Grains Contain Anti-Nutrients

In the United States, we're told that grains (especially whole grains) are an important part of a balanced diet, necessary for obtaining our daily requirement of healthy nutrients and fiber.

However, according to a growing number of experts, including Dr. Loren Cordain, a professor at Colorado State University and an expert on Paleolithic lifestyles, humans are NOT designed to eat grains, and doing so may actually be damaging to your gut.

Dr. Cordain explains:

"There's no human requirement for grains. That's the problem with the USDA recommendations. They think we're hardwired as a species to eat grains. You can get by just fine and meet every single nutrient requirement that humans have without eating grains. And grains are absolutely poor sources of vitamins and minerals compared to fruits and vegetables and meat and fish."

Ironically, since we're often told that whole grains are the best for our health, the high-fiber bran portion of grain – a key part that makes it a whole grain -- actually contains many of the anti-nutrients.But the problem isn't only that there are superior sources of nutrients; grains actually contain anti-nutrients that may damage your health. Dr. Cordain states:

"Grains are the seeds of a plant. They're its reproductive material, and plants don't make their reproductive material to give away for free to other animals. If they did they'd become extinct, and so the evolutionary strategy that many plants, particularly cereal grains have taken to prevent predation is to evolve toxic compounds so that the predator of the seeds can't eat them, so that they can put their seeds in the soil where they're meant to be to grow a new plant and not in the gut of an animal to feed it."

Grains -- Especially Whole Grains -- Increase Intestinal Permeability

There is a growing body of scientific evidence showing that grains, as well as legumes, contain anti-nutrients and other problem substances that may increase intestinal permeability. This includes:

Gliadin

Gliadin is the primary immunotoxic protein found in wheat gluten and is among the most damaging to your health.  Gliadin gives wheat bread its doughy texture and is capable of increasing the production of the intestinal protein zonulin, which in turn opens up gaps in the normally tight junctures between intestinal cells (enterocytes).

In celiac disease the body will make antibodies to gliadin after it is digested by the intestinal enzyme tissue transglutaminase, resulting in severe autoimmune damage to the delicate, absorptive surfaces of the intestines. It does not, however, require full blown celiac disease to suffer from the adverse effects of this protein. In fact, it is likely that our intolerance to gliadin and related wheat proteins is a species-specific intolerance, applicable to all humans, with the difference being a matter of the degree to which it causes harm. 

This helps to explain why new research clearly shows gliadin increases intestinal permeability in both those with, and thosewithout, celiac disease.

Lectins

Lectins are a key mechanism through which plants protect themselves against being eaten, and are found in highest concentrations in their seed form -- which makes sense, considering that seeds are the plants'  "babies" and whose survival ensures the continuation of their species.

When animals consume foods containing lectins, they may experience digestive irritation, along with a wide range of other health complaints. The degree to which the adverse effects are expressed depends largely on how long that species has had to co-evolve with that particular form of plant food it is eating.  Since humans have only been consuming unsprouted grains and beans in large amounts for approximately 500 generations, we still suffer far more than certain rodents and birds, who have had thousands of generations longer to adapt to this way of eating.

We are mostly exposed to lectins from grains, beans, dairy products and nightshade plants, such as potato, tomato, and chili peppers. However, bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) has a prominent role to play in lectin-induced adverse effects, due to the fact that it is a relatively new form of wheat, and contains wheat germ agglutinin (WGA) – a particularly resilient and problematic lectin, considering it is not eliminated through sprouting and is actually found in higher concentrations in whole wheat.

Studies indicate that it has the potential to contribute to a wide range of adverse health effects, including gut inflammation and damage to your gastrointestinal tract:

Pro-inflammatory--WGA stimulates the synthesis of pro-inflammatory chemical messengers (cytokines) in intestinal and immune cells, and has been shown to play acausative role in chronic thin gut inflammation.	Immunotoxicity--WGA induces thymus atrophy in rats , and anti-WGA antibodies in human blood have been shown to cross-react with other proteins, indicating that they may contribute to autoimmunity . In fact, WGA appears to play a role in celiac disease (CD) that is entirely distinct from that of gluten, due to significantly higher levels of IgG and IgAantibodies against WGA found in patients with CD, when compared with patients with other intestinal disorders.
Neurotoxicity-- WGA can cross your blood-brain barrier through a process called "adsorptive endocytosis," pulling other substances with it. WGA may attach to your myelin sheath and is capable of inhibiting nerve growth factor, which is important for the growth, maintenance, and survival of certain target neurons.	Excitotoxicity-- Wheat, dairy, and soy contain exceptionally high levels of glutamic and aspartic acid, which makes them all potentially excitotoxic.  Excitotoxicity is a pathological process where glutamic and aspartic acid cause an over-activation of your nerve cell receptors, which can lead to calcium-induced nerve and brain injury. These two amino acids may contribute to neurodegenerative conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, Huntington's disease, and other nervous system disorders such as epilepsy, ADD/ADHD and migraines.
Cytotoxicity—WGA has been demonstrated to be cytotoxic to both normal and cancerous cell lines, capable of inducing either cell cycle arrest or programmed cell death (apoptosis).	Disrupts Endocrine Function—WGA may contribute to weight gain, insulin resistance, and leptin resistance by blocking the leptin receptor in your hypothalamus. It also binds to both benign and malignant thyroid nodules , and interferes with the production of secretin from your pancreas, which can lead to digestive problems and pancreatic hypertrophy.
Cardiotoxicity—WGA has a potent, disruptive effect on platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1, which plays a key role in tissue regeneration and safely removing neutrophils from your blood vessels.	Adversely Affects Gastrointestinal Functionby causing increased shedding of the intestinal brush border membrane, reducing the surface area, and accelerating cell loss and shortening of villi. It also causes cytoskeleton degradation in intestinal cells, contributing to cell death and increased turnover, and decreases levels of heat shock proteins in gut epithelial cells, leaving them more vulnerable to damage.

As we noted earlier, the highest amounts of WGA is found in whole wheat, including its sprouted form, which is touted as being the most healthful form of all ... The traditional ways of addressing many of these anti-nutrients is, in fact, by sprouting, fermenting and cooking. However, lectins are designed to withstand degradation through a wide range of pH and temperatures. WGA lectin is particularly tough because it's actually formed by the same disulfide bonds that give strength and resilience to vulcanized rubber and human hair.

New Report Warns of the Sugar in Cereals Marketed to Kids

One of the most common ways we consume grains is in the form of cereal, many of which are marketed to kids and adults alike as "health foods." But cereal is anything but healthy, not only because of the grain it contains but also because many (particularly those for kids) contain excessive amounts of sugar.

A new report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) revealed that many popular children's cereal brands contain more sugar than snack cakes and cookies. For instance, one cup of Kellogg's Honey Smacks, which is nearly 56 percent sugar by weight, has more sugar than a Twinkie, while a one-cup serving of 44 other children's cereals analyzed contain more sugar than three Chips Ahoy! cookies.

If you need a recap of why sugar is a health disaster, you can find one here. However, as it pertains to leaky gut, you should know that sugar, like grains, can upset the balance of bacteria in your digestive tract, encouraging damage to your intestinal lining that can lead to leaky gut. So, sugary children's cereals are a double-edged sword, assaulting your fragile gastrointestinal tract with both damaging sugar and grains. Please do your kids a great favor and offer them a healthier breakfast instead.

Are Grains Causing Your Leaky Gut Symptoms? This Food is the "Antidote"

As you might suspect, leaky gut can cause digestive symptoms such as bloating, gas and abdominal cramps, but it can also cause or contribute to many others you may not, such as fatigue, skin rashes, joint pain, allergies, psychological symptoms, autism and more.

It's a vicious cycle because once your digestive tract has been damaged, it allows various gut contents to flood into your bloodstream where they wreak havoc on your health. The key to preventing this lies in altering your diet to eliminate the offending foods -- including sugars and grains -- as well as introduce healthier ones that will support a proper balance of bacteria in your gut. To restore gut health, and prevent leaky gut from occurring, eating traditionally fermented foods is essential.

Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride explains:

"Fermented foods are essential to introduce, as they provide probiotic microbes in the best possible form … fermented foods will carry probiotic microbes all away down to the end of the digestive system. Fermentation predigests the food, making it easy for our digestive systems to handle, that is why fermented foods are easily digested by people with damaged gut. Fermentation releases nutrients from the food, making them more bio-available for the body: for example sauerkraut contains 20 times more bio-available vitamin C than fresh cabbage."

On Dr. Campbell-McBride's web site you can find recipes for many traditionally fermented foods, including sauerkraut, yogurt, kefir, kvass and more.

If you regularly eat fermented foods such as these that have not been pasteurized (pasteurization kills the naturally occurring probiotics), your healthy gut bacteria will thrive. If these foods do not make a regular appearance in your diet, or you've recently taken antibiotics, a high-quality probiotic supplement will help give your gut bacteria the healthy boost it needs. Once your gut flora is optimized, your leaky gut should improve naturally. As Dr. Cordain explains:

" … when we have a healthy flora of bacteria in our gut, it tends to prevent leaky gut."

Is a Return to the Paleo Diet Right for You?

During the Paleolithic period, many thousands of years ago, people ate primarily vegetables, fruit, nuts, roots and meat—and a wide variety of it. Today, these staples have been largely replaced with refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, cereal, bread, potatoes and pasteurized milk products… and a much narrower selection of fruits, vegetables, roots and nuts.

This is precisely the recipe for a leaky gut, and all of its associated health problems, which is why simply returning to a Paelo diet by eating foods that are concordant with your genetic ancestry may help you become healthier. This includes focusing on whole, unprocessed foods including vegetables (except corn and potatoes) and free-range organic meats, while avoiding sugars and grains.

As Dr. Cordain states:

"The nutritional qualities of modern processed foods and foods introduced during the Neolithic period are discordant with our ancient and conservative genome. This genetic discordance ultimately manifests itself as various chronic illnesses, which have been dubbed "diseases of civilization." By severely reducing or eliminating these foods and replacing them with a more healthful cuisine, possessing nutrient qualities more in line with the foods our ancestors consumed, it is possible to improve health and reduce the risk of chronic disease."

For Neck Pain, Chiropractic and Exercise Are Better Than Drugs

Seeing a chiropractor or engaging in light exercise relieves neck pain more effectively than relying on pain medication, new research shows.

The new study is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of various treatments for neck pain, a problem that affects three quarters of Americans at some point in their lives but has no proven, first-line treatment. While many people seek out spinal manipulation by chiropractors, the evidence supporting its usefulness has been limited at best.

But the new research, published in The Annals of Internal Medicine, found that chiropractic care or simple exercises done at home were better at reducing pain than taking medications like aspirin, ibuprofen or narcotics.

“These changes were diminished over time, but they were still present,” said Dr. Gert Bronfort, an author of the study and research professor at Northwestern Health Sciences University in Minnesota. “Even a year later, there were differences between the spinal manipulation and medication groups.”

Moderate and acute neck pain is one of the most frequent reasons for trips to primary care doctors, prompting millions of visits every year. For patients, it can be a difficult problem to navigate. In some cases the pain and stiffness crop up without explanation, and treatment options are varied. Physical therapy, pain medication and spinal manipulation are popular options, but Dr. Bronfort was inspired to carry out an analysis because so little research exists.

“There was a void in the scientific literature in terms of what the most helpful treatments are,” he said.

To find out, Dr. Bronfort and his colleagues recruited a large group of adults with neck pain that had no known specific cause. The subjects, 272 in all, were mostly recruited from a large HMO and through advertisements. The researchers then split them into three groups and followed them for about three months.

One group was assigned to visit a chiropractor for roughly 20-minute sessions throughout the course of the study, making an average of 15 visits. A second group was assigned to take common pain relievers like acetaminophen and — in some cases, at the discretion of a doctor — stronger drugs like narcotics and muscle relaxants. The third group met on two occasions with physical therapists who gave them instructions on simple, gentle exercises for the neck that they could do at home. They were encouraged to do 5 to 10 repetitions of each exercise up to eight times a day. (A demonstration of the exercises can be found at www.annals.org).

After 12 weeks, the people in the non-medication groups did significantly better than those taking the drugs. About 57 percent of those who met with chiropractors and 48 percent who did the exercises reported at least a 75 percent reduction in pain, compared to 33 percent of the people in the medication group.

A year later, when the researchers checked back in, 53 percent of the subjects who had received spinal manipulation still reported at least a 75 percent reduction in pain, similar to the exercise group. That compared to just a 38 percent pain reduction among those who had been taking medication.

Dr. Bronfort said it was a “big surprise” to see that the home exercises were about as effective as the chiropractic sessions. “We hadn’t expected that they would be that close,” he said. “But I guess that’s good news for patients.”

In addition to their limited pain relief, the medications had at least one other downside: people kept taking them. “The people in the medication group kept on using a higher amount of medication more frequently throughout the follow-up period, up to a year later,” Dr. Bronfort said. “If you’re taking medication over a long time, then we’re running into more systemic side effects like gastrointestinal problems.”

He also expressed concern that those on medications were not as empowered or active in their own care as those in the other groups. “We think it’s important that patients are enabled to deal with as much control over their own condition as possible,” he said. “This study shows that they can play a large role in their own care.”

High Fat Low Carb

High Fat diets are good for you. Just ditch the carbs.

Junk food really DOES mess with your brain! Research shows trans fats causes brain damage

Not only does it rot your teeth and add inches to your waistline, but now researchers have discovered that junk food actually hurts your brain.

By consuming trans fats, found often in fried or processed food, the chemicals send mixed and damaging signals to the brain and lessens its ability to control appetite.

Essentially, by eating junk food, your brain becomes less and less able to tell what you have eaten and continues to make you fee as if you are hungry so that you proceed to eat more.

It's clear that trans fats are bad -- both for your heart and now, we see, for your brain,' said Dr Gene Bowman of Oregon Health & Science University.

Given the somewhat complicated nature of trans fats, it is harder for shoppers to spot goods that contain loads of the molecule. Trans fat is the common name for unsaturated fats which are harder for the body to digest given its double carbon-carbon bond.

Brain injury comes as the latest addition to a long list of health problems that stem from the consumption of unsaturated fat. Coronary heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity and diabetes.

The battle against trans fats is not a new one.

While restaurants in New York and Switzerland have been banned from serving dishes that have high levels of trans fats, there are still plenty of everyday foods that are stealthily hiding the destructive ingredients.

Cinnabon rolls, Girl Scout cookies, microwavable popcorn, and crackers- like Saltines and Ritz- are some of the worst offenders, and that's ignoring the obvious choices like French fries or fried chicken.

Though Mr Bowman conducted a relatively limited study among elderly white Oregonians, his findings have been backed up by countless earlier studies that highlight the difference between the yummy taste and disgusting after-effects of junk food.

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."