Moderate-intensity physical activity totaling a minimum of 150 minutes per week is the “current nationally recognized standard for physical activity.”

What is moderate activity?

San Diego State University researcher Simon Marshall and his colleagues recruited 97 women and men to define the range for moderate activity. Each volunteer walked on a treadmill four times at four different speeds—from 2.4 miles per hour to 4.1—while a machine measured the amount of energy he or she was expending. The volunteers also wore pedometers to count their steps.
Walking at a speed of at least 100 steps per minute fulfilled the lower limit of moderate-intensity exercise according to American Journal of Preventive Medicine, May 2009 issue.

You can use a pedometer, a watch, a notebook, and a pencil to find out how to pace yourself while walking to achieve the 100+ steps per minute.
For an even more accurate individual estimate, walk for five minutes, and divide the number of steps you took by five.”

Lusk says women walkers who picked up the pace and walked briskly had a lot better chance of holding off the weight gain that typically comes as women get older. Not so for other walkers:

“The women tended to gain more than 5 percent of their baseline body weight if they slow-walked.” (6 seconds)

For bikers, as little as five minutes more a day helped with weight control.

The study in Archives of Internal Medicine was supported by the National Institutes of Health

Resource

Excerpts courtesy of http://tinyurl.com/795z8wt.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/special_health_reports/

Share on Facebook

Baby's Intuitional Skills

expectations basically to predict the future,” Kristy vanMarle, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences in the College of Arts and Science.. “Intuitive physics include skills that adults use all the time. For example, when a glass of milk falls off the table, a person might try to catch the cup, but they are not likely to try to catch the milk that spills out. The person doesn’t have to consciously think about what to do because the brain processes the information and the person simply reacts. The majority of an adult’s everyday interactions with the world are automatic, and we believe infants have the same ability to form expectations, predicting the behavior of objects and substances with which they interact.”

Kristy vanMarle “We believe that infants are born with expectations about the objects around them, even though that knowledge is a skill that’s never been taught. As the child develops, this knowledge is refined and eventually leads to the abilities we use as adults.”

In a review of related scientific literature from the past 30 years, vanMarle and Susan Hespos of Northwestern University found that the evidence for intuitive physics occurs in infants as young as two months – the earliest age at which testing can occur.”

Testing could begin prebirth by assessing the changes in the mother’s food, behavior and music choices.  If a mom after she conceives craves vegetables and she never did before this craving may be the baby’s needs being expressed.

While the intuitive physics knowledge is believed to be present at birth, vanMarle believes parents can assist skill development through normal interaction, such as playing and talking with the child and encouraging him/her to interact with objects.

Human intuition or knowing does not begin or end each life. According to Murshida Vera Corda, PhD, whos’ life work was dedicated to helping parents and caretakers develop the ability to attune to their children. Parents are taught to work with their children from conception on. Talking, becoming aware of their child’s needs through observing what is happening in their five developmental bodies: physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and ethical/moral, regardless of their chronological age.

In her book Cradle of Heaven, she shows how motherhood and fatherhood consists of a series of skills we relearn in life’s greatest challenge — parenting.

Resources

Excerpts courtesy of medicalxpress.com

Image courtesy of http://tinyurl.com/7ubln7h

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

After being treated for vaccinations effects with the Chiren’s photon energy, the feed intake changed, as did the growth of the chickens. To briefly set the standard: A ‘normal’ growth patterns means that a chicken being raised as a laying hen will grow no more than about 9 to 10 grams per day, 14 or 15 grams for exceptional farmers and chickens.

The limited growth for laying hens is caused by the cross breeding that has taken place to maximize the laying capabilities of chickens. A byproduct of that cross breeding is that it is difficult to get the chickens to eat enough.

After the first treatments with the Chiren, the chickens not only grew between 18 and 25 grams per day, but ate and drank more than before. The chickens grew faster than the normal, and ate less than they should have according to the accepted norm: 5.7 kg/chicken instead of 6.3 kg/chicken in feed intake over a period of time. And this was for chickens that were already 12 weeks old when we started with the treatment.

Second experiment -older hens

Currently, we monitoring and treating a new flock of chicks the same farmer is raising. In the first two weeks, the chicks grew according to the accepted norm, but used almost 35% less feed to achieve that. So far, we can only assume that the feed intake may possibly drop to the almost 10% lower feed intake the slightly older laying hens are currently showing.

Next, the production flock of laying hens was treated. After several weeks, the death rate dropped from 2 to 4 chickens per week to 0 to 1 chickens per week. The industry norm of 12  deaths in flocks of the same size.

Usually after 42 weeks, laying hens are past their prime and normally show a decrease in the number of eggs laid. This Chiren treated flock,showed an increase in the egg production overall, and is producing 1.5% more eggs than before treatment.

Conclusions:

Chickens overall health and production increased after treatment with Chiren/photon energy.

This all was possible after the effects of the vaccines were eliminated.

What are the implications for human health and longevity?
Reprinted with permission from Sander Lourens and Paul Mak from the Wageningen University and Lively Research for Health Angel Foundation

Image courtesy of featurepics.com

Share on Facebook

From the beginning of a student doctor’s medical education is taught by professors with deep financial ties to the traditional pharmaceutical industry. One might say that these young doctors in training are brain washed into the belief that there is only one way to practice medicine.
As the Harvard Medical Student Organization discovered, the clinicians and researchers who lead preclinical medical education at US medical schools are usually drawn from affiliated medical centers and therefore are likely to have financial ties to industry.3  Out of Harvard’s 8,900 professors and lecturers, 1,600 admit that they or a family member have ties to drug companies that could bias their teaching or research.
• The pharmaceutical industry contributed more than $11.5 million to Harvard in 2008 for “research and continuing education classes.”

In the context of physician education, financial relationships to the subject matter have been shown to induce selective presentation of data and definitely created the medical mantra that the only good and safe medicine is the Big Pharm. one.
Drug companies were the greatest influence on doctors’ decisions of which drugs to prescribe. Further, about 70 percent of doctors regarded drug representatives as an efficient way to obtain new drug information! One professor’s disclosure list had 47 company affiliations!

Drug companies spend $4 billion each year on direct-to-consumer ads in the United States, but 400% more, a massive $16 billion, to influence your doctor. That is $10,000 per year per doctor   in the United States.

Two hundred Harvard Medical School students have challenged their school’s administration, demanding an end to pharmaceutical industry influence in the classroom. These organic changes will take years to unwind and reeducation of staff to open their eyes to safer natural ways to care for people.

Harvard received the lowest possible grade, an “F,” from the American Medical Student Association, a national group that rates how well medical schools monitor and control drug industry money.

The students were joined by Dr. Marcia Angell, a faculty member and former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, who has vigorously advocated for an end to liaisons between academia and Big Pharm.

Go Students!  Become educated and aware so more consumers can receive quality well informed integrated health care.
Resources
Excerpts courtesy of jama.ama-assn.org
Excerpts courtesy of mercola.com

Image courtesy of  smat.us

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

From the American College of Rheumatology annual conference in Chicago this week,

“Losing a moderate amount of weight can mean big pain relief to sufferers of knee arthritis.

5-10 percent loss of body weight can result in upwards of a 50% increase in mobility and a significant drop in pain levels.”

For more information click

Share on Facebook

(Medical Xpress) — What drives addicts to repeatedly choose drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, overeating, gambling or kleptomania, despite the risks involved?
Drug Dependence Quiz – Identify substance abuse problems Confidential, free online survey – TurnToHelp.com

Neuroscientists at the University of California, Berkeley, have pinpointed the exact locations in the brain where calculations are made that can result in addictive and compulsive behavior.

UC Berkeley researchers have found how neural activity in the brain’s orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate cortex regulates our choices. These astonishing new findings could pave the way for more targeted treatments for everything from drug and alcohol abuse to obsessive-compulsive disorders.

‘The better we understand our decision-making brain circuitry, the better we can target treatment, whether it’s pharmaceutical, behavioral or deep brain stimulation,” said Jonathan Wallis, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at UC Berkeley and the principal investigator of the study to be published in the Oct. 30 online issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience.

Wallis was inspired to look into the brain mechanism behind substance abuse when he observed the lengths to which addicts will go to fulfill their cravings, despite the downside of their habit: He asked, “What has the drug done to their brains that makes it so difficult for them not to make that choice? What is preventing them from making the healthier choice?”

In the new study, he and fellow researchers targeted the orbitofrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex –- two areas in the frontal brain — because previous research has shown that patients with damage to these areas of the brain are impaired in the choices they make. While these individuals may appear perfectly normal on the surface, they routinely make decisions that create chaos in their lives. A similar dynamic has been observed in chronic drug addicts, alcoholics and people with obsessive-compulsive tendencies.”

Share on Facebook

Two widely cited, published cancer research studies contain fabricated data, will be retracted

The Mayo Clinic concluded that data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated, resulting in the retraction of 17 papers in nine research journals
Cancer research in the United States needs to be scrutinized, as much is money-driven and based on developing new drugs

In a scandal that has reverberated around the world of cancer research, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health found that a Boston University cancer scientist fabricated his findings. His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now make 10 years of their studies worthless, according to commentary in Gaia Health.

It seems fairly evident that the cancer industrial complex is a highly lucrative, well-oiled system that tends to support funding for expensive drug treatments that don’t address the cause of the problem, and have yet to make a significant dent in the decrease of the overall cancer rate in the US despite investing hundreds of billions of dollars. Much of the support comes from flawed and biased “research” studies that support the use of expensive drugs as detailed in the featured articles.

Researchers, too, are well aware of the notoriety and money to be found in cancer research … particularly what may be deemed successful cancer research (which unfortunately is often measured by the discovery of new drug treatments). But, as with many areas of medical research, it’s important to read between the lines of “scientifically proven” studies, even those that are well accepted.

Often what you’ll find is the research gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to control and deceive. Case in point, here again we have an example of widely accepted, published research that turned out to be fabricated.

10 Years of Cancer Research Down the Drain

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Department of Health reported in August 2011 that final action has been taken against Sheng Wang, PhD, of Boston University School of Medicine, Cancer Research Center. ORI states:

“The Respondent engaged in research misconduct by fabricating data that were included in two (2) published papers.”

This includes:

Oncogene February 2009, which found that HIC1, a protein thought to suppress tumor growth, is a “central molecule in a novel mechanism controlling cell growth and that the disruption of this HIC1-mediated pathway may lead to abnormal cell proliferation and, ultimately, cancer.”
Molecular Endocrinology December 2009, which found “reintroducing HIC1 into resistant breast cancer cells restored their sensitivity to the estrogen antagonists, indicating the existence of a novel regulatory mechanism for growth control of breast cancer cells.”

Specifically, six of the eight figures in the Oncogene paper and six of the seven figures in the Molecular Endocrinology study were said to contain data from fabricated experiments. Though Wang is now required to retract the papers, and he reportedly stopped working for Boston University in July, he will only be ineligible for federal funding for 2 years.

Further, the fabricated research may continue to live on, as it has been cited by other studies and once a finding is accepted in the medical community, it’s very hard to make it go away. Unfortunately, scientific retractions are actually becoming increasingly common.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

“Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide …

At the Mayo Clinic, a decade of cancer research, partly taxpayer-funded, went down the drain when the prestigious Minnesota institution concluded that intriguing data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. Seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted. A researcher, who protests his innocence, was fired. In another major flameout, 18 research journals have said they are planning to retract a total of 89 published studies by a German anesthesiologist …”

Fabricated Research is More Common Than You Might Think

Peer-reviewed research published in medical journals gets the golden star of approval in the media, yet many, if not most, of the findings are incredibly misleading. One of the best exposé’s into this muddled system came from none other than Dr. Marcia Angell, who was the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

In her book The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she exposed many examples of why medical studies often cannot be trusted, and said flat out:

“Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time.”

For instance, in 2009 Dr. Scott Reuben, who was a well-respected, prominent anesthesiologist, former chief of acute pain of the Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. and a former professor at Tufts University’s medical school, allegedly fabricated the data for 21 studies!

Dr. Reuben succeeded in getting numerous studies published, and those studies were accepted as fact and swayed the prescribing habits of doctors. It was only due to a routine audit raising a few red flags that a larger investigation was later launched.

So how did those false studies, or any studies for that matter, become worthy of being published? Part of the problem may be the peer-review process itself, as this puts researchers in charge of policing other researchers’ results, and most do not want to insult a fellow researcher’s work with negative comments.

As written in Gaia Health:

“It’s all about money. Get published in a major medical journal and your future is made. Most peer reviewers are doing their own studies. That’s what makes them peers. They want to be able to publish. Therefore, they are not particularly inclined to make more than perfunctory negative comments. Obviously, they don’t want to alienate the authors of papers, since they either are or hope to become published themselves.

Peer review is a farce. The only kind of review that makes real sense is professional independent reviewers. Yet, for decades we’ve had peer review trotted out as the be-all and end-all in determining the legitimacy of papers. It’s been unquestioned, while a little examination of the concept demonstrates that it’s nearly certain to result in fraudulent work being passed as good science.”

It’s almost impossible to find out what happens in the vetting process, as peer reviewers are unpaid, anonymous and unaccountable. And although the system is based on the best of intentions, it lacks consistent standards and the expertise of the reviewers can vary widely from journal to journal.

Given that cancer research is such a lucrative business right now — the National Cancer Institute, which gave the grant money to support Dr. Sheng Wang’s fabricated research, had a $5.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2010 — the stakes are exceptionally high. So it stands to reason that it may be subject to even more fraud and manipulation than less lucrative research prospects.

As The Economist reported, there were more new cancer drugs in development in 2010 than any other therapeutic area. Drug makers are well aware that a blockbuster cancer drug could easily earn them profits in the billions, even if the drug is only borderline effective. It is abundantly clear that profit is a primary motive of these companies so it should not be a surprise that they have moved in this direction, and this is where the abundance of research is focused as well.

Why You Might Want to Think Twice Before Donating to Anti-Cancer Charities

A lot of people put their faith in charity organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS), dutifully donating money to help in the “war on cancer.” But in the report titled American Cancer Society—More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many conflicts of interest that hamper the effectiveness of this organization.

For example, the ACS has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. But that’s just for starters. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer!

The ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively focus on cancer research and the diagnosis and chemical treatment of cancer. Preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures, receive virtually no consideration at all.

“Giant corporations, which profited handsomely while they polluted air, water, the workplace, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, remain greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS. This silence reflected a complex of mindsets fixated on diagnosis, treatment, and basic genetic research, together with ignorance, indifference, and even hostility to prevention. Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding,” Dr. Epstein writes.

Many also do not realize that when you donate money to the American Cancer Society, the majority of it may never go further than the bank accounts of its numerous well-paid executives.

Meanwhile, global cancer rates have doubled in the last three decades, and their “war on cancer” strategy completely ignores, and oftentimes denies, the obvious links between cancer and toxic exposures through pesticide-laden foods, toxic personal care products, cancer-causing medical treatments and drugs, and industrial pollution. We CAN turn this trend around, but to do so the medical and research communities must stop focusing on drug treatments and overlooking the methods that can actually have a significant impact on preventing this disease.

My Top 12 Tips for Cancer Prevention

Rather than put your health in the hands of cancer researchers willing to do just about anything to discover the next cancer drug breakthrough, take control of your health by following the cancer-preventive lifestyle changes below.

Avoid Fructose and Sugar

It’s quite clear that if you want to avoid cancer, or are currently undergoing cancer treatment, you absolutely MUST avoid all forms of sugar — especially fructose — and this is largely due to its relation to insulin resistance. According to Lewis Cantley, director of the Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School, as much as 80 percent of all cancers are “driven by either mutations or environmental factors that work to enhance or mimic the effect of insulin on the incipient tumor cells,” Gary Taubes reports.

Some cancer centers, such as the Cancer Centers of America, have fully embraced this knowledge and place their patients on strict low-sugar, low-grain diets. But conventional medicine in general has been woefully lax when it comes to highlighting the health dangers of this additive.

As a standard recommendation, I strongly advise keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day including fruits. But for most people it would also be wise to limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams or less, as you’re virtually guaranteed to consume “hidden” sources of fructose if you drink beverages other than water and eat processed food.
Optimize Your Vitamin D Level

There’s overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. Researchers within this field have estimated that about 30 percent of cancer deaths — which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States — could be prevented each year simply by optimizing the vitamin D levels in the general population.

On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial.

If the notion that sun exposure actually prevents cancer is still new to you, I highly recommend you watch my one-hour vitamin D lecture to clear up any confusion. It’s important to understand that the risk of skin cancer from the sun comes only from excessive exposure.
Exercise

If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn’t immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer. One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells.

For example, physically active adults experience about half the incidence of colon cancer as their sedentary counterparts, and women who exercise regularly may reduce their breast cancer risk by 20 to 30 percent compared to those who are inactive.It’s important to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine, such as strength training, aerobics, core-building activities, and stretching. Most important of all, however, is to make sure you include high-intensity, burst-type exercise, such as those described in my Peak Fitness program.

These exercises activate your super-fast twitch muscle fibers, which can increase your body’s natural production of human growth hormone. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.
Get appropriate amounts of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats.
Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much under appreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
Engage in activities that help you reduce your stress levels, such as exercise, meditation, journalling, music, gardening, etc. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed.
Only 25 percent of people eat enough vegetables, so by all means eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Remember that carb nutritional types may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than protein nutritional types.
Maintain an ideal body weight.
Get appropriate amounts of high-quality sleep.
Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them. Better yet eat as many of your foods raw as you can.

Reprinted with permission Mercola.com

Share on Facebook

This new approach to restoring the human being to its original glory, without drugs or long term medical care, assists the body in reestablishing health as the natural state of being uses light to heal. A device called a Chiren is used to detect and treat causes instead of symptoms of dis-ease patterns in the body; then this same device can b used to return the body to a healthy energy level.

70-85% of medical diagnosis are misdiagnosis, something must be wrong.
It is time to approach the human body from a physics point of view, in
stead of from a chemical point.
In Biontology the human being gets its central place back and will be seen and treated as
one complete being and not as a series of individual organs and emotions.

Humans are light beings
Every cell emits more than 100 000 light impulses per second. These light impulses are
called biophotons. Every biophoton is an information package that precedes a biochemical reaction. Without a biophoton signal there is no chemical reaction in the body or in any other living substance.
If there is anything wrong in the biochemistry in the body, then there must be something wrong in the biophotons steering the system. This biochemical imbalance is impossible to correct without first correcting the steering signal. If you try to correct the chemical imbalance with other chemical substances, you only increase the chaotic circumstances and the stress in the body and nothing is cured but more disturbing signals are added.
This might lead to sufficient stress in the body so that it starts producing lots of
endorphins. Endorphins are the body’s own morphine and symptoms will be suppressed,
giving the appearance of healing, but the disease spreads.
Next how does a condition become chronic?

Image courtesy of Compmed. library

Share on Facebook