“Better brain power with coconut oil – Complementary Med. Association

Coconut is the fruit of the coconut palm. The oil of the nut (fruit) is used to make medicine. Coconut oil is high in a saturated fat called medium chain triglycerides. These fats work differently than other types of saturated fat in the body.

Research on the effects of these types of fats in the body is very preliminary.

Coconut oil is used for diabetes, heart disease, chronic fatigue, used topically for psoriasis and a skin moisturizer,  Crohn’s disease, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Alzheimer’s disease, thyroid conditions, energy, and boosting the immune system. Ironically, despite coconut oil’s high calorie and saturated fat content, some people use it to lose weight and lower cholesterol.

Canadian researcher, Stephen Cunnane studies brain metabolism at Universite de Sherbrooke. Using PET scans, he found that ketones are indeed a possible alternative brain fuel… suggesting that the brain is slowly starving as  Alzheimer’s disease progresses.

If you provide an alternative fuel to replace the loss of glucose in the aging brain, the coconut oil may rejuvenate the brain.

Read more:

 

 

“Hope for healing Vitamin D + Cancer”

“This is like the Holy Grail of cancer medicine; vitamin D produced a drop in cancer rates greater than that for quitting smoking, or indeed any other countermeasure in existence.”

~ Dennis Mangan, clinical laboratory scientist

The Vitamin D Council, a nonprofit educational corporation based in California, launches their “Vitamin D and Cancer” campaign today, presenting 20 detailed summaries of the evidence on the role of vitamin D in preventing cancer. Epidemiologist Dr. William Grant prepared the evidence-based summaries. He is the founder of the nonprofit organization, Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC) and serves as the Science Director for the Vitamin D Council.

Some researchers believe the link between vitamin D sufficiency and a decreased risk in cancer is promising. A randomized controlled trial found a 77% reduction in all-cancer incidence when the study group supplemented with 1100 IU/day of vitamin D plus 1450 mg/day calcium. Says Dr. Grant, “Based on various studies of UVB, vitamin D and cancer to date, it appears that global cancer burden can be reduced by 15-25% if everyone had vitamin D blood levels above 40 ng/ml.”

The summaries can be found under the “Health conditions” tab on the Vitamin D Council website, or more specifically at http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/. The Vitamin D Council hopes the campaign will spread more awareness about the importance of vitamin D sufficiency and the dangers of vitamin D deficiency.

For the top ten facts about vitamin D and cancer click here.

Information provided courtesy of the Vitamin D Council.

Image courtesy of thegodguy.files.wordpress.com  http://goo.gl/5culY

“Protect family -read bar codes”

I am going to watch those bar codes a LOT more now… I am busy reading the ingredients.. Boy.. shopping is a full time job!!!

ALWAYS READ THE LABELS ON THE FOODS YOU BUY–NO MATTER WHAT THE FRONT OF THE BOX OR PACKAGE TURN IT OVER AND READ THE BACK—CAREFULLY!

With all the food and pet products now coming from China , it is best to make sure you read labels at the grocery store and especially Wal-Mart when buying food products. Many products no longer show where they were made, only give where the distributor is located. It is important to read the bar code to track its origin.

How to read Bar Codes … interesting!

This may be useful to know when grocery shopping, if it’s a concern to you.

GREAT WAY TO “BUY USA & CANADA ” AND NOT FROM CHINA!!

The whole world is afraid of China-made “black hearted goods”.
Can you differentiate which one is made in Taiwan or China ?
If the first 3 digits of the barcode are 690, 691 or 692, the product is MADE IN CHINA.
471 is Made in Taiwan .

This is our right to know, but the government and related departments never educate the

public, therefore we have to RESCUE ourselves.

Nowadays, Chinese businessmen know that consumers do not prefer products “MADE IN

CHINA”, so they don’t show from which country it is made.

However, you may now refer to the barcode – remember if the first 3 digits are:

690-692 … then it is MADE IN CHINA
00 – 09 … USA & CANADA
30 – 37 … FRANCE
40 – 44 … GERMANY
471 … Taiwan
49 … JAPAN
50 … UK

BUY USA & CANADIAN MADE by watching for “0” at the beginning of the number.
Support the USA.

Health Tip of the day submitted by JS
Image courtesy of  http://goo.gl/sLbZF

‘Vitamin D and diabetes” http://wp.me/p13RKZ-qY

Researchers working at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, under the direction of Professor Anastassios Pittas  reported that 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D, given for 12 weeks, significantly improved pancreatic function in mildly overweight adults with pre-diabetes. Unfortunately, the lead author, Dr. Joanna Mitri, did not comment on the low dose of vitamin D they used, 2,000 IU/day, which only increased vitamin D levels from 24 to 30 ng/ml. Nor, in spite of it being a randomized controlled trial, did the authors make any new clinical recommendations for the people who paid for their study, the citizens of the United States.

They found that pancreatic function increased by 300 in the vitamin D group, but fell by 126 in the placebo group.

Joanna Mitri, Bess Dawson-Hughes, Frank B Hu, and Anastassios G Pittas.  Effects of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on pancreatic b cell function, insulin sensitivity, and glycemia in adults at high risk of diabetes: the Calcium and Vitamin D for Diabetes Mellitus (CaDDM) randomized controlled trial. AJCN. First published ahead of print June 29, 2011 as doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.011684.

In the end, they studied 22 volunteers in the vitamin D group and 22 in the placebo group. However, to give you an idea of what a feat this study was, how difficult it was to get enough subjects, they started with 911 subjects yet ended up randomizing only 44 into the vitamin D study. They did a parallel calcium study with 45 subjects, which found calcium had no benefit on pancreatic function.

The same senior author, Professor Anastassios Pittas, recently announced the results of a much larger epidemiological study that showed for every 5 ng/mL increase in vitamin D levels, the risk of developing diabetes dropped by 8%.  However, he was quick to warn that such epidemiological studies should not change clinical recommendations, only randomized controlled trials can do that. Then, when he oversees just such a randomized trial, not a word of clinical advice, only the ever-present request for more research money from the citizens of this country.

http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20110628/study-vitamin-d-may-cut-risk-of-diabetes

Of course the Food and Nutrition Board will say they never said levels greater than 20 ng/ml had no added benefits, only that no good evidence existed for such a benefit at the time they issued their report. Actually, if you exclude the science of epidemiology, that is still a false statement. The point is that history will record that someone was wrong.  Maybe it will be me and the Vitamin D Council’s recommendation, going into its fifth year, that adults should take at least 5,000 IU per day.  Or maybe it will be Professor A. Catharine Ross, of Penn­sylvania State University, the chairwoman of the recent FNB that concluded 600 IU/day is the Recommended Daily Allowance, all adults need.  Looking at the study published today, it is clear that 600 IU/day would not have resulted in a significant improvement in pancreatic function.

I predict that after most of the randomized controlled trials are out – in another ten years – the FNB will meet again and say “whoops,” it should have been 5,000 IU/day all along. However, by then the premature death count will be in the millions.

For a list of foods highest in vitamin D click here.

Reprinted with permission
John Cannell, MD
Vitamin D Council
1241 Johnson Road, #134
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Image courtesy of  abcnews

“Optimum vitamin D level above 50 ng/ml”

Make it or take it vitamin D level over 50 ng/ml

Professor Hollis is the scientist who provided the best reason to keep your vitamin D level around 50 ng/ml.  Some scientists say 20 ng/ml is good enough because parathyroid hormone (PTH) is pretty much suppressed with levels of 20, other scientists say levels should be 30 because calcium absorption is maximized with that level.  That is, PTH suppression and calcium absorption are biomarkers for adequate vitamin D blood levels.

Professor Hollis provided another biomarker, one every woman – and most men – can immediately accept as the best biomarker yet: how much vitamin D does a woman need to be sure that her breast milk has adequate vitamin D?  When you think about it, that’s about as good as biomarkers get.

Professor Hollis answered that question in his research, finding that when a lactating woman has vitamin D blood levels of 40-50 ng/ml, her breast milk finally has enough vitamin D to support the vitamin D levels of her nursing infant. At levels below 40, the vitamin D content of breast milk becomes unpredictable.  Human breast milk – unlike the breast milk of wild mammals – has little or no vitamin D.  Nature’s most perfect food is too often void of the pre-hormone needed for infant growth and development.

Dr. Bruce found that breast milk is not void of it, it is just that virtually all modern lactating women are void of it.

There is a 25-hydroxyvitamin D test, also called a 25(OH)D. Levels should be above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L) year-round, in both children and adults. Thanks to Bruce Hollis, Robert Heaney, Neil Binkley, and others, we now know the minimal acceptable level. It is 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L). In a recent study, Heaney, et al expanded on Bruce Hollis’s seminal work by analyzing five studies in which both the parent compound (cholecalciferol) and 25(OH)D levels were measured. They found that the body does not reliably begin storing cholecalciferol in fat and muscle tissue until 25(OH)D levels get above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L). The average person starts to store cholecalciferol at 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L), but at 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L) virtually everyone begins to store it for future use.

At levels below 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L), the body uses up vitamin D as fast as you can make it, or take it, indicating chronic substrate starvation—not a good thing. 25(OH)D levels should be between 50–80 ng/ml (125–200 nmol/L), year-round.

Two forms of Vitamin D are important in humans: ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) and cholecalciferol (vitamin D3). Vitamin D2 is synthesized by plants. Vitamin D3 is synthesized by humans in the skin when it is exposed to ultraviolet-B (UVB) rays from sunlight. Foods may be fortified with vitamin D2 or D3.Vitamin
Other ways Vitamin D is needed in the body

  • maintains normal blood levels of calcium and phosphorus.
  • aids in the absorption of calcium, helping to form and maintain strong bones.
  • protection from osteoporosis, hypertension (high blood pressure), cancer, and several autoimmune diseases.
  • calcium absorption which your bones need to grow.
  • needed for nerve, muscle, and immune systems function.

Excerpts courtesy of John Cannell, MD/Vitamin D Council  http://bit.ly/kAGVcX

Excerpts courtesy of  http://bit.ly/kcNiCV

Image 1. courtesy of  http://bit.ly/kcNiCV

Image 2. courtesy of  http://bit.ly/m7ae5K

 

"Save your change and use your pen to stop malnutrition"

Starvation kills. Malnutrition and dehydration can eliminated an individuals chance at developing a strong healthy body and mind and can cause death. 200 million children under 5 years of age are affected by malnutrition, with 90 percent living in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. And at any moment, at least 20 million children suffer from thedeadliest form of severe malnutrition. Malnutrition plays a huge role in child mortality because the immune systems of these children are less resistant to common childhood diseases. In fact, malnutrition contributes to at least one third of the eight million annual deaths of children under five of five.

Most of the damage caused by malnutrition occurs in children before they reach their second birthday.

This is the critical window of opportunity when the quality of a child’s diet has a profound, sustained impact on his or her health, physical and mental development. Breast milk is the only food babies need for the first six months. After this time, breastfeeding alone is not sufficient and the types of foods introduced into the diet are of paramount importance. Diets that do not provide the right blend of energy including high-quality protein, essential fats, and carbohydrates as well as vitamins and minerals can impair growth and development, increase the risk of death from common childhood illness, or result in life-long health consequences.

More clean water, protein, fruit and vegetables and less flour will eradicate malnutrition.

Tested strategies to address malnutrition are effective and are showing promising results in Mexico, Thailand, and Brazil, have reduced early childhood malnutrition through direct nutrition programs that ensure infants and young children from even the poorest families have access to quality foods, such as milk and eggs.

Although in Asian and African countries they want to tackle this problem by replicating successful complete food programs, the aid they are sent consists of fortified cereal blend of corn and soy only.  This GMO “food” will fill th ebelly of a starving child, but young child’s hunger, but does not provide proper nourishment.

International donor countries including the USA must end must support programs that don’t supply  the minimal nutritional needs of infants and young children.

Take action today to help Doctors Without Borders to change this food starvation policy,

Give all children a chance to grow up healthy.


Please sign the petition to help change the US policy and give what you can to help.

Resources

Excerpts courtesy of http://www.starvedforattention.org

Image 1. courtesy of   http://bit.ly/cnz18k

Image 2. courtesy of   http://bit.ly/aQkswQ

“Ashwagandha helps calm nerves and improve brain funtioning”

Ashwaganda, also known as Indian Ginseng, has been used for centuries for anxiety, cognitive and neurological disorders and inflammation. It is high in antioxidants.Ashwaganda is also used therapeutically for patients with nervous exhaustion, and debility due to stress. It is also used as an immune stimulant as it has been shown to prevent brain cell degeneration from chronic stress.
For centuries, Indian and African medicine have used it an anti-inflammatory, for fever relief, and against infectious disease. Many believe ashwagandha to be effective in stimulating the immune system. It also appears to inhibit swelling and aid memory and can act as a general health tonic.

A study done in 1991 at the Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Health Science Center indicated that extracts of ashwagandha had GABA-like activity. This may account for this herb’s anti-anxiety effects.
Ashwagandha is used in India to treat mental deficits in geriatric patients, including amnesia. Researchers from the University of Leipzig in Germany wanted to find out which neurotransmitters were influenced by ashwagandha. After injecting some of the chemicals in ashwagandha into rats, they later examined slices of their brain and found an increase in acetylcholine receptor activity. The researchers say, The drug-induced increase in acetylcholine receptor capacity might partly explain the cognition-enhancing and memory-improving effects of extracts from Withania somnifera [ashwagandha] observed in animals and humans.

A 2002 laboratory study indicated that ashwagandha stimulates the growth of axons and dendrites. A 2001 animal study showed ashwagandha had memory boosting ability. A 2000 study with rodents showed ashwagandha to have anti-anxiety and anti-depression effects. However, no clinical studies have been carried out to support its efficacy in humans.

Part of the Solanaceae or nightshade family as the tomato, Ashwaganda grows as a stout shrub that reaches a height of 170 cm (5.6 ft). Like the tomato which belongs to the same family, it bears yellow flowers and yellow-Orange to red Berry type fruit, though its fruit is berry-like in size and shape. It grows prolifically in India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
In Ayurveda, ashwagandha extract is considered an adaptogen or a substance that helps to normalize physiological function of the body and mind. In Ayurveda, the fresh roots are sometimes boiled in milk, prior to drying, in order to leach out undesirable constituents. The berries are used as a substitute for rennet, to coagulate milk in cheese making.
It has sedating properties, but it has been also used for sexual vitality and as an adaptogen. Some herbalists refer to ashwagandha as Indian ginseng, since it is used in ayurvedic medicine in a way similar to that ginseng is used in traditional Chinese medicine.
Seven American and four Japanese firms have filed for grant of patents on formulations containing extracts of the herb Ashwagandha.

Resources

Excerpts courtesy of   http://bit.ly/a1xUVK

Excerpts courtesy of   http://bit.ly/ayZLer

Image courtesy of   http://bit.ly/dkJ3Zi

"McCain's supplement bill"

Congress will likely pass around 500 bills in 2010 that will impact the lives of every-day Americans like you and I.

One of Senator McCain’s latest bills shouldn’t be among them, and you can help make certain his bill doesn’t see the light of day.

He introduced a misguided bill that threatens access to dietary and health supplements many Americans depend on.

The stated aim of his so-called Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA) is to curb doping in major league sports. But in reality, the bill will do more harm than good. The FDA already has power to do more to stop illegal steroids. What’s most troubling is that if Senator McCain’s bill passes, it would repeal key protections in the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) and give the FDA sweeping new powers.

What would this mean for us? It would likely lead to drastically fewer supplements available and higher prices.

The public outcry has gotten Senator McCain’s attention, but time is running out. A final big push could change McCain’s mind.

Please take a moment and urge your Senator to oppose Senator McCain’s harmful anti-supplement legislation.

It is critical that we keep the pressure on, and with your help, we can ensure the final defeat of this bad bill. The following are the four parts of the bill.


1. Requires all dietary supplement manufacturing, processing and holding facilities to register with the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

2. Gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to issue a mandatory recall order if a dietary supplement is adulterated or misbranded or “the use of such supplement could cause serious adverse health consequences such as death;”

3. Requires the FDA commissioner to publish guidelines on new dietary ingredients “as soon as possible;”

4. Mandates the FDA notify the Drug Enforcement Administration when a new product contains a synthetic anabolic steroid.

Athletes from various sports have blamed positive drug tests on substances that turn up in dietary supplements even though they aren’t listed as ingredients on the label.

McCain has said his bill would protect professional and Olympic athletes — along with casual sports participants who use supplements.

Please contact your senators today and tell them not to co-sponsor or support Senator McCain’s bill.

Canada's Bill C-51 Will it Outlaw Vit C OTC?

Vitamin C About to be Made Illegal in Canada!

by Joseph Mercola MD

C-51, C51, Canada, the Trilateral Union, the North American Union, NAU, laws, supplements, natural health products, illegal.  What if, just for taking vitamin C, you could be thrown in jail for up to 2 years and fined up to $5,000,000?

For many, this sounds inconceivable.  Surely someone is misinterpreting the proposed law?

After hours of cross-checking, I must admit, I’m still a bit confused about its true potential ramifications.

In reading the proposed law itself, the statements above appear to be potentially accurate interpretations. Ditto on the dire predictions made by www.Stop51.com.

And although the Canadian government’s site, Healthy Canadians, claims that none of the above statements are true, it offers very little in terms of guidance on just how and why the law doesn’t mean what it says.

Why Should Americans Care?

If you’re one of the millions of people in Canada, the United States or Mexico, who has never heard of the Trilateral Union, the North American Union (NAU), or Codex, I’m afraid you may be in for a quite a surprise. But don’t feel bad, neither of our respective governments or major media outlets are speaking publicly or frankly about these plans.

These issues are far too broad and deep to go into in this article, but they are the reasons why you should care about this law passing in Canada, even if you don’t live there now – because in the foreseeable future the borders between our three countries might disappear.

If you’re reading this newsletter you obviously have access to the internet, so just Google “North American Union” or “Codex” and you’ll get more than 74.6 million and 13 million hits respectively on these two topics.

You can also search my website for previous articles on Codex and what these international food and supplement standards may mean for the future of nutritional supplements.

If being an informed citizen matters to you, don’t let these topics slip under your radar – they have the power to change our respective countries and our ways of life in more ways than you could imagine.

What Does Codex Have to Do With C-51?

To answer that question we have to back up a couple of paces and start with a quick explanation of what Codex is.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, conceived by the United Nations in 1962, was birthed through a series of relationships between The World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as the American FDA and USDA.

The Codex Alimentarius itself is a compilation of food standards, codes of practice and guidelines that specify all requirements related to foods (whether processed, semi-processed, genetically engineered, or raw). Their purpose is to protect consumers’ health, ensure fair business practices within the food trade, and eliminate international food trade barriers by standardizing food quality.

Sounds good in theory, right?

However, the two most potentially dangerous prospects of Codex are: 1) these standards are being devised as international rules intended for world-wide adoption, and 2) Codex has classified nutrients as toxins.

Yes, toxins. That’s not a misprint.

The Codex Commission decided—with the support of the United States—to use something called Risk Assessment, which assesses the maximum level of a substance – in this case a nutrient — that may be ingested without causing any discernable biological effect.

Did you get that one? Let me explain further.

Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, a.k.a. the science of toxins (as opposed to the science of nutrition). In a sane world, it is used to assess how much of a toxic substance you can safely eat without noticing any physical effects or problems. As soon as there is a biological effect, you have hit the upper, maximum limit for that substance.

Codex is slowly but surely shimmying into position to mandate the universal maximum “safe” level of every vitamin, mineral, supplement and herb that may legally be manufactured, used or sold — with “safe” being a level that has no physical effect.

So, what does this have to do with Canada’s potential adoption of C-51?

Well, C-51 also amends the Canadian law to allow trade agreements to become law without Parliamentary approval, and for the regulation to incorporate documents produced by a foreign state or subdivision of a foreign state.

What that means is that the Codex treaty could become Canadian law without Parliamentary approval simply by passing a regulation saying it is now part of the Canadian regulations.

If the Codex rules become the law of the land in Canada, the safety of supplements might become judged on the toxicology scale, and if Canada has these laws in place when the NAU becomes reality – guess what? The U.S. and Mexico may have little choice but to fall under the same umbrella of laws and standards.

And, even if you refuse to believe that the North American Union will ever take place, passing similar, potentially restricting natural health laws in the U.S. will be a whole lot easier if Canada sets the precedent.

The Fine Art of Double-Speak

The Canadian law, known as C-51, was introduced by the Canadian Minister of Health on April 8th, 2008, proposing far-reaching changes to Canada’s Food and Drug Act. The question on everyone’s mind is whether or not it might have devastating consequences on the health products industry.

According to the government website Healthy Canadians, Canadians will continue to have access to natural health products that are safe, effective and of high quality, and claims that:

*
Natural health products will not be regulated as pharmaceutical drugs; they will continue to be regulated under their own regulations – separate from drugs and foods.
*
Bill C-51 will not increase the costs of natural health products.
*
Bill C-51 does not regulate growing an herb garden.
*
Bill C-51 does not target practitioners who compound products for their patients.
*
Bill C-51 does not target Canadians’ personal use of natural health products.
*
Health food stores will not require a special license to sell natural health products.
*
Canadians will not require a prescription from a doctor for natural health products.

However, the site also makes somewhat confusing statements like:

“Under Bill C-51 the term ‘therapeutic products’ encompasses a range of products sold for therapeutic purposes, including drugs, medical devices, biologics, and natural health products. This does not change the classification of a natural health product nor impose additional requirements.”

Personally, I’ve not been able to sort out why or how a natural health product — if now lumped together with drugs under the term ‘therapeutic products’ — would not change its classification, and why they would not have to abide by the same rules as all other ‘therapeutic products.’

The Power of Words

One of the most opposed changes is this radical alteration to key terminology, including replacing the word “drug” with “therapeutic product,” which is the same term used for all natural products as well.

To get a better idea of the many questions and confusing pitfalls this law change brings to fore, I recommend reading the NHPPA Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-51.

Clearly, I’m not the only one who can’t make heads or tails out of this legislative doublespeak, and the paper (written by a defense attorney specializing in the Food and Drugs Act) succinctly points out the power of language and key words in legislative debate.

For example, the old definition of “sell” is:

“includes the offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale and distribute, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration.”

That’s clear. In fact, I think most of us have a decent idea of what “selling” means. The NEW definition of “sell,” however, opens the door for a very broad interpretation:

“includes offer for sale, expose for sale or have in possession for sale, or distribute to one or more persons, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration and in relation to a device, includes lease, offer for lease, expose for lease or have in possession for lease.”

Now, what’s the reason for redefining the meaning of the word “sell” to include the simple act of “distributing to one or more persons”? Who does this new meaning benefit? Who does this now include that was not included before? Why the need for such a broad definition?

In plain English, it appears the law now applies if I were to simply give something to another person for free, whether it’s a stranger or a family member.

More Questionable Interpretations

Another interesting rebuttal by the Canadian government is the issue of whether or not an inspector would be allowed to enter private property without permission or a warrant.

The Healthy Canadian site states, “Inspectors will not be able to enter a private home without permission or a warrant.”

And yet the law, Section 23 (4), clearly reads: An inspector who is carrying out their functions may enter on or pass through or over private property without being liable for doing so and without the owner of the property having the right to object to that use of the property.

Since when does “without the right to object” mean that they have to ask for permission or present a warrant?

What Can You Do?

I don’t pretend to know or understand the full potential implications of this proposed law.  However, if — after reading through the many source links I’ve included in this comment — you believe that C-51 is a law that is not in your and your family’s best interest, you can make your voice heard by signing the StopC51 petition”.  -Dr. Mercola

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-to-be-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx?source=nl