'Tis the Season

It’s that time of year when we start thinking about the health and well-being of ourselves and those we love. As one year ends and another begins, we think about what we’ve accomplished, what we still want to do, and what we need to change.

To help you achieve your goals, you may wish to purchase a PDF copy of my book Walking in Sunshine: LifeStyle Changes to Make for a Bright Healthy Future at this link:
http://www.anthrohealth.net/ahbook.htm

Learn how your individual biology, behavior, and the environment in which you live interact to affect your health and well being. Discover why: adaptations matter, walking is the best exercise, sunshine is necessary, proper diet = better health, natural parenting is effective parenting, and much more.

Walking in Sunshine includes the Flexibilities appendix: color photos and directions detailing each movement in the sequence of stretches that scientific research has shown will help you prevent heart attacks, strokes, and osteoarthritis. Feel and act younger, move more gracefully, lose the achiness. Get flexible and live longer. Flexibilities can also be purchased as a separate PDF copy at this link:
http://www.anthrohealth.net/ahflexbooklet.htm

Walking in Sunshine: LifeStyle Changes to Make for a Bright Healthy Future will help you and your loved ones improve your lives. In addition, a PDF copy is environmentally green. Better your lives while helping the environment.

‘Tis the Season! May you have a wonderful life full of health and well-being.

Gut Check

Over the past few weeks there has been a lot of media coverage on the new guidelines for mammograms and breast self exams. Analysis of scientific research indicates that mammograms can do more harm than good. This is not what anti-breast cancer crusaders like the Susan G. Komen Foundation want to hear. Women are worried and confused because they have been told that they must have mammograms to detect and prevent breast cancer. Now the scientists are saying that is not the case and that, in fact, they can be counter-productive.

For every women correctly diagnosed with cancer after a mammogram there are significantly more women who endure the trauma of a false positive reading. They have no disease but undergo what turn out to be needless breast biopsies where they run the risk of a lung puncture from a poorly-performed needle biopsy. Unless a woman has a family/genetic history of breast cancer, the odds of her getting it prior to age 70 are actually quite low.

No one wants to be the one to tell the average 40-year-old woman without a family history of breast cancer to stop getting mammograms and then find out 3 years later that she developed breast cancer. But, again, the odds of her developing it are low. The cancer foundations and some health professionals appear to be operating under the “better safe than sorry” mantra while ignoring the fact that false positives can also lead to a sorry situation.

In 2002, Gerd Gigerenzer, author of Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You, pointed out that the general public and many medical professionals do not really understand statistics. This lack of understanding leads them to judge inaccurately the actual risks and benefits of health screenings.

According to Gigerenzer, the vast majority of physicians who participated in the research described in his book cannot accurately determine risks and benefits when these are presented in the form of probabilities. (e.g. There is a 25% risk reduction in death from breast cancer with mammography.) Only when the results are presented in the form of natural frequencies do the risks and benefits become clear. (e.g. 1000 women got mammograms each year for 10 years and 1000 women did not. At the end of 10 years, 3 women in the first group and 4 women in the second group died of breast cancer.) If we and our physicians cannot accurately determine risks and benefits when they are presented as probabilities, we could be unnecessarily risking our health. How many of the 997 women who got mammograms each year for 10 years also had false positives during that time? How many experienced the trauma, pain, and potential negative outcomes of the additional testing required to rectify that false positive?

Rather than relying on mammograms (and other types of screenings) to safeguard their health, it would be better for women in their 40s and 50s to actively employ measures that we know can help prevent cancer. These measures include eating plenty of richly-colored fruits and vegetables; eliminating dairy and other saturated fats; getting plenty of exercise; sleeping around 8 hours each night; and taking a minimum supplement of 1000 IU/day of vitamin D3. More vitamin D supplementation may be required to get the blood levels of 25 OHD to the optimal level of 50 ng/mL.

By following these preventive measures all women, even those with a family history of breast cancer, will reduce their odds of developing the disease. And those without a family history will be able to ignore their guts and go with their brains in accepting the scientific data which states that we in the United States have been over-using mammograms. Look at the natural frequency data. Mammograms haven’t been as much help as we thought. Eat right, exercise, sleep well, and take vitamin D. That’s where the science is.

Eat for Health: A Review

Dr. Joel Fuhrman (Eat for Health) is one of the major proponents of a predominantly vegetarian diet he calls nutritarian. At first blush, his diet is very similar to that which I have long promoted: eat lots of fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts while eliminating dairy and grain-based foods. Dr. Fuhrman also allows very limited amounts of eggs, fish/shellfish, and poultry, but would essentially eliminate red meat. It is at the level of protein intake that Dr. Fuhrman and Dr. Fuller differ. Dr. Fuhrman wants proteins to be essentially vegetable-based, while Dr. Fuller knows that humans also need animal-based proteins.

Both of us recognize that humans are primates and that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives. Therefore, we both look to the chimpanzee diet for guidelines as to what our ancient ancestors ate. However, Dr. Fuhrman seems to conflate the diet of the gorilla with that of the chimpanzee. He also ignores a major difference we have with our fellow apes and the implication that has for human diets: our much larger brains.

Gorillas eat a lot of leafy vegetation; they are vegetarians. Chimps eat very little leafy vegetation. The major components of the chimp diet are fruits and nuts, but they also eat as much animal-based protein as they can find: ants, termites, eggs, monkeys, bush pigs, etc. Dr. Fuhrman combines the gorilla’s leafy diet with the chimp’s fruits and nuts and concludes that this is the proper diet for humans. In the wild, generally the only time chimps eat leaves is when they eat meat (except for certain unpalatable leaves eaten to remove intestinal parasites). Chimps and humans do not have the same ability that gorillas have to process large quantities of leafy vegetation through their guts.

Archaeological evidence shows that hominin (humans and their ancient ancestors) brains did not begin to enlarge until animal-based protein (primarily fish/shellfish and water fowl eggs) became a larger component of the diet. These foods are excellent sources of omega-3 fatty acids, necessary for proper brain growth, development, and function. Some plant-based foods such as tree nuts and flax seeds do provide omega-3 fatty acids, but research shows that these are not a good source: humans (and other mammals) cannot efficiently convert the plant-based fatty acids into the forms required for use in the brain. With the development of agriculture and an increasing reliance on plants in human diets, the size of human brains has actually decreased over the past 10,000 years.

In chapter 13 of Eat for Health, Dr. Fuhrman has an entire section inveighing against eating fish and shellfish because of mercury contamination. Mercury is a problem in large, long-lived fish. However, it is not a problem in shrimp and sardines, and other small, short-lived varieties. Is it worth relegating fish and shellfish to a very minor part of your diet if it also means that you are not providing your brain with enough omega-3 fatty acids?

Overall, Dr. Fuhrman’s book is full of good advice for those who are overweight and have chronic health problems. However, his nutritarian program is too close to that of a vegetarian/vegan if you want to have an optimally functioning brain. A few modifications will bring Dr. Fuhrman’s plan into line with Dr. Fuller’s Premier Nutrition Plan [http://www.anthrohealth.net/AHNews%20V6N7.htm]: a plan that keeps you healthy and brainy.

Flexibility for Life

When I was 32 I realized that I was not as flexible as I had once been. This disturbed me because at that time my grandmother was having increasing difficulty moving. Her shoulders were becoming stiff and inflexible. She needed a knee replacement. My grandmother was only 75. I loved her dearly, but I didn’t want to have the same problems with my body. From that point, I put together a series of joint movements I call Flexibilities; and I began doing them every morning when I first arose.

Over the next several weeks, I noticed that not only was I becoming more flexible, but I felt less achy and stiff when I awoke each morning. Doing the movements in the morning meant that I felt loose, alert, and ready for the day ahead. I walked a little taller with a bounce in my step.

Through the intervening years, I’ve continued to do the flexibilities each morning. On those days that for some reason I do not do the movements, I feel a little off. I’ve also found that if I do not do the flexibilities first thing in the morning, I am less likely to do them at all that day.

In addition to doing the joint movements, I do two other things to aid joint health. Each day with my breakfast (blueberries and bananas, tomato salsa omelet, and grapefruit juice) I take a vitamin D3 supplement. Vitamin D3 is vital for skeletal and muscle strength (and many other aspects of health). For lunch I eat water-packed sardines. Sardines are a super food: they are a great source of protein, calcium, vitamin D3, and omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids help reduce joint inflammation (along with many other benefits).

Following this program for over two decades, I have great flexibility, no signs of osteoarthritis, and good overall health. Two research studies provide support for my anecdotal experience.

The first, published about one year ago by UC San Diego researchers, found that flexing joints prompts chondrocytes (cartilage cells) to produce a lubricating substance that keeps the joint surfaces smooth. The more the joint was flexed, the greater the percentage of chondrocytes that produced lubrication, keeping the glassy surface of the joint smooth. Joints that are not flexed produce very little lubrication resulting in an erosion of the smooth cartilage and, eventually, the pain of osteoarthritis.

The second study was published earlier this month in the American Journal of Physiology. These researchers in Texas and Japan found that an individual’s degree of flexibility could be positively correlated with that individual’s degree of arterial flexibility. That is, the most flexible adults had the best arterial condition and the lowest risk for having a heart attack or stroke. Those adults with the greatest joint stiffness were at highest risk of suffering from a heart attack or stroke.

Do you want to live a longer, healthier life? Then you need to add daily flexibilities to your routine. If you would like a PDF copy (for $3.00) of my Flexibilities booklet which includes photos and directions for each movement, click here. http://www.anthrohealth.net/ahflexbooklet.htm

Genes are not Paint Pots: Part 2 Polygenic Traits

Articles on genetics make it seem that every trait is a single gene trait. Single gene traits are easier to understand and seem easier to manipulate. I imagine that most geneticists would be thrilled if all our traits were caused by single genes. Unfortunately for them, that is not the case. In fact, for most traits of interest multiple genes are involved. They are polygenic traits: the result of the interaction of multiple forms of multiple genes with the environment in which that individual and/or his/her ancestors live/lived. The proportion of genes to environment varies with each trait. In most cases, we really have no idea of the true proportion. Regardless, it is important to remember that these traits are not simple and, therefore, we are a long ways from being able to fully understand and manipulate them.

Polygenic traits exhibit continuous variation: there are no distinct boundaries between one form of the trait and another. Unlike the blood type example from the Part 1 blog [below] where one is either Type A or Type O, polygenic traits can seem like blends. Some examples of polygenic traits include: height, weight, intelligence, hair color, and eye color. Adults are not 5’, 5.5’, or 6’ tall with no heights between. Height is continuously distributed. Although we say a woman is blond or brunette, we know that the range of variation within each category is large. Another example of a polygenic trait is skin color.

Geneticists have spent years trying to figure out the genetics of human skin color. They’ve found genes that affect skin color, but they have not yet been able to fully explain the genetics that produce the variation we see. Nor can they confidently predict what color the offspring will be of parents with markedly different skin colors. If genes were paint pots, this should be easy to do. Take one very dark parent and one very light parent, and the offspring should be halfway between. Sometimes this looks to be the case, but the children can range in skin color from light to dark. There is no way to tell ahead of time. I know a couple where the wife has very dark skin color and black hair, while the husband has very light skin color and blond hair. One child has medium brown skin color and wavy brown hair while the other child has very light skin color and tightly curled blond hair.

Some geneticists have talked about parents choosing their baby’s traits. If traits were of the single gene variety this might barely be possible. But with polygenic traits, it is not going to happen. At least, not in the foreseeable future. If you look a great deal like your mate, your child may look a great deal like you. But it isn’t guaranteed. [See the Part 1 blog below.] If you and your mate are quite dissimilar in looks, each birth will be an unexpected mix of traits. Your child will not be a blend. Genes are not paint pots. And that is a great thing because we do not know what the future will bring. The more variation there is in your offspring, the better the chance that they will do well in that unknown future.

Genes are not Paint Pots: Part 1 Genetics and Genealogy

Even though everyone graduating from high school is supposed to have taken biology, there is still much that remains misunderstood among the general public about many topics in biology, including genetics. Mendel would be so disappointed.

Prior to Mendel’s research with pea plants in the mid-1800s, it was assumed by everyone that offspring were a blend of their parents’ traits. Mendel found that this assumption was false. Purebred tall pea plants crossed with purebred short pea plants did not produce medium-sized offspring. They produced tall offspring. Traits did not blend. The world changed! NOT! No one even paid any attention for about 50 years. And then, it was only a few scientists (who became geneticists) who really noticed.

To understand this better, let’s start with a simple Mendelian (single gene trait) example: ABO blood type. You get half of your chromosomes (23) from your mom and half (23) from your dad. Both sets of chromosomes have the same genes, BUT they may have different forms of those genes. In our example, your chromosome #9 from your mom contains the ABO blood type form O. The one from your dad is A. Your blood type is not a blend of O and A. It is A (because A is dominant over O). But your genotype is AO.

Now, it is years later and you are ready to have a child. Your mate is blood type O. That means your mate has a genotype of OO. Due to the randomness of meiosis (cell division that produces gametes: eggs or sperm), your gamete contains the O form from your mom. Your mate also provides an O, so your child will have blood type O and genotype OO. Not only is your dad’s gene for ABO not passed on to his grandchild child, neither are any of the nearby genes on that chromosome. And if your dad’s chromosome #9 did not undergo recombination during meiosis (exchanging material with the other chromosome #9s), all your dad’s genes on that chromosome are absent from his grandchild child. It is possible, although improbable, that your child contains chromosomes and genes ONLY from your mother. It is also possible, although improbable, that the only chromosome your child inherited from grandma is #9. There is no blending of the grandparents’ traits in the grandchild.

What this means is that in only two generations, traits can be lost from a family line. In our example, you know who your parents are, but it is possible that the traits of one of your parents will not be evident in your child, which is your parent’s grandchild. The big point? Genetics and Genealogy do not match.

Maybe you are really into genealogy and have a family tree dating back a couple of hundred years. You know who your ancestors are. But you decide it would be cool to have genetic testing done too. SHOCK!! According to the genetic testing, you do not have any Native American ancestry. But you know that your mom’s grandmother was Sioux. You have a picture of her! What gives?!
What gives is that since genes don’t blend, they can be lost to subsequent generations. Also, current genetic testing is only able to look at a subset of all your genes. Maybe your maternal grandma’s genes that you did inherit aren’t in that tested subset. Who knows?

Genetic information provides additional insights to your ancestry, but is not a substitute for genealogy. You need both types of information to fully understand your personal past.

Takeaway message: If you read an article, or see a show that states, “Based on genetic testing, there is no evidence that Population A is in the ancestry of Population B” remember that not all genes get passed down to all descendants, and that genetic testing only examines a subset of genes. Contrary to what that genetic test showed, it is quite possible that Population A is indeed in the ancestry of Population B. Genetics and Genealogy are different, complementary ways of knowing the past.

Brainercise

At ever-increasing rates, the population of the United States is becoming overweight and obese. There are two simple explanations for this: lack of exercise and too much high-calorie, low-nutrition food. These are obviously important factors. Exercise and a high-quality, properly-portioned diet need to be at the top of anyone’s weight-loss agenda. But these two factors may be related to two other interacting factors: learning and sleeping.

The brain uses about 20% of the body’s energy budget to maintain itself and to process information. When learning a new task, particularly a difficult one, the brain uses more energy. Once the task is learned, the energy level drops back to baseline. Researchers have found that the best way to consolidate learning, to put it into long-term memory, is to get a good night’s sleep.

Obtaining adequate levels of sleep has many beneficial outcomes. I’ve discussed this topic in some detail in an issue of AnthroHealth News: http://www.anthrohealth.net/AHNews%20V7N1.htm But in this blog I am bringing up a different benefit: weight loss. Researchers have found that individuals who obtain an adequate night’s sleep (around eight hours) are less likely to have weight problems. The reason given for this is that inadequate sleep and/or sleep disruption also disrupt the hormones that control appetite. If appetite is not suppressed, over-eating results.

This sounds reasonable, but I am proposing a different, additional connection. Too many Americans do not want to learn anything new, particularly if it is difficult. There is even an entire class of American citizens who are proud that they know very little. Charles P. Pierce’s Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free describes this group in disturbing detail.

Learning new, challenging things uses more energy and requires more sleep for the new thing to actually stick. Failure to really learn anything new (as opposed to the process of cramming and regurgitating where anything “learned” is quickly lost) puts no energy demands on the brain, so an individual thinks he/she needs less sleep. Less sleep results in hormone disruption leading to loss of appetite suppression and obesity.

Now, I am not saying that all individuals who are overweight or obese are failing to adequately exercise their brains. Each individual has his/her own complexity of factors involved in weight issues. However, it is a real shame that there are humans who, despite having a large brain capable of learning complex ideas and activities, choose not to bother to use their brains to their highest capacity. It is frightening that so many individuals actually take pride in this failure.

In conclusion, if you want to lose some weight, in addition to getting exercise and eating nutritious food, you might try exercising your brain and then getting a good night’s sleep. I recommend doing it every day. Not only will you have the joy of learning something new, but you also may lose some weight.

Let me know if it works for you.

[Bed in graphic is from SLMetalWorks.com.]

Seasonal Immunity

Labor Day has passed. Students should all be back to school now. The days are getting shorter. The leaves are beginning to change color. It is time to think about how to forestall illness.

Wow. What a downer, associating Autumn with illness; but, unfortunately, that’s the way it is. What’s the connection? Sunshine, or the lack thereof. More specifically, it is the reduction of UVB radiation striking the Earth as its angle relative to the Sun limits our exposure.

Now, what does reduced exposure to UVB radiation have to do with increased levels of illness? Isn’t UVB radiation a bad thing? As regular readers of my blog and newsletter know, no, UVB radiation is actually necessary to maintaining good health.

The cells of your immune system contain Vitamin D Receptors (VDR). This means that the optimal functioning of your immune system requires optimal levels of vitamin D in your blood. If your immune system is not optimized, you are more likely to become ill. Viruses and other pathogens will have relatively free rein in your body because your defense system is sub-par.

Unprotected skin exposed to UVB radiation activates the vitamin D system, increasing blood levels of vitamin D. However, numerous factors inhibit this natural system including: over-protection of the skin (see my blog “Dermatological Purdah”); dark pigmentation at high latitudes; old age; and life spent indoors. Current estimates are that the majority of Americans have sub-optimal levels of vitamin D and are, therefore, at high risk for having a sub-optimal immune system.

If Americans aren’t getting enough vitamin D the natural way, then they will have to use supplementation. The current US recommended levels are much too low to optimize vitamin D levels. Dr. Cannell, physician and vitamin D researcher living in California, recommends that children receive 1000 IU of vitamin D3/day for each 25 lbs of weight. He takes 5000 IU/day during the winter months. The minimum recommended dose for adults, according the Canadian Cancer Society, is 1000 IU/day, year-round. Dr. Vieth, Canadian vitamin D researcher, recommends a minimum daily dose of 4000 IU/day during the winter months.

As a child, teen, and young adult, I caught pretty much every pathogen that passed by me. It wasn’t until years later, when I began my research on vitamin D, that I realized that I suffered from sub-optimal levels of vitamin D. My two big fixes for the problem were to eat sardines every day and to move to Arizona. While this did work, after several years I ended up moving back to the Midwest to be near my family. The move resulted in having to tinker some with vitamin D supplementation to achieve optimization. What appears to work for me is this: every day I eat a can of sardines. In addition to providing several hundred IU/day of vitamin D, I also get a good dose of omega-3 fatty acids, calcium, and protein. However, in the Midwest, sardines do not provide enough vitamin D. Therefore, during the summer months, I take 2000 IU/day of vitamin D3. [I just do not get out enough in the sun during the summer to optimize my vitamin D levels naturally.] In the autumn, I increase this to 3000 IU/day, then to 4000 IU/day, and finally, during the depths of winter, to 5000 IU/day. While this does not prevent every cold, I am far, far healthier than I was during my previous sojourn in the Midwest.

While this dosing schedule works for me, you will need to develop one individualized for your own set of variables. Also, if you are on any medications, you will need to discuss it with your physician. Do not wait until the leaves have all fallen to begin optimizing your vitamin D levels. It takes a few weeks to achieve optimization. If you want to have the best chance to avoid the season of colds and flu, you need to begin now. Here’s To Your Health!

The Greatest Legacy

Today, August 26, 2009, Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy died. Senator Kennedy spent his entire career attempting to make the United States (and the World) a place where everyone, not just the privileged few, would have a bright, healthy future.

The United States has become a much better, more open society thanks to the efforts of Senator Kennedy. A society where everyone has the opportunity to make contributions is one that is more creative and dynamic. One that will be able to continue to lead the world in the 21st century as it did in the 20th.

Unfortunately, there is a segment of US society that wishes to limit access; that wishes to maintain their status quo. Sadly, they do not appear to understand that societies that do these things stagnate, wither, and die. Creativity and change are necessary for a dynamic, growing society.

If the United States is to be the world leader that it has been in the past, more change, more opportunities for all its citizens will be required. The greatest legacy that Senator Kennedy would wish to leave to all citizens of the United States would be universal health care.

Tens of millions of Americans have either no or limited health insurance which means they receive inadequate health care. Failure to provide adequate insurance and health care to all of it citizens means that the United States is failing to reach for the future. As much as some of us might wish to hold on to the past, it slips away. If the United States is not to slip into the past, and become a has-been, a backwater, changes must be made.

The Greatest Legacy will be when the Congress passes the health care bill championed by Senator Kennedy. Then all the citizens of the United States will be given the opportunity to achieve a Bright, Healthy Future.

Brain Power

US News and World Report just published an article on “America’s 10 Brainiest States.” Degree of braininess was based on population surveys concerning the following indicators of brain health:

· Eat a Healthy Diet:
o Low saturated fat and cholesterol
o Five or more daily servings of fruits and vegetables
o Daily intake of omega-3 fatty acids, especially from eating fatty fish
o Breast feed infants

· Exercise at least 30 minutes each day.
· Watch your weight.
· Do not smoke.
· Sleep around 7 - 8 hours each night.
· Mental Stimulation:
o Read every day.
o Play mentally challenging games.
o Learn new things.
· Get involved:
o Volunteer
o Join clubs
o Stay in touch with family and friends

State rankings were based on the analysis of these factors. You can read more about the methodology of the study here: http://www.lifesdha.com/brainindex/About--i-lifesDHA--i--Index-of-Brain-Health.aspx (Washington, DC was included as a state for the purposes of this research.)

According to the researchers, the top 10 brainiest states/polities are: District of Columbia, Maryland, Washington (state), Vermont, Connecticut, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maine, and New Hampshire. The 10 lowest-ranking states are: North Dakota, South Carolina, Indiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Louisiana.

I found this distribution rather intriguing and wanted to explore it further, so I compared this ranking of state brainpower with the map of the Electoral College distribution from the 2008 Presidential Election.

All of the top 10 brainiest states are Blue States. All of the lowest ranking states, except for Indiana, are Red States. Further examination showed that of the top 25 brainiest states, only 7 (Georgia, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, and Alaska) are Red States. The other 18 are Blue States. And of those 7 Red States, all are in the West except for Georgia.

Now, as we know, Correlation does not equal Causation. But it is an intriguing distribution worthy of further thought.

A correlation that, in this case, does equal causation is that the indicators of brain health listed above match with the AnthroHealth Way to Health and Well-Being about which I’ve been writing since 2002. http://www.anthrohealth.net/aharchives.htm

So keep eating those sardines!

The Brain Health research website also includes a brief on-line survey you can take to see if you are living a brain healthy lifestyle: http://www.lifesdha.com/50-States/View-All-Rankings/tabid/330/Default.aspx

I want to hear what you think about the Blue State/Brainy State correlation, so please add comments to this blog.

Don’t Drink It!!

New research has been published stating that drinking milk will help prevent coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke. Oh, please! That is like saying that red meat is heart healthy. Milk is loaded with saturated fat. Leave a glass of milk sitting on the counter and watch the clumps of fat appear. Saturated fat is NOT good for you.

Why would these researchers conclude that it is? Well, I did a little sleuthing and found out (surprise, surprise) that at least one of the researchers, Dr. Ian Givens, is associated with the British Dairy Industry [Centre for Dairy Research]. http://www.feedforhealth.org/default.asp?ZNT=S0T1O734

Givens et al. state that compared to men (in Britain) who did not ingest any dairy products, those who did drink milk or eat other dairy products were healthier. This research evidently has yet to be published in a journal, so I do not know how the study was conducted.

However, since the vast majority of adults in the world cannot process dairy products past weaning age due to lack of the enzyme lactase, it seems highly improbable that those adults who drink and eat saturated dairy fat (primarily those of northern European ancestry) would have less CHD and strokes than does the rest of the world’s populations.

On the up side, not all fats are bad for the heart. Omega-3 fatty acids found in fatty fish such as salmon and sardines are good for the heart. And the brain. [See my blog Vegging Out below.] And, according to new research, the eyes: eating foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids helps prevent age-related macular degeneration and blindness. http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/abstract/175/2/799

So, forget the milk and cheese. They don’t do a body good. Instead, add sardines, salmon, and even walnuts to your diet if you are really interested in helping your heart and preventing strokes.

Salud!

Dietary Disorder

I recently read an article written by a vegan (no animal products whatsoever) dietician who mentioned vitamin D supplementation. Unfortunately for herself and her readers, the information she gave them was inaccurate, even potentially harmful. She stated that vegans should not use vitamin D3/cholecalciferol since it came from animal sources. Instead, they should use vitamin D2/ergocalciferol which is from plant sources.

The idea that ergocalciferol (D2) is equivalent to cholecalciferol (D3) has been shown to be based on archaic, erroneous data as shown by the quote below.

“The case that vitamin D2 should no longer be considered equivalent to vitamin D3 is based on differences in their efficacy at raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, diminished binding of vitamin D2 metabolites to vitamin D binding protein in plasma, and a nonphysiologic metabolism and shorter shelf life of vitamin D2. Vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol, should not be regarded as a nutrient suitable for supplementation or fortification.”

Check out this link for the full article as published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694

It is impossible to get enough vitamin D from one’s diet to achieve the optimal level of 50 – 60 ng/mL of 25 OHD even if one were to properly eat foods with D3 such as sardines. Therefore, if one is going to avoid UVB exposure, then one must take vitamin D3 supplements with 1000 IU/day as a minimum dosage. More is probably necessary to optimize 25 OHD.

The article allowed for comments, so I commented on it as above. My comment was up for about two hours and then disappeared. The vegan dietician has both MPH (Masters of Public Health) and RD (Registered Dietician) degrees, so one would assume that she was trained in critical thinking and the scientific method. However, removing my comment does not support that supposition.

By removing my comment, she is denying her readers the opportunity to judge the validity of her own comments. She evidently also denies the validity of research published in one of the major journals in her own field.

Vitamin D3/cholecalciferol is absolutely necessary for optimal health. Using the plant-based form will not cut it. Hiding that information from one's readers does not alter the facts, but it does alter one's perceptions of the one doing the hiding.

Vegging Out

The July, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association has a position statement on vegetarian and vegan diets. Their position states that, “Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” This is disturbing advice, especially since the ADA defines a vegetarian diet, “… as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods.”

Brain growth is very rapid during infancy and childhood. Brain growth requires the fatty acids arachidonic acid (AA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). A healthy, well-fed mother provides these fatty acids in her breast milk. Infant formulas need to be supplemented with these fatty acids; not all of them are. Research has shown that breastfed infants have, on average, higher IQs than do formula-fed infants. Here’s the takeaway message: brain growth requires animal-based fatty acids, not plant-based ones.

Monkey species like capuchins that eat meat are smarter than ones that do not like howlers. Chimps and orangutans show more complex behaviors in the wild than do the vegan gorillas.

Among the best sources of the brain growth fatty acids are fish and shellfish. There is evidence that brain growth was spurred in our hominid ancestors when they began including fish and shellfish in their diets. If not for that dietary change, we would probably still be small-brained hominids dodging cheetahs on the savannas.

The fatty acids AA and DHA are also needed to maintain brain health throughout one’s life. Lack of these fatty acids leads to neurological disorders, even dementia.

Vegging out means sitting around passively doing little thinking, i.e. a couch potato (a relatively useless vegetable). If you don’t eat fish and shellfish your brain will veg out. If you want to do that to yourself, well… However, deliberately stunting your infant or child’s chances for healthy brain development…? How can the ADA really believe that vegging out is a good option for anyone?

Dermatological Purdah

Once again, The American Academy of Dermatology Issues (AAD) has published a statement that, “The Academy continues to recommend that individuals protect themselves from UV exposure when outdoors, such as seeking shade whenever possible, wearing sunscreen and covering up with a wide-brimmed hat, long sleeves, pants and sunglasses.” This amounts to Dermatological Purdah: do not allow any skin exposure to the sun!

Evidently, the AAD would be thrilled if we returned to the fashions of the Edwardian era. Note the stylish summer wear of these two women. No sunglasses, but even better for concerned dermatologists, they are wearing gloves and carrying a parasol. What could be better for the AAD?! Let’s return fashion to the days of Fin de Siècle. No more worries: Skin will be smooth and untanned. Why live in the 21st century when the 19th will do so much better?

The AAD does admit that following their fashion purdah restrictions will mean that vitamin D supplementation will probably be necessary. However, they think that 1000 IU/day will be adequate. Adequate? Unlikely. It is estimated that at least 80% of the US population has inadequate levels of serum vitamin D. And the vast majority isn’t following purdah restrictions. 1000 IU/day is better than nothing, of course, but if you are already at inadequate levels (and the odds are that you are), and then you follow the AAD’s advice, 1000 IU/day will be nowhere near enough to optimize your vitamin D levels. Before deciding to undertake dermatological purdah, get you 25 OHD levels checked. Anything under 50 ng/mL means that you need to take a supplement. Vitamin D3 now comes in 2000 IU/day pills.

Think it isn’t that serious? Muslim women who practice purdah in Saudi Arabia (pretty darn sunny there) have dangerously low, even undetectable, levels of serum vitamin D. Edwardian women who practiced dermatological purdah had such high rates of flattened pelvic inlets that obstetricians thought that was what a normal pelvis looked like. Childbirth is hard enough with a normal pelvic inlet. Can you imagine what it was like in Edwardian times? Do you want to return to that era? I don’t.

Sure, you need to make sure that you don’t overdo sun exposure. But get real AAD, dermatological purdah is not the answer either.

It's About Time!!

Way back in 1992, I began doing research on vitamin D deprivation. At that time, there were only a few other researchers looking at this topic. If anyone else thought of vitamin D at all, they figured it was a very minor problem resolved by drinking milk; and that it only affected bones. My research pointed to vitamin D deprivation being a widespread problem that affected multiple regions in the body beyond bones. But trying to get most of my colleagues to take this seriously was an arduous, disappointing process.

Between 1999 and 2001, I submitted grants to NIH trying to get funding to do a major research study on vitamin D deprivation among heavily-pigmented women. There was no interest in such research at that time. I wrote articles on vitamin D deprivation that have been widely cited, but still the issue wasn’t considered important enough for the NIH.

Part of the reason for this is the massive public relations campaign against sun exposure launched and carried out by dermatologists and their media friends. Yes, too much UVB exposure can be a problem; but not enough exposure is a much bigger problem. Only in the past year or so has the media finally, finally realized this. Now we are seeing articles on vitamin D deprivation and the importance of maintaining optimal levels of vitamin D if one wishes to avoid multiple health problems such as heart disease, cancer, auto-immune conditions, and, of course, keeping the skeletal system strong.

And FINALLY the NIH is going to fund a major study on vitamin D deprivation. It’s only taken almost two decades, but better late than never. This study will enroll 20,000 participants from throughout the nation. However, the group is limited to women who are 65 or older, or men who are 60 or older. Also, they need to be free of any major health problems. The study will be double blind in that participants and researchers will not know whether the participant is receiving actual vitamin D3 (2000 IU/day) or a dummy pill. The vitamin D dosage is also large enough that effects should be noticeable, unlike other recent studies where the dosage was much lower.

The study begins in January 2010 and will run for five years, so we cannot expect to read about results any time soon. However, It’s About Time! Maybe we will now see many other major research projects done on this important topic.

Just today a large cancer research study [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070702252.html ] found that even after controlling for a variety of factors, African Americans had higher rates of adverse outcomes for breast, colon, and ovarian cancers than was true of European Americans. This study evidently did not look at vitamin D levels, but, as I pointed out in one of my articles (Health Disparities: Reframing the Problem. Medical Science Monitor 2003; 9 (3): SR9-15), vitamin D deprivation is the probable factor involved in this disparity [ http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=4712 ]

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that taking 2000 IU of vitamin D3/day causes problems; and there are many studies that indicate there are important benefits. So, take your vitamin D every day and you will be ahead of the curve when the NIH study is finally analyzed and published.

Culture of Success

I just finished reading Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point and Blink). This is a must-read book. You probably think you know why some individuals are successful and others are not, but you are probably wrong, at least according to Gladwell.

Why are the vast majority of successful Canadian hockey players born in January, February, and March? How do rice paddies and the way in which numbers are encoded in language relate to success in math for many East Asians? Why does the year in which someone is born lead to or inhibit that person’s chances for success? What is the 10,000 hour rule? How can deference to superiors lead to air disasters? Why would a culture of honor created hundreds of years ago and thousands of miles away still have an impact in the 21st century? Can the differences in academic achievement between rich and poor be as simple as the difference between summer vacations and year-round schooling?

These are some of the questions Gladwell raises and answers in his extremely entertaining and enlightening book. This is a book that so intrigued me that I didn’t want to put it down. I do not want to provide more detail about the book at this point because I strongly encourage everyone to read it for themselves. However, I would like to have a conversation on this blog with anyone who has read the book and wishes to discuss Gladwell’s insights further.

Examine the Fine Print

You know that you need to read the fine print in contracts, but it may not have occurred to you that you also need to examine the “fine print” in scientific articles. Now, you may say, “I don’t read such articles anyway, so who cares?” Well, you should care because it is in this “fine print” that conclusions that affect your health can be “massaged” for particular purposes.

The fine print (some journals actually do use a smaller font size) occurs in the Materials and Methods, and Results sections of the article, and in the Acknowledgements. If the reader gets past the Abstract, s/he will probably read only the Introduction and Conclusion/Discussion sections. Few readers, other than those also doing work in the same field, will read the Materials and Methods, and Results sections. And even fewer will note who funded the research described in the article. For many types of research, this may not matter. But for research studies that affect our health, it matters a great deal.

For instance, if you see news releases proclaiming the benefits of dairy products, find the original article. You may have to get it through inter-library loan to avoid paying the high journal fees. Check the article to see who funded the research. The odds are that it was funded by the dairy producers in some form or other. Then you need to examine the fine print in the Materials and Methods, and Results sections. If you do not have a background in that field of research, it may be difficult to understand, so you will probably need to find a friend who can help. This effort matters because how the results are presented in the Abstract and the Conclusion/Discussion may not be fully supported by what is actually in the Results section. The conclusions may be massaged in a way that those funding the research would approve.

Certainly, not all research will have been massaged, but whenever new information on health issues is trumpeted in the news, be cautious in accepting the results. Examine the fine print.

Food Fight

Do you need to eat grains and dairy for good health? Is a bowl of cereal with milk a good way to begin the day? Does every body need milk? The answer to all three questions is a big NO! The overwhelming majority of the world’s populations cannot handle milk after infancy: it causes acute gastric distress. Significant numbers of individuals also are sensitive to the gluten found in wheat, oats, and barley. Their health is sub-optimal when they eat grains.

But the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) either is unaware of these facts (hard to believe) or does not care. Why? Because they are more interested in maintaining the profitability of Agribusiness than in maintaining the optimal health of consumers. Yes, they are concerned about food safety which does, obviously, impact consumer health. However, beyond food safety is the issue of nutrient optimization; and it is here that the USDA’s hand-in-glove relationship with Agribusiness takes precedence over what is best for the consumer.

Over the past decades, the public has been indoctrinated into believing that grains and dairy are the basis of good health. First there was the Four Squares with grains and dairy each having their own square. Then there was the Food Pyramid with grains forming the foundation and dairy taking up a significant chunk of the upper levels. The current iteration is a revised pyramid with conical stripes running from base to tip called My Pyramid. This version is designed to take into account an individual’s gender, age, and activity level in designing a pyramid just for that individual. Or so says the USDA.

I tried using it when it was first posted online a few years ago. The results were not too surprising, or too different from prior recommendations, and included a daily intake of three glasses of milk. I decided to see what the results would be for other gender and age combinations. The biggest change was in daily calorie intake. One constant: no matter what age/gender combination I used, everyone was told he/she needed three glasses of milk each day. Hmm…

I would suggest that you try this for yourselves, but when I tried to log on to the site today, I got a “website cannot be found” message even though the USDA origin page shows that it was recently updated. Maybe the USDA is doing an upgrade? I don’t know. But keep checking so that you can try it yourself and let me know what you find out.

Feeling Groovy

Walking is the best exercise. It is the exercise our bodies are adapted to do, so I am happy to see so many people out walking on beautiful days. However, I think that most of them are missing one of the other keys that makes walking the best exercise: being a part of nature.

I see people with a very determined set to their faces, listening to I-pods, and striding briskly along, looking straight ahead with a somewhat blank gaze. Others are so engrossed in conversation with their fellow walkers that they could be walking on a treadmill for all the notice they take of their environment. Then there are the dog walkers. One might think that they would be paying more attention to the environment since their dog certainly is. But that does not appear to be the case.

Now, if you are mall-walking, conversation and I-pods do make the activity more enjoyable. But if you are outside, going as fast as you can from point A to point B causes you to miss out on the additional rejuvenating aspect of walking. It isn’t just about the physical exercise, but also the emotional well being that being a part of nature can bring to your psyche.

When I was a child and visited my grandmother, we went on lots of walks. Grandma never seemed in a hurry to get anywhere. She would point out the beautiful flowers, the interesting architecture. She would stop to chat with friends, or even strangers. It was she who first told me to take time to smell the flowers. And we actually would stop to smell them.

So, yes, we do need the exercise, but sometimes we also need to slow down because life is moving too fast. Next time you take a walk outdoors, do so without any distractions and take the time to really look around you. Notice the beauty, feel the peace, and feel a little groovy.

Attitude Adjustment

Like many of you, I used to turn on the news to listen to (maybe watch a bit) as I got ready for work each morning. I like having some background noise to remind me to keep moving. I was dissatisfied with the shows, and so kept switching among them. Finally, after one particularly acrimonious exchange between two guests that managed to rile me up, I decided that this was no way to begin the day.

Fortunately, on cable there are options. Since I am a scientist, I eventually settled on the science channel. There is a tad too much techno info for my taste, but there are facts and data aplenty, presented in a nice, neutral tone. As someone who loves learning new things, that works well for me. I don’t ignore the news, but I get my news during the day in online print (not video).

If you begin the day riled and disgruntled, you will likely have an unhappy, unproductive day. On the other hand, if you begin the day in a serene frame of mind, your day is more likely to go well.

I definitely begin my days with a much better attitude now that I’ve adjusted my “dial” from the news to something more appealing.

If your start to the day makes you irritable, figure out what might be contributing to your bad mood and try to eliminate it. Do something that buoys you up at the beginning of the day and your entire day will be better.

What have you altered or eliminated for a better start to your day?