THE GREATEST MEDICINE OF ALL… IS TEACHING PEOPLE HOW NOT TO NEED IT
Eating Chocolate Improves Circulation Within Just Two Hours!
For this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, researchers followed 20 patients diagnosed with congestive heart failure and randomly sorted them into two groups. They gave the first group commercially available, flavanol-rich chocolate bars.
The other group received regular (milk) chocolate bars.
The participants enjoyed the chocolate bars every day for four weeks.
It turns out, the participants who ate the regular chocolate bars experienced no improvements at all in their congestive heart failure symptoms.
However, those who ate the flavanol-rich chocolate bars experienced “significantly improved” blood vessel function. Plus, they experienced this improvement within just two hours of enjoying the nightly treat!
They also showed other improvements at the end of four weeks, such as a marked decrease in “platelet adhesion.” Which means their blood was less likely to form into dangerous clots that cause heart attacks.
The researchers concluded that “flavanol-rich chocolate acutely improves vascular function in patients” with congestive heart failure.
Well, would you look at that? A healthy, natural way to help protect your heart!
And now, just think of all the cholesterol-lowering statin drugs prescribed to patients “at risk” for developing heart disease. They’re supposed to prevent deadly outcomes like congestive heart failure or heart attack…
But as the study authors pointed out, “statins are ineffective in chronic heart failure…[and] alternative therapies are a critical need.” Clearly, chocolate is a safe, natural, readily available, enjoyable, and effective “alternative therapy.” Plus, it goes to work within hours to improve circulation and prevent heart failure!
Not to mention, the men and women who ate the flavanol-rich chocolate bars did not experience spikes in blood sugar levels during the course of the study However, the patients who ate regular chocolate did have decreased insulin sensitivity.
So, go ahead and indulge in some chocolate—not just now during the holiday season, but year-round. Just make sure to opt for dark chocolate that contains at least 75 or 80 percent cacao. You’ll get more heart-healthy flavanols…and far less sugar.
Do Delays in Treatment Impact Survival Rates?
By Marc S. Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D.
The new study involved more than 63,000 men diagnosed with intermediate-risk, high-risk, or very high-risk prostate cancer. The researchers divided the men into four groups—depending on when they started radiation therapy:
- The first group started radiation therapy within zero to 60 days before initiating hormone therapy.
- The second group started it within zero to 60 days after initiating hormone therapy.
- The third group started it within 61 to 120 days after initiating hormone therapy.
- The fourth group started it 121 to 180 days after initiating hormone therapy.
As it turns out, there was no difference whatsoever in
mortality rates among the four groups. In fact, even men with high-risk (but
non-metastatic) prostate cancer who delayed radiation treatment did not
experience higher mortality rates.
This finding is key. Because as I've often reported, mortality rate is the one statistic we can trust. Especially when it comes to cancer. It's the ultimate litmus test for whether a treatment or intervention works.
Interestingly, the researchers applauded this finding. In fact, the study co-author, Dr. Vinayak Muralidhar, M.D., stated, "The findings are reassuring to patients and allow us to come up with a flexible radiation schedule for prostate cancer that ensures their safety. The results have important implications for patients in areas experiencing a surge in COVID-19 cases who can opt to wait for a safer time to come in and initiate treatment."
But hold on…is that really how we should objectively interpret these findings?
If the timing of treatments doesn't make one iota of difference in mortality rates…even among those with "high-risk" prostate cancer…perhaps the treatment itself doesn't matter!?
In fact, in my view, these findings suggest that we should rethink the whole approach to treating most types of prostate cancer. And, as other studies suggest, perhaps "watchful waiting" is the best approach…even for men with so-called "aggressive" cancer.
Furthermore, perhaps the classification of "high-risk" prostate cancer isn't really accurate at all. Indeed, lots of recent research suggests that we should also question the way pathologists and urologists assign risk to men with prostate cancer.
A Strong Cup of Joe May Help Prevent and Even Treat Devastating Disease
A new JAMA study found that three out of four adults suffering from Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia are inappropriately prescribed heavy—duty drugs—such as painkillers, sedatives, and antipsychotics—in an attempt to control their behavior.
But there's zero evidence to suggest that those drugs improve brain function in AD patients. And, on the contrary, we know they can cause great harm.
So it may be far better to simply give AD patients a few cups of strong coffee in the morning, as research shows it protects against cognitive decline and improves brain function…
Coffee offers a slew of health benefits
For decades, mainstream medicine considered coffee-drinking a vice or a crutch. They even tried to find some link between coffee consumption and a higher risk of various illnesses.
For example, in the early 1980s, statisticians trumpeted they had found an "association" between coffee and some forms of cancer. But after months of breathless excitement among the nanny state public health experts, a more careful analysis revealed the association with cancer was limited to only certain kinds of decaffeinated coffee, which are exposed to chemical solvents to artificially remove the caffeine.
In the ensuing decades, they never found any other evidence about the harms of coffee. And on the contrary, they found that it actually protects against a good many illnesses…including colon cancer, Type II diabetes, heart disease, and especially AD and dementia.
In fact, in a recent observational study from the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, older men and women who regularly consumed any amount of coffee experienced an improvement in brain function. Other studies suggest it lowers AD risk itself. And lab studies suggest caffeine in coffee might even help treat AD.
Researchers attribute these cognitive benefits to the hundreds of natural constituents found in coffee…in addition to caffeine itself.
Combat the jitters by monitoring your intake
Of course, drinking any caffeinated beverage can disrupt sleep or cause a case of the "jitters" in some people. And the amount of caffeine that causes these problems differs greatly from one person to the next. (It can also change dramatically during the course of your lifetime.)
So, pay close attention to whether drinking coffee seems to influence your ability to sleep or contributes to agitation or anxiety. You can easily adjust your intake and timing during the day.
Most people do quite well tolerating three to four cups of coffee a day—which is just the right amount to confer all the impressive health benefits. By comparison, you'd have to drink eight to 16 cups of green tea per day to get the health benefits. But when you drink that amount of green tea, it raises your risk of suffering stomach irritation and kidney stones.
In the end, drinking coffee appears to be a safe, enjoyable, and effective way to protect yourself against brain decline as you get older. So, go ahead and enjoy another steaming cup o' joe today. Your brain will thank you tomorrow!
Just make sure to skip the artificial sweeteners. And if you prefer to add some cream, go ahead and use some full—fat, whole milk.
The "Fab Four" Mainstream Diets Miss The Mark
I have warned you before against trying these extreme diets that promise quick weight-loss. These unproven, fad diets are dangerous and ineffective for achieving long-term, healthy weight loss.
So—what about the more mainstream diets doctors recommend because they supposedly have some real research behind them? Are these diets really proven to work in the real world?
The answer might surprise you…
Researchers recently compared four mainstream, doctor-recommended weight loss diets: Atkins, South Beach, Weight Watchers, and the Zone. Amazingly, the researchers found no clear-cut "winners" among these supposedly effective, "proven" weight-loss diets. In fact, these "fab four" diets are more alike than they are different. But in the end, none were particularly effective.
After one year, the patients on these "fab" diets lost anywhere from three to 11 pounds. By comparison, the control group—which followed "usual care"—lost almost 5 pounds on average after one year. ("Usual care" referred to traditional methods to promote weight loss such as low-calorie diets, behavioral weight loss intervention, nutritional counseling, or self-help materials.)
More importantly, men and women on the fab diets did not have significant differences in blood pressure, blood sugar control, or lipid levels.
Weight Watchers was slightly more effective than the usual care diet. However, men and women tended to regain the modest amounts of weight they lost after 24 months on the Atkins and Weight Watchers diets. Plus, men and women on the South Beach diet (created by the celebrity Florida heart specialist Arthur Agatston) fared no better than men and women in the control group. And surprisingly, the diet didn't appear to have any effect on heart health.
So, despite their popularity and financial success, the "fab four" achieve very modest results in the real world. Yet men and women spend millions and millions on these fab diets each year.
But here's why they don't work over the long-term…
The "fab" diets—like the "fad" diets I discussed previously—don't really pay careful attention to the science about the optimal human diet. Nor do they pay attention to the realities of today's food supply and nutritional deficiencies. Let me put that another way…
If you follow an average American diet, which give you inadequate nutrition, how can various arbitrary, artificial restrictions really improve anything? It only limits your nutrition even further.
Instead, we have a lot of unsupported claims designed to fatten the pocketbooks of irresponsible publishers and authors. But these diets do little or nothing to help the problem of a fattening population.
Here is what does work for long-term weight loss:
1. Eliminate sugars
2. Restrict carbs
3. Reduce portions of everything you eat
4. Make sure you get enough protein and essential fats, as well as optimal levels of vitamins and minerals
If you follow these four steps, you will lose weight almost effortlessly. And improve your blood sugar and cardiovascular risk factors.
But make sure to get enough protein so you don't lose muscle instead of fat. In addition, some regular, light exercise and perhaps even some sensible weight lifting can help you build and retain muscle during weight loss regimens. Walking, swimming, housework, and yard work can also help you maintain a healthy weight, mood, balance, and ultimately live longer.
And remember, carrying just a few extra pounds is not the problem it's cracked up to be by the booksellers.
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
JD Roma
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment