Disadvantages of Popcorn

That buttery rich flavor that so many people love on their popcorn may harm more than just your waistline. The chemical that provides that butter taste has now been associated with a buildup of the brain proteins involved in Alzheimer's disease.

The research, conducted at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, analyzed the ingredient diacetyl (DA) and its effects in a laboratory study. First, when its internal structure was explored, the team discovered that DA bears a close resemblance to the matter within the brain that creates beta-amyloid proteins. These abnormal proteins bunch up into masses of plaque, which are a known hallmark of Alzheimer's disease in the brain.

The scientists then set up conditions in test tubes placing DA on nerve cells that were grown for the experiment. The DA behaved just as beta-amyloid proteins do, by massing together and causing a misfolding of amyloid, thereby creating lumps of plaque. They also damaged the nerve cells that were hosting them.

Now, you might wonder just how they could surface in the brain when they should just make their way through the gastrointestinal tract. The problem lies in the fact that DA enters the bloodstream as the food is digested and can travel up to the brain. And in even low concentrations, the chemical has the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier that is meant to protect the brain from many potentially harmful elements. Once there, DA hinders our ability to clear beta amyloid out of the brain, which is how deposits end up remaining.

Natural DA is found in dairy products, including butter, fruit, and fermented products such as wine and beer. Concentrated synthetic DA, however, is what is used as flavoring in processed foods. Since it is considered "safe" by the FDA, it does not have to be listed by name on the label. Instead, you will usually find it listed as "butter flavor" or some similar wording.

This is not the first time DA has been found to be an unhealthy product. Several studies over the past few years have found that this substance may be responsible for respiratory conditions in those who inhale it. While this wouldn't affect the average consumer of products containing DA, it is quite problematic for those who work in the factories in which microwave popcorn and other artificially-flavored food items are produced.

And you may not be safe from the stuff even if you are not a big fan of butter-flavored microwave popcorn because that's far from the only edible product in which DA can be found. The whole range of butter substitute products, some types of candy, and lots of packaged baked goods obtain their buttery smell and flavor through the use of DA. Even Fluffy is at risk since some pet food manufacturers include DA as an ingredient, presumably to make the food a little more palatable for finicky animals. But back to humans! Other studies have discovered an association between diet and the development of dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Not to say that it is the sole cause, but it definitely appears to have a negative effect. That said, it is important to consider not only what not to eat, such as additives and chemicals including DA, but also what may provide us with a little protection. A 2010 study that took place at Columbia University in New York linked a Mediterranean-style diet with lower rates of Alzheimer's disease. Those whose food consumption focuses heavily on olive oil-based salad dressing, nuts, fish, tomatoes, poultry, broccoli, fruits, and dark and green leafy vegetables and less on red meat, organ meat, and high-fat dairy products were 40 percent less likely to develop Alzheimer's than those following a more typical American diet.

Exercise too is key in helping to prevent Alzheimer's disease. Research has shown that giving the body regular workouts can aid in staving off forms of dementia as well as many other conditions. So although nothing in life comes with a guarantee, it would seem to be in the best interest of our brains and our health in general if we skipped over the fake-buttered popcorn, not to mention those "heart healthy" fake margarines, and chose a more natural, nutritious snack during television time. Or, better yet, shelve the viewing for later and use the time to take a brisk walk or do a little stretching and toning.

Olive oil health benefits | The importance of Olive oil to the health

This week, we're taking a closer look at olive oil. By now, the average educated adult knows that for healthy eating, lard is a bad fat, cottonseed oil not much better, and olive oil is just dandy as long as it isn't heated too much. Now a new study published in Neurology -- which will probably come as a huge surprise to Dr. Dean Ornish--shows that people who use lots of olive oil, even in cooking, have a considerably lower stroke risk than people who don't use it at all. The French study of 7,625 people aged 65 found a 41 percent reduced stroke risk in heavy olive oil users. In fact, the participants were divided into three groups and those with the highest olive oil intake had a whopping 73 percent reduced stroke risk compared to the group with the lowest olive oil intake. The effect remained consistent even after controlling for other factors such as overall diet and health conditions, showing that olive oil confers benefits even independent of the Mediterranean Diet of which it is a cornerstone. Prior to this study, research had indicated that high olive oil consumption reduced heart attack risk, but this new research points to the fact that its benefits extend to other areas of health, and in a big way.

Before you rush to Costco for a giant tub of olive oil to guzzle, consider that the researchers caution that the results might actually indicate something other than the miraculous properties of olive oil. For instance, they say, olive oil consumers might be healthier, wealthier, and happier than those who rely on Safflower. On the other hand, as already indicated, the study did control for those factors, so olive oil emerges looking like a big winner. The key here is that you need to use only organic, extra-virgin, cold first-pressed, which is rich in phytonutrients. Studies show that in comparison to the pure stuff, processed olive oils don't necessarily offer any benefit at all. Although the report on the French study didn't mention what type of olive oil was tested, in France, virtually all the available olive oil is cold-pressed extra virgin.

Why is olive oil such a healthy fat compared to the typical fat added to commercial goods? First, olive oil contains a high proportion of antioxidants, particularly polyphenols, which have powerful anti-inflammatory properties.3 Studies have shown that one of the polyphenols, hydroxytyrosol (HT), has a particularly powerful ability to protect blood vessel walls. Also, the composition of olive oil differs from most commercial cooking oils in that about 75 percent of the fat comes in the form of oleic acid, which is a monounsaturated, omega-9 fatty acid -- and that's a good thing. Other oils with lower monounsaturated content are higher in omega-6 fatty acids, and high consumption of omega-6 fatty acids causes a build-up of harmful "non-esterified fatty acids," otherwise known as a NEFAs. NEFAs in the blood are associated with sudden heart attacks. Compare olive oil to soybean oil, which is only 50-55 percent monounsaturated, or safflower oil, which is only 15 percent.

The positive health benefits of the high proportion of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) in olive oil include reduction of overall cholesterol levels as well as of LDL cholesterol, and improvement in LDL to HDL ratios. Plus, the high ratio of MUFAS helps to regulate blood glucose levels and apparently, to lower blood pressure.4 Which brings us to the problem of cooking at high heats and the puzzling results of the French study. The thing is that any oil that is heated beyond the point at which it smokes can release carcinogenic free radicals, and most commercial varieties of olive oil have a low smoke point. In other words, it's generally not considered a great choice for cooking at high heats, since the negative impact of creating free radicals in heating cancels out the positive benefits the oil proffers.

On the other hand, those who cooked with olive oil in the French study clearly benefited. The reason might have to do with the quality of the oil they used. Although different charts list different values for the same oils (since smoke points are not absolutes), some experts contend that refined olive oil has a smoke point of around 350 degrees, while high-quality (low acidity, less than .8 percent) extra-virgin has a much higher smoke point, up around 410 degrees.  "Virgin" olive oil is not blended with other oils, but has a higher acidity, less quality.  "Light" olive oil has a higher smoke point, but it is made from refined olive oil, which means it is a refined blend of pomace oil and virgin olive oil.  Lastly, pure "olive oil" is really just a blend that contains as little as 5 to 10 percent virgin olive oil and is cheaper to produce.  In any event, extra virgin olive oil maintains its nutritional integrity even when heated to high temperatures, and even as it creates those carcinogens.

To be on the safe side, use olive oil only for lower-temperature cooking. If you throw in with the olive oil lobby and buy that the higher-quality product has a relatively high smoke point, simply heat your oil in a pan and notice when it starts to emit smoke. Voila! You've found the smoke point, and you need to draw the line before that. As I've said before, you can use avocado oil for high temperature cooking. Avocado oil has a very high smoke point by comparison to other cooking oils. It will not burn or smoke until it reaches 520 F (271 C), which is ideal for searing meats and frying in a Wok. Other good choices include grapeseed oil (485 F) or rice bran oil 495 F. Again, look for organic, cold-processed oil. One other possibility is Spectrum Naturals High Heat Canola oil, which can handle temperatures up to about 450 degrees F.

Periodontitis effects and what your need to know

"In periodontitis, the connection between the teeth, gums, and jawbone is broken down -- in fact, your jawbone and the ligaments that hold your teeth to your jawbone are literally eaten away. If you think this is something you don’t need to worry about, think again! Often, this destructive process has very mild symptoms (at first), so that many people are unaware that they suffer from it. About 75 percent of Americans have gum disease and don’t know it! The bottom line is that periodontitis results in loosening of the gums from the teeth, and eventually loosening of the teeth from the jawbone—not to mention bad breath and an increasing risk of life-threatening chronic illnesses such as heart disease.

Why Your Doctor Wont tell you everything you need to know about your health risks

When going to the hospital for a surgical procedure -- or to your doctor for any sort of treatment, for that matter -- it is in your best interest to be armed with as much knowledge about it ahead of time as possible. And don't be afraid to ask your doctor questions, because once you've had the procedure done, there is no turning back. Oh, and new research has found that physicians do not always inform their patients voluntarily of all possible health hazards that might be faced.

The study took place at the University of Melbourne in Australia and was conducted by a team of scientists from both Australia and the United States. The researchers evaluated 481 claims of malpractice as well as official complaints by Australian patients. Every one of them was centered on an allegation of inadequate informed consent because of lack of risk disclosure.

The vast majority of the cases -- 90 percent, in fact -- pertained to disagreements over exactly what the physician said prior to treatment. In nine percent of the cases, the argument was directly about whether the possibility of a certain risk should have been discussed with a patient before the procedure. Of these situations, referred to as disputed duty cases, two-thirds revolved around surgery. And nearly 85 percent of them had to do with five outcomes -- the need for a second surgery, chronic pain, poor cosmetic results, loss of vision or hearing, and infertility or sexual dysfunction. Needless to say, any one of these issues can create a poor quality of life for the patient post-surgery.

How do the doctors involved in these cases defend their decisions not to disclose all of the possible risks? In some instances, the physicians felt that they had mentioned a risk as a subset of other complications they discussed. At other times, they said that they considered a particular risk as too uncommon to require inclusion in pre-procedure discussions. Most significantly though, the scientists found that doctors consistently underestimated their patients' desire to be fully informed and have knowledge of the potential health hazards they face from a treatment. And scarily, it was often surgeons who were the most likely to be unsure of just how much information to provide a patient with before a procedure.

This study didn't touch at all on the myriad mistakes made by doctors and all types of hospital personnel that can leave patients with major health problems or kill them outright -- merely the possibility of complications and/or side effects that can result post-treatment. You are truly putting your life in other people's hands when you are undergoing surgery. Obviously, if it's a medical necessity, it is essential to go ahead and take your chances -- unless, of course, there are alternatives. But, especially with all of the unnecessary surgeries taking place these days, a second and third opinion would seem to be not only wise and precautious, but the sanest course of action.

So, what's a person to do if you are told by several different physicians that a surgical procedure is the only option for what ails you? Prepare yourself on several fronts. First, do your research and find out as much about the procedure as possible, as well as any different procedures or treatments that may be used. For instance, is it something that can be performed laparascopically, using smaller incisions and surgical tools? That often lends to a quicker release from the hospital and faster overall healing. Your doctor may not offer it because he may not know how to perform it. Why should you undergo greater risk just because your surgeon is not up-to-date on the latest techniques? Go to your chosen surgeon with questions and be sure to ask about any potential risks -- then there can be no squabbling afterward that the doctor was not sure what to tell you. If he or she won't make the time to discuss the surgery with you, find another surgeon.

In addition, do whatever you can to maximize your health prior to the procedure. The better shape you are in beforehand, the better off you will be afterward. Keep up your exercise routine and eat a nutritious diet. Make sure, if you have an option, that you chose a hospital with a good report card and avoid those times when hospitals tend to have higher error rates. Finally, do what you can to relax. Anxiety is common before surgery, but it will only serve to raise your blood pressure. Find some relaxation technique that works for you, whether it's meditation, focusing on relaxing each body part, simple stretching, or some other method. And, to continue to keep your mind at ease, choose a trusted family member or friend to stay by your side as much as possible both before and after the procedure to play the role of advocate for your stay in the hospital.

The Male Contraceptives

After starring as a pregnant man in the 1994 film, Junior, Arnold Schwartzenegger won the gubernatorial race in California in 2003. Maybe seeing Arnold fat with child on the big screen won over some supporters who couldn't warm up to him as the Terminator. In any event, when Junior came out 16 years ago, not only did the idea of a male pregnancy seem silly -- even impossible--but so did the idea of male contraceptive pills. Now, though, it looks like the pharmaceutical industry may have come up with just such a contraceptive pill for guys.

The contraceptive effect actually was discovered by accident, as scientists at the Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston experimented on mice with a new cancer-fighting compound called JQ1. The drug works by making cancer cells "forget" their function. In other words, when exposed to JQ1, tumor cells forget to contribute to the tumor and instead act like normal cells. Since the drug is new, the research team was conducting trials to discover side effects when they found that it seemed to also have the same memory-wipe effect on sperm cells. More specifically, it targets a protein in the testes that triggers sperm to mature. When influenced by JQ1, the protein neglects to do its job and the sperm don't develop.

After three weeks of daily treatment with the pill, the male mice had a 72 percent reduction in sperm count. Most of the remaining sperm swam too slowly to impregnate an egg. After six weeks, sperm count was down by 89 percent, and of the remaining sperm, only five percent had any motility at all.

The thing that has the medical community aflutter, though, isn't just that this male contraceptive pill works to reduce sperm. It's that it's a non-hormonal solution and so won't cause hormone-related side effects, the effects are completely reversible, and it works without reducing a guy's libido. On this last point, one of the study directors, Dr. James Bradner, said, "There is no effect on the mouse's mojo. The animals exhibit the normal sexual behaviors and frequency of copulation."

It's interesting that the "mojo" aspect is one of the key points highlighted in the press, given that when the women's pill came out 50 years ago, that point was hardly at the forefront. The female pill did indeed inhibit libido in many cases, but it didn't seem to matter much to the medical community. It also had some horrific side effects--especially when it first came to market--depression, headaches, heart attacks, lethal blood clots. Oh, and it did mess with female hormones. That, in fact, is how the female pill works -- by disrupting hormonal patterns. Nevertheless, the female pill was released even with all its problems and touted as the great liberator for women.

"The pill permitted women to have control, sometimes even against the wishes of their partners," says Dr. Ruth Westheimer, speaking for many of her generation, "I think that all of us have to be grateful."

It is true that many women do feel grateful for the freedom the pill has afforded them. It's also true that the incipient development of a less harmful male version certainly is good news, but it's hard to ignore the politics. As Cynthia Graham, who heads Indiana University's Kinsey Institute says, "There's pretty good evidence that there's a bit of a gender bias here." She points to the emphasis in the press on how the male pill doesn't inhibit male sexuality.

In her book, America and the Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation, author Elaine Tyler May concludes that the female pill actually liberated men more than women. "They no longer had to worry about whether they impregnated a woman," she says. "It lifted the burden of responsibility from them."

It's probably worth mentioning that Jon Barron has expressed a slightly different point of view. Back in the day when women commentators were complaining about all the hysterectomies being performed, saying it would never happen to a man, Jon disagreed. He said that money, not gender, was the final arbiter. If doctors ever found an equivalent procedure that they could justify performing on men, they'd be only too happy to do so. And in fact, by 2009, doctors were performing 158,000 prostatectomies a year on men in the U.S., with sexual dysfunction a common side effect.6 Then again, according to the same chart, three times as many hysterectomies were performed that year.

In any event, it will be at least a few years before the male pill gets translated from mouse to men and is ready for market. We can hope that when that pill does come out, it will truly offer a safe, effective solution that will benefit both genders in the end. Given that one-third of all pregnancies still are unplanned and unwanted, it's an important goal.

How Depression Can be Triggered by Night Light

Move over Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), the depressive condition caused by lack of light during long winters. Make way for a form of depression caused by too much exposure to light. According to researchers at the Ohio State Medical Center, it's not a good thing to have light exposure when you're sleeping. Not any at all. That means no night lights, no blinking electronic devices, no television on to sleep with. And it's also not great to be subjected to light at bedtime, before you fall asleep. That's because sleeping with lights on triggers depression.

For a long time, Jon Barron has been saying that letting light touch any part of the body while sleeping activates the pineal gland, and that, in turn, stops the production of the hormone melatonin. Melatonin works to induce sleepiness; the lack of it interferes with getting deep, restful sleep. So if you have lights on at night, you probably aren't producing enough melatonin to get the restful sleep your body and mind require.

The Ohio State Medical Center researchers set out to see what would happen to hamsters if they exposed them to very dim light while they slept. Every night when the mice got tucked in, a low-level light was left on for eight hours, at a brightness level similar to the nightlight that we humans often sleep with. A control group of mice got to sleep in total darkness for those same eight hours.

At the end of four weeks, the hamsters that had the nightlight exposure went into a deep rodent funk. They were listless compared to the control group and showed less interest in drinking their sugar water, a treat they normally would have attacked with zest. (Just think how depressed you'd have to be to turn down your daily sugar fix.) Keep in mind that this depression occurred though the hamsters had been subjected to just the tiniest bit of light. The measure for normal daylight is 150 lux; the hamsters had just five lux shining in their cages. That's the equivalent of having a TV on in a darkened room.

In the cruel world of animal research, anything goes, and so after the poor light-drenched hamsters suffered depression, they were killed and autopsied. (Maybe that's why they were depressed -- they knew what was coming.) The researchers found changes had occurred in the hippocampus region of their brains, including an increased expression of a chemical called TNF that's linked to inflammation resulting from injury or infection. Dr. Randy Nelson, one of the study directors, said,"Researchers have found a strong association in people between chronic inflammation and depression. That's why it is very significant that we found this relationship between dim light at night and increased expression of TNF."

By the way, if you're thinking what goes for hamsters doesn't apply to you, another of the researchers, Dr. Tracy Bedrosian, says, "The results we found in hamsters are consistent with what we know about depression in humans." In other words, the results show that playing with your computer late at night or staring at the television just may invite the blues. If you leave the screen on all night and sleep in the room with it, that's double the damage.

Although this study focused on mood and night light, depression is hardly the only worrisome effect that comes with nighttime immersion in light. I recently wrote about the elevated incidence of numerous deadly diseases among people who work the night shift. Operating in light at night and darkness during the day throws off the circadian rhythms, triggering biochemical shifts that lead to an increased incidence of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, ulcers, diabetes -- and yes, depression.

And the news gets worse!

As it turns out, these same negative health effects may also result from low-levels of night-time light exposure among people who work normal hours. According to a recent report issued by the American Medical Association,"In addition to resetting the circadian pacemaker, light also stimulates additional neuroendocrine and neurobehavioral responses including suppression of melatonin release from the pineal gland... Low levels of illuminance in the blue or white fluorescent spectrum disrupt melatonin secretion. The primary human concerns with nighttime lighting include disability glare (which affects driving and pedestrian safety) and various health effects. Among the latter are potential carcinogenic effects related to melatonin suppression, especially breast cancer. Other diseases that may be exacerbated by circadian disruption include obesity, diabetes, depression and mood disorders, and reproductive problems."

The good news here is that the researchers found that restoring the hamsters to sleeping in darkened environments reversed the depressive effects after two weeks. Since the hamsters only had disrupted sleep for eight weeks, it's unclear whether exposure to night light for years would be reversible in such short order. Even so, Dr. Bedrosian says,"People who stay up late, in front of the television and computer, may be able to undo some of the harmful effects just by going back to a regular light-dark cycle and minimizing their exposure to artificial light at night.

Do You know black Pepper is The Most Common Spice in The World?

This week's featured ingredient, black pepper, is a common staple spice throughout the world. The use of black pepper, or piper nigrum, goes back 4000 years in the East. The Chinese used pepper to address malaria, cholera, dysentery, diarrhea, and stomach complaints. It has a long history of use as a traditional folk medicine in a variety of cultures and is often credited as the most commonly used spice worldwide. More than just a common spice, black pepper, like cayenne, provides quite a few health benefits as well.

The most common health benefit may be in its effectiveness in weight loss programs. Its low calorie content makes it a great way to spice up food while decreasing the need to add other more high-caloric or fatty flavorings. In addition to its low calorie benefits, it may also aid in weight loss because it can boost metabolism. Piperine, a key active component of black pepper, has been shown in animal studies to increase the body's expenditure of energy. It does this by affecting the production of hormone-like chemicals that regulate the body's energy balance. This could have significant implications on humans and obesity; however, more human based studies are needed to support this theory.¹

Not only may black pepper help with your weight loss, but it may also help you quit smoking. In one study investigating the effects of a cigarette substitute, inhalation of a vapor of black pepper essential oil created a simulation of respiratory tract sensations that may apparently alleviate smoking withdrawal symptoms.²

Another health advantage to this spice is its ability to help increase the antioxidants you get from your diet. According the US Department of Agriculture, black pepper has a total oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) value of 27,618, which is even higher than cayenne, which comes in at still high 19,672. This measurement system measures the potential of a food to prevent the cell-damaging oxidation of free radicals in your body. A high ORAC food may help contribute to lowering your risk for conditions such as heart disease, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease.³

When taken internally, black pepper, like cayenne, increases the absorption of vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and medications. Research published in the "Critical Reviews of Food Science & Nutrition" in 2007 showed that black pepper was found to significantly increase the absorption of nutrients and drugs through the intestinal tract. The researchers concluded that the pepper likely alters the permeability of the intestinal wall, while slowing down the gut motility and stimulating intestinal enzymes.⁴ Due to this reaction with medications, you'll want to use caution and consult with your doctor about any possible reactions with your current medication. Incidentally, this “pushing action” is one of the primary reasons that Jon Barron uses cayenne and piperine in so many of his formulations – to push the bioactives into the bloodstream.

What type of pepper should you use? It is important to note that spices start degrading the moment you grind them. The beneficial volatile oils start disappearing and/or going rancid. That is why it is best to use your own freshly ground cracked pepper. Also, you need to watch out for irradiated spices. Most commercial spices are now irradiated, which virtually destroys and of its nutrients. If you buy organic, you can pretty much avoid irradiated spices

Some Medicines You Take that will Most likely Send You to Hospital

Just because you take a medication regularly doesn't mean it is safe. Routinely prescribed and even over-the-counter drugs that many people take daily can send them to the hospital with potentially dire consequences, if any mistakes are made with dosage or timing. Interestingly, it seems that just a few drugs are responsible for the vast majority of emergency hospitalizations for adverse reactions.

Every year, close to 100,000 drug-induced hospital-stays take place across the United States among those 65 or older. Recent research that took place at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta found that there were four main types of drugs that had caused two-thirds of those medication-related hospitalizations.

Unfortunately, the researchers found that the top culprits are among the most commonly taken medications. They include warfarin, which is a blood thinner, insulin, aspirin and other anti-platelet drugs, and oral diabetes medications. The drugs one might guess would be the worst offenders, such as highly addictive narcotics, were only responsible for approximately one percent of the hospitalizations analyzed. Maybe the more standard types of medications lead to problems because they are taken so often that their users feel comfortable with them and stop being careful after a while. But clearly they can all be extremely dangerous.

The study was based on records compiled from 58 hospitals around the U.S. between 2007 and 2009. The scientists examined the frequency of hospitalizations for senior citizens that took place after emergency room visits due to drug reactions. They concluded that nearly 266,000 medication-related emergency room visits occurred each year for this population. More than one-third of these -- close to 100,000 instances -- ended in hospitalization. And nearly two-thirds of these hospitalizations took place because there was an accidental overdose of a medication.

Warfarin, typically prescribed for those with heart disease to prevent blood clots, was hands down the biggest cause of hospitalization, accounting for 33 percent (33,171 hospitalizations) of those analyzed by the researchers. Rounding out the rest of the top four were insulin at 14 percent (13,854 hospitalizations), oral anti-platelet drugs at 13 percent (13,263 hospitalizations), and oral diabetes drugs at 11 percent (10,656 hospitalizations).

The problem was also determined to be greater with the oldest subjects. Approximately half of the emergency room visits that required hospitalization were for those patients at least 80 years old. This begs the question of whether it is truly safe to have the elderly taking dangerous medication on a daily basis. Many are careful and coherent and can easily follow the directions for correct dosing. But what about those who aren't? In even the early stages of dementia, it would be easy for a patient to forget having taken their drugs that morning and upon seeing them on the counter, feel it necessary to take a dose. Then again, even those with caregivers are at risk, as shifts change for hired health care workers and things don't always get written down. Adult children caregivers are not infallible either, as they usually have many other responsibilities and may not even be home at dosing times. When a medication is truly a necessity, as for instance insulin can be, the risk may be worth the benefit. But if there are other options available that would preclude the need to take one of these drugs daily, they clearly should be considered as a better alternative.

After all, pharmaceutical drugs, taken as a whole, cause an overwhelming number of deaths and emergencies every year among people of all ages…even when administered correctly. Almost seven percent of all hospitalized patients in the U.S. -- or 770,000 patients -- have serious adverse drug reactions within hospitals each year. Over a hundred thousand hospitalized patients die annually from drug reactions, and an additional 1.5 million need hospitalization after suffering an adverse drug reaction outside the hospital. Adverse drug reactions comprise the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S...conservatively.

The point is that pharmaceutical medications are not the safest road to health, at any age. And at best, they rarely work to resolve underlying problems. More often than not, they are prescribed purely for symptom management. The medical establishment spends too much focus treating the symptoms of the diseases we inflict upon ourselves through bad diet and unhealthy lifestyle choices. If we address the root causes of disease, we can often rid ourselves of diabetes, heart disease, and other ailments, making the drugs that "control our symptoms” totally unnecessary.

How Stroke Victims Can get Help with Yoga

The effects of a stroke can be devastating, both to mental and physical capabilities. Those who experience a stroke may lose their ability to speak clearly or at all, certain analytical functions, depth and distance perception, and their use of one or more limbs. And strokes are now occurring in younger people more frequently than ever before, due to risk factors such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and obesity being on the rise. However, there is some good news for stroke victims in the form of yoga therapy that appears to help a stroke victim regain some lost abilities.

According to a recent study that took place at Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center and Indiana University in Indianapolis, yoga exercise can improve balance, an essential ability that may be diminished by stroke as well as with age. The researchers worked with a pool of 47 stroke victims -- 75 percent of whom were male veterans. Ten of these volunteers were used as a control group and were provided typical medical care with no yoga. The remaining 37 were placed in one of two yoga groups. The first group participated in yoga exercise twice a week, and the second group had yoga exercise twice a week along with listening to relaxation recordings three times each week.

During the eight-week course of the research, the subjects were taught a variety of increasingly more complicated poses in floor-based, sitting, and eventually standing positions. Those in both yoga therapy groups had measurable improvements to their balance compared to the control group. Although many of these older men were initially skeptical of any potential benefits of yoga, they began to take more of an interest in this form of therapy as its effects became noticeable. The difference was quantifiable too: the volunteers doing yoga were tested for balance in standing, standing with their eyes closed, and standing with legs together while turning in a 360 degree circle and they performed significantly better than their peers in the control group. Then again, this would hardly be a surprise to any of you who read Jon Barron's 2007 report on exercise in which he said, "Many yoga poses are specifically designed as balance poses, utilizing arms, legs, hips -- the entire body, in fact."

As an important note, all of the study participants had their strokes more than six months prior to the start of the experiment. That was a key element in this research, since it was a long-held medical belief that any progress that would be made toward recovery after a stroke must take place within the first three to six months after the event. This study confirms other findings that have shown the possibility of making improvements even more than a year after a stroke has occurred. It also stands to reason that it will keep patients in better spirits and more positive toward treatment if they feel that there is a potential to continue getting better if they see results from their therapy.

And balance is an important area in which to improve. Falling is a serious problem among those with stroke-related disabilities. In fact, the researchers state that close to 75 percent of stroke survivors are prone to falling. This can cause severe injuries or even death in some cases. Plus, fear of falling may limit a person in his or her activities, which in turn can lead to isolation and depression. All of which are already problems for many senior citizens, but are easily and quickly compounded after a life-altering health scare such as a stroke.

Yoga can better your sense of balance by enhancing your self-perception and mindfulness of your own body. You become more aware of all muscle movements as they are necessary to achieve and maintain each pose. In addition, it also increases your flexibility and the range of motion of your muscles. Yoga is a terrific addition to a daily exercise routine for people of any age. Beginning yoga is a non-competitive, great place to start if you have not been working out for some time. However, don't forget that it is just one aspect of exercise that needs to be incorporated into a well-rounded plan. Cardiovascular workouts, interval training, strength training, and stretching will all work together with yoga to help you achieve not only better balance, but better overall health for the long term.

Beneficial Bacteria In a Probiotics Supplement

There can be no true health or recovery from disease unless you have colonies of over 100 trillion beneficial microorganisms flourishing throughout your intestinal tract, aiding in digestion and absorption, producing significant amounts of vitamins and enzymes, and working to crowd out all harmful bacteria. A good probiotic formula containing supplemental friendly bacteria is mandatory to raise your baseline of health. It is absolutely essential for long-term intestinal health and long-term parasite control. When choosing a probiotic supplement, look for the following characteristics:

• Not all strains of beneficial bacteria are created equal. For each type of bacteria, there are recognized super strains. Choose a formula that uses only recognized super strains of beneficial bacteria. They will be identified as such on the label or in the company literature.
   
• There are many beneficial bacteria that may be contained in a good probiotic, but two are preeminent. Lactobacillus acidophilus resides primarily in the small intestine and produces a number of powerful antimicrobial compounds in the gut (including acidolin, acidolphilin, lactocidin, and bacteriocin). These compounds can inhibit the growth and toxin-producing capabilities of some twenty-three pathogens (including Campylobacter, listeria, and staphylococci), as well as reduce tumor growth and effectively neutralize or inhibit carcinogenic substances. There are three recognized super strains of acidophilus: DDS, NAS, and BT1386. (It's also important to note that L. acidophilus is the primary beneficial bacteria in the vaginal tract. When the presence of the acidophilus is compromised, this allows the bad guys such as Gardnerella vaginalis, E. coli, or Chlamydia to take over. This is particularly important to women to help prevent a whole range of vaginal infections.)
  
  Many researchers believe that declining levels of Bifidobacteria in the large intestine actually mark the eventual onset of chronic degenerative disease. Bifidobacteria benefit the body in a number of ways. They consume old fecal matter. They also have the ability to remove cancer-forming elements, or the enzymes which lead to their formation. This can help protect against the formation of liver, colon, and mammary gland tumors. And in addition to all of that, Bifidobacteria are substantial producers of a range of important B vitamins.
   
• More is not always better. Too many beneficial bacteria in one formula may find the bacteria competing with each other before they can establish themselves in separate areas of the intestinal tract. On the other hand, there are several other bacteria that are extremely beneficial in any probiotics formula. L. salivarius helps digest foods in the intestinal tract and makes vital nutrients more assimilable. It also works to eat away encrusted fecal matter throughout the entire colon, helps repair the intestinal tract by providing needed enzymes and essential nutrients, and adheres to the intestinal wall, thereby forming a living matrix that helps protect the mucosal lining.
   
• L. rhamnosus is a powerful immune stimulator. It can increase the natural killing activity of spleen cells, which may help to prevent tumor formation. It boosts the ability of the body to destroy foreign invaders and other harmful matter by three times normal activity and has been shown to increase circulating antibody levels by six to eight times. L. plantarum has the ability to eliminate thousands of species of pathogenic bacteria. It also has extremely high adherence potential for epithelial tissue and seems to favor colonizing the same areas of the intestinal tract that E. coli prefers—in effect, serving to crowd E. coli out of the body. At one time, L. plantarum was a major part of our diets (found in sourdough bread, sauerkraut, etc.), but it is now virtually nowhere to be found. Other important friendly bacteria you might find in a good formula include Streptococcus thermophilus, L. bulgaricus, B. longum, and L. casei.
   
• Much has been written about the properties of the soil-based bacteria such as Bacillus subtilis, L. sporogenes, and B. laterosporus. For many people, they can produce a powerful boost to the immune system, but in certain circumstances they may become toxic. It's hard to argue with the great results that many people have had using formulations that contain these cultures. On the other hand, it's possible to get all of the same results using only the cultures that I've mentioned above.

Having Babies at older Age can increase Your Life-Span -Study

It's commonly accepted that getting pregnant past age 40 incurs plenty of risk. Older women have a more difficult time conceiving and carrying a baby to term compared to younger women, plus they stand a greater chance of developing pregnancy-related complications of all sorts. The risk of having a Downs Syndrome baby, for instance, runs about one in 2000 when the mother is in her 20s, but that risk jumps dramatically to one in 30 when the mother is in her mid 40s; other birth defects also become far more likely with maternal age. Plus, older women run a much greater chance of developing pregnancy-related health problems themselves.

But anyone who looks askance at a pregnant middle-aged woman had better think twice, based on data from a new study of late-in-life pregnancies. The study, out of the University of Utah, found that women who give birth late in life live longer, and so do their brothers. (You read that correctly.) The wives of those brothers, though, live to a normal age, which scientists interpret to mean that genetics play a role in the phenomenon.

"If you have a female relative who had children after age 45, then there may be some genetic benefit in your family that will enhance your longevity," said study director Ken Smith.

The data for the study comes from a huge sample population of almost two million Mormon and Catholic individuals born between 1670 and1869. (Churches keep great records.) Because of the religious views of these groups, the researchers assumed that the subjects kept having children as long as fertility allowed, without using contraception. And what they found was significant: women who gave birth between ages 41 and 44 had a six- to seven-percent reduced chance of dying each year after age 50 compared to women who stopped having children earlier. Even more dramatically, those who had babies after age 45 showed a 14- to 17-percent reduced annual mortality risk. The men who had three sisters, one of whom gave birth late in life, had a 20- to 22-percent lower mortality rate.

The longevity benefit, researchers suspect, derives from the possibility that the same genes that control longevity also control fertility. This would mean that women who continue to be fertile into their late 40s and 50s have a genetic predisposition to live longer, which their brothers share. And yet the researchers assert that genetics probably play only a 25 percent role in the longevity factor. The key element, according to Dr. Smith, "could be something that is not inherited. It could be good nutrition or really good living, suggesting that if you are a healthier mom, you live longer."

While it makes sense, based on the data, that genetics do play a key role in longevity, it also makes sense that those who share a lifestyle will share the health consequences and benefits derived from that lifestyle. (For example, as I've said many times before, lifestyle, not genetics, plays the dominant role in breast cancer.) Again, the husbands and wives in the study didn't necessarily show similar longevity patterns while siblings did, which may suggest that the siblings shared healthy diet and living during their formative years, and perhaps that counted most. Maybe certain subjects had a genetic advantage at birth, which combined with good nutrition and healthy conditions growing up helped them to remain fertile into middle age and live longer, while their siblings also reaped those same benefits.

This isn't the first study finding a link between longevity and late-life pregnancy. A 2002 study out of the University of California in Davis and the National Health Research Institutes in Taiwan found that women who have children at age 50 have a 38 percent reduction in mortality. A Chinese study found a positive correlation between late childbearing and survival past 100. Other studies have noted a link between late-onset menopause and longevity.

You can't tweak your genes, and research indicates that artificially extending fertility so you can have late-life babies won't help you to live longer, but you certainly can initiate routines that prolong your life. The necessity of good diet combined with exercise provides the baseline. Beyond that, since fertility and long life may be intertwined, there's good reason to initiate a natural hormone-balancing regimen. Other key factors include cleansing and detoxing regularly; supplementing with antioxidants, probiotics, enzymes, herbs, and food formed vitamins; cutting the amount of food you consume; and staying positive mentally and emotionally.

How Dog Therapy Works

People with mental disease and health problems typically seek relief by hiring a shrink or snagging a prescription. The adventurous few might sign on for a trek in the Himalayas or a five-month silent retreat, but if you prefer a cuddlier solution, various studies show that you might do just as well with dog therapy.

We've written before about the benefits of dog ownership -- about how pets can help you reduce blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglycerides. We've mentioned that they can help you to feel less lonely and like yourself more, that they can even identify cancer and increase the likelihood that you'll remember to exercise. If that's not enough reason to send you to the pound with adoption papers in hand, here are a few more reasons to put up with doggie breath and barking at 3:00 am. Dogs, it seems, can help heal PTSD, alleviate depression, and act as home-health-care aides. And now, new studies show that dog therapy can help children with autism.

"Therapy dogs" differ from run-of-the-mill family pets in that they've gone through rigorous training and passed tests that prove they can provide valuable mental health service to owners. To train a dog costs a bundle -- as much as $35,000, although $600 or so usually buys the basic "service dog" program. The high expense comes when the dog receives advanced, specialized training. And yes, believe it or not, just like in the human medical field, the helper dogs do specialize. Fido can be a therapy dog, an emotional support dog, or a mental health service dog. Here's the difference: therapy dogs provide affection to people in stressful situations, disaster zones, nursing homes, hospitals and so on. They typically work with an entire group of disenfranchised people, moving from person to person. Emotional support dogs, on the other hand, have a bit more training, focusing more exclusively on their owners and keeping them on task. The elite pups are the mental health service dogs. These dogs get special, individualized training tailored to help them work with one person in particular who suffers from a disabling mental disorder.

Dogs for autistic kids differ yet again from other service dogs in that they not only support their charge (the autistic child), but they also interact widely with the public. Most other service dogs receive training to focus solely on their owner or the person they are helping, without reacting to attention from strangers. In the case of autism-support dogs, though, the opposite is true. It's important that people pet the dog and expose the autistic child to a wide range of interactions.

Apparently, the strategy works, at least according to a new study of 260 French children just published in the journal PlosOne. The study found that those autistic kids who got a dog after their fifth birthday showed substantial improvement in their ability to offer comfort to others and to share with others. If the child had the dog from birth or at an age earlier than five, it didn't seem to make any difference. The study authors hypothesize that the reason is that after age five, the child has the ability to recognize the importance of the new addition to the household. Interestingly, by the way, the study found no difference in improvement between those autistic children who received specially trained autism-support dogs versus those who received any old hound from the pound.

One of the main ways service and therapy dogs have been used with success is to support people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. In fact, the US Department of Defense has conducted studies to assess the impact of therapy dogs on war veterans. According to Dr. Melissa Kaime, who oversees the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP), "A recent survey showed that 82 percent of patients with PTSD who were assigned a dog had a decrease in symptoms, and 40 percent had a decrease in the medications they had to take."

The PTSD therapy dogs receive training to observe when their "person" starts to experience symptoms. "If a dog observes when a person with PTSD is escalating," says Gibbon Esnayra, president and founder of the Psychiatric Dog Service Association, the dog will be able to signal that they are escalating and, given it's so early in process, the person can manage and even prevent the escalation." For instance, if the owner has a nightmare, a PTSD assistance dog would lick the owners face and tap a paw on his chest until he wakes up.

As Viet Nam war veteran and PTSD sufferer Raymond Galmiche explains, "I can talk with just about any social worker, counselor, my closest friend, a psychologist, and as much as they can get it ... the dog looks in my eyes and seems to understand what my real basic need is. It's that self-worth that makes me feel a private pride, something that I thought I'd lost a long time ago."

It's either a sad statement on the effectiveness of most therapists or else a tribute to the extraordinary capabilities of canine helpers that at least some dogs do, in fact, seem to "get it" better than their human counterparts. In fairness, though, at least some of that dog therapy benefit may be biochemical. Research shows that simply petting a dog increases the level of oxytocin in the brain, a chemical that reduces fear and increases feelings of well-being. It seems fair to point out, given that so many people attempt to alter their disturbed brain biochemistry by taking antidepressants, that dogs deliver a biochemical boost without side effects typical of the pills -- no nausea, headache, loss of libido, blurred vision, possible suicide and the like. The worst side effects dogs deliver tend toward excess fur on the clothing and puppy saliva on the face.

But while the dogs may help humans heal their mental distress, what happens to the dogs? Some experts worry that exposing Rover constantly to depressed, agitated people can give the dog the blues. They say that canines deserve a home where they live with emotionally balanced individuals and that it's exploitive to send dogs into homes to be used as medicine. In fact, veterinarians now routinely prescribe antidepressants for dogs suffering from depression, separation anxiety, and other psychological symptoms, and certainly therapy dogs might be candidates. Perhaps future research will take a look at this conundrum.

In the meantime, it appears that there might be a career niche on the horizon for professionals who can simultaneously treat the agitated or depressed patient and his agitated, depressed dog.

How Vegetables are affected by Pollutions

Many people are taking trips to Alaska to see the glaciers before they all melt from global warming. If viewing that kind of natural beauty before time runs out is on your bucket list, you may want to pay a visit to the Rocky Mountain National Park in northern Colorado, as well. No glacier melting here, but recent research has found that man-made air pollution may be killing off the indigenous vegetation that has always grown there.

The study, by a team of scientists at the University of Colorado Boulder, found that nitrogen gases reach even the relatively remote regions of the park and have begun to set in motion changes that will eventually lead to the disappearance of the alpine plants unless some drastic measures are taken. This air pollution is created by the emissions of nearby vehicular traffic, power plants, and even agricultural machinery.

Over a three-year period, the researchers tested the soil and alpine plants in a meadow of Rocky Mountain National Park in the Mummy Range area. They measured the present levels of nitrogen decomposition and assessed their effects, then "created" areas with increasing levels of nitrogen to simulate the modifications in the atmosphere that will occur in coming years unless something changes. First, it should be noted that at the present levels of nitrogen pollution, the soil analyzed showed no changes, but then that level has already done its damage; the quantity of certain plant species is already measurably different than it was just a few years ago.

As beautiful as it still may be, the no-longer pristine area definitely has been negatively affected by a higher concentration of nitrogen pollution. There is now major growth of sedge plants, which are a common form of grass. That's a negative, because these species have been demonstrated in other pollution studies in several locations to thrive in higher levels of nitrogen -- to flourish, keep expanding, and eventually crowd out more delicate forms of wild vegetation.

And in the foreseeable future, there is no reason to expect any changes for the better to pollution levels. In fact, the Denver area is expected to have continued population growth that will keep spilling into the Front Range region close to the park. This is likely to be accompanied by more agricultural development, which brings atmospheric changes of its own, along with more automobiles, and a rise in production of the local power supply in coming decades.

While it may be easy for some to say that we've got many more urgent problems to deal with than a few changes in plant species, it's important to keep the larger picture in mind. Once this goes beyond a certain point in altering the vegetation, there is no turning back. The changes that take place will also affect more than just the "look" of Rocky Mountain National Park. The new plants that begin to grow there may have a higher tolerance for nitrogen, but eventually even these plants and soil will reach their capacity for absorbing these compounds. At that point, acidification takes place and causes aluminum to seep from the soil. Where does the aluminum end up? In all of the local water! Aluminum is a toxic substance for which the body has no use. Not only will it poison the water and most of the marine life in all of the nearby streams and lakes, but it will begin to directly affect humans. As it accumulates in the body, it can harm the bones, gastrointestinal tract, brain, skin, liver, and much more.

It is essential to avoid heavy metals such as aluminum as much as possible. However, since they enter our food and water supply to some degree wherever we are -- and are likely to be increasing -- we need to remove them from our bodies -- and especially if things keep heading in the direction they're going. Herbal colon detoxifiers and heavy metal cleanses used routinely can clear these dangerous substances out of your system and improve your health.

How to Improve the Efficiency of Intestinal Bacteria

A properly functioning intestinal tract is one of your body’s first lines of defense against invaders. In a healthy colon, there are, on average, well over 100 billion beneficial bacteria per milliliter of fecal matter that consume harmful bacteria and other invaders. In the typical digestive tract, because of poor diet and neglect of the colon, the beneficial bacteria count may be as low as four or five per milliliter (not 4 or 5 billion, just plain old four or five). Many researchers now believe that declining levels of friendly bacteria in the intestinal tract may actually mark the onset of chronic degenerative disease.

A healthy intestinal tract balanced with friendly bacteria can:

• Lower cholesterol
• Assist in the digestion of carbohydrates
• Help prevent constipation
• Inhibit cancer
• Protect against food poisoning
• Protect against stomach ulcers
• Protect against lactose intolerance and casein intolerance
• Protect against many harmful bacteria, viruses, and fungi
• Protect against Candida overgrowth and vaginal yeast infections
• Prevent and correct constipation and diarrhea, ileitis and colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, and a whole range of other digestive tract dysfunctions
• Improve the health and appearance of the skin
• Enhance nutrition by improving absorption and internally generating B vitamins and vitamin K
• Enhance immunity by killing off invading pathogens and producing immune-boosting biochemicals such as transfer factor and lactoferrin—beneficial bacteria are actually responsible for 60 to 70 percent of your immune system’s activity

Watermelon's Nutrition And Benefits

This week’s featured food, watermelon, is considered a summertime staple for many. If you love to indulge in this hot weather fruit, there’s good news. In addition to its sweet taste, it also has some considerable health benefits as well. Let’s take a closer look...

Good Source of Vitamins
If you’re looking to increase your vitamin intake, watermelon may help you reach your goal. This red fruit is a good source of Vitamin A, which helps with eye health and immunity, and Vitamin C, which helps with immunity.  It also contains Vitamin B6, which helps your body produce antibodies.

Helps With Hydration
While drinking enough water is essential on hot days, it never hurts to have a little extra help. Since watermelon is made up of 92% water, adding this fruit to your diet during the hotter summertime months can help keep you hydrated. An added bonus with the extra water consumption is healthier skin!

Heart Healthy & Cancer Defense
Watermelon contains about 20mg of lycopene per 2 cup serving. This is good news, as lycopene appears to be one of the best defenses against prostate cancer and bladder cancer. When used in conjunction with vitamin E and green tea extract, studies indicate that it inhibits prostate cancer proliferation by some 90%. In addition, according to the American Dietetic Association, studies have shown a link between lycopene and cardiovascular health.

Good for Weight Management
When trying to lose weight or keep your weight under control, the amount of calories you intake is a major factor. A one-cup serving of watermelon is only 46 calories. It’s also low in fat, has zero cholesterol, and contains small amounts of protein and fiber. This makes this fruit an excellent low-calorie snack alternative.

When it comes to consuming this melon, your options are as endless as your creativity. From simple slices to juices, watermelon is an incredibly versatile fruit. Just remember to wash the outside of the melon thorough before consumption.

Organ Cleansing
Finally, watermelon is a great cleansing food for the livers and kidneys. This, of course, is often dismissed by professional skeptics, but that’s because they don’t understand what is being cleansed by watermelon. We’re not talking about toxins. We’re talking about ammonia. Because it is high in citrulline,¹ watermelon helps the liver process ammonia, which is produced as a waste product from protein digestion. It converts the ammonia into urea, which is far easier for the body to handle. This benefit extends to the kidneys since this increased effectiveness in production of urea takes some strain off of the kidneys. As for the amount you need, the more you eat, the more cleansing it does. If you’re diabetic, you need to be careful because of the sugar. And if you already have major kidney problems, you need to be careful as the act of cleansing can stress the kidneys. Otherwise, eat, enjoy, cleanse.

Parenthood Makes You More Healthy

Ask most parents and they will tell you they are perpetually tired. First, there are the many sleepless nights during your child's infancy. Then later, when you can sleep through the night again, there is the shuttling from one activity to the next, with few breaks in between. After that stage of being a parent, it's often about waiting up at night for your child to get home by curfew. And then, of course, in addition to all this exhaustion, there's the fact that children are constantly bringing colds and flus and whatnot into the house. One would think that parents would be prime candidates for all manner of illnesses and lack a healthy immune system. However, according to one new study, the truth may actually be just the opposite.

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, found that people who have no children are roughly twice as likely to catch colds as those who do have children. And the protection conferred by parenthood is cumulative -- the greater the number of children you have, the less likely you will get sick. The 795 healthy participants in this study were all exposed to a cold virus. Approximately one-third of them got sick. However, the subjects who have one or two children had a 48 percent lower risk of catching a cold, while those with three children or more had a 61 percent lower risk than the childless.

On the surface, that seems to make sense when you consider the facts. After all, the more children you have, the more germs and viruses they are exposing you to. This leads to higher immunity that a parent's body has built up over time. But, it turns out, that is not the protective factor for a healthy immune system. Even after controlling for immunity to a virus, the results were heavily in favor of the parents staying healthier than those with no children. In other words, those parents who did not have discernible levels of antibodies to the particular virus still were less likely to get sick. In fact, even those with grown children no longer living at home showed a remarkable resistance to catching the same colds their childless peers caught.

The scientists attributed the difference to a mental toughness that parents develop, which makes their immune systems stronger than those without kids. An interesting theory, but one with no evidence behind it. Research would need to be designed to prove that, if possible. Maybe there is some sort of sturdiness or resiliency that enters the picture after having children, as we might picture the hearty frontiersmen and women back in pioneering days who often had large broods. Then again, life expectancy rates back in the 1850s were only an average of 39 years old, so even if they weren't getting many colds, more serious diseases were finding them instead.

At any rate, even if we can't pin down the exact reason for a healthier immune system, parenthood may have some boosting effect on our immunity. So what do those of us who do not have children do to gain some parity and raise our immunity as well? Start off by living a good, healthy lifestyle. Getting enough sleep, eating nutritiously, and exercising every day will do quite a bit to jump-start a sluggish immune system. In fact, working out was shown in a 2010 study at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, to increase the amount of immune system cells present in the body. Just a 30 to 45-minute, moderately-paced walk was enough to raise levels of immunity boosters, keep them elevated for several hours after exercising, and have a cumulative effect in protecting against illnesses over time.

Work without Rest is death

If it feels like all you ever do is work, it might be because like most American adults, you spend an average of 40 percent of your waking hours at work. That’s fortuitous if you have safe and enjoyable employment, but for a significant segment of the workforce, danger lurks at their risky, high stress job. According to a recent study out of UC Davis, work-related injuries and illnesses cost the nation more than $250 billion annually. That’s $31 billion more than the direct and indirect costs for cancer, $76 billion more than diabetes costs, and $187 billion more than the cost of strokes. As study director and UC Davis public health professor Dr. J. Paul Leigh said, "It's unfortunate that occupational health doesn't get the attention it deserves. The costs are enormous and continue to grow."

Looked at another way, work outranks every other single cause of healthcare expenditure. Risky, high stress jobs not only sicken and disable many, but also cause an inordinate number of fatalities. In 2010 alone, work injuries and illnesses caused 59,000 deaths. In addition, there were 8,564,600 work-related injuries on record that year and 516,100 work-related illnesses. These figures, of course, only include injuries and illnesses that were reported and that can be directly attributed to work. Certainly, many work-related illnesses don’t get reported, especially those that develop slowly as a result of constant and long-term work related stress, or long term exposure to toxic chemicals whose toxicity will not be "discovered" For another 10-20 years. Can you say asbestos? Also, mental health care related to work stress doesn’t necessarily show up in these figures.

Of course, not all work environments pose extreme danger or disabling influences. Most workers are lucky enough to benefit emotionally, mentally, and financially from time on the job. But study after study does show that certain professions come packed with life-threatening dangers. This is especially true of a dozen or so careers involving physical labor and not much monetary reward. For instance, fishing is the most hazardous of all career paths, with a chilling death rate of 200 per 100,000, mostly from drowning in foul weather conditions or because of equipment malfunction. No other career even comes close in terms of danger. Fishermen make an average of $44,000 a year—not much given the risks.

Other career paths high on the danger list include logging, with a fatality rate of about 62 per 100,000. The average logger makes around $40,000 a year. Pilots rank next on the dangerous career paths list. They earn an average $118,000 a year, with a 57 per 100,000 death rate annually. Most of the pilot fatalities come from crop dusting and bush flying in small planes that sweep close to the ground, a hazardous proposition. Farmers and ranchers rank fourth in terms of work-related fatalities, dying from work-related issues such as machinery accidents, injuries from animal kicks and bites, and exposure to toxic pesticides and fertilizers. For taking on that high level of risk, farmers average only $30,450 a year. Roofers, steel workers, garbage collectors, machinery operators, and construction workers also rank in the top 10 of dangerous careers.

According to various surveys, the list of most stressful jobs differs from the most dangerous list, except that pilots rank third on both inventories—making flying one of the most dangerous and most stressful of all possible career paths. The 10 careers highest in stress, according to the Careercast 2012 report, include enlisted soldier, firefighter, military general, police officer, event coordinator, public relations executive, CEO, photojournalist, and taxi driver.

All things considered, including stress, danger, salary, physical demands, and hiring outlook, the 10 worst possible careers on the Careercast list are lumberjack, dairy worker, soldier, oil rig worker, reporter, waiter/waitress, meter reader, dishwasher, butcher, and broadcaster. At the other end of the spectrum, the best possible careers with the least stress and best outlook include software engineer, actuary, human resources manager, dental hygienist, financial planner, audiologist, occupational therapist, online advertising manager, computer systems analyst, and mathematician.

But ranking on the list doesn’t tell the entire story. Take a look at the career statistics for physicians, for instance. While the job of doctor ranks a relatively sunny number 40 out of the 200 careers included in the Careercast data, it takes that spot only because general practice physicians earn an average of $205,000 annually. The high salary skews the scale to make medicine look like a reasonable career choice. But on other parameters, doctoring gets very low scores. The work environment (which includes physical as well as emotional hazards) rates an extraordinary 85+ for difficulty, compared to a 48 scored by the medical secretary who enjoys a relatively peaceful environment sitting in the front office. The stress level for physicians comes in at 25, compared to just 12 for a parole officer.

No wonder doctors have such high levels of drug addiction and alcoholism. No wonder the suicide rate among physicians far exceeds the rate in the population at large -- 40 percent higher for male doctors and 130 percent higher for female doctors. No wonder depression is rampant among medical students and doctors and one-third of physicians wish they had chosen a different career path. Apparently, big bucks don’t always compensate for challenging work conditions.

If you’re already well-ensconced in your career, this data probably won’t make much of a difference to you, but maybe it should. Spending every day in a stressful or toxic work environment may be even more detrimental to your health than choosing to eat at McDonalds on a daily basis. As the statistics above bear out, work can kill. Or it can stress you out so much that you contract a disease that kills you.

Beneficial Becterials Can Decline

Fitness | Today's Daily Health
Unfortunately, the levels of beneficial bacteria decline dramatically as the human body ages. Some of the reasons for this decline include:

• Over time, the colonies of friendly bacteria naturally age and lose their vitality.
   
• Disruptions and changes in the acid/alkaline balance of the bowels can play a major role in reducing the growth of beneficial bacteria. In addition, these changes tend to favor the growth of harmful viral and fungal organisms as well as putrefactive, disease-causing bacteria.
   
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such Advil, Motrin, Midol, etc., are destructive to intestinal flora.
   
• Chlorine in the drinking water not only serves to kill bacteria in the water, it is equally devastating to the colonies of beneficial bacteria living in the intestines. In fact, drinking even one glass of chlorinated water can destroy much of your intestinal flora.
   
• Radiation and chemotherapy are particularly harmful to your inner bacterial environment.
   
• Virtually all meat, chicken, and dairy that you eat (other than organic) is loaded with antibiotics, which destroy all of the beneficial bacteria in your gastrointestinal tract.
   
• A diet high in meats and fats—because they take so long to break down in the human body—promotes the growth of the harmful, putrefying bacteria.
   
• Constipation, of course, allows harmful bacteria to hang around longer, which allows them to proliferate.
   
• Cigarettes, alcohol, and stress are also major culprits.
   
• Some antibiotic herbs, such as goldenseal, are detrimental if taken in sufficient quantity and/or used too frequently. And colloidal silver presents the same problems.
   
• And if you’ve ever been subjected to a round of "medicinal" antibiotics, you can kiss your beneficial bacteria goodbye. The problem is that antibiotics indiscriminately destroy both bad and good bacteria, allowing virulent, mutant strains of harmful microorganisms to emerge and run rampant inside the body. Antibiotics (both medicinal and in our food supply) are the number one culprit in the overgrowth of harmful pathogens in the gastrointestinal tract (a condition called dysbiosis). And for the same reasons, it is no coincidence that women suffer so many yeast infections after taking any antibiotics.

Dou You Know How much Water You Need?

For this week’s featured ingredient we’re taking a closer look at water. In advanced societies, thinking that tea, coffee, alcohol, soda pop, or other forms of manufactured beverages are desirable substitutes for the purely natural water needs of the daily "stressed" body is a common, but potentially unhealthy, mistake. Water is the solvent in our bodies, and as such, it regulates all the functions of our bodies, including the action of all the solids dissolved in the water. In fact, every function of the body is monitored and pegged to the efficient flow of water – throughout the body and in and out of every cell. Think for a moment of just a few of the functions that water regulates:

• The movement of blood
• The transport of nutrients into our cells
• The movement of waste out of our cells
• The flow of lymph fluid
• The movement of nerve impulses through our nerves
• The movement of hormones throughout our bodies
• The functioning of our brains

Understand, we can function quite well and for quite a long time without sufficient water. The body quickly adapts and starts extracting more water from your stools for example. The kidneys flush less water to retain the limited supply you have. In fact, there are some health experts who claim that your body does quite well on 2 glasses of any kind of fluid a day -- plus the water found in the food you eat. But these experts confuse adaptation with health. Adaptation eventually leads to compromise, which leads to diminished health over time.

Look, ultimately it may be proven that drinking more than 2 glasses of water a day has no health benefits, but that day has not arrived yet -- and the Negoianu, Goldfarb review, which claims to have proven that we don’t need to drink eight glasses of water a day, does not bring it any closer. It's bad science, bad reporting by the press, and shoddy peer review by the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. The math is irrefutable. Your kidneys excrete 1-2 liters of water a day – plus the water vapor you breathe out and sweat off. (On a hot day, you can sweat out upwards of 8.5 quarts of water.) Therefore, until it is actually proven otherwise, keep targeting between 64 and 96 ounces of pure water a day. Pure, fresh (not bottled or canned) fruit and vegetable juices may be substituted for some of this quantity -- as may limited quantities of non-diuretic herbal teas (without sugar). And your food, such as fresh vegetables contain a great deal of water. In general, however, pure water is the key.

Touch Therapy and Cancer Treatment

Fitness and Today's Daily Health
Cancer is unfortunately a common disease that has touched most of our lives when a loved one has fallen victim. It is awful to watch those undergoing cancer treatment experience painful and uncomfortable chemotherapy side effects. But now, there is new hope on the horizon for people sickened by their potential cure. Recent research has found that Jin Shin Jyutsu, a type of touch therapy that originated thousands of years ago in Japan, can provide relief from some of the worst symptoms of cancer treatment and chemotherapy effects.

The study took place at the University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center in Lexington. The volunteers were 159 cancer patients presently involved in treatment at the center. The researchers had the subjects rate the levels of the symptoms they were experiencing between zero and 10, with zero representing no symptoms at all. This included any pain, nausea, and/or stress that the participants were feeling. Beginning with their first session of Jin Shin Jyutsu, the patients rated their symptoms both before and after each touch therapy appointment.

The sessions provided the subjects with a noticeable improvement in all categories of side effects. This relief expressed at the end of the first Jin Shin Jyutsu session was equal to that felt after later sessions. Stress was the area most affected, with an average rating decrease of three points. Nausea and pain followed closely behind, being reduced by an average of two points each on the scale. These assessments were across the board for all patients involved in the study, whether they were male or female, older or younger, and no matter what form of cancer they had been diagnosed with.

The most significant improvements were noted after sessions in a Jin Shin Jyutsu treatment room, as opposed to those that took place in a patient's hospital room or an outpatient chemotherapy center. The sessions in the dedicated room were generally longer treatments, so it is possible that more time devoted to Jin Shin Jyutsu provides greater benefits. Further research on the subject would be necessary, but it would be interesting to determine whether that location is more beneficial due to its relaxing, less medical feeling atmosphere as well.

It should be noted that there were no controls to determine whether the positive results were actually a specific result of the therapy, or merely a consistent placebo effect experienced across the board by the patients. But then again, does that really matter? If you have a loved one experiencing pain and discomfort as a result of their cancer treatments, do you really care why they feel better -- as long as they feel better? Then again, another point worth noting is that the study made no comparison between Jin Shin Jyutsu and any other alternative technique -- touch or otherwise -- to determine which, if any, was more effective at relieving discomfort. The bottom line is that this was a study designed for patients and their loved ones, not the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The Jin Shin Jyutsu treatments are similar in principle to acupressure, involving touching the energy zones of the body to release tension and blockages. According to this particular form of touch therapy, the body has 52 Safety Energy Lock points that can be gently worked. There are also flows of life energy within the body, which can be soothed by touching certain points along energy pathways in a particular pattern.

If Jin Shin Jyutsu, and possibly other methods of touch therapy, can help cancer patients alleviate their side effects, it would be wonderful news, especially because this type of treatment adds no further complications to the condition. Most patients are already dealing with enough in the way of side effects from the chemotherapy itself. That's because the drug's objective is to poison the system -- creating pain and discomfort often worse than the disease itself, at least in its early stages. The toxins attack healthy, dividing blood cells and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsions causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. Needless to say, any type of therapy that can lessen these symptoms without creating new ones would be a godsend to most cancer patients undergoing chemo.

If you or someone close to you has received a diagnosis of cancer, it pays to do some research on complementary alternative medicine practices to help strengthen the immune system and keep the body strong naturally, especially if it will soon be pumped through with toxic chemicals. Jin Shin Jyutsu may be just what the body needs to decrease its discomfort and help fight off the disease -- even if the actual study wasn't up to medical standards.

Dieting May Fail Due to Some of These Reasons

Fitness and Daily Health Tip Today
I just can't lose weight even though I diet." You've probably heard that sorry song from at least one person in your life, and if you tend toward cynicism, you probably wondered if that person cheated by sneaking midnight cupcakes. But in fact, researchers now have turned up a possible explanation for lack of weight loss success, and it doesn't involve cheating on the diet.

While it's true that the old equation, calories burned must exceed calories consumed for weight loss success to occur, it turns out that some food calorie types may trigger faster weight loss than others. Up until now, it's been assumed, at least by mainstream nutritionists, that each food calorie represents a standard unit that will generate the same amount of energy when metabolized. But new evidence seems to confirm what alternative health experts have been saying for years, that different types of calories affect the body differently, and stocking up on the wrong type of calories, even if you consume very few of them, will work against you in your quest to fit into your jeans.

The researchers, out of Boston Children's Hospital, put obese subjects on a radical diet that caused them to lose at least 10 percent of their body weight. Then, the researchers determined the number of calories each of these subjects burned daily. For the next three months, the subjects continued to diet, but now they consumed the same number of calories as they burned daily, so theoretically, they should have maintained their weight. Each subsequent month, the diet changed, though the number of calories (1600 daily) stayed the same.

The first month, the diet was a low-fat regimen rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables -- in other words, supposedly healthy, but carbohydrate rich. On that diet, 60 percent of the daily calories came from carbohydrates, 20 percent from fats, and 20 percent from protein. The next month, the subjects tried out a low-glycemic diet, which means they consumed plenty of fiber and carbohydrates, too, but only non-starchy carbohydrates -- broccoli as opposed to pasta, for instance--and minimally processed foods. The ratio on that diet was 10 percent of calories from carbohydrates, 60 percent from fat, and 30 percent from protein. Finally, they went on an Atkins-type diet, heavy on the fat and protein, light on the carbohydrates.

Again, the subjects consumed the exact same number of calories on each of these diets, so in theory, they should have had the same results. But surprisingly, the more carbohydrates the subjects consumed, the fewer the calories they burned. On the Atkins-style low-carbohydrate diet, the subjects burned an average of 300 more calories daily than they did on the low-fat diet and 150 more than on the low-glycemic diet. In other words, those restricting themselves to 1800 calories daily on the Atkins diet lost more weight faster than those eating 1800 calories on a low fat, carbohydrate-rich diet. At the end of the trial, the subjects on the Atkins and low-glycemic diets also had lower cholesterol levels and reduced insulin sensitivity.

Study director Dr. David Ludwig summarizes, "From a metabolic perspective our study suggests that all calories are not alike. The quality of the calories going in is going to affect the number of calories going out."

What explains the differing results when caloric intake is equivalent? The answer may have to do with the fact that calories have two functions: either they get burned for fuel, or they get stored in the cells for later use. Because simple carbohydrates trigger the production of the hormone insulin and insulin works to store fat in the cells, a carbohydrate calorie is more likely to go right to your waistline instead of being burned. In fact, a diet rich in starchy carbohydrates floods your system with insulin. Complex carbohydrates, such as those found in green vegetables, take longer to break down in the system and so don't have quite the same effect. In any event, to burn an equivalent number of calories on the 1600-calorie high-carbohydrate diet as compared to a 1600-calorie Atkins-style diet, the researchers say, you need to exercise for an additional hour daily.

And so, the advice of venerable institutions like the American Heart Association, which suggests sticking to a low-fat diet involving plenty of carbohydrates, seems to be just the wrong thing if you want to lose weight.

Given these results, it seems a no-brainer that Atkins-style diets trump the others. In fact, though, the Atkins diet brings with it other problems that negate at least some of the benefits it confers. The researchers found that while the subjects lost the most weight on the Atkins diet, they also had higher levels of c-Reactive protein and cortisol in their blood, both indicators of systemic inflammation. According to Dr. Ludwig, "The metabolic benefits of this diet may be undermined by more inflammation and higher cortisol, both of which can increase [heart disease and stroke] risk over time." Plus, as Jon Barron has written before, low carbohydrate, high-protein diets put you at risk by stressing the liver and kidneys, lowering the body's pH, which contributes to osteoporosis and cancer, and weakening the immune system.

And so, if the low-carbohydrate diet leads to inflammation, stroke, cancer, and heart disease, and the high-carbohydrate diet leads to obesity, which leads to stroke, cancer and heart disease, plus diabetes, what can you eat? What diet can you follow? It seems that the middle path trumps the other approaches. In other words, the evidence suggests that your best bet is the low-glycemic die.