Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Dr. Mercola explains why microwaving is bad

borrowed from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/microwave-cancer_b_684662.html


This common appliance can harm your health


By now, you probably know that what you eat has a profound impact on your health. The mantra, "You are what you eat" is really true.

But you need to consider not only WHAT you buy, but how you cook it.

Eating much of your food raw is ideal. But most of us are not going to be able to accomplish a completely raw diet, and we'll end up cooking some percentage of our food.

Smart food preparation starts with high quality foods and food preparation and that means saying sayonara to your microwave oven. Need to sterilize a dishcloth? Use your microwave. But zapping your casserole is a BAD idea if you are interested in preparing healthy food.

Why the no nukes policy?

When it comes to microwave ovens, the price for convenience is to compromise your health. In this article, I will review what we know about the effects microwaves on your food and on your body.

Sad State of Our Soils

Over the past century, the quality of fresh food has declined due to soil depletion, unsustainable farming practices, overproduction of crops, and the use of pesticides and herbicides. You can no longer assume you're getting all of the vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and phytonutrients you need by eating a multitude of fresh produce--even if you're eating organically.

Not surprisingly, the amount of nutrition in a calorie of food has been reduced over the past 50 years.

Three recent studies of historical food composition have shown 5 to 40 percent declines in some of the minerals in fresh produce, and another study found a similar decline in our protein sources. [1]

So now, more than ever, you must be careful to maximize the "bang for your buck" when it comes to the foods you eat.

Research shows that your microwave oven will NOT help you in these efforts--and in fact will threaten your health by violently ripping the molecules in your food apart, rendering some nutrients inert, at best, and carcinogenic at its worst.

Convenience Comes at Significant Toxic Threat to You and Your Family

Microwaves heat food by causing water molecules in it to resonate at very high frequencies and eventually turn to steam which heats your food. While this can rapidly heat your food, what most people fail to realize is that it also causes a change in your food's chemical structure.

There are numerous issues that have emerged since microwave ovens were first introduced to consumers more than 40 years ago, besides depleting your food's nutritional value, which will be addressed a bit later.

The first thing you probably noticed when you began microwaving food was how uneven the heating is.

"Hot spots" in microwaved food can be hot enough to cause burns--or build up to a "steam explosion." This has resulted in admonitions to new mothers about NOT using the microwave to heat up baby bottles, since babies have been burned by super-heated formula that went undetected.

Another problem with microwave ovens is that carcinogenic toxins can leach out of your plastic and paper containers/covers, and into your food.

The January/February 1990 issue of Nutrition Action Newsletter reported the leakage of numerous toxic chemicals from the packaging of common microwavable foods, including pizzas, chips and popcorn. Chemicals included polyethylene terpthalate (PET), benzene, toluene, and xylene. Microwaving fatty foods in plastic containers leads to the release of dioxins (known carcinogens) and other toxins into your food. [8] [2]

One of the worst contaminants is BPA, or bisphenol A, an estrogen-like compound used widely in plastic products. In fact, dishes made specifically for the microwave often contain BPA, but many other plastic products contain it as well.

Microwaving distorts and deforms the molecules of whatever food or other substance you subject to it. An example of this is blood products.

Blood is normally warmed before being transfused into a person. Now we know that microwaving blood products damages the blood components. In fact, one woman died after receiving a transfusion of microwaved blood in 1991 , which resulted in a well-publicized lawsuit.

Microwave Radiation Leakage

You may have heard that there is some danger of microwaves escaping from your microwave while it's operating. This was more of a risk with earlier models than with recent ones, which undergo more rigorous testing.

Theoretically, there are very small amounts of radiation leakage through the viewing glass, but the FDA reports these levels are "insignificant" and "well below the level known to harm people."

The FDA has been regulating microwave ovens since 1971 through its electronic product radiation control program, which is mandated by the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act [3] .

The FDA limits the amount of microwaves that can leak from an oven throughout its lifetime to 5 milliwatts (mW) per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface. Because microwave energy decreases dramatically as you move away from the source of the radiation, a measurement made 20 inches from your oven would be approximately one-hundredth of the value measured at 2 inches. [2]

The federal standard also requires all ovens to have "two independent interlock systems that stop the production of microwaves the moment the latch is released or the door is opened."

And a monitoring system is also required, which stops the operation if one or both interlock systems fail.

You would think, with all these tests and regulations, that you'd be safe. However, according to Powerwatch, a non-profit independent organization with a central role in the microwave radiation debate:

    "Even when the microwave oven is working correctly, the microwave levels within the kitchen are likely to be significantly higher than those from any nearby cellular phone base-stations. Remember also that microwaves will travel through walls if the microwave oven is against an inside wall."

Powerwatch also states that we don't really know if the current regulations about leakage are truly safe and recommends ovens be checked at least annually, since microwave emissions can change with normal use.

You might also consider purchasing a $20 testing device that allows you to check the radiation in your home.

Make sure that, if you are going to use your microwave for cleaning sponges or for any use at all, regularly examine the door and hinges to make sure they are sealing properly. If the door doesn't close correctly, or if it's warped, bent, or otherwise damaged, don't use it at all!

Since your eyes are known to be particularly susceptible to microwave radiation (high microwave exposures are known to cause cataracts), I recommend stepping away from your microwave while it's in use.

New Study Confirms Microwaves Affect Your Heart

A recent study examining the effects 2.4 GHz radiation (which is the frequency of radiation emitted by Wifi routers and microwave ovens) on the heart was just completed. The study found "unequivocal evidence" that microwave frequency radiation affects the heart at non-thermal levels that are well below federal safety guidelines, according to Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University [4] .

Dr. Havas says:

    "This is the first study that documents immediate and dramatic changes in both heart rate and heart rate variability caused by an approved device that generates microwaves at levels well below (0.3 percent) federal guidelines in both Canada and the United States."

No longer can skeptics claim that microwaves produce no immediate biological effects at ordinary household levels!

The study will be appearing in a peer-reviewed journal sometime during the summer of 2010. If you are experiencing rapid or irregular heartbeat, pain or pressure in your chest, you will want to visit your physician and share this video with him or her (second video on this page).

There is also evidence that this same frequency of radiation causes blood sugar to spike in susceptible individuals and may actually be the cause of one type of diabetes. For details about this, watch the first video below.

Microwaving Also Zaps the Nutrients Right Out of Your Food

There has been surprisingly little research on how microwaves affect organic molecules, or how the human body responds to consuming microwaved food.

Wouldn't you expect that a product that sits in more than 90 percent of kitchens, as well as practically every break room in the country, would have been thoroughly investigated for safety?

The handful of studies that have been done generally agree, for the most part, that microwaving food damages its nutritional value. Your microwave turns your beautiful, organic veggies, for which you've paid such a premium in money or labor, into "dead" food that can cause disease!

Heating food, in and of itself, can result in some nutrient loss, but using microwaves to heat food introduces the additional problem of the "microwave effect," a phenomenon that will be discussed in detail later.

The majority of studies on microwaves and nutrition were conducted prior to 2000, I suspect because the focus of radiation research of late has shifted toward a more ominous threat: environmental radiation from electromagnetic devices, such as cell phones and computers, which has mushroomed into a gigantic cloud of electrosmog worldwide over the past decade.

Nevertheless, some excellent scientific data has been gathered regarding the detrimental effects of microwaves on the nutrients in your food:

•A study published in the November 2003 issue of The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture[5] found that broccoli "zapped" in the microwave with a little water lost up to 97 percent of its beneficial antioxidants. By comparison, steamed broccoli lost 11 percent or fewer of its antioxidants. There were also reductions in phenolic compounds and glucosinolates, but mineral levels remained intact.

•A 1999 Scandinavian study of the cooking of asparagus spears found that microwaving caused a reduction in vitamin C[6] .

•In a study of garlic, as little as 60 seconds of microwave heating was enough to inactivate its allinase, garlic's principle active ingredient against cancer[7] .

•A Japanese study by Watanabe showed that just 6 minutes of microwave heating turned 30-40 percent of the B12 in milk into an inert (dead) form[8] . This study has been cited by Dr. Andrew Weil as evidence supporting his concerns about the effects of microwaving. Dr. Weil wrote:

    "There may be dangers associated with microwaving food... there is a question as to whether microwaving alters protein chemistry in ways that might be harmful."

•A recent Australian study[9] showed that microwaves cause a higher degree of "protein unfolding" than conventional heating.

•Microwaving can destroy the essential disease-fighting agents in breast milk that offer protection for your baby. In 1992, Quan found that microwaved breast milk lost lysozyme activity, antibodies, and fostered the growth of more potentially pathogenic bacteria[10] .

Quan stated that more damage was done to the milk by microwaving than by other methods of heating, concluding:

    "Microwaving appears to be contraindicated at high-temperatures, and questions regarding its safety exist even at low temperatures."

•Another study about breast milk/infant formula by Lee in 1989[11] found vitamin content becomes depleted by microwaving, and certain amino acids are converted into other substances that are biologically inactive. Some altered amino acids are poisons to the nervous system and kidneys. (Numerous authors mention this study, yet I was unable to find the original article/study, so I cannot personally validate.)

Although many of the above studies are not new, there is certainly ample evidence that microwaving is NOT good for your food.

How Your Microwave Actually Heats Your Food

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation--waves of electrical and magnetic energy moving together through space. EM radiation ranges from very high energy (gamma rays and x-rays) on one end of the spectrum to very low energy (radio waves) on the other end of the spectrum.

Microwaves are on the low energy end of the spectrum, second only to radio waves. They have a wavelength of about 4.8 inches--about the width of your head.

Microwaves are generated by something called a magnetron (a term derived from the words "magnet" and "electron"), which is also what enabled airborne radar use during WWII. Hence the early name for microwave ovens: radar ranges.

A magnetron is a tube in which electrons are subjected to both magnetic and electrical fields, producing an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency of about 2,450 megaHertz (MHz), which is 2.4 gigaHertz (GHz).

Microwaves cause dielectric heating. They bounce around the inside of your oven and are absorbed by the food you put in it. Since water molecules are bipolar, having a positive end and negative end, they rotate rapidly in the alternating electric field. The water molecules in the food vibrate violently at extremely high frequencies--like millions of times per second--creating molecular friction, which heats up the food.

If the food or object place in the microwave had no water it would not be able to have this resonance heating type effect and would remain cool. Or, as investigative journalist William Thomas[12] calls it, "electrical whiplash."

Structures of the water molecules are torn apart and forcefully deformed. This is different than conventional heating of food, whereby heat is transferred convectionally from the outside, inward. Microwave cooking begins within the molecules where water is present.

Contrary to popular belief, microwaved foods don't cook "from the inside out." When thicker foods are cooked, microwaves heat the outer layers, and the inner layers are cooked mostly by the conduction of heat from the hot outer layers, inward.

Since not all areas contain the same amount of water, the heating is uneven.

Additionally, microwaving creates new compounds that are not found in humans or in nature, called radiolytic compounds. We don't yet know what these compounds are doing to your body.

In addition to the violent frictional heat effects, called thermic effects, there are also athermic effects, which are poorly understood because they are not as easily measured. It is these athermic effects that are suspected to be responsible for much of the deformation and degradation of cells and molecules. [13]

As an example, microwaves are used in the field of gene altering technology to weaken cell membranes. Scientists use microwaves to actually break cells apart. Impaired cells then become easy prey for viruses, fungi and other microorganisms.

Another word for these athermic effects is the "microwave effect," a subject of controversy that I'll get into a bit later.

Microwave Sickness

When your tissues are directly exposed to microwaves, the same violent deformations occur and can cause "microwave sickness."

People who have been exposed to high levels of microwave radiation experience a variety of symptoms, including:

•Insomnia, night sweats, and various sleep disturbances

•Headaches and dizziness

•Swollen lymph nodes and a weakened immune system

•Impaired cognition

•Depression and irritability

•Nausea and appetite loss

•Vision and eye problems

•Frequent urination and extreme thirst

There is a good amount of data emerging that people are suffering, to various degrees, these kinds of symptoms from living next to cell phone towers and other high-frequency radiation emitting antennas, which emit microwaves around the clock.

According to Professor Franz Adelkofer, a leading scientist in the area of biological effects of EMF fields:

    "There is real evidence that hyperfrequency electromagnetic fields can have geno-toxic effects. And this damaged DNA is always the cause of cancer.

    We've found these damaging effects on the genes at levels well below the safety limits. That's why we think it's urgent to base our safety limits on the biological effects, not the thermic ones.

    They should be based on biology, not on physics."

Twenty Years of Russian Research Supports Microwave Concerns

The Nazis are credited with inventing the first microwave-cooking device to provide mobile food support to their troops during their invasion of the Soviet Union in World War II [14] . These first microwave ovens were experimental. After the war, the US War Department was assigned the task of researching the safety of microwave ovens.

But it was the Russians who really took the bull by the horns.

After the war, the Russians had retrieved some of these microwave ovens and conducted thorough research on their biological effects. Alarmed by what they learned, the Russians banned microwave ovens in 1976, but they later lifted the ban during Perestroika in the late 1980's.

Still, 20 years of Russian research (and German studies as far back as 1942 Berlin) make a strong argument against the safety of microwave cooking.

Their findings led the Russian government to issue an international warning about possible biological and environmental damage associated with the use of microwave ovens and other similar frequency electronic devices (e.g. mobile phones).

I was not able to personally evaluate any of these older bodies of research, since those documents are now difficult to track down, so I can't attest to their methodology or conclusions. All you can do is weigh their findings appropriately, as best you can.

The Powerwatch article cited above summarizes the Russian research quite well, which I will duplicate below.

•Russian investigators found that carcinogens were formed from the microwaving of nearly all foods tested.

•The microwaving of milk and grains converted some of the amino acids into carcinogenic substances.

•Microwaving prepared meats caused the formation of the cancer-causing agents d-Nitrosodienthanolamines.

•Thawing frozen fruits by microwave converted their glucoside and galactoside fractions into carcinogenic substances.

•Extremely short exposure of raw, cooked or frozen vegetables converted their plant alkaloids into carcinogens.

•Carcinogenic free radicals were formed in microwaved plants--especially root vegetables.

•Structural degradation leading to decreased food value was found to be 60 to 90 percent overall for all foods tested, with significant decreases in bioavailability of B complex vitamins, vitamins C and E, essential minerals, and lipotropics (substances that prevent abnormal accumulation of fat).

I might add that this finding is supported by the 1998 Japanese study by Watanabe7 about vitamin B12 in milk, cited above.

The Swiss Clinical Study: Hans Hertel

Some fairly compelling evidence supporting the destructive effects of microwaves comes from a highly cited study by a Swiss food scientist named Hans Hertel. Dr. Hertel was the first scientist to study the effects of microwaved foods on the blood and physiology of human beings.

His small study, coauthored by Dr. Bernard Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry, revealed the degenerative forces produced by microwave ovens on the foods they cooked.

Dr. Hertel concluded that microwave cooking changed the nutrients in the food, and that changes took place in the blood that could cause negative health effects.

Hertel's conclusions were that microwaving food resulted in:

•Increased cholesterol levels

•Decreased numbers of leukocytes (white blood cells), which can suggest poisoning

•Decreased numbers of red blood cells

•Production of radiolytic compounds

•Decreased hemoglobin levels, which could indicate anemia

Not surprisingly, Dr. Hertel's study was met with great resistance from those with much to lose.

A gag order against Dr. Hertel was issued by a Swiss trade organization in 1992, which was later removed in 1998. But an American journalist, Tom Valentine, published the results of Hertel's study in Search for Health in the spring of 1992 [15] .

The study was not without its shortcomings. It involved only eight participants, of which Hertel was one. As compelling as his findings were, his methodology did not stand up to the scientific rigors of the field.

In spite of Hertel's methodological shortcomings, his findings do raise concerns about what this form of radiation is doing to your food and should be taken as a launching point to larger, more robust studies in the future.

Hertel wrote:

    "There are no atoms, molecules, or cells of any organic system able to withstand such a violent, destructive power for any period of time. This will happen even given the microwave oven's low power range of milliwatts."

And then there is the issue of biophotons.

Possible Microwave Effects on Your Biophotons

Biophotonics is the study, research, and applications of photons in their interactions within and on biological systems. Much of the work in the area of biophotons was done in Germany. Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt discusses biophotons in our 2008 interview.

Biophotons are the smallest physical units of light that are stored in and used by all biological organisms--including you. Vital sun energy finds its way into your cells via the food you eat, in the form of these biophotons.

Biophotons contain important bio-information and are very important to many vital processes in your body. They are partly responsible for your feeling of vitality and well-being. You gain biophotons by eating foods rich in them, such as naturally grown fresh vegetables and sun-ripened fruits, which are rich in light energy.

The more light energy a food is able to store, the more nutritious it is.

If the "microwave effect" exists (as you shall see, there is a huge amount of evidence that it does), then microwaves can potentially destroy biophotons in the same way that it alters other structures, rendering your food dead and lifeless.

It seems quite plausible that microwaves could disrupt or destroy biophotons, since they are capable of breaking apart DNA bonds!

As far as I can find, there haven't been any studies of the direct effects of microwave radiation on biophotons, but it seems like an important angle of investigation for the future.

Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Non-Ionizing Radiation

One of the basic controversies about the effects of microwaves centers on whether or not microwaves exert some sort of force beyond heat, commonly called "microwave effect" or "athermic effect."

It is first necessary that you understand the difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation.

There are two basic forms of radiation: ionizing and non-ionizing[16] :

1.Ionizing Radiation: Creates charged ions by displacing electrons in atoms, even without heat. Examples are radiation emitted from radioactive substances in rocks and soil, cosmic rays of the sun, and radiation from man-made technology such as x-rays machines, power stations, and nuclear reactors.

2.Non-ionizing Radiation: Can change the position of atoms but not alter their structure, composition, and properties. Examples are visible light, ultraviolet and infrared waves, waves from radio or television, cellular phones, microwaves, and electric blankets.

Despite not being able to break atoms apart, non-ionizing radiation (such as microwaves) CAN cause physical alterations.

For example, sunlight can damage your skin and eyes. Overexposure to radiation can affect tissues by causing molecular damage, DNA mutations, and other changes that can lead to cancer.

The serious concern is, with all of this radiation surrounding us from cell and cordless phones, radio towers, satellites, broadcast antennas, military and aviation radar, home electronic devices, computers and Internet, we are all part of an involuntary mass epidemiological experiment, on a scale never before seen in the history of the human race.

And the truth is that we don't really KNOW what long term, low-level (but persistent) radiation does to us--even the non-ionizing type.

But here are some of the things we DO KNOW:[17]

•Effects at low levels can be more noticeable than at higher levels. There is something called a "window effect," meaning an effect occurring only at specific frequencies or power densities, but not occurring just above or below them. A number of studies demonstrate effects of microwave radiation on blood cells via this phenomenon.

•For a complete discussion of this, you can read Microwaving Our Planet, written by Arthur Firstenberg, president of the Cellular Phone Taskforce.

•Cindy Sage of Sage Associates, an environmental consulting firm, has compiled a comprehensive list of studies [18] showing biological effects at radiofrequency exposure levels far below what would be explainable as "thermic effects" and well within the range you are commonly exposed to every day.

•Resonance intensifies biological effect. Resonance occurs when a form of radiation has a similar frequency as a body part. For example, microwave frequencies are similar to the frequencies of your brain!

•Studies are typically done for short exposure periods, at higher intensities. Scientists claim that duration of exposure is equally important to intensity of exposure, but is often NOT studied, and that long-term, low-level exposure can have effects equivalent to short-term, more intense exposure.

•The effects of radiation are cumulative. Your body becomes more sensitive to it over time.

•There are no longer any control groups, since human beings are all now exposed to such pervasive radiation. Lack of a control group makes it even more challenging to conduct meaningful studies.

The point is, standing in your kitchen while your microwave is zapping your dinner, night after night, will not make you glow in the dark. But over the months and years, what is the cumulative effect on your body and health?

Why expose yourself to these potential dangers when there are safer alternatives for cooking available?

Is Microwaving Food Any More Dangerous than Heating it with a Conventional Oven?

Some experts claim that the effects microwaves have on molecules can all be explained simply as the "thermic effect" of heating--in other words, microwave cooking is no more detrimental to food than conventional heating.

They argue that, since microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, then it's impossible for them to damage your blood cells, or eradicate the folic acid in your spinach.

Others have proposed there is some sort of "microwave effect" that causes changes in the molecules in a way that conventional heating does not. For many years, the party line was that "microwave effect" is a myth.

However, study after study has resulted in evidence to the contrary, showing effects that cannot be explained away as simple thermal effects.

In a letter entitled "DNA and the Microwave Effect" [19] (sourced as Penn State University, 2001), the author reviews the history of the controversy surrounding the microwave effect and the research findings to date. He explains that, although fundamentals of thermodynamics and physics would tell you the microwave effect is impossible, studies keep turning up evidence of its existence.

Some of the main points made in the letter are the following:

•Microwave heating and conventional heating may appear identical on a "macro" level, but the two appear very different on a molecular level.

•Microwaves are effective for sterilization, which has been studied for several decades. There is controversy, however, is about whether it's the heat they generate or if it's something else altogether.

•One scientist (Kakita 1995 [20] ) was successful in demonstrating that microwaves are capable of extensively fragmenting and destroying viral DNA, something that cannot be accomplished by heating alone.

•Multiple studies offer evidence that there are multiple mechanisms for breaking apart DNA without ionizing radiation, but no theory currently exists to explain this phenomenon.

Some scientists are taking advantage of the microwave effect and using microwaves in the laboratory to greatly accelerate chemical reactions, sometimes by a factor of a thousand, resulting in the completion of reactions in minutes that formerly took days or months and a lot of toxic chemicals [21] .

This newly found interest in "microwave chemistry" has spurred skeptic scientists into taking another look at what microwaves actually do and how they do it.

Sometimes common sense trumps empirical evidence.

The Penn State letter/article said it best:

    "...It would seem there is reason to believe that the microwave effect does indeed exist, even if it cannot yet be adequately explained. What we know at present is somewhat limited, but there may be enough information already available to form a viable hypothesis.

    The possibility that electromagnetic radiation in the non-ionizing frequency range can cause genetic damage may have profound implications on the current controversy involving EM antennae, power lines, and cell phones."

Breaking Free of Your Microwave: A Few Basic Tips

Am I asking you to toss your microwave oven into the nearest dumpster?

Not necessarily. It can be a useful tool for cleaning. But if real estate in your kitchen is at a premium, it should probably be the first thing to go.

You really CAN survive sans microwave--people are living quite happily without one, believe it or not. You just have to make a few small lifestyle adjustments, such as:

•Plan ahead. Take your dinner out of the freezer that morning or the night before so you don't end up having to scramble to defrost a 5-pound chunk of beef two hours before dinnertime.

•Make soups and stews in bulk, and then freeze them in gallon-sized freezer bags or other containers. An hour before meal time, just take one out and defrost it in a sink of water until it's thawed enough to slip into a pot, then reheat it on the stove.

•A toaster oven makes a GREAT faux-microwave for heating up leftovers! Keep it at a low temperature -- like 200-250 degrees F -- and gently warm a plate of food over the course of 20-30 minutes.

•Prepare your meals in advance so that you always have a good meal available on those days when you're too busy or too tired to cook.

•Try eating more organic raw foods. This is the best way to and improve your health over the long run.

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder and director of Mercola.com. Become a fan of Dr. Mercola on Facebook, on Twitter and check out Dr. Mercola's report on sun exposure!
References:
[1] Davis D R. (February 1, 2009) "Declining fruit and vegetable nutrient composition: What is the evidence?" American Society of Horticultural Science

[2] Rust S and Kissinger M. (November 15, 2008) "BPA leaches from 'safe' products" Journal Sentinel Online

[3] "Microwave oven radiation," Food and Drug Administration

[4] Havas M. "DECT phone affects the heart!"

[5] Vallejo F, Tomas-Barberan F A, and Garcia-Viguera C. "Phenolic compound contents in edible parts of broccoli inflorescences after domestic cooking" Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (15 Oct 2003) 83(14);1511-1516

[6] Kidmose U and Kaack K. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica B 1999:49(2):110-117

[7] Song K and Milner J A. "The influence of heating on the anticancer properties of garlic," Journal of Nutrition 2001;131(3S):1054S-57S

[8] Watanabe F, Takenaka S, Abe K, Tamura Y, and Nakano Y. J. Agric. Food Chem. Feb 26 1998;46(4):1433-1436

[9] George D F, Bilek M M, and McKenzie D R. "Non-thermal effects in the microwave induced unfolding of proteins observed by chaperone binding," Bioelectromagnetics 2008 May;29(4):324-30

[10] Quan R (et al) "Effects of microwave radiation on anti-infective factors in human milk," Pediatrics 89(4 part I):667-669.

[11] Lee L. "Health effects of microwave radiation-microwave ovens," Lancet December 9, 1989 (Article)

[12] Thomas W. "Cooked" Alive.com

[13] "Microwave oven and microwave cooking overview," Powerwatch

[14] "History of microwave ovens" Green Health Watch

[15] "Microwave ovens: A danger to your health?" (January 26, 2010) Nutritional and Physical Regeneration

[16] Villablanca E (December 19, 2007) "Ionizing and non-ionizing radiation: Their difference and possible health consequences"

[17] "Health effects of microwave radiation (Western view)"

[18] Sage C. "Reported biological effects from radiofrequency non-ionizing radiation" Wave-Guide.org

[19] Penn State University. "DNA and the microwave effect" posted from MailBag (April 8, 2002)

[20] Kakita Y, Kashige N, Murata K, Kuroiwa A, Funatsu M and Watanabe K. "Inactivation of
Lactobacillus bacteriophage PL-1 by microwave irradiation" Microbiol. Immunol. 1995;39:571-576.

[21] Adams C. (May 6, 2005) "Does microwaving kill nutrients in food? Is microwaving safe?" The Straight Dope

Saturday, August 21, 2010

acupuncture treats hyperhydrosis (excessive sweating)

14 year old girl, starting high school just developed a problem of underarm sweating through her shirt.  She and her mother were concerned about the embarrassment she may experience.  One acupuncture treatment and her perspiration is back to normal.  We've had two more sessions just to make sure the result held, but she has now had three weeks free of this excessive sweating. 

I love what I do.  I get to help people every day.  If you're in Chicago and want to feel better, visit me at A Center for Oriental Medicine or at the Tiffani Kim Institute on Thursday mornings. 

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Dr. Mercola puts the smack-down on the Cholesterol myth

borrowed from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/the-cholesterol-myth-that_b_676817.html
I agree with just about everything is this article except for the suggestion to eat mostly raw foods and to eliminate grains. 


Cholesterol could easily be described as the smoking gun of the last two decades.



It's been responsible for demonizing entire categories of foods (like eggs and saturated fats) and blamed for just about every case of heart disease in the last 20 years.


Yet when I first opened my medical practice in the mid 80s, cholesterol, and the fear that yours was too high was rarely talked about.


Somewhere along the way however, cholesterol became a household word -- something that you must keep as low as possible, or suffer the consequences.


You are probably aware that there are many myths that portray fat and cholesterol as one of the worst foods you can consume. Please understand that these myths are actually harming your health.


Not only is cholesterol most likely not going to destroy your health (as you have been led to believe), but it is also not the cause of heart disease. And for those of you taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, the information that follows could not have been given to you fast enough. But before I delve into this life-changing information, let's get some basics down first.


What is Cholesterol, and Why Do You Need It?


That's right, you do need cholesterol.


This soft, waxy substance is found not only in your bloodstream, but also in every cell in your body, where it helps to produce cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps in the formation of your memories and is vital for neurological function.


Your liver makes about 75 percent of your body's cholesterol ,[i] and according to conventional medicine, there are two types:


High-density lipoprotein, or HDL: This is the "good" cholesterol that helps to keep cholesterol away from your arteries and remove any excess from arterial plaque, which may help to prevent heart disease.


Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL: This "bad" cholesterol circulates in your blood and, according to conventional thinking, may build up in your arteries, forming plaque that makes your arteries narrow and less flexible (a condition called atherosclerosis). If a clot forms in one of these narrowed arteries leading to your heart or brain, a heart attack or stroke may result.


Also making up your total cholesterol count are:


-- Triglycerides: Elevated levels of this dangerous fat have been linked to heart disease and diabetes. Triglyceride levels are known to rise from eating too many grains and sugars, being physically inactive, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol excessively and being overweight or obese.


-- Lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a): Lp(a) is a substance that is made up of an LDL "bad cholesterol" part plus a protein (apoprotein a). Elevated Lp(a) levels are a very strong risk factor for heart disease. This has been well established, yet very few physicians check for it in their patients.


Understand this:


Your Total Cholesterol Level is NOT a Great Indicator of Your Heart Disease Risk


Health officials in the United States urge everyone over the age of 20 to have their cholesterol tested once every five years. Part of this test is your total cholesterol, or the sum of your blood's cholesterol content, including HDL, LDLs and VLDLs.


The American Heart Association recommends that your total cholesterol is less than 200 mg/dL, but what they do not tell you is that total cholesterol level is just about worthless in determining your risk for heart disease, unless it is above 330.


In addition, the AHA updated their guidelines in 2004, lowering the recommended level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to LDL to less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.


In order to achieve these outrageous and dangerously low targets, you typically need to take multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs. So the guidelines instantly increased the market for these dangerous drugs. Now, with testing children's cholesterol levels, they're increasing their market even more.


I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who actually were at low heart disease risk due to their HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen even more who had cholesterol levels under 200 that were at a very high risk of heart disease based on the following additional tests:


-- HDL/Cholesterol ratio


-- Triglyceride/HDL ratios


HDL percentage is a very potent heart disease risk factor. Just divide your HDL level by your cholesterol. That percentage should ideally be above 24 percent.


You can also do the same thing with your triglycerides and HDL ratio. That percentage should be below 2.


Keep in mind, however, that these are still simply guidelines, and there's a lot more that goes into your risk of heart disease than any one of these numbers. In fact, it was only after word got out that total cholesterol is a poor predictor of heart disease that HDL and LDL cholesterol were brought into the picture.


They give you a closer idea of what's going on, but they still do not show you everything.


Cholesterol is Neither "Good" Nor "Bad"


Now that we've defined good and bad cholesterol, it has to be said that there is actually only one type of cholesterol. Ron Rosedale, MD, who is widely considered to be one of the leading anti-aging doctor in the United States, does an excellent job of explaining this concept :[ii]


"Notice please that LDL and HDL are lipoproteins -- fats combined with proteins. There is only one cholesterol. There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" cholesterol.

Cholesterol is just cholesterol.


It combines with other fats and proteins to be carried through the bloodstream, since fat and our watery blood do not mix very well.


Fatty substances therefore must be shuttled to and from our tissues and cells using proteins. LDL and HDL are forms of proteins and are far from being just cholesterol.


In fact we now know there are many types of these fat and protein particles. LDL particles come in many sizes and large LDL particles are not a problem. Only the so-called small dense LDL particles can potentially be a problem, because they can squeeze through the lining of the arteries and if they oxidize, otherwise known as turning rancid, they can cause damage and inflammation.


Thus, you might say that there is "good LDL" and "bad LDL."


Also, some HDL particles are better than others. Knowing just your total cholesterol tells you very little. Even knowing your LDL and HDL levels will not tell you very much."



Cholesterol is Your Friend, Not Your Enemy


Before we continue, I really would like you to get your mind around this concept.


In the United States, the idea that cholesterol is evil is very much engrained in most people's minds. But this is a very harmful myth that needs to be put to rest right now.


"First and foremost," Dr. Rosedale points out, "cholesterol is a vital component of every cell membrane on Earth. In other words, there is no life on Earth that can live without cholesterol.

That will automatically tell you that, in and of itself, it cannot be evil. In fact, it is one of our best friends.


We would not be here without it. No wonder lowering cholesterol too much increases one's risk of dying. Cholesterol is also a precursor to all of the steroid hormones. You cannot make estrogen, testosterone, cortisone and a host of other vital hormones without cholesterol."




Vitamin D and Your Cholesterol


You probably are aware of the incredible influence of vitamin D on your health. If you aren't, or need a refresher, you can visit my vitamin D page.


What most people do not realize is that the best way to obtain your vitamin D is from safe exposure to sun on your skin. The UVB rays in sunlight interact with the cholesterol on your skin and convert it to vitamin D.


Bottom line?


If your cholesterol level is too low you will not be able to use the sun to generate sufficient levels of vitamin D.


Additionally, it provides some intuitive feedback that if cholesterol were so dangerous, why would your body use it as precursor for vitamin D and virtually all of the steroid hormones in your body?


Other "evidence" that cholesterol is good for you?


Consider the role of "good" HDL cholesterol. Essentially, HDL takes cholesterol from your body's tissues and arteries, and brings it back to your liver, where most of your cholesterol is produced. If the purpose of this was to eliminate cholesterol from your body, it would make sense that the cholesterol would be shuttled back to your kidneys or intestines so your body could remove it.


Instead, it goes back to your liver. Why?


Because your liver is going to reuse it.


"It is taking it back to your liver so that your liver can recycle it; put it back into other particles to be taken to tissues and cells that need it," Dr. Rosedale explains. "Your body is trying to make and conserve the cholesterol for the precise reason that it is so important, indeed vital, for health."

Cholesterol and Inflammation - What's the Connection?


Inflammation has become a bit of a buzzword in the medical field because it has been linked to so many different diseases. And one of those diseases is heart disease ... the same heart disease that cholesterol is often blamed for.


What am I getting at?


Well, first consider the role of inflammation in your body. In many respects, it's a good thing as it's your body's natural response to invaders it perceives as threats. If you get a cut for instance, the process of inflammation is what allows you to heal.


Specifically during inflammation:


-- Your blood vessels constrict to keep you from bleeding to death


-- Your blood becomes thicker so it can clot


-- Your immune system sends cells and chemicals to fight viruses, bacteria and other "bad guys" that could infect the area


-- Cells multiply to repair the damage


Ultimately, the cut is healed and a protective scar may form over the area.


If your arteries are damaged, a very similar process occurs inside of your body, except that a "scar" in your artery is known as plaque.


This plaque, along with the thickening of your blood and constricting of your blood vessels that normally occur during the inflammatory process, can indeed increase your risk of high blood pressure and heart attacks.


Notice that cholesterol has yet to even enter the picture.


Cholesterol comes in because, in order to replace your damaged cells, it is necessary.


Remember that no cell can form without it.


So if you have damaged cells that need to be replaced, your liver will be notified to make more cholesterol and release it into your bloodstream. This is a deliberate process that takes place in order for your body to produce new, healthy cells.


It's also possible, and quite common, for damage to occur in your body on a regular basis. In this case, you will be in a dangerous state of chronic inflammation.


The test usually used to determine if you have chronic inflammation is a C-reactive protein (CRP) blood test. CRP level is used as a marker of inflammation in your arteries.


Generally speaking:


-- A CRP level under 1 milligrams per liter of blood means you have a low risk for cardiovascular disease


-- 1 to 3 milligrams means your risk is intermediate


-- More than 3 milligrams is high risk


Even conventional medicine is warming up to the idea that chronic inflammation can trigger heart attacks. But they stop short of seeing the big picture.


In the eyes of conventional medicine, when they see increased cholesterol circulating in your bloodstream, they conclude that it -- not the underlying damage to your arteries -- is the cause of heart attacks.


Which brings me to my next point.


The Insanity of Lowering Cholesterol


Sally Fallon, the president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, and Mary Enig, Ph.D, an expert in lipid biochemistry, have gone so far as to call high cholesterol "an invented disease, a 'problem' that emerged when health professionals learned how to measure cholesterol levels in the blood."[iii]


And this explanation is spot on.


If you have increased levels of cholesterol, it is at least in part because of increased inflammation in your body. The cholesterol is there to do a job: help your body to heal and repair.


Conventional medicine misses the boat entirely when they dangerously recommend that lowering cholesterol with drugs is the way to reduce your risk of heart attacks, because what is actually needed is to address whatever is causing your body damage -- and leading to increased inflammation and then increased cholesterol.


As Dr. Rosedale so rightly points out:


"If excessive damage is occurring such that it is necessary to distribute extra cholesterol through the bloodstream, it would not seem very wise to merely lower the cholesterol and forget about why it is there in the first place.

It would seem much smarter to reduce the extra need for the cholesterol -- the excessive damage that is occurring, the reason for the chronic inflammation."




I'll discuss how to do this later in the report, but first let's take a look at the dangers of low cholesterol -- and how it came to be that cholesterol levels needed to be so low in the first place.


If Your Cholesterol is Too Low ...


All kinds of nasty things can happen to your body. Remember, every single one of your cells needs cholesterol to thrive -- including those in your brain. Perhaps this is why low cholesterol wreaks havoc on your psyche.


One large study conducted by Dutch researchers found that men with chronically low cholesterol levels showed a consistently higher risk of having depressive symptoms.[iv]


This may be because cholesterol affects the metabolism of serotonin, a substance involved in the regulation of your mood. On a similar note, Canadian researchers found that those in the lowest quarter of total cholesterol concentration had more than six times the risk of committing suicide as did those in the highest quarter. [v]


Dozens of studies also support a connection between low or lowered cholesterol levels and violent behavior, through this same pathway: lowered cholesterol levels may lead to lowered brain serotonin activity, which may, in turn, lead to increased violence and aggression. [vi]


And one meta-analysis of over 41,000 patient records found that people who take statin drugs to lower their cholesterol as much as possible may have a higher risk of cancer, [vii] while other studies have linked low cholesterol to Parkinson's disease.


What cholesterol level is too low? Brace yourself.


Probably any level much under 150 -- an optimum would be more like 200.


Now I know what you are thinking: "But my doctor tells me my cholesterol needs to be under 200 to be healthy." Well let me enlighten you about how these cholesterol recommendations came to be. And I warn you, it is not a pretty story.


This is a significant issue. I have seen large numbers of people who have their cholesterol lowered below 150, and there is little question in my mind that it is causing far more harm than any benefit they are receiving by lowering their cholesterol this low.


Who Decided What Cholesterol Levels are Healthy or Harmful?


In 2004, the U.S. government's National Cholesterol Education Program panel advised those at risk for heart disease to attempt to reduce their LDL cholesterol to specific, very low, levels.


Before 2004, a 130-milligram LDL cholesterol level was considered healthy. The updated guidelines, however, recommended levels of less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.


Keep in mind that these extremely low targets often require multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs to achieve.


Fortunately, in 2006 a review in the Annals of Internal Medicine [viii] found that there is insufficient evidence to support the target numbers outlined by the panel. The authors of the review were unable to find research providing evidence that achieving a specific LDL target level was important in and of itself, and found that the studies attempting to do so suffered from major flaws.


Several of the scientists who helped develop the guidelines even admitted that the scientific evidence supporting the less-than-70 recommendation was not very strong.


So how did these excessively low cholesterol guidelines come about?



Eight of the nine doctors on the panel that developed the new cholesterol guidelines had been making money from the drug companies that manufacture statin cholesterol-lowering drugs.[ix]



The same drugs that the new guidelines suddenly created a huge new market for in the United States.



Coincidence? I think not.



Now, despite the finding that there is absolutely NO evidence to show that lowering your LDL cholesterol to 100 or below is good for you, what do you think the American Heart Association STILL recommends?



Lowering your LDL cholesterol levels to less than 100. [x]


And to make matters worse, the standard recommendation to get to that level almost always includes one or more cholesterol-lowering drugs.


The Dangers of Cholesterol-Lowering Medications


If you are concerned about your cholesterol levels, taking a drug should be your absolute last resort. And when I say last resort, I'm saying the odds are very high, greater than 100 to 1, that you don't need drugs to lower your cholesterol.


To put it another way, among the more than 20,000 patients who have come to my clinic, only four or five of them truly needed these drugs, as they had genetic challenges of familial hypercholesterolemia that required it..


Contrast this to what is going on in the general population. According to data from Medco Health Solutions Inc., more than half of insured Americans are taking drugs for chronic health conditions. And cholesterol-lowering medications are the second most common variety among this group, with nearly 15 percent of chronic medication users taking them (high blood pressure medications -- another vastly over-prescribed category -- were first). [xi]


Disturbingly, as written in BusinessWeek early in 2008, "Some researchers have even suggested -- half-jokingly -- that the medications should be put in the water supply." [xii]


Count yourself lucky that you probably do NOT need to take cholesterol-lowering medications, because these are some nasty little pills.


Statin drugs work by inhibiting an enzyme in your liver that's needed to manufacture cholesterol. What is so concerning about this is that when you go tinkering around with the delicate workings of the human body, you risk throwing everything off kilter.


Case in point, "statin drugs inhibit not just the production of cholesterol, but a whole family of intermediary substances, many if not all of which have important biochemical functions in their own right," say Enig and Fallon.3


For starters, statin drugs deplete your body of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which is beneficial to heart health and muscle function. Because doctors rarely inform people of this risk and advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement, this depletion leads to fatigue, muscle weakness, soreness, and eventually heart failure.


Muscle pain and weakness, a condition called rhabdomyolysis, is actually the most common side effect of statin drugs, which is thought to occur because statins activate the atrogin-1 gene, which plays a key role in muscle atrophy. [xiii]


By the way, muscle pain and weakness may be an indication that your body tissues are actually breaking down -- a condition that can cause kidney damage.


Statin drugs have also been linked to:


-- An increased risk of polyneuropathy (nerve damage that causes pain in the hands and feet and trouble walking)


-- Dizziness


-- Cognitive impairment, including memory loss [xiv]


-- A potential increased risk of cancer [xv]


-- Decreased function of the immune system[xvi]


-- Depression


-- Liver problems, including a potential increase in liver enzymes (so people taking statins must be regularly monitored for normal liver function)


And recently a possible association was found between statins and an increased risk of Lou Gehrig's disease. [xvii]


Other cholesterol-lowering drugs besides statins also have side effects, most notably muscle pain and weakness.


IMPORTANT NOTE


If, for whatever reason, you or someone you know or love does not believe the information in this report and chooses to stay on statin drugs, then please make sure they at least take one to two Ubiquinols per day.


This will help prevent all the side effects mentioned above.


Ubiquinol is the reduced version of Coenzyme Q-10 and is far more effective if you are over 35-40 years old. It is the form of the supplement that actually works, and if you take CoQ-10 and your body can't reduce it to uniquinol you are just fooling yourself and wasting your money.


You can visit our ubiquinol information page for more details.


Are Cholesterol Drugs Even Effective?


With all of these risks, the drugs had better be effective, right? Well, even this is questionable. At least, it depends on how you look at it.


Most cholesterol lowering drugs can effectively lower your cholesterol numbers, but are they actually making you any healthier, and do they help prevent heart disease?


Have you ever heard of the statistic known as NNT, or number needed to treat?


I didn't think so. In fact, most doctors haven't either. And herein lies the problem.


NNT answers the question: How many people have to take a particular drug to avoid one incidence of a medical issue (such as a heart attack)?


For example, if a drug had an NNT of 50 for heart attacks, then 50 people have to take the drug in order to prevent one heart attack.


Easy enough, right?


Well, drug companies would rather that you not focus on NNT, because when you do, you get an entirely different picture of their "miracle" drugs. Take, for instance, Pfizer's Lipitor, which is the most prescribed cholesterol medication in the world and has been prescribed to more than 26 million Americans. [xviii]


According to Lipitor's own Web site, Lipitor is clinically proven to lower bad cholesterol 39-60 percent, depending on the dose. Sounds fairly effective, right?


Well, BusinessWeek actually did an excellent story on this very topic earlier this year, [xix] and they found the REAL numbers right on Pfizer's own newspaper ad for Lipitor.


Upon first glance, the ad boasts that Lipitor reduces heart attacks by 36 percent. But there is an asterisk. And when you follow the asterisk, you find the following in much smaller type:


"That means in a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor."

What this means is that for every 100 people who took the drug over 3.3 years, three people on placebos, and two people on Lipitor, had heart attacks. That means that taking Lipitor resulted in just one fewer heart attack per 100 people.



The NNT, in this case, is 100. One hundred people have to take Lipitor for more than three years to prevent one heart attack. And the other 99 people, well, they've just dished out hundreds of dollars and increased their risk of a multitude of side effects for nothing.


So you can see how the true effectiveness of cholesterol drugs like Lipitor is hidden behind a smokescreen.


Or in some cases, not hidden at all.


Zetia and Vytorin: No Medical Benefits


Early in 2008, it came out that Zetia, which works by inhibiting absorption of cholesterol from your intestines, and Vytorin, which is a combination of Zetia and Zocor (a statin drug), do not work.


This was discovered AFTER the drugs acquired close to 20 percent of the U.S. market for cholesterol-lowering drugs. And also after close to 1 million prescriptions for the drugs were being written each week in the United States, bringing in close to $4 billion in 2007. [xx]


It was only after the results of a trial by the drugs' makers, Merck and Schering-Plough, were released that this was found out. Never mind that the trial was completed in April 2006, and results were not released until January 2008.


And it's no wonder the drug companies wanted to hide these results.


While Zetia does lower cholesterol by 15 percent to 20 percent, trials did not show that it reduces heart attacks or strokes, or that it reduces plaques in arteries that can lead to heart problems.


The trial by the drugs' makers, which studied whether Zetia could reduce the growth of plaques, found that plaques grew nearly twice as fast in patients taking Zetia along with Zocor (Vytorin) than in those taking Zocor alone. [xxi]


Of course, the answer is not to turn back to typical statin drugs to lower your cholesterol, as many of the so-called experts would have you believe.


You see, statins are thought to have a beneficial effect on inflammation in your body, thereby lowering your risk of heart attack and stroke.


But you can lower inflammation in your body naturally, without risking any of the numerous side effects of statin drugs. This should also explain why my guidelines for lowering cholesterol are identical to those to lower inflammation.


For more in-depth information about cholesterol-lowering drugs, please see my recently updated statin drug index page.


How to Lower Inflammation, and Thereby Your Risk of Heart Disease, Naturally


There is a major misconception that you must avoid foods like eggs and saturated fat to protect your heart. While it's true that fats from animal sources contain cholesterol, I've explained earlier in this article why this should not scare you -- but I'll explain even further here.


This misguided principle is based on the "lipid hypothesis" -- developed in the 1950s by nutrition pioneer Ancel Keys -- that linked dietary fat to coronary heart disease.


The nutrition community of that time completely accepted the hypothesis, and encouraged the public to cut out butter, red meat, animal fats, eggs, dairy and other "artery clogging" fats from their diets -- a radical change at that time.


What you may not know is that when Keys published his analysis that claimed to prove the link between dietary fats and coronary heart disease, he selectively analyzed information from only six countries to prove his correlation, rather than comparing all the data available at the time -- from 22 countries.


As a result of this "cherry-picked" data, government health organizations began bombarding the public with advice that has contributed to the diabetes and obesity epidemics going on today: eat a low-fat diet.


Not surprisingly, numerous studies have actually shown that Keys' theory was wrong and saturated fats are healthy, including these studies from Fallon and Enig's classic article The Skinny on Fats: [xxii]


A survey of South Carolina adults found no correlation of blood cholesterol levels with "bad" dietary habits, such as use of red meat, animal fats, fried foods, butter, eggs, whole milk, bacon, sausage and cheese. [xxiii]

A Medical Research Council survey showed that men eating butter ran half the risk of developing heart disease as those using margarine. [xxiv]

Of course, as Americans cut out nutritious animal fats from their diets, they were left hungry. So they began eating more processed grains, more vegetable oils, and more high-fructose corn syrup, all of which are nutritional disasters.


It is this latter type of diet that will eventually lead to increased inflammation, and therefore cholesterol, in your body. So don't let anyone scare you away from saturated fat anymore.


Chronic inflammation is actually caused by a laundry list of items such as:


-- Oxidized cholesterol (cholesterol that has gone rancid, such as that from overcooked, scrambled eggs)


-- Eating lots of sugar and grains


-- Eating foods cooked at high temperatures


-- Eating trans fats


-- A sedentary lifestyle


-- Smoking


-- Emotional stress


So to sum it all up, in order to lower your inflammation and cholesterol levels naturally, you must address the items on this list.


How to Lower Your Cholesterol Naturally...


1. Make sure you're getting plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega3-fats. I prefer those from krill oil. New research suggests that as little as 500 mg may lower your total cholesterol and triglycerides and will likely increase your HDL cholesterol.


2. Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your daily diet. It is especially important to eliminate dangerous sugars such as fructose. If your HDL/Cholesterol ratio is abnormal and needs to be improved it would also serve you well to virtually eliminate fruits from your diet, as that it also a source of fructose. Once your cholesterol improves you can gradually reintroduce it to levels that don't raise your cholesterol.


3. Eat the right foods for your nutritional type. You can learn your nutritional type by taking our FREE test.


4. Eat a good portion of your food raw.


5. Eat healthy, preferably raw, fats that correspond to your nutritional type. This includes:


-- Olive oil


-- Coconut and coconut oil


-- Organic raw dairy products (including butter, cream, sour cream, cheese, etc.)


-- Avocados


-- Raw nuts


-- Seeds


-- Eggs (lightly cooked with yolks intact or raw)


-- Organic, grass-fed meats


6. Get the right amount of exercise, especially Peak Fitness type of exercise. When you exercise you increase your circulation and the blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of fighting an illness before it has the opportunity to spread.


7. Avoid smoking and drinking excessive amounts of alcohol.


8. Address your emotional challenges. I particularly love the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) for stress management.


So there you have it; the reasons why high cholesterol is a worry that many of you simply do not need to have, along with a simple plan to optimize yours.


If someone you love is currently taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, I urge you to share this information with them as well, and take advantage of the thousands of free pages of information on www.Mercola.com.


For the majority of you reading this right now, there's no reason to risk your health with cholesterol-lowering drugs. With the plan I've just outlined, you'll achieve the cholesterol levels you were meant to have, along with the very welcome "side effects" of increased energy, mood and mental clarity.


Too good to be true?


Hardly.


For the vast majority of people, making a few lifestyle changes causes healthy cholesterol levels to naturally occur.


As always, your health really is in your hands. Now it's up to you to take control -- and shape it into something great.


Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder and director of Mercola.com. Become a fan of Dr. Mercola on Facebook, on Twitter and check out Dr. Mercola's report on sun exposure!

Fertility Boot Camp, October 2010

Ladies, learn all you need to know about fertility at Tiffani Kim Institute's Fertility Boot Camp at 310 W. Superior in Chicago. Saturday October 2nd, 2010 from 9-6, our panel of experts inculde leaders in the fields of acupuncture, reproductive endocrinology, nutrition, psychology, physical fitness, & psychology. $195 includes fertility-friendly lunch and snacks. One-stop shopping for all you need to know.  Sign-up at 312-260-9020.  Read more about it at http://www.fertilitybootcampchicago.com/

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Acupuncture proven to correct breech position

borrowed from  www.healthcmi.com

New research shows that acupuncture is an effective method for turning breech fetuses to the proper position for a healthy vaginal delivery. Five different randomized studies conducted by the Department of Fetal Medicine at Hautepierre Hospital in France demonstrate that needling acupuncture point UB67 (located on the 5th toe) is an effective means for turning a breech fetus. Another study published in Complementary Therapies in Medicine (which includes a lead researcher from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts) concludes that needling acupuncture point UB67 “reduces the number of breech presentations at term, thus, reducing the number of caesarean sections, and is cost effective compared to expectant management, including external cephalic version.” The latter study included stimulation with both acupuncture needles and moxibustion at acupoint UB67. Moxibustion is a technique used by acupuncturists to stimulate an acupoint with heat by burning a specially prepared mixture of the herb Ai Ye (mugwort) near the acupoint. The French study concludes that “acupuncture should be attempted in cases of breech presentation.”

The acupuncture treatment protocol for turning breech fetuses is over 1,000 years old. According to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), acupuncture and moxibustion at point UB67 (also known as Zhiyin, “Reaching Yin”) is used to treat breech fetuses, occipital & vertex headaches and prolonged or difficult labor. Acupuncture point UB67 is most renown for its importance in turning breech fetuses. In China, pregnant women with a breech position fetus are often instructed how to warm acupuncture point UB67 with a moxibustion stick as a home measure. Often, using acupuncture is not necessitated since the moxibustion may achieve the proper clinical results of a well positioned fetus.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Next radio interview

This Thursday, August 5th, I will be interviewed by Nicola Phoenix for her radio show on Spirit Quest Radio about my book "The Asian Diet".  You can see the promo here.
There is also a link to listen to the show, which will broadcast at 4pm Central time at http://www.spiritquestradio.comhttp://www.spiritquestradio.com/

Here is the write-up
Nicola Phoenix, The Spiritual Psychologist is joined by inspiring guest author and speaker Jason Bussell author of The Asian diet talking about the Eastern perspective of healthy eating, lifestyle and living stress free. Why do we have so much to learn from understanding Eastern perspectives and making small changes from these teachings can have a powerful effect on our lives. Join in with your questions and calls relating to diet, maintaining a healthy body and the best way to kick start a new way forward for the greatest health of your system.

Please tune in and listen if you can.


Jason

Cancer cells feed on fructose

Yet another reason to avoid the High Fructose Corn Syrup.  This article borrowed from http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802

Study shows fructose used differently from glucose
* Findings challenge common wisdom about sugars
WASHINGTON Aug 2 (Reuters) - Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.
Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.
They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.
"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.
"They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth."
Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose that is used in soft drinks, bread and a range of other foods.
Politicians, regulators, health experts and the industry have debated whether high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients have been helping make Americans fatter and less healthy.
Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.
Several states, including New York and California, have weighed a tax on sweetened soft drinks to defray the cost of treating obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
The American Beverage Association, whose members include Coca-Cola (KO.N) and Kraft Foods (KFT.N) have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda. [ID:nN12233126]
The industry has also argued that sugar is sugar.
Heaney said his team found otherwise. They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose.
Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote.
"I think this paper has a lot of public health implications. Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of high fructose corn syrup in our diets," Heaney said in a statement.
Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose.
U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Acupuncture for before and after embryo transfer

Use of acupuncture before and after embryo transfer

02 August 2010
By Nick Dalton-Brewer
Acupuncture at The Bridge Centre
Appeared in BioNews 569

Sarah Guy's bold statement 'acupuncture does not increase the chance of IVF success' is based on the conclusions of a study which is arguably flawed in many ways.
Good trial design is particularly important for acupuncture due to the nature of the therapy. The gold standard for drugs trials is double blinding. However, acupuncture is a procedure, not a pill. The Institute of Medicine considers the problems of designing acupuncture trials to be very similar to those of designing surgery trials. Sham acupuncture is a particularly thorny issue. A sham control should be physiologically inert.
There are different types of 'sham' or 'placebo' acupuncture. Some styles involve pressing on acupuncture points, essentially acupressure. Others involve superficial needle insertion, either on the same acupuncture points used in the trial, or on points considered to be non-acupuncture points. Another 'sham' technique is to provide acupuncture stimulation to points considered irrelevant to the aims of the intervention. However, since acupuncture modulates physiological activity, how would the authors know that those points would not affect the patient?
The fact is that stimulation of the skin and modulation of acupuncture points, even superficially, also modulates physiological activity. Expectancy and belief modulate the neuronal substrates of pain treated by acupuncture. Thus, sham acupuncture may not be inert, as So and colleagues (1) believe.
Three out of the four meta analyses published in 2008 found patients benefit from acupuncture when acupuncture is performed around embryo transfer (2). At the London Bridge Fertility, Gynaecology and Genetics Centre we demonstrated that acupuncture does improve pregnancy rates, as previously demonstrated by the review by Manheimer and colleagues (2008) (3).
Acupuncture is among the most popular complementary therapies and its use is both supported and encouraged by WHO as a simple, inexpensive and effective therapeutic option for certain conditions. There are several different forms of acupuncture in use worldwide. The use of acupuncture is claimed to be effective in treating or ameliorating the symptoms in a wide range of medical conditions. Traditional Chinese Acupuncture (TCA) has long been used to modulate the autonomic nervous system to increase relaxation and, more recently, to influence uterine receptivity in IVF patients. Several studies describe the use of various forms of acupuncture as an adjunct therapy in IVF treatment with some promising results. As a result of patient requests, Bridge has made acupuncture available to patients undergoing embryo transfer since 2006.
We conducted a retrospective review of the effect of acupuncture intervention, both before and after embryo transfer, on IVF treatment outcome in terms of chemical and clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer for treatments performed between Nov 2006 and Aug 2008.
Patients received TCA over a 40-minute period before and after embryo transfer to several acupoints. Pre-embryo Transfer Acupuncture (ETA) was delivered not more than one hour before embryo transfer, and post-ETA delivered not more than 20 minutes after embryo transfer. In both pre- and post-ETA treatments, ear acupuncture was applied to points to calm the mind and nervous system. During the pre-ETA treatment, body TCA was applied to acupoints to stimulate the channels of the spleen, stomach, liver, pericardium and governing vessel. Post-ETA treatment, body acupuncture was applied to the spleen, stomach and large intestine channels. All body acupoints were stimulated five times at five-minute intervals.
65 patients underwent 70 cycles of IVF involving acupuncture before and after embryo transfer. Outcomes were compared with 70 cycles of IVF involving randomly selected age-matched controls. Overall, after ETA, positive pregnancy rates (PPR) and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) per embryo transfer compared well with a randomly-selected age-matched control group.
Acupuncture is a safe, adjunct therapy in IVF and results suggest that it may increase positive pregnancy rates when used before and after embryo transfer in agreement with a number of recent studies.  Pregnancy rates for women aged between 35 and 39 yrs and those over 40 years were more than 10 per cent better than control groups of the same ages, indicating the treatment may have more benefits for older women undergoing IVF.  No side effects or complications were experienced by women who received acupuncture, suggesting its application in IVF is safe and may be beneficial, particularly in older patients.
These preliminary data are encouraging, although a placebo effect cannot yet be ruled out. However, further trials involving older women to include additional objective measurements of the effect of acupuncture (such as ultrasound assessment of increased blood flow and changes in hormone levels) may help to distinguish a real effect from placebo and identify those patient groups most likely to benefit from acupuncture treatment.