Low-Carbohydrate Diets More Successful Than Standard Dieting

• Intermittent, low-carbohydrate diets were superior in lowering blood levels of insulin, which can lead to cancer.
• Low-carbohydrate diet two days per week resulted in greater weight loss than standard daily dieting.

SAN ANTONIO — An intermittent, low-carbohydrate diet was superior to a standard, daily calorie-restricted diet for reducing weight and lowering blood levels of insulin, a cancer-promoting hormone, according to recent findings.

Researchers at Genesis Prevention Center at University Hospital in South Manchester, England, found that restricting carbohydrates two days per week may be a better dietary approach than a standard, daily calorie-restricted diet for preventing breast cancer and other diseases, but they said further study is needed.

“Weight loss and reduced insulin levels are required for breast cancer prevention, but [these levels] are difficult to achieve and maintain with conventional dietary approaches,” said Michelle Harvie, Ph.D., SRD, a research dietician at the Genesis Prevention Center, who presented the findings at the 2011 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, held Dec. 6-10, 2011.

Harvie and her colleagues compared three diets during four months for effects on weight loss and blood markers of breast cancer risk among 115 women with a family history of breast cancer. They randomly assigned patients to one of the following diets: a calorie-restricted, low-carbohydrate diet for two days per week; an “ad lib” low-carbohydrate diet in which patients were permitted to eat unlimited protein and healthy fats, such as lean meats, olives and nuts, also for two days per week; and a standard, calorie-restricted daily Mediterranean diet for seven days per week.

Data revealed that both intermittent, low-carbohydrate diets were superior to the standard, daily Mediterranean diet in reducing weight, body fat and insulin resistance. Mean reduction in weight and body fat was roughly 4 kilograms (about 9 pounds) with the intermittent approaches compared with 2.4 kilograms (about 5 pounds) with the standard dietary approach. Insulin resistance reduced by 22 percent with the restricted low-carbohydrate diet and by 14 percent with the “ad lib” low-carbohydrate diet compared with 4 percent with the standard Mediterranean diet.

“It is interesting that the diet that only restricts carbohydrates but allows protein and fats is as effective as the calorie-restricted, low-carbohydrate diet,” Harvie said.

Dietitians Are Buying Coke’s Line: Sugar, Fluoride, Artificial Colors are SAFE for Children!

The credentialing arm of the American Dietetic Association, the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR), has approved a program created by the The Coca-Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness.This covers what it calls “urban myths” about the safety of food ingredients. Participating in this program will earn registered dietitians Continuing Professional Education unit credits.

“Children’s Dietary Recommendations: When Urban Myths, Opinions, Parental Perceptions & Evidence Collide,” tells dietitians that fluoride, sugar, artificial colors and nonnutritive sweeteners have been “carefully examined for their effects on children’s health, growth, and development.” The presenter, Dr. Ronald Kleinman, “explores prevalent misconceptions about these food ingredients” and suggests ways the dietitian can help quell unnecessary “concern among parents about their children’s health.”

At first glance, Dr. Kleinman should know what he is talking about. He is physician-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, chief of the Pediatric Gastrointestinal and Nutrition Unit, and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. Couldn’t sound better, could it? But he has also received a great deal of money from industry sources—like artificial infant formula manufacturers Mead Johnson and Nestle Ltd. His study on optimal duration of breastfeeding was funded by Gerber Products. He also served as a paid expert witness for Gerber when they were sued for deceptive advertising. And he contributed to a brochure intended for children entitled “Variety’s Mountain” produced by the Sugar Association.

Now he’s being sponsored by the Coca-Cola Company and telling dietitians that the ingredients in Coke which everyone is alarmed about are safe. The dietitians, in turn, will be telling parents that their fears are unfounded, and Coke can sell more Coke to kids.

Program materials include gems like “[a] majority of studies so far have not found a link between sugar and behavior in children generally or children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” This is certainly news to us, since we have seen many studies that say the opposite. Apparently the dietitians are to teach us that any connection between artificial colors and neurotoxicity, or fears of the dangers of fluoride, are imaginary and come from hysterical (or at least unduly concerned) parents.

As we reported recently, sugar and artificial sweeteners are anything but safe. Fluoride poses a significant risk to the kidneys. And commonly used food dyes pose risks which include hyperactivity in children, cancer (in animal studies), and allergic reactions. Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an organization that supports nuking food, agrees with this. And the British government and European Union have taken actions that are virtually ending the use of dyes throughout Europe.

The ADA is sponsored by the soda and junk food industries—which we feel greatly tarnishes the organization’s credibility. And you may recall that the ADA has mounted a state-by-state campaign to make sure that its Commission is the only one which will be accepted as a credentialing body for both registered dietitians and nutritionists.

There are, of course, significant philosophical differences between nutritionists and dietitians—they represent two different fields of study and practice. By accepting only a single credentialing agency—one run by the dietitians, not nutritionists—state boards are establishing a “one-size-fits-all” standard which removes all competition, essentially handing the ADA a government mandated monopoly over nutritional therapy.

Unfortunately, the Nevada bill we told you about last month passed both the Assembly and the Senate and was signed by the governor on June 5th. While some amendments were made, the most troubling parts of the bill still remain: only registered dietitians can practice “dietetics,” which is defined by the law to include nutrition assessment, evaluation, diagnosis, counseling, intervention, monitoring and treatment—everything that a good nutritionist does and should do.

We also told you about an ADA bill in New York, S.3556. The state’s Senate Finance Committee met on June 13 and decided to pass the bill to the Rules Committee so that it could be considered on the Senate floor. They are trying to rush these bills through, because next week the Assembly is scheduled to finish its work for the year, unless the chair calls a special session in the fall. Please click on our New York Action Alert here.

The ADA’s power grab is a complete travesty. We will keep fighting it state by state until we restore competition in nutritional counseling and stop gagging PhD-trained nutritionists who don’t become dietitians.

Dr. Green says:  Yesterday I posted about Vitamin D being involved with chronic pain.  Today, here is more about this important nutrient.

Vitamin D is essential for much more that just building bones and teeth. In addition to enabling normal mineralization and health of the skeleton, Vitamin D helps the body do a number of things including:


• Assists in cell growth
• Aids neuromuscular function
• Reduces inflammation
• Reduces the risk of breast cancer in women
• Boosts your immune system




Additionally, Vitamin D helps to prevent the following medical issues:
• Osteoporosis
• Multiple Sclerosis and other autoimmune conditions
• Rickets in children
• Osteomalacia in adults


Considering the numerous health issues it is linked to, getting too little vitamin D will cause your body to will operate far below its potential.


In the world of pain and chiropractic, one of those in particular is of interest to us: inflammation reduction. 


When you injure yourself, your body has a natural healing process that begins with the acute healing phase. 


During the acute phase, your body ships specialized cells into the area to clean up the debris and damage and set the stage for new healthy growth. As the vascular permeability increases to allow the needed chemicals in, up to 10x the blood volume comes to that area and swelling occurs. Through the healing process, the swelling should reduce back to its pre-injury size. 


You can assist your body in decreasing the swelling with rest, ice, compression, elevation (RICE), soft tissue massage toward the body’s core, and by consuming foods that have anti-inflammatory effects. Vegetables consistently have anti-inflammatory properties as well as some spices and foods high in Vitamin D!


How much to consume? 


Researchers have found many people to have low levels of this essential vitamin, and a deficiency in vitamin D is not something you want to have. 


As of November 2010, the recommended baseline vitamin D intake for those over 70 is 800 International Units per day to stay healthy. 


Those under 70 years old should take 400 IU per day with an upper limit of 4,000 IU per day, kids between 4 and 8 years should take in up to 3,000 IU per day, and children 1 to 3 years should not have more than 2,500 IU per day.


So how do you get enough? 


The Institute of Medicine set a recommended dietary allowance for vitamin D from a combination of diet, supplements, and sun exposure. The best source of natural vitamin D is sunlight (Fine by me!!). Just 10 to 15 minutes of exposure without sunscreen each day usually gives you enough. 


Know, though, that because of the melanin in dark skinned people, it is more difficult to produce vitamin D up to 90 percent. Also, during Norway Winters, it's hard to get enough Vitamin D.  You many have to supplement.


 It is also naturally found in butter, eggs, salmon (Yay!), cod, mackerel, fish liver oils and added to fortified foods such as milk, orange juice, and cereal.


More on Vit D coming soon.

Salt is A-OKAY!

Dr Green says: Anyone with a basic knowledge of human physiology knows if you eat too much salt, you urinate it out.  Eat a lot of cholesterol and your body simply makes less.  The advice you get from the government via tv, radio and print is designed to do only one thing: MAKE MEDICAL COMPANIES RICH!  

Want to get sick and lose all your money?  Just keep following government medical advice. 

New Research Calls Salt Guidelines Into Question

Study Suggests Reducing Sodium May Increase Unhealthy Blood Fats; Critics Say Study Is Flawed

By Brenda Goodman, MA
WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

Nov. 9, 2011 -- Everyone knows that too much salt is bad for you, right? Well, according to new research, not everyone is convinced.

Reducing dietary sodium (salt) helps lower blood pressure a little, but it also may increase levels of some hormones and unhealthy blood fats, a new review of studies shows.

Researchers say that means cutting back on sodium may not have a substantial health benefit.

But critics say the review draws faulty conclusions because it relies on too many small, short-term studies. They say the weight of research evidence shows clear health benefits when people cut back on sodium.

The review is an analysis of data from more than 167 studies of people with normal or high blood pressure who were randomly assigned to eat either high- or low-sodium diets.

It found that eating less than 2,800 milligrams of sodium a day helped lower blood pressure. But the reductions were small -- an average of 1% for people who had normal blood pressure to begin with and 3.5% for people with high blood pressure.

But cutting back on salt appeared to have other effects, too.

People on lower-sodium diets had an average 2.5% increase in cholesterol and a 7% increase in bad blood fats called triglycerides compared to people who were eating more than 3,450 milligrams of sodium -- an amount that's close to what the CDC says the average American eats every day.

Higher cholesterol and triglyceride levels are thought to be associated with an increased risk of heart disease, which can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

Researchers say it's not clear why cutting back on sodium may affect blood fats.

Lower-sodium diets also boosted levels of the hormones renin and aldosterone, which can raise blood pressure. Researchers say that may be one reason that slashing salt from the diet has only modest effects on blood pressure.

"The theory that you can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by reducing salt intake and thereby blood pressure is tempting. But our study shows that the effect of reduced salt intake on blood pressure in healthy persons is only 1%," says study researcher Niels A. Graudal, MD, DrMedSci, in an email to WebMD.

"Furthermore, reduced salt intake leads to an increase in lipids [blood fats], which is bigger than the reducing effect on blood pressure. Therefore it is likely that reduced salt intake does not have a beneficial effect. On the contrary the net effect may be harmful," says Graudal, who is a senior consultant in the departments of rheumatology and internal medicine at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark.

The study is published in the American Journal of Hypertension.

Vitamin D And Your Pain

It might not surprise you to hear that I've treated a lot of low back pain in my practice, but what might surprise you is that a vitamin deficiency might be contributing to the pain that many people experience.  


A recent study out of Canada looked at patients who had chronic back pain and found that there was a significant rate of vitamin D depletion in these patients.  When given Vitamin D supplementation patient showed improvement in reported pain levels.


Who is deficient is Vitamin D?


It is estimated that 60% of people are  deficient in vitamin D.  


Why is this?  


Vitamin D is obtained from two sources: the sun and food.  
Because we are spending more time indoors and in the Winter there isn't much sun, people are not getting exposed to the sunshine and therefore not getting vitamin D.   


As far as food sources go, the good news is that fish is one of the best sources of vitamin D and most Norwegians consume fish on a regular basis but it still might not be enough.


Are you deficient?


Most people don’t know if they are vitamin D deficient.  You can obtain a blood test that will test your levels of vitamin D.  You can ask your medical doctor about this test next time you see them or your next physical.


What can you do?


You might considering increasing your vitamin D intake.  Prevention is better than cure.  As we get more into the winter it is going to be harder to get outside and more of our bodies will be covered preventing sun exposure.   Vitamin D can easily be obtain in food and supplement form.   You need to supplement for a couple of months in order to feel any difference.  Vit D is fat soluble so it takes time to build up in the body.


For a list of foods with the highest levels of vitamin D click HERE.  


If you don’t find yourself eating many of the foods on the vitamin D list you can get vitamin D through supplementation.  Vitamin D3 has been found to be the most beneficial.  
Most of the studies done on vitamin and pain have looked at lower back pain, but it would stand to reason that if you have other pains such as neck, upper back and shoulder pain that vitamin D might also help.  There are numerous benefits from getting a healthy dose of vitamin D and very few risks if taken appropriately.

Many dieters 'finish up heavier'

Dieting is unlikely to lead to long-term weight loss and may put a person's health at risk, a study says.


US researchers found people typically lose between 5% and 10% of their weight during the first six months of a diet.


But the review of 31 previous studies, by the University of California, said up to two-thirds put more weight on than they had lost within five years.


Repeatedly losing and gaining weight is linked to heart disease and stroke, the American Psychologist journal reported.

Keeping weight off is a life-long challenge  Dr Ian Campbell, of Weight Concern

Lead researcher Traci Mann said: "We found that the majority of people regained all the weight, plus more.
"Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the majority of people.
"We concluded most of them would have been better off not going on the diet at all.
"Their weight would have been pretty much the same, and their bodies would not suffer the wear and tear of losing weight and gaining it all back."
And she added some diet studies relied on participants to report their weight rather than having it measured by an impartial source while others had low follow-up rates which made their results unrepresentative.


Diets
She said this might make diets seem more effective than they really were as those who gained weight might be less likely to take part in the follow-ups.
In one study, 50% of dieters weighed more than 4.99kg (11lbs) over their starting weight five years after the diet.
The study did not name any diets in particular, but looked at a broad spectrum of approaches.
Professor Mann said in her opinion eating in moderation was a good idea for everybody as was regular exercise.
Dr Ian Campbell, medical director of Weight Concern, said too many people approached dieting as a short-term measure.
"Keeping weight off is a life-long challenge. It is just like heart disease or mental health problems, if you stop taking your medicine you can get worse.
"People who are overweight often don't have a balanced lifestyle and after losing weight too many stop keeping active or eating healthily."

Dirt Can Make You Happy

Submitted by Naomi Sachs on January 25, 2011 – 11:53 am

3 Comments

Many people, including me, talk about the restorative benefits of gardening and the reasons why it makes us feel good. Just being in nature is already therapeutic, but actively connecting with nature through gardening is value-added. And why is that? All sorts of reasons have been posited: It’s a meditative practice; it’s gentle exercise; it’s fun; it allows us to be nurturing and to connect with life on a fundamental level.

And some recent research has added another missing piece to the puzzle: It’s in the dirt. Or to be a little more specific, a strain of bacterium in soil, Mycobacterium vaccae, has been found to trigger the release of seratonin, which in turn elevates mood and decreases anxiety. And on top of that, this little bacterium has been found to improve cognitive function and possibly even treat cancer and other diseases. Which means that contact with soil, through gardening or other means, is beneficial.

How did this discovery come about? Mary O’Brien, an oncologist at Royal Marsden Hospital in London, first stumbled upon these findings while inoculating lung cancer patients with a strain of M. vaccae(pronounced “emm vah-kay”) to see if their symptoms improved. She noticed that in addition to fewer cancer symptoms, patients also demonstrated an improvement in emotional health, vitality, and even cognitive function.

Dr. Chris Lowry, at Bristol University, decided to explore O’Brien’s discovery. He hypothesized that the body’s immune response to the bacterium causes the brain to produce seratonin. Lack of seratonin is one symptom, or perhaps even cause, of depression. He injected mice with the M. vaccae and then observed both physiological and behavioral changes. He found that cytokine levels rose – cytokines are part of chain reaction, the end result of which is the release of seratonin. To test behavioral stress levels, Lowry put the mice into a miniature swimming pool, knowing that although stressed mice get even more stressed by swimming, unstressed mice actually enjoy it. And voila! His M. vaccae mice swam around like happy little ducklings.

Could M. vaccae be used as a sort of vaccination to treat depression? Possibly, and it is still being explored as a treatment for cancer, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. For a more detailed but still understandable summary, see this article in The Economist, “Bad is Good.”

More recently, Dorothy Matthews and Susan Jenks, at the Sage Colleges in Troy, NY tested the findings, again on mice, but this time by feeding the bacterium to them rather than injecting it. They fed the mice tiny peanut butter sandwiches with a little M. vaccae smeared on. Yummm.

Then they ran the mice through a difficult maze. Compared to those that did not ingest the bacterium, the M. vaccae mice “navigated the maze twice as fast and exhibited half of the anxiety behaviors.” Seratonin is also thought to play a role in learning, so it may have helped the mice not just by making them less anxious but by facilitating greater concentration. Once the bacterium was removed from their diet, they continued to perform better than the control group for about three weeks. As the bacterium left their system, the superhero effects tapered off and by the third week, the difference was no longer statistically significant.

This research is important because it indicates that the bacterium can affect us through normal everyday contact and not just injection. “Gardeners inhale these bacteria while digging in the soil, but they also encounter M. vaccae in their vegetables or when soil enters a cut in their skin,” says Matthews. “From our study we can say that it is definitely good to be outdoors–it’s good to have contact with these organisms. It is interesting to speculate that creating learning environments in schools that include time in the outdoors where M. vaccae is present may decrease anxiety and improve the ability to learn new tasks.”

Matthews and Jenks shared their results at the 110th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in San Diego. For a more detailed summary of this research, see the Cosmos Magazinearticle, “How gardening could cure depression.”

Interestingly, with gardens and horticultural therapy in healthcare facilities, practitioners often use sterile soil, in which all bacteria has been removed, to reduce risk of infection. This has been thought to be particularly important in people with immune disorders like cancer and AIDS. But what if bacteria were found to have more of a benefit than a risk? Further research might change the types of soil that are specified for certain populations and activities.

In the meantime, gardeners have one more excuse to root around in the dirt, and parents and teachers have another incentive to let their kids play in the great outdoors.

Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review

This study considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism.

The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled"Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review." The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them.

Ratajczak's article states, in part, that "Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination[emphasis added]. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain."

The article goes on to discuss many potential vaccine-related culprits, including the increasing number of vaccines given in a short period of time. "What I have published is highly concentrated on hypersensitivity, Ratajczak told us in an interview, "the body's immune system being thrown out of balance."

University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising the government on vaccine safety says the prevailing medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy (brain damage), but not scientifically linked to autism. As for Ratajczak's review, he told us he doesn't find it remarkable. "This is a review of theories. Science is based on facts. To draw conclusions on effects of an exposure on people, you need data on people. The data on people do not support that there is a relationship. As such, any speculation about an explanation for a (non-existing) relationship is irrelevant."

Helen Ratajczak, author "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review."

Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.

Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: "Because it's human DNA and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual."

Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, "It does not matter...Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism." Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open.

A number of independent scientists have said they've been subjected to orchestrated campaigns to discredit them when their research exposed vaccine safety issues, especially if it veered into the topic of autism. We asked Ratajczak how she came to research the controversial topic. She told us that for years while working in the pharmaceutical industry, she was restricted as to what she was allowed to publish. "I'm retired now," she told CBS News. "I can write what I want."

We wanted to see if the CDC wished to challenge Ratajczak's review, since many government officials and scientists have implied that theories linking vaccines to autism have been disproven, and Ratajczak states that research shows otherwise. CDC officials told us that "comprehensive review by CDC...would take quite a bit of time." In the meantime, CDC provided these links:

Interagency Autism Coordination Committee: http://iacc.hhs.gov 

Overview of all CDC surveillance and epi work: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/research.html

CDC study on risk factors and causes: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/seed.html

+74% Failure Rate For Surgery - FAIL FAIL FAIL !!

Researchers reviewed records from 1,450 Low Back Pain patients. Half of the patients had surgery. The other half had no surgery.




After two years only 26 percent of those who had surgery had returned to work.


 That’s compared to 67 percent of patients who didn’t have surgery and did return to work. 


Even more shocking: there was a 41 percent increase in the use of narcotic painkillers in those who had surgery.


Surgery leads to heavy drug use.


“The study  provides clear evidence that fusion surgeries don’t work”, says the study’s lead author Dr. Trang Nguyen, a researcher at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.


 

Just a month after back surgery, Nancy Scatena was once again in excruciating pain. The medications her doctor prescribed barely took the edge off the unrelenting back aches and searing jolts down her left leg. “The pain just kept intensifying,” says the 52-year-old Scottsdale, Ariz., woman who suffers from spinal stenosis, a narrowing of the channel through which spinal nerves pass. 


“I was suicidal.”




Finally, Scatena made an appointment with another surgeon, one whom friends had called a “miracle worker.” The new doctor promised her that this second operation would fix everything, and in the pain-free weeks following an operation to fuse two of her vertebrae it seemed that he was right. But then the pain came roaring back.  


Surgery failed AGAIN!




Experts estimate that nearly 600,000 Americans opt for back operations each year. But for many like Scatena, surgery is just an empty promise, say pain management experts and some surgeons.




This new study in the journal Spine  shows that in many cases surgery can even backfire, leaving patients in more pain.

  


The study provides clear evidence that for many patients, fusion surgeries designed to alleviate pain from degenerating discs don’t work, says the study’s lead author Dr. Trang Nguyen, a researcher at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. 




27 Million Adults With Back Problems 




A recent report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a federal organization, found that in 2007, twenty-seven million adults reported back problems, with $30.3 billion spent on treatments to ease the pain. 


A big chunk pays for spine surgeries.




Complicated spine surgeries that involve fusing two or more vertebrae are on the rise. In just 15 years, there was an 800% jump in this type of failed operation, according to a study published in Spine in July. That has some surgeons and public health experts concerned. 



European Guidelines specifically states: 
"Surgery for non-specific Low Back Pain cannot be recommended unless 2 years of all other recommended conservative treatments have failed".


This study also re-confirms the findings of the UK BEAM Trial, published in the British Medical Journal in 2004.  Those authors stated:
"Manipulation, with or without exercise, improved symptoms more than best care (medical care) alone after three and 12 months. However, analysis of the cost utility of different strategies shows that manipulation alone probably gives better value for money than manipulation followed by exercise" (page 1381). 


Dr. Gary says: "This is what I've seen over and over again but surgeons recommend surgery every chance they get.  They are happy to take the money and leave the patient in pain and will charge again for another surgery and another.  Chiropractic is the best treatment for low back pain and this proves it."

Ten Snacks You Thought Were Healthy but Really Aren't

Bad news: Drenching your salad in fat-free dressing or eating granola by the handful isn't doing you any favors. The good news? We're here to bust some snacking myths—and provide you with truly healthy alternatives

Read More http://www.bonappetit.com/tipstools/slideshows/2011/08/10-unhealthy-foods#ixzz1VFgnuCLz

Health Impact II Study Finds Seniors Who Take Certain Dietary Supplements Live Longer, More Independent Lives

As the American population ages and U.S. healthcare costs skyrocket, taking certain dietary supplements could help seniors live independently longer, and offset healthcare expenditures by billions of dollars, a new study by The Lewin Group finds. 

The supplements studied—omega-3 fatty acids and lutein with zeaxanthin - have reported savings of $3.1 billion and $2.5 billion respectively over five years, resulting from reduced hospitalizations, physicians' visits and avoided transitions to dependency, the report shows.

"With healthcare costs for Americans 65 and older expected to reach $16 trillion by the year 2030, the need for innovative and preventative healthcare solutions is clearer than ever," said Elliott Balbert, DSEA president. "More than 187 million consumers rely on daily use of dietary supplements, and the supplement industry is pleased that this study reinforces the efficacy and health benefits of their usage."


Underscoring the important health and cost benefits of dietary supplements for U.S. seniors, members of Congress took one step closer to recognizing the role of dietary supplements in the health regimen of Americans when Congressman Chris Cannon (R-Utah) today announced the creation of a bipartisan caucus on dietary supplements, which he will co-chair with Congressman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). Cannon introduced H.R. 1545 earlier this year, which would allow supplement costs to be paid by Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).


"As more and more Americans start taking responsibility for their own health, it's important that the government acknowledge the positive impact dietary supplements have on disease prevention, and the substantial cost benefits to the healthcare system that result," said Cannon." Clearly, there's cause for additional research and sound public policy supporting these products, which greatly benefit American consumers and taxpayers alike."


The study's key findings centered upon how omega-3 fatty acids and lutein with zeaxanthin allow seniors to avoid common conditions such as coronary heart disease (CHD) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD), helping them live independently longer and reducing the level ofdisability associated with these conditions.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a qualified health claimfor omega-3 fatty acids, and another qualified health claim is currently pending for lutein. The FDA has acknowledged that consumers will benefit from more information on food labels concerning diet and health and this, in turn, has prompted the agency to establish interim procedures whereby qualified health claims can be made for dietary supplements. Health claims characterize a relationship between a substance (specific food component or a specific food) and a disease or health-related condition, and are supported by scientific evidence. All health claims must undergo review by FDA through a petition process.


The Lewin Group's analyses of existing research studied the health effects of the two supplements as they relate to reduction in risk of disease progression for adults over age 65. Using Congressional Budget Office cost accounting rules, Lewin calculated a conservative five-year savings estimate.