollan has one yogurt that "experts" claim to be good for your digestive health Ounce for Ounce more sugar than Coca-Cola!
Study after study links sugar to a host of negative health consequences, but you can never find this information on the front page of yoghurt packaging.
When weighing the benefits versus the costs of any food, Michael Pollan has more suggestions can help you choose foods that are really good for your health:
Do not Eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food to avoid foods that never rot eat food so close to their natural state as possible
What scientists really know the nutrition and nutrients?
Not much, it strikes.
According to Pollan, is our current understanding of nutrients on as advanced as the art of surgery was in the middle ages. [citation needed] he claims, and rightfully so, in my opinion, that take individual nutritional components out of food and a synthesizing them not always leads to good results.
Rather than rely on the "experts", which in many cases just paid shrills to the food industry, is a much better alternative to eat a balanced diet filled with whole, natural foods, and avoid possible pitfalls Western diet.
In other words, eating a carrot, not a beta carotene pill!
Eat a balanced diet full of whole, natural foods is still the best way to promote good health. [citation needed] This is backed up by traditional communities around the world eat only food sources found near nature that displays none of the typical diseases found in the Western society eat diet.
By the way, it is a myth to eat healthy, natural foods are prohibitively expensive. Actually need to eat a healthy organic diet does not cost much more than a diet filled with processed foods and junk food.
Tips on which foods you need to buy organic, and which ones are worth the extra cost, please see this earlier article.
It is true that shopping in shops, trendy food can easily cost you your entire paycheck, but takes advantage of the sales on the healthy items and clipping coupons, as well as looking for fresh, locally grown food at a farmers ' market or in a CSA can all add up to big savings on your food bill.
Prepared foods can cost up to twice the unprepared bliksem p. ... versions, then buy the entire food, which you can do in the meals, rather than the prepared foods in a box can actually lead to big savings. And if you plan your meals ahead of time, you can get exactly what you want, when you need it, and to prevent yourself from buying too much and wasting some of it when things go bad.
If you still do not buy the idea that your family can afford to eat healthily, take a look at this breakdown of how your family can eat organic food at the same price as treated them.
And, of course, there are even greater, indirect savings that come with the whole eating food.
Consider, for example, the difference in the health care needs, between those who eat the whole foods, and those who eat processed and the factory farmed food containing MSG, carcinogenic or nerve poisons such as pesticides, trans-fats, enormous quantities of sugar, and artificial synthetic and friendly.
What little you might have to save right now by purchasing processed food, you'll end up spending many times over when your health fails.
If you want to use this article on your site please click here.This content can be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. where applicable, any other use, permission is required in writing from Dr. Mercola.
© Copyright 2010 Dr. Joseph Mercola. all rights reserved.
I think it’s important to realize that the “price” we pay for organic food is not just about the price tag of the food itself, but also the long-term savings, in terms of reduced health care costs.
Traditional farming practices used before the 20th century are generally recognized as being organic. This was before the creation of pesticides, herbicides, irradiation, synthetic fertilizers, and a host of other “progressive” farming “inputs”, used to control pests, decrease farm labor and supposedly increase crop yields.
In other words, in the old days, farmers planted non-genetically altered seeds, rotated crops, pulled weeds, and put in long hours to ensure their harvest was bountiful. Farm animals ate grass and lived off the land.
The result was an organic food supply and much lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
Fast forward to the 21st century, where farmers routinely spray their crops with poisons, plant genetically altered seeds, and feed animals growth hormones, unnatural grain diets and antibiotics. And the current rates of heart disease, diabetes and cancer (along with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and autism) have reached proportions never seen before in human history.
Proponents of “modern” farming will tell you that the scale of production has changed to accomodate a worldwide population rapidly approaching ten billion, and that large-scale farming requires chemical inputs to ensure a sustainable, steady supply of affordable food.
Baloney!
The truth is, organic farming, or doing things the old fashioned way, is just as sustainable, if not more so, than “progressive” modern farming with its reliance on “inputs”.
And the question of whether using modern chemical farming inputs actually increases crop yields is subject to much scientific debate. In fact, some scientists claim that the continued insistence that chemical inputs increase crop yields is a myth.
But not subject to debate, and definitely not a myth, is the fact that any chemical designed to kill bugs, mold or fungus can seriously damage your health.Likewise, it’s a well-known fact that modern farming practices deplete the soils, which in turn produces less nutrient-rich produce.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers 60 percent of herbicides, 90 percent of fungicides, and 30 percent of insecticides to be carcinogenic, and most are also damaging to your nervous system as well. In fact, these powerful and dangerous chemicals have been linked to numerous health problems such as:
Neurotoxicity Disruption of your endocrine system Carcinogenicity Immune system suppression Male infertility and reduced reproductive function Miscarriages Parkinson's diseaseIronically, studies have shown that often less than 0.1 percent of an applied pesticide even reaches the target pest, leaving 99.9 percent of the pesticide as an unintended pollutant in the environment.
Synthetic fertilizers, meanwhile, which are used to both increase crop size and shorten growth time, can lead to many negative consequences including toxic runoff into groundwater and dead zones in the oceans!
What does a farmer gain by not using chemical inputs on crops?
Higher costs.
Without pesticides, farmers must use labor-intensive techniques like flame weeding. And natural fertilizers, such as chicken manure, which cost more than synthetic fertilizers.
But restrictions on pesticides and synthetic fertilizer are only part of the higher cost of organic food.
Organic farmers are also not subsidized by the federal government, putting them at further economic disadvantage compared to conventional farmers. And the inequities don’t stop there.
The truth is, the USDA puts many tight restrictions on organic farmers, raising the cost for them to produce organic food.
Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and to reduce pollution. They are not designed to save money.
To receive an organic food label from the USDA, farmers must follow different rules than conventional farming. Organic farming CANNOT use:
Organic food can also not use genetically modified organisms, which have been linked to negative health consequences.
Right away you’ll notice most of the restrictions imposed by the USDA either lead to higher food production costs, or put organic farmers at a disadvantage in the marketplace.
For instance, not using ionizing radiation means foods spoil faster. Not using antibiotics means conditions that create sick animals must be avoided in the first place. Not using growth hormones means animals grow slower and not as large.
All of these things can translate to lower profit margins. So in order for organic farms to remain economically viable, they need to charge a premium for the products they produce.
The question is: is it worth the extra cost?
In my opinion, I believe the answer is a resounding YES, as organic food is more nutritious and can dramatically improve your health, thereby reducing health care costs, and is sustainable for the environment.
There is a common misconception that all organic foods will cost you more money, but this isn’t always the case. Some of the most nutritious foods actually cost less than $1.
One key to buying organically on a budget is to shop locally, and look for bargains. Local growers often have items “in season” that are priced to sell. Buying items in season will also ensure that the supply is greatest, usually leading to lower prices.
Another strategy for saving money on organic products is to buy in bulk when items go on sale. If you are fortunate to live near a buyers club or a co-op, you may also be able to take advantage of buying by the pound from bins, saving both you and the supplier the cost of expensive packaging.
Other strategies to save money:
Grow your own organic foods whenever possible. Buy generic organic items instead of brand names. Check your grocery store circulars for current organic sales, and remember to clip couponsYou can also save money by knowing which conventionally-grown foods are the safest, allowing you to stretch your budget by only purchasing certain food items organic and ‘making do’ with certain conventionally-grown products.
Organic apples, beef, and spinach, for example, give you more bang for your buck than other produce because their conventionally grown counterparts are heavily laden with pesticides and other harmful additives. Seafood, cosmetics, and cleaning products, on the other hand, can be labeled “organic” without meeting the same USDA requirements imposed on vegetables and meats.
When it comes to produce, you’ll want to keep in mind the presence of pesticides. The Environmental Working Group has done the work for you here. Their Guide to Pesticides, lists the following twelve foods as having the lowest pesticide load when conventionally grown. Consequently, they are the safest conventionally grown crops to consume:
Broccoli Eggplant Cabbage Banana Kiwi Asparagus Sweet peas (frozen) Mango Pineapple Sweet corn (frozen) Avocado OnionSince animal products tend to bioaccumulate toxins, concentrating them to far higher concentrations than are typically present in vegetables, it would make sense to make sure your meat choices are organic.
When choosing organic beef however, you should also go the additional step and make certain the cows are grass fed exclusively, especially the three months before they are slaughtered, as this is when they are typically given grains to fatten them up.
For chickens, it would be important to make sure they are organic free-range chickens.
The truth of the matter is, your family could be eating organic food for the same cost as processed food, or even less! All it really takes is educating yourself, and becoming a little more diligent in your grocery purchases.
The old saying “you get what you pay for” applies perfectly to the food supply in your 21st century stores and supermarkets.
Processed foods are full of sugar, white flour, trans fats and hydrogenated oils, artificial flavor enhancers, MSG, chemical colors and preservatives – none of which will improve your health.
Your grocery bill might be less if you purchase only these foods, along with conventionally grown vegetables coated in pesticide residue with an artificially high nitrogen content, and corn-fed beef, or irradiated chicken filled with growth hormones.
But although they may cost you less at the checkout, are these foods really less expensive over time?
What about the cost to your health and quality of life from eating these foods?
What about the medical costs and complications related to diseases these foods have been linked to, like diabetes and heart disease? Cancer and heart disease? Parkingson’s and Alzheimer’s?
These costs don’t show up on your food bill. But they show up in medical bills and in your quality of life.
I encourage you to educate yourself further on the true costs of NOT eating an organic diet.
Once you do the research for yourself I think you will agree with me that the best way to take control of your health and your family’s health is to choose foods that promote your good health, not foods that have been shown in study after study to poison you.
If you want to use this article on your site please click here.This content can be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. where applicable, any other use, permission is required in writing from Dr. Mercola.
© Copyright 2010 Dr. Joseph Mercola. all rights reserved.
If you want to use this article on your site please click here.This content can be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. where applicable, any other use, permission is required in writing from Dr. Mercola.
© Copyright 2010 Dr. Joseph Mercola. all rights reserved.
If you want to use this article on your site please click here.This content can be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. where applicable, any other use, permission is required in writing from Dr. Mercola.
© Copyright 2010 Dr. Joseph Mercola. all rights reserved.
What impeccable timing this study has, coming out in major media headlines just as the U.S. flu season is ready to rear its head. The frustrating part is, most media are sporting headlines that just aren’t true, headlines that claim a study found flu shots will lower your heart attack risk.
This is a giant leap from what the study actually found, which was rates of vaccination among heart attack patients -- not a cause-and-effect relationship between flu shots and lowered heart attack risks.
As Dr. Kirk Garratt, associate director of the division of cardiac intervention at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, told USA Today:
"This study did not measure risk of heart attack in vaccinated and non-vaccinated people. It measured rates of vaccination among heart attack patients and those without heart attack.”
In other words, the study found 19 percent fewer heart attack patients were vaccinated in the previous year -- which does not equate with the 19 percent reduction in heart attacks among those vaccinated, as the headlines would suggest.
Dr. Harlan Krumholz, director of the Yale-New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation at Yale Medical School, also told USA Today that the findings were flawed and there was no justification for the 19 percent reduction in heart attacks being claimed.
Unfortunately, the headlines have already gone out, and millions have been exposed to this misleading propaganda. If you know someone whose decision to get a flu shot this year was influenced by this study, please be sure to forward this article to them so they can learn the truth.
The main theory of why flu shots may prevent heart attacks in the first place is based on a flawed premise.
An infection with influenza can cause an inflammatory reaction, which may make it more likely for plaque inside your arteries to rupture, leading to a heart attack.
This may be true, but the idea that a flu shot will lessen your chances of becoming infected with a flu virus, and therefore suffering from the inflammatory reaction, is not true because flu shots don’t work.
In one study that looked at the effectiveness of immunizing nursing-home workers to protect the elderly in their care, a review of five influenza studies conducted between 1997 and 2009 revealed there is no good scientific evidence to prove that vaccination campaigns reduce the number of confirmed influenza cases.
Study authors also concluded that there is no good scientific evidence to prove that vaccinating nursing home workers reduces the number of related pneumonia cases, or pneumonia-linked deaths -- which by the way accounts for the vast majority of what the CDC counts as “flu deaths.”
These findings echo previous scientific conclusions, such as the following examples also showing that flu vaccines do not work for ANY age group:
A study published in the October 2008 issue of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu had little or no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons. The researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined. A 2008 study published in the Lancet found that influenza vaccination was NOT associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia in older people. This also supports an earlier study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Research published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine also confirms that there has been little to no decrease in deaths from influenza and pneumonia in the elderly, despite the fact that vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now. In 2007, researchers with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institutes of Health published this conclusion in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, which was highly critical of the quality of influenza studies:“We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality, have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits.”
A large-scale, systematic review of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006, also found that influenza studies are seriously flawed and there is inadequate evidence to demonstrate safety or effectiveness of flu shots. Researchers found little scientific evidence to suggest that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in children. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.So if a flu shot does not prevent the flu, it clearly cannot claim to offer the benefit of heart attack reduction, even if it were true.
Plus, since inflammation is the risk factor that’s being singled out in increasing heart attack risk, it should be noted that vaccines often trigger inflammatory reactions in your body, including inflammatory bowel disease and brain inflammation.
The other side of the coin clearly not being presented by the media is that flu shots often result in serious, debilitating side effects.
For instance, the Australian Department of Health and Aging has just confirmed that its main seasonal flu vaccine this year was "causally related" to fever and convulsions in 99 children in 2010.
An analysis by Heath Kelly, head of epidemiology at the state infectious diseases laboratory in Melbourne, further revealed that getting the Fluvax vaccine was actually worse than getting the flu, as the vaccine caused two to three hospital admissions due to convulsions, for every hospital admission the flu prevented.
For many years, flu shots have also been linked to narcolepsy and a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which attacks the lining of your nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal. Europe recently reported that flu shots have been linked to narcolepsy, a neurological sleep disorder.
The very nature of most inactivated flu vaccines, which are injected into your muscles with a needle, is also problematic. Although there are some live virus inhaled flu vaccines, most flu shots introduce lab-altered flu viruses into your body in an unnatural way through a needle.
This is not normal because you are usually exposed to most disease-causing organisms when they enter your body through the mucous membranes of your nose, mouth, pulmonary system or your digestive tract.
These mucous membranes have their own immune system, called the IgA immune system, which fights off invading organisms at the point of entry, reducing or even eliminating the need for activation of your body’s immune system.
A vaccination, however, delivers either live or attenuated (dead) viruses directly into your tissues and bloodstream through injection, completely bypassing your body’s first line of defense. And when combined with an unnatural adjuvant added to flu vaccine, your body’s immune system kicks into high gear in response to the vaccination. If your immune system is too weak to deal with the assault, severe side effects can occur.
You should know, too, that anytime you receive a flu shot, you are being injected with numerous substances above and beyond the flu viruses -- ingredients that are added to vaccines that are associated with known risks to your health. Toxic substances that may be found in various flu vaccines include:
Dangerous levels of mercury in the form of thimerosal, a deadly preservative that is 50 times more toxic than regular mercury Formaldehyde – a known cancer-causing agent Neomycin and streptomycin (antibiotics) Polysorbate 80 (Tween80™) – which can cause severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis Phenol (carbolic acid) Resin and gelatin - known to cause allergic reactions Triton X100 (detergent)So every year that you get a flu shot, you are taking a risk that one or more of these substances, or the flu viruses themselves, will cause a problem in your body.
Lining up for your yearly flu shot is virtually useless in protecting you from the flu or a heart attack, but that doesn’t mean you have to go through flu season unprotected.
Flu prevention is actually quite simple, and I strongly believe it begins with optimizing your vitamin D levels, and maintaining those healthy levels year-round.
Take a minute to tune in to the latest studies on vitamin D, which are strengthening the evidence that it is a potent preventive measure against colds and influenza.
There is so much compelling evidence that I believe optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, including the flu.
As one recent study showed, a group of children taking vitamin D3 was 58 percent less likely to catch influenza A. That's a higher effectiveness than any flu vaccine can claim, and doesn't come with a barrage of potentially devastating side effects!
Most children, teens, adults and elderly in the United States are vitamin D deficient, especially during the winter months when sun exposure is at a minimum for many. So I urge you to get your and your children's vitamin D levels tested, and if found deficient, follow my recommendations for optimizing your levels.
Do this, and you’ll all be far less likely to catch the flu this year. And, as an added bonus, optimizing your vitamin D can significantly lower your chances of dying from heart attack. Researchers have found that people with the lowest average vitamin D levels had a 124 percent greater risk of dying from all causes and a 378 percent greater risk of dying from a heart problem -- so optimizing your levels will keep you out of this risk bracket.
It makes far more sense to use proven natural strategies like this to lessen your risk of the flu and protect your heart in one fell swoop, then roll up your sleeve for a flu shot that is not only typically ineffective, but potentially destructive to your health as well.
Don’t sit this one out! We’ve got them “on the run.”
Tell everyone. Tell your friends, your family. With a little bit of effort, you can make significant strides toward preserving your freedom to make voluntary health decisions affecting your and your children’s future.
One of the top goals for the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is preserving your freedom of choice about if and when to use vaccines. As part of that mission, this non-profit charity has been fighting for your right to make informed VOLUNTARY vaccine choices since 1982.
During the upcoming Vaccine Awareness Week, NVIC is launching the online NVIC State Advocacy Portal that will give you the tools you need to take action to protect legal medical, religious and conscientious belief exemptions to vaccination in YOUR state.
In a long-scheduled joint effort to raise public awareness about important vaccination issues during the week of November 1-6, 2010, Mercola.com and NVIC will publish a series of articles and interviews on vaccine topics of interest to Mercola.com newsletter subscribers and NVIC Vaccine E-newsletter readers.
The week-long public awareness program will also raise funds for NVIC, a non-profit charity that has been working for more than two decades to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and protecting informed consent to vaccination.
The November 1-6 Vaccine Awareness Week hosted by Mercola.com and NVIC will follow a month-long vaccine awareness effort in October that was recently announced on Facebook by parents highlighting Gardasil vaccine risks.
The six-week-long focus this fall on vaccine issues will help raise the consciousness of many more Americans, who may be unaware that they can take an active role in helping to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths and defend the legal right to make voluntary vaccination choices.
You probably know that manganese is an essential nutrient, but were you aware that when consumed in excess, manganese becomes a potent neurotoxin?
Studies on miners and steelworkers, for example, have shown that excessive exposure to manganese can cause manganese poisoning, Parkinson's disease, and Wilson's disease, for example.
Manganese occurs naturally in soil and can therefore be present in groundwater to a greater or lesser degree. Hence some people who drink well water could be exposed to higher naturally-occurring levels of manganese.
But there is another source of manganese that many people are completely unaware of, which may be even more significant than groundwater, and that is soy infant formula!
Soy formula is frequently used when a baby is allergic to milk, or if the parents are somehow convinced that soy is a healthier alternative. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth, because soy formula could easily be considered one of the most DANGEROUS food products on the market…
I always recommend breast feeding, if at all possible, but if you can't, please educate yourself about the dangers of soy formula!
This is such an important issue because so many mothers end up using formula in lieu of breast feeding or after breast feeding for a short time, not realizing just how bad most formulas are for their baby's health, particularly soy formula.
I've been concerned about this for a long time, and my team has now been working on an infant formula for an entire year. We still have about another year to go, but once we're done we should be able to offer the best commercial infant formula available in the US.
Yes, researchers have found that soybean plants absorb manganese from the soil and concentrate it, so that its use in soy-based infant formula can result in as much as 200 times the level found in natural breast milk!
Such high concentrations can wreak havoc on your baby's immature metabolic systems.
I rarely talk about absolutes but this is one instant where I will say: NEVER give your child soy formula. (I guess the only exception would be if there was a catastrophe and soy formula was the only food source temporarily available to keep your baby alive.)
Because just like this latest study confirms, high concentrations of manganese, such as those found in soy formula, can lead to brain damage in infants and altered behaviors in adolescents.
In the study reported by Science Daily, researchers discovered that higher concentrations of manganese in groundwater significantly lowered the IQ of the children who drank it, even though the levels were below current guidelines.
A total of 362 children, aged six to 13, living in homes with individual or public wells were examined to test cognition, motor skills and behavior.
Science Daily reports:
"The average IQ of children whose tap water was in the upper 20% of manganese concentration was 6 points below children whose water contained little or no manganese.
The analyses of the association between manganese in tap water and children's IQ took into account various factors such as family income, maternal intelligence, maternal education, and the presence of other metals in the water.
… For co-author Donna Mergler, "This is a very marked effect; few environmental contaminants have shown such a strong correlation with intellectual ability."
The authors state that the amount of manganese present in food showed no relationship to the children's IQ."
As if that wasn't bad enough, there are a number of other factors that make soy formula an even more dangerous option.
One of these factors is the fact that fluoride can increase manganese absorption, so if you mix the powdered- or concentrated soy formula with fluoridated water, you're worsening matters even further!
Fluoride and manganese interact in a number of ways through various pathways.
For example, fluorides can cause zinc deficiency which in turn can cause damage to your brain by altering your manganese levels.
This is because fluorides act as a TSH (thyroid-stimulating-hormone) analogue, and along with iodine, zinc and selenium are also controlled by TSH. And when you're deficient in zinc, the manganese levels in your brain become altered.
Another significant issue is the estrogen in soy.
A soy-fed baby receives the equivalent of five birth control pills' worth of estrogen every day! These babies' isoflavone levels are typically anywhere between 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than in non-soy fed infants.
Unfermented soy is not a healthy option for anyone, but when you're feeding soy to an infant, you're really setting the stage for a number of health problems.
Dr. Kaayla Daniel, author of The Whole Soy Story, points out thousands of studies linking soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, immune-system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders and infertility—even cancer and heart disease.
For more information about the many ways soy can damage your health – and certainly your baby's, if you're feeding them soy formula – please review this recent report.
It's also worth noting that at least 91 percent of soy grown in the US is also genetically modified (GM), and this too can have serious health effects.
Not only is the soy loaded with toxic pesticide, the plants also contain genes from bacteria that produce a protein that has never been part of the human food supply. Hence, GM soy has been linked to an increase in allergies.
Disturbingly, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that the gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of our gut bacteria and continues to function. This means that years after you stop eating GM soy, you may still have a potentially allergenic protein continuously being produced in your intestines.
Even more frightening is the potential for GM soy to cause infertility in future generations, which has been evidenced by recent Russian research.
Soy-based formula also typically includes cornstarch, cornstarch hydrolysate (remember, any corn derivatives are also suspect of being GM), tapioca starch, or sucrose instead of lactose.
(Did you know that many infant formulas actually have MORE sugar than a can of soda? Do you really feel comfortable giving your precious newborn a can of soda for EVERY meal? If not, then it would sure seem best to avoid them ALL like the plague.)
All these things considered, it's truly shocking that soy formula is even allowed on the market.
One of the best gifts you can give your child is to start out their life with a sound nutritional foundation, and the best way to do this is by breastfeeding. In fact, statistics show a clear correlation between feeding infants artificial formula and increased infant mortality within the first year.
It's important to realize that there are at least 400 nutrients in breast milk that are NOT found in formula. Of course, the healthier that a new mom eats, the healthier her breast milk will be, too.
While any amount of breastfeeding is better than none at all, it is clearly to your advantage, and best for your baby's health, to breastfeed exclusively for at least the first 6 months. Then, at the age of 6 or 9 months, you can begin to supplement with solid foods (while still continuing to breastfeed as well).
What exactly does your baby stand to gain by being breastfed?
Lower risk of respiratory tract and middle ear infections Lower risk of eczema Lower risk of obesity Added protection against heart disease, diabetes, asthma, and allergies Improved brain function and immune system functionThere are benefits to mom, too. The main ones are a reduced risk of chronic diseases like cancer, a faster return to your pre-pregnancy weight, and increased bonding between you and your baby.
There are certain medical conditions that can prevent a woman from breastfeeding, however the majority of women are able to breastfeed successfully. If you need help, contact a lactation consultant in your area for tips and support. You can also visit La Leche League, which is a phenomenal resource for breastfeeding moms.
If for some reason you're not able to breastfeed, or you have adopted a baby, your next best option is to make a healthy infant formula using raw milk. You can find homemade formula recipes here.
As I stated at the beginning of this article, we're also in the process of producing the finest infant formula on the market. I'm hoping to have it available in about a year.
First and foremost, do not give your child soy formula or other unfermented soy foods.
As for manganese in your well water, your best bet is to use a high quality filtering system using activated carbon. A well designed activated carbon filter system is the simplest, most convenient, and most user friendly option to purify your drinking water.
A good system will likely consist of multiple filter cartridges; one to protect the carbon from larger contaminants in the water, and another containing carbon designed to remove trihalomethanes – a dangerous disinfection byproduct. Some systems also contain a backup carbon filter to ensure that all contaminants have been filtered out.
For more information about filtering systems and water quality, please see this previous article.
You've no doubt noticed that for about the last 60 years the majority of health care officials and the media have been telling you saturated fats are bad for your health and lead to a host of negative consequences, like elevated cholesterol, obesity, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease.
Meanwhile during this same 60 years the American levels of heart disease, obesity, elevated serum cholesterol and Alzheimer's have skyrocketed compared to our ancestors, and even compared to modern-day primitive societies using saturated fat as a dietary staple.
Did you know that multiple studies on Pacific Island populations who get 30-60% of their total caloric intact from fully saturated coconut oil have all shown nearly non-existent rates of cardiovascular disease?[1]
Clearly, a lot of confusion and contradictory evidence exists on the subject of saturated fats, even among health care professionals.
But I'm going to tell you something that public health officials and the media aren't telling you.
The fact is, all saturated fats are not created equal.
The operative word here is "created", because some saturated fats occur naturally, while other fats are artificially manipulated into a saturated state through the man-made process called hydrogenation.
Hydrogenation manipulates vegetable and seed oils by adding hydrogen atoms while heating the oil, producing a rancid, thickened oil that really only benefits processed food shelf life and corporate profits.
The medical and scientific communities are now fairly united in the opinion that hydrogenated vegetable and seed oils should be avoided.
These manipulated saturated fats are also called trans fats, and no doubt you've heard about them lately. Some cities and states have now outlawed their use. There is no controversy anymore regarding the health dangers of these artificially saturated fats.
And guess what?
These are the same damaged trans fats that have been touted as "healthy" and "heart-friendly" for the last 60 years by the vegetable and seed oil interests!
But the truth finally came out. Trans fat was rebuked, debunked, and revealed as the true enemy to good health that it has always been, regardless of what the seed- and vegetable oil shills told the American public for the last half century.
Unfortunately, this rightful vilification of hydrogenated saturated fats has created a lot of confusion regarding naturally occurring saturated fats, including coconut oil.
If one form of saturated fat is bad for you, the argument goes, then all saturated fat must be bad.
Right?
Nothing could be further from the truth!
The truth about coconut oil is obvious to anyone who has studied the health of those who live in traditional tropical cultures, where coconut has been a nutritious diet staple for thousands of years.
Back in the 1930's, a dentist named Dr. Weston Price traveled throughout the South Pacific, examining traditional diets and their effect on dental and overall health. He found that those eating diets high in coconut products were healthy and trim, despite the high fat concentration in their diet, and that heart disease was virtually non-existent.
Similarly, in 1981, researchers studied populations of two Polynesian atolls. Coconut was the chief source of caloric energy in both groups. The results, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,[2] demonstrated that both populations exhibited positive vascular health.
In fact, no evidence exists that the naturally occurring high saturated fat intake had any kind of harmful effect in these populations!
That's not what you expected, is it? Based on 60 years of negative public policy towards naturally occurring saturated fats, you would expect these cultures to be rife with clogged arteries, obesity and heart disease.
It may be surprising for you to realize that the naturally occurring saturated fat in coconut oil actually has some amazing health benefits, such as:
Promoting your heart health[3] Promoting weight loss, when needed[4] Supporting your immune system health[5] Supporting a healthy metabolism[6] Providing you with an immediate energy source[7] Keeping your skin healthy and youthful looking Supporting the proper functioning of your thyroid gland[8]
Lauric acid is a powerful virus and gram-negative bacteria destroyer, and coconut oil contains the most lauric acid of any substance on earth!
Capric acid, another coconut fatty acid present in smaller amounts, has also been added to the list of coconut's antimicrobial components.
This is one of the key reasons you should consider consuming coconut oil, because there aren't many sources of monolaurin in our diet. But the health benefits of coconut oil don't stop there.
Coconut oil is about 2/3 medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs), also called medium-chain triglycerides or MCTs. These types of fatty acids produce a whole host of health benefits.
Coconut oil is nature's richest source of these healthy MCFAs.
By contrast, most common vegetable or seed oils are comprised of long chain fatty acids (LCFAs), also known as long-chain triglycerides or LCTs.
Let me tell you why these long-chain fatty acids are not as healthy for you as the MCFAs found in coconut oil[10] :
LCFAs are difficult for your body to break down -- they require special enzymes for digestion. LCFAs put more strain on your pancreas, liver and your entire digestive system. LCFAs are predominantly stored in your body as fat. LCFAs can be deposited within your arteries in lipid forms such as cholesterol. In contrast to LFCAs, the MCFAs found in coconut oil have many health benefits, including the following beneficial qualities:MCFAs are smaller. They permeate cell membranes easily, and do not require special enzymes to be utilized effectively by your body. MCFAs are easily digested, thus putting less strain on your digestive system. MCFAs are sent directly to your liver, where they are immediately converted into energy rather than being stored as fat. MCFAs actually help stimulate your body's metabolism, leading to weight loss.
Your body sends medium-chain fatty acids directly to your liver to use as energy. This makes coconut oil a powerful source of instant energy to your body, a function usually served in the diet by simple carbohydrates.
But although coconut oil and simple carbohydrates share the ability to deliver quick energy to your body, they differ in one crucial respect.
Coconut oil does not produce an insulin spike in your bloodstream. You read that correctly, Coconut oil acts on your body like a carbohydrate, without any of the debilitating insulin-related effects associated with long-term high carbohydrate consumption!
Diabetics and those with pre-diabetes conditions (an exploding health epidemic in America), should immediately realize the benefit of a fast acting energy source that doesn't produce an insulin spike in your body. In fact, coconut oil added to the diets of diabetics and pre-diabetics has actually been shown to help stabilize weight gain, which can dramatically decrease your likelihood of getting adult onset type-2 Diabetes.[11]
If you live in the United States, you have an almost 70 percent chance of being overweight.
And, by now, I'm sure you're well aware that obesity affects your quality of life and is linked to many health concerns.
One of the best benefits of coconut oil lies in its ability to help stimulate your metabolism.
Back in the 1940s, farmers found out about this effect by accident when they tried using inexpensive coconut oil to fatten their livestock.
It didn't work!
Instead, coconut oil made the animals lean, active and hungry.
However, many animal and human research studies have demonstrated that replacing LCFAs with MCFAs results in both decreased body weight and reduced fat deposition.
In fact, the ability of MCFAs to be easily digested, to help stimulate the metabolism and be turned into energy has entered the sports arena. Several studies have now shown that MCFAs can enhance physical or athletic performance.[12]
Additionally, research has demonstrated that, due to its metabolic effect, coconut oil increases the activity of the thyroid. And you've probably heard that a sluggish thyroid is one reason why some people are unable to lose weight, no matter what they do.
Besides weight loss, there are other advantages to boosting your metabolic rate. Your healing process accelerates. Cell regeneration increases to replace old cells, and your immune system functions better overall.
Besides the mounting medical and scientific evidence that coconut oil has powerful positive health benefits when eaten, it has also been used for decades by professional massage therapists to knead away tight stressed muscles.
However, you don't have to be a professional massage therapist to gain the skin and tissue support benefits of coconut oil. Just use coconut oil as you would any lotion.
Coconut oil is actually ideal for skin care. It helps protect your skin from the aging effects of free radicals, and can help improve the appearance of skin with its anti-aging benefits.
In fact, physiologist and biochemist Ray Peat, Ph.D. considers coconut oil an antioxidant[13] , due to its stability and resistance to oxidation and free radical formation. Plus, he believes it reduces our need for the antioxidant protection of vitamin E.
Like Dr. Peat, many experts believe coconut oil may help restore more youthful-looking skin. When coconut oil is absorbed into your skin and connective tissues, it helps to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles by helping to keep your connective tissues strong and supple, and aids in exfoliating the outer layer of dead skin cells, making your skin smoother.
Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the U.S. And heart disease is often a silent killer. The first sign of cardiovascular disease is commonly a heart attack, and sadly, over one third of heart attacks are fatal.
And despite the propaganda, the truth is this: it is UNSATURATED fats that are primarily involved in heart disease, not the naturally occurring saturated fats, as you have been led to believe.[14]
Plus, the polyunsaturated fats in vegetable and seed oils encourage the formation of blood clots by increasing platelet stickiness. Coconut oil helps to promote normal platelet function.
I only use two oils in my food preparation.
The first, extra-virgin olive oil, is a better monounsaturated fat that works great as a salad dressing.
However, it should not be used for cooking. Due to its chemical structure, heat makes it susceptible to oxidative damage.
And polyunsaturated fats, which include common vegetable oils such as corn, soy, safflower, sunflower and canola, are absolutely the worst oils to use in cooking. These omega-6 oils are highly susceptible to heat damage because of their double bonds.
I strongly urge you to throw out those omega-6 vegetable oils in your cabinets.
Why?
Reason # 1: Most people believe that frying creates trans-fat. That is not the major problem, in my opinion. Although some are created, they are relatively minor. There are FAR more toxic chemicals produced by frying omega-6 oils thantrans-fat.
Frying destroys the antioxidants in oil and as a result oxidizes the oil. This causes cross-linking, cyclization, double-bond shifts, fragmentation and polymerization of oils that cause far more damage than trans-fat.
Reason # 2: Most of the vegetable oils are GMO. This would include over 90 percent of the soy, corn and canola oils.
Reason # 3: Vegetable oils contribute to the overabundance of damaged omega-6 fats in your diet, which creates an imbalance in the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. As you know from my extensive writing on this subject, I believe that excessive consumption of damaged omega-6 fats contributes to many health concerns.
They are all highly processed and consumed in amounts that are about 100 times more than our ancestors did a century ago. This causes them to distort the sensitive omega-6/omega-3 ratio which controls many delicate biochemical pathways which results in accelerating many chronic degenerative diseases.
There is only one oil that is stable enough to resist mild heat-induced damage, while it also helps you promote heart health and even supports weight loss and thyroid function -- coconut oil.
So, whenever you need an oil to cook with, use coconut oil instead of butter, olive oil, vegetable oil, margarine, or any other type of oil called for in recipes. Even though I don't fully recommend frying foods, if you must fry, by all means use coconut oil -- it's your smartest choice.
The medium-chain fats in coconut oil are considered so nutritious that they are used in baby formulas, in hospitals to feed the critically ill, those on tube feeding, and those with digestive problems. Coconut oil has even been used successfully by doctors in treating aluminum poisoning.[15]
Coconut oil is exceptionally helpful for pregnant women, nursing moms, the elderly, those concerned about digestive health, athletes (even weekend warriors), and those of you who just want to enhance your overall health.
References:
If you want to use this article on your site please click here.This content can be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. where applicable, any other use, permission is required in writing from Dr. Mercola.
© Copyright 2010 Dr. Joseph Mercola. all rights reserved.
