Be Cautious with Soy...... Especially Babies and Females
What's nearly as bad as taking a statin drug to lower cholesterol?
Tofu, (soy) believe it or not.
According to a new Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study, eating soy is a good way to lower cholesterol.
Two words: NO WAY!
I'm not saying soy won't lower your cholesterol -- it probably will. But it's a terrible way to do it...unless you want to risk cancer and nutrient deficiencies.
In the study, subjects lowered their LDL with a diet that included foods that are known to help lower cholesterol -- oats, nuts, beans, peas, and soy proteins.
In this diet, subjects drank soy milk for breakfast, soy milk for a mid-morning snack, and tofu slices on oat-bran bread for lunch. For dinner, more tofu.
What a disaster!
Start with hexane. As MSNBC reports (with a breezy, oh-by-the-way comment in the very last paragraph), you should choose only organic tofu because the nonorganic variety contains hexane -- a chemical used to separate soy proteins from soy fats. Unfortunately, hexane may promote cancer.
Okay -- good tip, MSNBC. But why stop there?
As Dr. Spreen has pointed out, the phytates in soy block absorption of key minerals, such as calcium, magnesium, and zinc -- and good luck maintaining optimum heart, bone, and cognitive health with a minimum of those three.
Phytates are deactivated in fermented soy, which is good for you, but that does NOT include tofu, textured soy protein, soy milk, and most other forms of soy that are pushed as "health foods".
Sally Fallon and Mary Enig of the Weston A. Price Foundation have studied soy extensively. They've found that soybeans contain components that promote the clotting of red blood cells, and other components that inhibit enzymes needed for protein digestion and amino acid uptake.
These are clearly not the elements of a healthy diet!
Attempting to lower cholesterol with nonorganic, unfermented soy products is just as ludicrous as taking a statin. The benefits are miniscule, which only magnifies the unnecessary risks.
Tofu, (soy) believe it or not.
According to a new Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study, eating soy is a good way to lower cholesterol.
Two words: NO WAY!
I'm not saying soy won't lower your cholesterol -- it probably will. But it's a terrible way to do it...unless you want to risk cancer and nutrient deficiencies.
In the study, subjects lowered their LDL with a diet that included foods that are known to help lower cholesterol -- oats, nuts, beans, peas, and soy proteins.
In this diet, subjects drank soy milk for breakfast, soy milk for a mid-morning snack, and tofu slices on oat-bran bread for lunch. For dinner, more tofu.
What a disaster!
Start with hexane. As MSNBC reports (with a breezy, oh-by-the-way comment in the very last paragraph), you should choose only organic tofu because the nonorganic variety contains hexane -- a chemical used to separate soy proteins from soy fats. Unfortunately, hexane may promote cancer.
Okay -- good tip, MSNBC. But why stop there?
As Dr. Spreen has pointed out, the phytates in soy block absorption of key minerals, such as calcium, magnesium, and zinc -- and good luck maintaining optimum heart, bone, and cognitive health with a minimum of those three.
Phytates are deactivated in fermented soy, which is good for you, but that does NOT include tofu, textured soy protein, soy milk, and most other forms of soy that are pushed as "health foods".
Sally Fallon and Mary Enig of the Weston A. Price Foundation have studied soy extensively. They've found that soybeans contain components that promote the clotting of red blood cells, and other components that inhibit enzymes needed for protein digestion and amino acid uptake.
These are clearly not the elements of a healthy diet!
Attempting to lower cholesterol with nonorganic, unfermented soy products is just as ludicrous as taking a statin. The benefits are miniscule, which only magnifies the unnecessary risks.
My
Comment:
Soy can be a concern especially for
babies and females because of the estrogen effect. Unfermented soy is loaded
with isoflavones, which are phytoestrogens. According to Sally Fallon Morell and Mary G. Enig, Ph.D., of the Weston A. Price Foundation, soy-based formula is given to about one-in-four bottle-fed children in the U.S. (That was their estimate in 2002. I expect the actual number is much higher now.)
Morell and Enig cite research that reveals a sad list of health problems linked to soy intake by babies of both sexes: extreme emotional behavior, asthma, immune system problems, thyroid disorders, and irritable bowel syndrome.
And then they share two very grim statistics:
1) A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that when infants are fed soy-based formula, their daily isoflavone exposure may be more than 10 times higher (on a body-weight basis) than the dose that produces hormonal effects in adults who consume non-fermented soy products.
2) A New Zealand study shows that a child who is fed soy formula exclusively is exposed to the estrogenic equivalent (again, based on body weight) of five birth control pills per day.
That's just staggering!
Then after this bombardment of daily hormones for a year or more, these kids start in on a typical American diet that's LOADED with soy.
Just take a look at some of the nutrition panels on the foods in your cupboard. Unless you've made a very specific effort to avoid soy, I guarantee you'll find soybean oil, soy lecithin, soy flour, and soy protein isolate hidden in all kinds of processed foods--bread, candy, cereal, cookies, crackers, sausage, canned foods, etc.
Hopefully, we can convince formula-makers and food processors to see the light, remove the soy, and give future generations a better start in life without this phony "health food."
Wellness
clinic helps companies cut insurance premiums by 25 percent through nutrition,
natural healing
Now here’s a refreshing change from the depressing news you hear every day about how medical insurance costs keep going up every year. A Kansas-based wellness clinic was surprised to learn recently that its employee insurance premiums would be decreasing by 25 percent next year, rather than increasing eight percent-or-so like they would be for most other companies, thanks to its integrative nutrition and wellness approach to employee health care. And the clinic is now offering the same opportunity to other companies that want to cut their insurance premiums while improving employee health naturally.
For nearly 40 years, the Riordan Clinic in Wichita, Kansas, has been helping improve people's lives through nutrition, vitamin and mineral supplementation, and natural therapies. Rather than merely treat symptoms with a one-size-fits-all approach like mainstream medicine does, the Riordan Clinic has been customizing wellness plans for individuals for decades -- and this approach has had the unexpected benefit of improving its employees' health as well, which has made providing health care perpetually less expensive.
Most companies are having an increasingly more difficult time, year after year, providing the same health insurance coverage to their employees without having to raise co-pay and deductible rates. As the general population grows increasingly more ill and disease-stricken, insurance rates naturally increase as well as it costs more to treat patients.
But when employees are offered real solutions to improve their health that have lasting effects, such as being tested for food sensitivity and allergies, or undergoing intravenous vitamin therapies to help alleviate or cure disease, they do not need to rely as heavily on the bloated, mainstream health care system. And this is precisely what the Riordan Clinic has done with its own employees, who will now cost the company 25 percent less to cover next year than they did last year.
The Riordan Clinic's approach has been so successful with its own employees that it is now offering the same system in a program known as "HealthMarkers" to companies everywhere that want to stem the tide of increasing health insurance rates, and improve their employee health, morale, and productivity at the same time.
To learn more about the Riordan Clinic and the HealthMarkers program, and to find a solution that can work for your company, visit (http://www.riordanclinic.org).
Use a probiotic supplement whenever you're prescribed an antibiotic.
Now here’s a refreshing change from the depressing news you hear every day about how medical insurance costs keep going up every year. A Kansas-based wellness clinic was surprised to learn recently that its employee insurance premiums would be decreasing by 25 percent next year, rather than increasing eight percent-or-so like they would be for most other companies, thanks to its integrative nutrition and wellness approach to employee health care. And the clinic is now offering the same opportunity to other companies that want to cut their insurance premiums while improving employee health naturally.
For nearly 40 years, the Riordan Clinic in Wichita, Kansas, has been helping improve people's lives through nutrition, vitamin and mineral supplementation, and natural therapies. Rather than merely treat symptoms with a one-size-fits-all approach like mainstream medicine does, the Riordan Clinic has been customizing wellness plans for individuals for decades -- and this approach has had the unexpected benefit of improving its employees' health as well, which has made providing health care perpetually less expensive.
Most companies are having an increasingly more difficult time, year after year, providing the same health insurance coverage to their employees without having to raise co-pay and deductible rates. As the general population grows increasingly more ill and disease-stricken, insurance rates naturally increase as well as it costs more to treat patients.
But when employees are offered real solutions to improve their health that have lasting effects, such as being tested for food sensitivity and allergies, or undergoing intravenous vitamin therapies to help alleviate or cure disease, they do not need to rely as heavily on the bloated, mainstream health care system. And this is precisely what the Riordan Clinic has done with its own employees, who will now cost the company 25 percent less to cover next year than they did last year.
The Riordan Clinic's approach has been so successful with its own employees that it is now offering the same system in a program known as "HealthMarkers" to companies everywhere that want to stem the tide of increasing health insurance rates, and improve their employee health, morale, and productivity at the same time.
To learn more about the Riordan Clinic and the HealthMarkers program, and to find a solution that can work for your company, visit (http://www.riordanclinic.org).
Use a probiotic supplement whenever you're prescribed an antibiotic.
As reported by Jenny
Thompson at Health Science Institute
Antibiotics kill both good and bad bacteria. And low levels of good bacteria provide a perfect environment for C. diff to thrive. This is where a good probiotic supplement can help enormously.
I asked Dr. Spreen if he recommends starting probiotics at the beginning of every antibiotic treatment, and he said, "Yes, absolutely."
He added that he would continue probiotic use for a full week after the antibiotic is finished. This isn't overkill -- it's insurance.
Dr. Spreen: "C. difficile colitis is really becoming common, and it's so sad. The disease is totally iatrogenic while also preventable with probiotic use. I ran into a lady just recently who had an infected catheter, who lost 25 pounds (didn't have it to lose) from C. diff colitis, and they never even told her the massive antibiotics they gave her could do such a thing. She was one miserable cookie."
And by the way, in case you don't know the meaning of "iatrogenic," it refers to any medical condition that develops as a result of a medical treatment -- in this case antibiotics.
Come to think of it, what prescription drug ISN'T potentially iatrogenic?
Antibiotics kill both good and bad bacteria. And low levels of good bacteria provide a perfect environment for C. diff to thrive. This is where a good probiotic supplement can help enormously.
I asked Dr. Spreen if he recommends starting probiotics at the beginning of every antibiotic treatment, and he said, "Yes, absolutely."
He added that he would continue probiotic use for a full week after the antibiotic is finished. This isn't overkill -- it's insurance.
Dr. Spreen: "C. difficile colitis is really becoming common, and it's so sad. The disease is totally iatrogenic while also preventable with probiotic use. I ran into a lady just recently who had an infected catheter, who lost 25 pounds (didn't have it to lose) from C. diff colitis, and they never even told her the massive antibiotics they gave her could do such a thing. She was one miserable cookie."
And by the way, in case you don't know the meaning of "iatrogenic," it refers to any medical condition that develops as a result of a medical treatment -- in this case antibiotics.
Come to think of it, what prescription drug ISN'T potentially iatrogenic?
Low-salt
diets increase risk of stroke and heart disease, study says
(NaturalNews) For years we've been told to lower our salt intake for our health. Individuals at risk for heart attack are especially admonished to drop their salt intake as low as possible. As it turns out, this seemingly harmless recommendation is actually putting us at a higher risk for conditions like heart disease and stroke. Although salt has been construed as a vial substance responsible for ruining our heart health, new research says too little salt may be just as harmful as too much.
(NaturalNews) For years we've been told to lower our salt intake for our health. Individuals at risk for heart attack are especially admonished to drop their salt intake as low as possible. As it turns out, this seemingly harmless recommendation is actually putting us at a higher risk for conditions like heart disease and stroke. Although salt has been construed as a vial substance responsible for ruining our heart health, new research says too little salt may be just as harmful as too much.
Researchers
from McMaster University in Ontario looked at data from drug trials involving
nearly 30,000 individuals who already had heart disease or diabetes.
Participants in these trials had their sodium intake measured through urine
analysis and were followed for an average of four to five years to record the
incidence of heart-related hospitalizations and deaths.
After adjusting for factors like medications, weight, smoking and cholesterol levels, researchers found that too little salt is doing harm instead of good. Those who consumed between 4,000 and 6,000 milligrams of sodium per day--more than double the current recommendations--were at the least risk for heart disease and stroke.
People who ate a diet lower in salt didn't experience less risk, but more. Researchers found that people who consume 2,000 to 3,000 mg of sodium per day were actually 20 percent more likely to experience death or hospitalization related to heart conditions, compared to those consuming between 4,000 and 6,000 mg daily.
But don't take this as advice that salt intake should be completely unlimited. Moderation appears to be key because consuming too much salt puts you at even higher risk. Those who consumed more than 8,000 mg of sodium per day were 50 to 70 percent more likely to have a stroke or heart attack, or to be hospitalized or die from heart disease.
Results from this study indicate that people who already consume a moderate amount of sodium do not benefit from lowering their salt intake. In fact, it may even harm them.
Dr. Martin O'Donnell, lead author of the study and associate clinical professor of medicine at McMaster University, says, "When you take people at more moderate intake levels, there is emerging uncertainty as to whether there are long-term benefits of reducing sodium intake further."
The new report, published in this week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, contradicts what many of us have been told about salt. The research team involved urges officials to recommend a safer range of sodium intake rather than to set a single rigid limit.
Even better, of course, would be a recommendation to choose a natural salt like sea salt instead of highly refined commercial salt, which often contains harmful additives and lacks a balanced mineral profile.
After adjusting for factors like medications, weight, smoking and cholesterol levels, researchers found that too little salt is doing harm instead of good. Those who consumed between 4,000 and 6,000 milligrams of sodium per day--more than double the current recommendations--were at the least risk for heart disease and stroke.
People who ate a diet lower in salt didn't experience less risk, but more. Researchers found that people who consume 2,000 to 3,000 mg of sodium per day were actually 20 percent more likely to experience death or hospitalization related to heart conditions, compared to those consuming between 4,000 and 6,000 mg daily.
But don't take this as advice that salt intake should be completely unlimited. Moderation appears to be key because consuming too much salt puts you at even higher risk. Those who consumed more than 8,000 mg of sodium per day were 50 to 70 percent more likely to have a stroke or heart attack, or to be hospitalized or die from heart disease.
Results from this study indicate that people who already consume a moderate amount of sodium do not benefit from lowering their salt intake. In fact, it may even harm them.
Dr. Martin O'Donnell, lead author of the study and associate clinical professor of medicine at McMaster University, says, "When you take people at more moderate intake levels, there is emerging uncertainty as to whether there are long-term benefits of reducing sodium intake further."
The new report, published in this week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, contradicts what many of us have been told about salt. The research team involved urges officials to recommend a safer range of sodium intake rather than to set a single rigid limit.
Even better, of course, would be a recommendation to choose a natural salt like sea salt instead of highly refined commercial salt, which often contains harmful additives and lacks a balanced mineral profile.
Deep In Your Heart
It's pretty amazing when you think about it. With just a few button pushes, a radiologist can produce a multidimensional view of your heart -- a remarkably accurate diagnosis tool.
But if you don't have any clear symptoms of artery problems or heart disease, is it reasonable to use a CT scan as a precaution?
Last year I told you about a Johns Hopkins study that compared outcomes in about 1,000 people who received a scan, and 1,000 who didn't. A year and a half after the scans, subjects in the CT scan group had been given more heart procedures, more follow-up tests, and more medications (primarily statins and aspirin) than subjects who didn't get scanned.
And what was the benefit of all that extra treatment?
Nothing.
Rates of heart attacks, heart disease deaths and other cardiac events were the same in both groups.
Obviously, if there's no clear heart risk, there's no reason to scan. And yet, the overuse of CT scans is fairly common. And here's the scandal that's quietly flying under the radar: In many cases, this overuse is not driven by concern for patients, it's driven by profits.
Imagine if your doctor told you he needed to take 700 X-rays of your chest.
Even the most timid, trusting patient would probably speak up with two questions:
1) Are 700 X-rays really necessary?
2) Won't that expose me to a dangerous amount of radiation?
The answers, of course, are 1) No, and 2) Absolutely!
But if your doctor approached it another way and just told you he needed to do a double CT scan of your chest -- one using an iodine contrast to examine blood flow and one scan without the iodine -- you might simply go along with the plan. After all, he's the doctor. He knows best.
That's exactly what's happening with thousands of patients every year.
Now here's the disturbing reality:
* A double CT scan is almost never necessary (the rate of double scans compared to single scans at major university teaching hospitals is about one percent)
* Medicare pays out millions of dollars every year to cover unnecessary second scans
* Two CT scans deliver the same amount of radiation as 700 standard chest X-rays
* Exposing patients to that level of radiation is very dangerous, but doing it unnecessarily is wildly unethical
In recent years, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken steps to alert hospitals, radiologists, and doctors to the high rates of unnecessary double CT scans.
Some hospitals that were previously out of control have brought their double scan rates down to the level of five percent or lower, which is where they should be. But according to the New York Times, a number of hospitals continue to have rates as high as 80 percent. And in 2009, more than 200 hospitals used double scans on at least 30 percent of Medicare outpatients.
Judging from the Times article, these hospitals aren't held accountable in any way. Apparently the only repercussion is a poor report from the annual CMS review, which stings just a little bit less than a mild slap on the wrist.
As is so often the case, we can't wait for Health and Human Services or some other oversight organization to step in and take control. Please forward this e-mail to anyone you know who relies on Medicare and has cardiovascular problems that might require a CT scan.
And most importantly, never be afraid to ask detailed questions about any medical procedure or test that seems odd or fishy. Trust your intuition and get answers before agreeing to anything -- especially if radiation is involved.
It's pretty amazing when you think about it. With just a few button pushes, a radiologist can produce a multidimensional view of your heart -- a remarkably accurate diagnosis tool.
But if you don't have any clear symptoms of artery problems or heart disease, is it reasonable to use a CT scan as a precaution?
Last year I told you about a Johns Hopkins study that compared outcomes in about 1,000 people who received a scan, and 1,000 who didn't. A year and a half after the scans, subjects in the CT scan group had been given more heart procedures, more follow-up tests, and more medications (primarily statins and aspirin) than subjects who didn't get scanned.
And what was the benefit of all that extra treatment?
Nothing.
Rates of heart attacks, heart disease deaths and other cardiac events were the same in both groups.
Obviously, if there's no clear heart risk, there's no reason to scan. And yet, the overuse of CT scans is fairly common. And here's the scandal that's quietly flying under the radar: In many cases, this overuse is not driven by concern for patients, it's driven by profits.
Imagine if your doctor told you he needed to take 700 X-rays of your chest.
Even the most timid, trusting patient would probably speak up with two questions:
1) Are 700 X-rays really necessary?
2) Won't that expose me to a dangerous amount of radiation?
The answers, of course, are 1) No, and 2) Absolutely!
But if your doctor approached it another way and just told you he needed to do a double CT scan of your chest -- one using an iodine contrast to examine blood flow and one scan without the iodine -- you might simply go along with the plan. After all, he's the doctor. He knows best.
That's exactly what's happening with thousands of patients every year.
Now here's the disturbing reality:
* A double CT scan is almost never necessary (the rate of double scans compared to single scans at major university teaching hospitals is about one percent)
* Medicare pays out millions of dollars every year to cover unnecessary second scans
* Two CT scans deliver the same amount of radiation as 700 standard chest X-rays
* Exposing patients to that level of radiation is very dangerous, but doing it unnecessarily is wildly unethical
In recent years, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken steps to alert hospitals, radiologists, and doctors to the high rates of unnecessary double CT scans.
Some hospitals that were previously out of control have brought their double scan rates down to the level of five percent or lower, which is where they should be. But according to the New York Times, a number of hospitals continue to have rates as high as 80 percent. And in 2009, more than 200 hospitals used double scans on at least 30 percent of Medicare outpatients.
Judging from the Times article, these hospitals aren't held accountable in any way. Apparently the only repercussion is a poor report from the annual CMS review, which stings just a little bit less than a mild slap on the wrist.
As is so often the case, we can't wait for Health and Human Services or some other oversight organization to step in and take control. Please forward this e-mail to anyone you know who relies on Medicare and has cardiovascular problems that might require a CT scan.
And most importantly, never be afraid to ask detailed questions about any medical procedure or test that seems odd or fishy. Trust your intuition and get answers before agreeing to anything -- especially if radiation is involved.
The information on this blog is
provided for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional
medical care, and medical advice and services are not being offered. If you
have, or suspect you have, a health problem you should consult your physician
(preferably a Naturopath).
No comments:
Post a Comment