THS reader Roselle sent in this question:

Is vitamin/mineral supplementation truly beneficial before & during pregnancy for women with a healthy diet?

The first thing I’d like to emphasize is the importance of this question. Adequate maternal nutrition prior to conception and during pregnancy can protect the baby from diabetes, stroke, heart disease, kidney disease and memory loss later in life.

Intuitively, most mothers know that what they eat will have a significant impact on the developing fetus. And traditional cultures have been aware of this for millennia. Special preconception and pregnancy diets have always emphasized foods that are particularly rich in certain nutrients known to promote healthy growth and development. In some cases, these groups provided special nutrients for fathers preparing to conceive as well.

Traditional cultures with access to the sea used fish eggs. Those that consumed dairy products used high-quality milk from the spring and fall when grass was green and rapidly growing. African groups whose water was low in iodine used the ashes of certain plant foods to supply this important element. These foods were always added to a foundational diet rich in liver and other organ meats, bones and skin, fats, seafood and whatever local plant foods were available.

In the Winter of 2007, Chris Masterjohn published a fantastic article called “Vitamins for Fetal Development: Conception to Birth” in the Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts Journal. Masterjohn remarks:

What are these nutrients that both modern science and traditional wisdom recognize as essential? Briefly, they include:

• Vitamin E: originally named “Fertility Factor X” in 1922 because rats could not reproduce without it. Recent research indicates it is almost certainly required for human reproduction.
• Vitamin A: vitamin A is necessary for the differentiation and patterning of all the cells, tissues, and organs within the developing body. It is especially important for the development of the communication systems between the sense organs and the brain. Vitamin A deficiency during pregnancy has been shown to produce spontaneous abortion in several different species of animals.
• Vitamin D: Vitamin D plays a role in lung development, and protects the newborn from tetany, convulsions and heart failure. Vitamin D probably plays a much larger role in fetal development than currently understood due to its interaction with vitamin A.
• Vitamin K: relatively little is known about vitamin K’s role in embryonic and fetal development compared to vitamins A & D. However, cases of birth defects that occurred with mothers taking Wafarin (which depletes the body of vitamin K) suggest that vitamin K plays an essential role in the development of proper facial proportions and the fundamental development of the nervous system.
• DHA: DHA may be necessary for the formation of neurons and for the synthesis of the important brain lipid phosphatidylserine. It is also the precursor to an important compound that protects the neurons from oxidative stress. The fetus hoards DHA from the mother and incorporates it into its brain at ten times the rate at which it can synthesize it.
• Biotin: biotin is a B vitamin that has also been called “vitamin H”. Researchers have recently discovered that marginal biotin deficiency during pregnancy is extremely common. Biotin deficiency has been shown to cause birth defects in rats. Whether this extends to humans is currently unknown, but there is little reason not to increase biotin intake during pregnancy as a precaution.
• Folate: the importance of folate during pregnancy is widely known. It is necessary for the production of new DNA, and new DNA is needed for new cells. Adequate folate intake prevents spinal cord and brain defects and increases birth weight. It may also prevent spontaneous abortion, mental retardation and deformities of the mouth, face and heart.
• Choline: a low intake of choline during pregnancy is associated with a four-fold increased risk of spinal cord and brain defects. Choline plays a direct role in the development of the brain; in particular, for the formation of neurons and synapses.
• Glycine: the amino acid glycine is “conditionally essential” during pregnancy. This means that while we can normally make enough of it ourselves to meet our needs, during pregnancy women must obtain it from the diet. It is required for protein synthesis in the fetus, and is almost certainly a limiting factor for fetal growth.

Based on the established role of the nutrients listed above, Masterjohn makes the following recommendations:

The answer to Roselle’s original question largely depends upon what is meant by “a healthy diet”. The low-fat, nutrient-depleted diet that is currently considered to be “healthy” by the medical establishment is likely to be deficient in several key nutrients, particularly the fat-soluble vitamins A, D & K and the omega-3 fatty acid DHA. However, even a nutrient-dense, whole foods diet may need to be supplemented with additional foods or additional servings of foods already in the diet.

Most of these can and should be obtained from local and organic foods. The exception is cod liver oil, which one of nature’s highest sources of vitamins A & D and a rich source of DHA as well. Not all cod liver oil is created alike, however. Most commercial brands contain synthetic vitamin A & D, which are known to be toxic at high doses. Unfortunately, this means you will have to order high-vitamin cod liver oil from a reputable company online. The brands I recommend are Green Pasture High-Vitamin Fermented Cod Liver Oil or High-Vitamin Cod Liver Oil, and Radiant Life Cod Liver Oil.

Finally, I highly recommend obtaining the Winter 2007 “Wise Traditions” journal and reading the full article by Chris Masterjohn. It will eventually be available on the Weston A. Price Foundation website, but it can take up to one year from the original publication time for an article to be posted to the website.

Related posts:

1. Liver: nature’s most potent superfood Most people might think of a green spirulina drink or...
2. Vitamin K2: The Missing Nutrient Recent research has demonstrated the essential role of vitamin K2...
3. The top fourteen foods The government has recently published its list of the top...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

THS reader Chad sent in this question:

Antidepressants - effective or placebo?

The use of antidepressant medication has become so widespread and commonly accepted that it seems almost sacrilegious to question it. But alas, questioning is the name of the game here at The Healthy Skeptic!

And what do you know? Antidepressants aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. In fact, a recent meta-review of published studies on the efficacy of antidepressant drugs revealed that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which are the most commonly prescribed drugs to treat depression, have no clinically meaningful advantage over placebo.

What that means is that in most of the trials reviewed, patients who took a sugar pill recovered from depression just as often as those who took the active drug. This study may come as some surprise to both physicians and the general public, whose faith in the efficacy of these drugs has led to over 118 million prescriptions in 2007 and over $16 billion in sales.

But should this really come as a surprise? Antidepressant drugs are thought to act by altering levels of brain neurotransmitters; however, it takes several weeks before these changes can be measured. Yet patients often report symptomatic relief within hours or days of receiving an antidepressant.

Available data suggests, in fact, that SSRIs are no more effective than placebos and have considerable adverse effects and risks, including increased suicidality amongst both children and adults. Sapirstein and Kirsch conducted a meta-analysis of 3,000 patients who received either antidepressants, psychotherapy, placebo or no treatment at all. They found that 27% of therapeutic responses were attributable to drug activities, 50% to psychological factors, and 23% to “non-specific” factors. In other words, 73% of the response to the drug was unrelated to its pharmacological activities - and antidepressants may be no better or more specific than placebos.

This of course raises grave questions about why the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) still recommends that antidepressants should the be first line treatment for moderate or severe depression. Their message is identical to that of the Defeat Depression Campaign in the early 90s, which contributed to the 253% rise in antidepressant prescribing in 10 years.

In a review published in the British Medical Journal in February of 2006, researchers Joanna Moncrieff and Irving Kirsch point out that the NICE recommendations ignore even their own study data. Although the NICE meta-analysis of placebo controlled trials of SSRIs found statistically significant differences in levels of symptoms, these were so small that the effects were deemed “unlikely to be clinically important.”

After analyzing several published studies and reviews, Moncrieff and Kirsch reached the following conclusions:

The response to a drug or placebo in a clinical trial for depression is often measured using the Hamilton rating scale, a multiple choice questionnaire which doctors use to rate the severity of a patient’s condition. The questionnaire rates the severity of symptoms observed in depression such as low mood, insomnia, agitation, anxiety and weight-loss; it is considered to be a highly reliable physician-rated scale and has been reported to be more sensitive than patient-rated scales to drug/placebo differences. (Murray, 1989)

In the NICE meta-analysis, the difference between drug and placebo groups was one point. The most commonly used 17 item version of the Hamilton scale has a maximum score of 52. It is highly unlikely that a difference of one point on a 52-point scale is clinically significant, a fact that the FDA has admitted in memoranda (Laughren, 1998; Leber, 1998) reviewed by Moncrieff and Kirsch.

Other studies have yielded similar results. A study by Khan et al. found a 10% difference in levels of symptoms between placebo and active drugs in two different meta-analyses. In a more recent review, Kirsch et al. invoked the Freedom of Information (FOA) act to obtain access to previously unpublished studies (the drug companies are under no requirement to publish a study they have sponsored if the results don’t suit them). The overall difference between drugs and placebos in that analyses was 1.7 points on the Hamilton scale.

Moncrieff and Kirsch also point out that the Hamilton scale contains seven items concerning sleep and anxiety, with each item on sleep scoring up to six points. Therefore any drug with some sedative properties, including many antidepressants, could produce a difference of two points or more without exerting any specific antidepressant effect.

Follow-up studies that track patients for a significant length of time have also shown very poor outcomes for people treated for depression both in the hospital and in outpatient settings, and the overall prevalence of depression is rising despite increased use of antidepressants. Suicide rates have increased in some groups and some countries, despite increased prescribing of antidepressant, and there are continuing concerns that SSRIs may increase the risk of suicidal behavior in obht cildren and adults.

In children, the balance of benefits to risks in antidepressant treatment is already recognized as “unfavorable”. The analyses performed by Moncrieff and Kirsch strongly suggests that the same is the case for adults, and that the ongoing uncertainty about the possible risk of increased suicidality as well as the adverse effects of antidepressant drugs warrant a “thorough re-evaluation of our current approach” to treating depression.

I couldn’t agree more. One question the authors failed to pose, which I believe to be at the root of the matter, is why are so many more children and adults depressed now than before? You might not be surprised to learn that I have some thoughts about this. But I’ll save them for another post.

Related posts:

1. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) more effective than antidepressants A recent study showed that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy is more...
2. A closer look at antidepressants Antidepressants have been shown to be no more effective than...
3. The dark side of antidepressants This week's article in my continuing series on antidepressants will...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association published a study by Dr. Barbara Starfield, a medical doctor with a Master’s degree in Public Health, in 2000 which revealed the extremely poor performance of the United States health care system when compared to other industrialized countries (Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Australia, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium and Germany).

In fact, the U.S. is ranked last or near last in several significant health care indicators:

• 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
• 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall
• 11th for postneonatal mortality
• 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
• 12th for life expectancy at 1 year for males, 11th for females
• 12th for life expectancy at 15 years for males, 10th for females

The most shocking revelation of her report is that iatrogentic damage (defined as a state of ill health or adverse effect resulting from medical treatment) is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.

Let me pause while you take that in.

This means that doctors and hospitals are responsible for more deaths each year than cerebrovascular disease, chronic respiratory diseases, accidents, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and pneumonia.

The combined effect of errors and adverse effects that occur because of iatrogenic damage includes:

• 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery
• 7,000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals
• 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals
• 106,000 deaths a year from nonerror, adverse effects of medications

This amounts to a total of 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes. However, Starfield notes three important caveats in her study:

If these caveats are considered, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.

Starfield and her colleagues performed an analysis which took the caveats above into consideration and included adverse effects other than death. Their analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience adverse effects in outpatient settings, with:

• 116 million extra physician visits
• 77 million extra prescriptions
• 17 million emergency department visits
• 8 million hospitalizations
• 3 million long-term admissions
• 199,000 additional deaths
• $77 billion in extra costs (equivalent to the aggregate cost of care of patients with diabetes

I want to make it clear that I am not condemning physicians in general. In fact, most of the doctors I’ve come into contact with in the course of my life have been competent and genuinely concerned about my welfare. In many ways physicians are just as victimized by the deficiencies of our health-care system as patients and consumers are. With increased patient loads and mandated time limits for patient visits set by HMOs, most doctors are doing the best they can to survive our broken and corrupt health-care system.

The Institute of Medicine’s report (”To Err is Human”) which Starfied and her colleagues analyzed isn’t the only study to expose the failures of the U.S. health-care system. The World Health Organization issued a report in 2000, using different indicators than the IOM report, that ranked the U.S. as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.

As Starfied points out, the “real explanation for relatively poor health in the United States is undoubtedly complex and multifactorial.” Two significant causes of our poor standing is over-reliance on technology and a poorly developed primary care infrastructure. The United States is second only to Japan in the availability of technological procedures such as MRIs and CAT scans. However, this has not translated into a higher standard of care, and in fact may be linked to the “cascade effect” where diagnostic procedures lead to more treatment (which as we have seen can lead to more deaths).

Of the 7 countries in the top of the average health ranking, 5 have strong primary care infrastructures. Evidence indicates that the major benefit of health-care access accrues only when it facilitates receipt of primary care. (Starfield, 1998)

One might think that these sobering analyses of the U.S. health-care system would have lead to a public discussion and debate over how to address the shortcomings. Alas, both medical authorities and the general public alike are mostly unaware of this data, and we are no closer to a safe, accessible and effective health-care system today than we were eight years ago when these reports were published.

Recommended links

• Is US Health Really the Best in the World?

No related posts.

“I like the “what to feed children” idea. But it has to be food they will actually EAT.”

The question of how to nourish our children so they develop into healthy adults is one of the most important questions we can ask. Tragically, the answers that the medical mainstream has come up with have contributed to unprecedented epidemics of childhood disease and endangered the health and well-being of our children.

The numbers of overweight and obese children worldwide are expected to climb dramatically by 2010, according to a study by Youfa Wang, PhD, MD at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. By the end of the decade, 46 percent of children in North and South America are projected to be overweight and 15 percent will be obese. It’s been assumed that U.S. life expectancy would rise indefinitely, but a new data analysis which was published as a special report in the March 17, 2005 issue of New England Journal of Medicine suggests that this trend is about to reverse itself - due to the rapid rise in obesity, especially among children.

Increasing numbers of children are being treated for depression, according to a 2004 study in the British Journal of Medicine. A 1999 report in California from the state’s Department of Developmental Services found that autism had increased by 273 percent from 1987 to 1998. Current estimates for the incidence of autism are as high as 1 in 120. A national review by The Advocacy Institute in 2002 revealed that learning disabilities in children increased by 30 percent from 1990 to 2000.

These studies show that our children are more obese, more depressed, and have more learning disabilities and behavioral problems than ever before. What could be the cause of such a dramatic change?

Although each of these diseases is complex and multifactorial, it is safe to say that diet and nutrition play a significant role in all of them. For example, consider the key nutrients for brain development in children:

Many parents probably know that these nutrients aren’t found in the refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils and sugars which form the bedrock of the standard American diet. Yet many parents may be unaware that even foods widely assumed to be nutritional - including packaged foods commonly described as “organic”, “natural” or “fortified” - are themselves highly processed and stripped of nutritional value, and little better than their “non-organic” alternatives.

So what should we be feeding our children to ensure healthy growth and development? The following “First Steps” recommended by children’s health advocacy group Nourishing Our Children will get you started:

In contrast to the bland, unsatisfying (and dangerous) low-fat diet recommended by medical authorities, kids naturally love the foods in a nutrient-dense, whole foods diet. However, it is true that if they’ve been on a diet high in sugar and refined carbohydrates for a long time, there will be an adjustment period as they transition away from those highly processed foods.

My suggestion is to take one item on the list above at a time, and be gentle with yourself. It may take a while longer that way to get to where you want to be, but it’s worth the effort! Some of the changes will be more difficult than others. For example, most children (and adults) prefer the taste of saturated fats like butter, cream and whole-fat dairy to low-fat alternatives such as vegetable oil and skim milk - but may not yet have acquired a taste for cod liver oil!

I’ve provided links to some articles below with some helpful ideas on how to encourage even the most finicky eaters to enjoy nutrient-dense foods and some ideas for quick and healthy brown-bag lunch suggestions for parents.

Recommended links

• Articles on children’s health - Weston A. Price Foundation
• Feeding Our Children, by Thomas Cowan, M.D.
• Taking the Icky out of Picky Eaters
• Foods to Tantalize Toddlers and Preschoolers
• Packing the Perfect Lunch Box
• Nourishing Our Children - children’s health advocacy group

Related posts:

1. Whole fat milk: benefits for moms & kids Yet another study has been published that directly contradicts the...
2. Why grass-fed is best - part II In this article, we examine exactly why grass-fed animal products...
3. Essential fatty acids: not so essential after all Essential fatty acids (EFAs) have long been considered to be...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“I recently learned that green tea and black tea are very high in fluoride because they pull it from the ground… can you say more about this?”

As a tea drinker myself, I wish I could tell you that this is a myth. Unfortunately, it’s all too true. And although medical authorities continue to tell us that fluoride is a harmless substance which prevents dental caries and tooth decay, a large body of scientific research says otherwise.

Fluorides are toxins that accumulate in the body over time. That’s why the Surgeon General has established limits for maximum fluoride content in our drinking water which are regulated by the EPA. This limit was set in order to avoid a condition known as Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis (CSF). The limit of four parts per million (ppl) or 4 mg/liter was designed to prevent only the third and most serious stage of CSF, where the extremities become weak and the vertebrae partially fuse together, crippling the patient. Yet studies published by the World Health Organization (1970) have shown that a daily dose of even 2-8 mg/L of fluoride can cause third-stage CSF!

For a more thorough discussion of the dangers of fluoride, I recommend reading this article by Andreas Schuld, the head of an organization called Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC), and visiting the PFPC website. I have also embedded a video interview with Christopher Bryson at the end of this post. Bryson is the author of The Fluoride Deception, a scathing critique of one of the most damaging public health misconceptions of our time.

Schuld mentions several different sources of fluoride, from foods to prescription drugs. The highest source of fluoride in any edible plant, however, is tea leaves. Fluoride content in teas has risen precipitously over the past 20 years due to industry contamination and other environmental factors. In a 2005 study at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, researchers found that some regular strength preparations contain as much as 6.5 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, well over the 4 ppm maximum allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency and 2.4 ppm permitted in bottled water and beverages by the Food and Drug Administration. The Public Health Service indicates that the fluoride concentration in drinking water should not exceed 1.2 ppm.

More recent studies cited by Schuld in her article have revealed a fluoride content of 17.25 mg per teabag or cup in black tea, and a whopping 22 mg of soluble fluoride ions per teabag or cup in green tea. The longer a tea bag is steeped, the higher the fluoride content will be. In fact, one study demonstrated that the amount of measurable fluoride almost doubles in just ten minutes.

To put this in perspective, drinking one cup of green tea with 22 mg of soluble fluoride ions is equivalent to drinking 22 liters of water that has been fluoridated to the Public Health Service recommended level of 1 ppm.

Tea is the second most widely consumed beverage in the world behind water. And believe it or not, nearly 127 million (almost half) of Americans drink tea. Tea is consumed in far greater amounts in countries like the UK, China and India. The increasing fluoride levels in our environment pose a significant threat to the health and well-being of literally billions of people around the world. We must urge public health officials to stop fluoridating our water and begin to acknowledge the overwhelming amount of scientific data indicating fluoride’s toxicity and negative impact on human health.

Recommended links

• Fluoride: Worse Than we Thought
• Fluoridation: The Fraud of the Century
• Fluoride levels in tea - USA
• Fluoride levels in food
• The Fluoride Education Project

The video below is an interview with Christopher Bryson, author of The Fluoride Deception. It is an excellent introduction to the history and dangers of fluoridation.

Related posts:

1. The water myth? New research has been published in the Journal of the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

]]> http://thehealthyskeptic.org/bad-news-for-tea-drinkers/feed/ http://thehealthyskeptic.org/send-me-your-questions-and-ideas/ http://thehealthyskeptic.org/send-me-your-questions-and-ideas/#comments Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:54:06 +0000 Chris http://thehealthyskeptic.org/?p=26 I’d like introduce a new feature here at The Healthy Skeptic. Once a month (or so) I’ll invite you to submit any questions you have or topics you’d like to see addressed on the blog. I’ll keep a list of your requests and add them into the mix of content I have planned for the coming month.

Wondering whether saturated fat and cholesterol actually cause heart disease? Not sure what to feed your kids to support their growth and development? Want to know the truth about fluoride? Confused about the difference between carotenes and Vitamin A? Looking for a good way to cook liver? It’s all fair game!

Please leave a comment below this post with your questions or topic suggestions. And make sure to check the box to “subscribe to comments” if you want to see what others are asking too. I look forward to hearing from you!

No related posts.

]]> http://thehealthyskeptic.org/send-me-your-questions-and-ideas/feed/ http://thehealthyskeptic.org/pleasure-is-good-for-you/ http://thehealthyskeptic.org/pleasure-is-good-for-you/#comments Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:32:16 +0000 Chris http://thehealthyskeptic.org/?p=25

The Nocebo Response The placebo response has become a well-known, though severely misunderstood,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.]]> There’s no doubt that optimal nutrition plays a significant role in supporting our health and well-being. But nutrition, as important as it is, obviously isn’t the only factor that influences our physiology.

Over the past several years, an increasing amount of research has focused on the role of emotions, behavior and beliefs in contributing to both health and disease. In fact, an entirely new discipline called “psychoneuroimmunology” (say that three times fast!) has emerged to study the connection between the mind and the body. In short, what has been revealed is that the separation we make between “the mind” and “the body” is largely an illusion. Mind and body exist in a continuous and interrelated web of connections that is only now beginning to be discovered by western science.

But though the idea that our thoughts and emotions can directly influence our physiology is new to modern biomedicine (just ten years ago it was dismissed by most physicians and researchers as so much “New Age” fluff), it has been deeply ingrained in our cultural paradigm for centuries. It is embedded in our language; consider the phrases “worried sick” or “scared to death”, and you’ll know what I mean. I’m sure all of you have had the experience of becoming ill after a particularly stressful period at work, or feeling moody and perhaps depressed while you are physically ill. These are both prime examples of how interconnected our mental and emotional health is.

In their book Feeling Good Is Good For You, researchers Carl J. Charnetski and Francis X Brennan set out to review the emerging evidence that pleasure can boost our immune systems and lengthen our lives. According to the authors,:

“In every way, stress is the antithesis of pleasure. It jangles your nerves, juggles a whole host of your body’s hormones, elevates your blood pressure, and makes your pulse race… It also weakens your immune system’s ability to resist illness and disease.”

If stress is the antithesis of pleasure, then it follows that pleasure is the antithesis of stress. And the best way to fight stress, say Charnetski and Brennan, is with pleasure. Our bodies secrete chemicals called endorphins when we experience pleasure. Animal research has revealed, for example, that endorphin levels are up to 86 times higher after animals experience multiple orgasms! But endorphins are also released, albeit at lower levels, in more mundane daily activities such as playing with a pet, watching a funny movie, listening to our favorite music, visiting a favorite place or connecting with loved ones.

The chemicals released when we experience pleasure do more than counteract stress hormones and improve mood. Consider these additional effects:

• They improve immune function by producing an antibacterial peptide
• They enhance the killer instincts and abilities of various immune components, including B cells, T cells, NK cells, and immunoglobulins.
• They enable certain immune cells to secrete their own endorphins as a way of improving their disease-fighting capacity

Charnetski and Brennan examine several “pleasure inducing” experiences that have been scientifically proven to promote health and well-being.

• Music
• Touch
• Pets
• Humor
• Positive attitude and insight

Most of us are already aware of the healing power of those things listed above - at least on some level. But in this culture, there is also an overwhelming reliance on medicine, surgery, diet and other physiological interventions to treat disease. Though we may pay lip service to the idea that stress causes illness and pleasure can prevent it, how many of us actually attribute the same importance to listening to music or watching a funny movie as we do to taking a pill? The lesson in this book is that our thoughts, beliefs, emotions and behavior are all capable of inducing the same physiological changes in our bodies as foods, supplements, pills and even surgery are.

If you doubt that this is true, consider the placebo effect. It has been proven over and over again that pharmacologically inert substances like sugar pills can have identical or even greater therapeutic effects than drugs in certain cases. Even more impressive are the trials that have shown that sham surgery (when small incisions are made to convince the patient they have had the operation, but no surgery is performed) is at times as effective as the actual surgery.

Clearly this points to the power we all have to heal ourselves. If only the suggestion or belief that we will heal is enough to induce the physiological changes that lead to healing, without the presence of any “active” pharmacological substance or surgical intervention, then clearly our thoughts, beliefs and emotions have the potential to be powerful medicine.

Related posts:

1. The Nocebo Response The placebo response has become a well-known, though severely misunderstood,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

]]> http://thehealthyskeptic.org/pleasure-is-good-for-you/feed/ http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-water-myth/ http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-water-myth/#comments Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:51:08 +0000 Chris http://thehealthyskeptic.org/?p=23

The “chemical imbalance” myth Contrary to what pharmaceutical advertising and popular belief suggests, there...

Bad news for tea drinkers Research has shown that fluoride is a highly toxic substance...

Low-carb diet best for weight loss A recent study indicates low-carb diets are superior to low-fat...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.]]> New research has just been published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology that questions the long-held popular belief that drinking eight glasses of water a day benefits our health.

According to Dr. Stanley Goldfarb and Dr. Dan Negoianu of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, there are four prevalent myths about water intake:

1. Leads to more toxin excretion
2. Improves skin tone
3. Makes one less hungry
4. Reduces headache frequency

Dr. Goldfarb and Dr. Negoianu reviewed all of the published studies which examined the health benefits of water consumption. They concluded that people in hot, dry climates, athletes or people with certain diseases might do better with increased fluid intake, but for average healthy people, more water did not mean better health.

“There is no clear evidence of benefit from drinking increased amounts of water,” Dr. Goldfarb wrote, but he also added, “There is also no clear evidence of lack of benefit.” In other words, the scientific research doesn’t tell us one way or the other whether there’s a benefit or not.

Fortunately, nature has endowed us with a mechanism that can in fact help us determine how much water we need to be drinking per day. It’s called thirst. If we simply pay attention to our thirst and respond appropriately, it’s likely that we will take in as much water as we need. Four to six glasses per day is probably sufficient for most people; but then again, the evidence indicates there is no harm in drinking more, so if you enjoy drinking a lot of water then knock yourself out!

There is no evidence that increased water consumption helps to excrete toxins. The kidneys perform that function in the body, and as long as they are healthy they do it very well. Dr. Goldfarb: “The kidneys clear toxins. This is what the kidneys do. They do it very effectively. And they do it independently of how much water you take in. when you take in a lot of water, all you do is put out more urine but not more toxins in the urine.”

There is no evidence supporting the other three myths either; namely, that it improves skin tone, reduces hunger and alleviates headaches. But again, if your experience is different and you find that water does help with these conditions - then there is absolutely no reason not to continue what you’re doing now (other than perhaps more frequent trips to the bathroom!) Just don’t go crazy with the water intake, because extremely high levels of water consumption can affect the fluid balance in the body, causing “water intoxication” and even death.

Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t emphasize that the quality of the water we drink is much more important than the quantity. My recommendation is that you invest in a high-quality water filter and install it in your home. Avoid bottled water, which is often simply tap water packaged in a plastic bottle that can potentially leach toxins into the water - especially when left in the sun. (You know that “plasticky” smell when you drink water from a plastic bottle that has been around for a while? Not good. Not good at all.) Nalgene bottles should also be avoided as they can leach another unsafe chemical called BPA into your water. Instead, buy a stainless steel water bottle and fill it up with your filtered water at home before you go out.

Also, both tap water and filtered bottled water contain fluoride, a highly toxic bone poison that should be avoided at all costs. Many commercial water filters unfortunately do not remove fluoride, which is present in our water supply because of the gross misconception that it supports dental health. But more on that myth in another article.

Related posts:

1. The “chemical imbalance” myth Contrary to what pharmaceutical advertising and popular belief suggests, there...
2. Bad news for tea drinkers Research has shown that fluoride is a highly toxic substance...
3. Low-carb diet best for weight loss A recent study indicates low-carb diets are superior to low-fat...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

]]> http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-water-myth/feed/ http://thehealthyskeptic.org/why-grass-fed-is-best-part-ii/ http://thehealthyskeptic.org/why-grass-fed-is-best-part-ii/#comments Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:20:13 +0000 Chris http://thehealthyskeptic.org/?p=22

Why grass-fed is best - part I Although most consumers have heard of grass-fed or pasture-raised animal...

The top fourteen foods The government has recently published its list of the top...

Liver: nature’s most potent superfood Most people might think of a green spirulina drink or...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.]]>

Make sure to check out part I of “Why grass-fed is best” for the environmental and ethical benefits of pasture-raised animal products.

In part I we reviewed the environmental and ethical benefits of pasture-raised animal products, along with some general information about why they are more nutritious. In this article, we’ll look more specifically at exactly why grass-fed animal products are superior to commercially-raised alternatives.

Meat

• Meat from grass-fed animals has two to four times more omega-3 fatty acids than meat from grain- fed animals.
• When chickens are housed indoors and deprived of greens, their meat and eggs also become artificially low in omega-3s.
• Eggs from pastured hens can contain as much as 19 times more omega-3s than eggs from factory hens.
• When ruminants are raised on fresh pasture alone, their products contain from three to five times more CLA than products from animals fed conventional diets. CLA is a fatty acid that has recently been studied as a potent cancer fighter.
• The meat from the pastured cattle is four times higher in vitamin E than the meat from the feedlot cattle and, interestingly, almost twice as high as the meat from the feedlot cattle given vitamin E supplements.

Milk

• Unfortunately, 85 to 95 percent of the cows in the United States are now being raised in confinement, not on pasture. The only grass they eat comes in the form of hay, and the ground that they stand on is a blend of dirt and manure.
• Milk from a pastured cow can have five times as much CLA as a grainfed animal.
• Milk from pastured cows also contains an ideal ratio of essential fatty acids or EFAs. Studies suggest that if your diet contains roughly equal amounts of these two fats, you will have a lower risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, allergies, obesity, diabetes, dementia, and various other mental disorders.
• When a cow is raised on pasture , her milk has an ideal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. Replace two-thirds of the pasture with a grain-based diet and the milk will have more than five times the amount of omega-6 fatty acids than omega-3s, a ratio that has been linked with an increased risk of a wide variety of conditions, including obesity, diabetes, depression, and cancer.
• Grassfed milk is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E. This vitamin bonus comes, in part, from the fact that fresh pasture has more of these nutrients than grain or hay. These extra helpings of vitamins are then transferred to the cow’s milk.

Free-range (pastured) eggs

• When compared to commercially raised, supermarket eggs, free-range eggs have:
  2/3 more vitamin A
• 7 times more beta carotene
• Up to 19 times more omega-3 fatty acids
• Significantly more folic acid and vitamin B12

Raw dairy products - another step up

The information above should convince you that grass-fed dairy products are superior in every way to dairy products that come from grain-fed cows. Another important distinction to be made is the difference between raw and pasteurized dairy products.

I will be covering this in further detail in a future article, but in short raw dairy products have several significant advantages over pasteurized alternatives:

• Raw milk is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidolphilus, vitamins and enzymes, as well as the finest source of calcium available.
• Pasteurizing milk destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria and promotes pathogens.
• Raw milk is not associated with any the problems of pasteurized milk, and even people who have been allergic to pasteurized milk for many years can typically tolerate and even thrive on raw milk.

Contrary to popular belief, raw milk is safe to consume. There has never been a pathogen found in the milk of the two largest raw dairy producers in California, Organic Pastures and Claravale. In fact, the USDA has been unable to even find pathogens in the soil at Organic Pastures - which is highly unusual. This is due to the much more stringent standards for sanitation that raw dairies must comply with in order to be licensed to sell their products.

Again, I will cover this in more detail in a future article. Stay tuned!

Related posts:

1. Why grass-fed is best - part I Although most consumers have heard of grass-fed or pasture-raised animal...
2. The top fourteen foods The government has recently published its list of the top...
3. Liver: nature’s most potent superfood Most people might think of a green spirulina drink or...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It is important to note that the “organic” label does not have anything to do with whether an animal product is pasture-raised or not. It’s possible, and indeed common, for an organic meat or dairy product to come from cows raised in confinement feedlots. Likewise, it is also common to encounter pasture-raised animal products that do not have the “organic” label. This often occurs when the farm raising the animals is too small to afford the expensive organic certification process. In these cases, if one knows the farmer and his or her practices, it is preferable to choose the non-organic, grass-fed source over the organic, commercially-raised alternative.

Many environmental and ethical objections to eating meat stem from the tremendously destructive and cruel practices of commercial feedlot meat production. When meat and dairy animals are raised in a humane and ecologically responsible manner, these objections (which I entirely agree with in the case of commercial production) are no longer defendable.

In this two-part article I will cover the benefits of pasture-raised animal products. In part I, we’ll examine the environmental and economic benefits, and in part II, we’ll look at the nutritional and health benefits. Information is adapted in part from the Eat Wildwebsite.

Back to the pasture
Pasture-raised animals live on the range where they forage on their native diet. They are not sent to feedlots to be fattened on corn, soy or other grains which they do not normally eat. Pasture-raised livestock are not treated hormones or feed them growth-promoting additives. As a result, the animals grow at a natural pace. For these reasons and more, grass-fed animals live low-stress lives and are so healthy there is no reason to treat them with antibiotics or other drugs.

More Nutritious
A major benefit of raising animals on pasture is that their products are healthier for you. For example, compared with feedlot meat, meat from grass-fed beef, bison, lamb and goats has two to four times more omega-3 fatty acids. Meat and dairy products from grass-fed ruminants are the richest known source of another type of good fat called “conjugated linoleic acid” or CLA. When ruminants are raised on fresh pasture alone, their products contain from three to five times more CLA than products from animals fed conventional diets. Grass-fed meat also has more vitamin E, beta-carotene and vitamin C than grain-fed meat.

Factory Farming
Raising animals on pasture is dramatically different from the status quo. Virtually all the meat, eggs, and dairy products that you find in the supermarket come from animals raised in confinement in large facilities called CAFOs or “Confined Animal Feeding Operations.”  These highly mechanized operations provide a year-round supply of food at a reasonable price. Although the food is cheap and convenient, there is growing recognition that factory farming creates a host of problems, including:

• Animal stress and abuse
• Air, land, and water pollution
• The unnecessary use of hormones, antibiotics, and other drugs
• Low-paid, stressful farm work
• The loss of small family farms
• Food with less nutritional value

Unnatural Diets
Animals raised in factory farms are given diets designed to boost their productivity and lower costs. The main ingredients are genetically modified grain and soy that are kept at artificially low prices by government subsidies. To further cut costs, the feed may also contain “by-product feedstuff” such as municipal garbage, stale pastry, chicken feathers, and candy. Until 1997, U.S. cattle were also being fed meat that had been trimmed from other cattle, in effect turning herbivores into carnivores. This unnatural practice is believed to be the underlying cause of BSE or “mad cow disease.”

Environmental Degradation
When animals are raised in feedlots or cages, they deposit large amounts of manure in a small amount of space. The manure must be collected and transported away from the area, an expensive proposition. To cut costs, it is dumped as close to the feedlot as possible. As a result, the surrounding soil is overloaded with nutrients, which can cause ground and water pollution. When animals are raised outdoors on pasture, their manure is spread over a wide area of land, making it a welcome source of organic fertilizer, not a “waste management problem.”

Related posts:

1. Why grass-fed is best - part II In this article, we examine exactly why grass-fed animal products...
2. The top fourteen foods The government has recently published its list of the top...
3. Liver: nature’s most potent superfood Most people might think of a green spirulina drink or...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.