IT’S THE QUALITY, STUPID… Of the uncountable diets that are out there, none that I am aware of balance the quality of the food to the calorie. Some, like Weight Watchers, look only at the calorie. Others, like Atkins, look only at the macronutrients. There is no doubt that our bodies do much better with a low calorie, high phytonutrient diet for long term health. This means that your 1200 calories / day comes from broccoli and not a Big Mac Value meal. This particular study further supports this, finding that a high quality diet alters our hunger in a positive way. We all need to look at every morsel that crosses our lips as having phytonutrient value or not. If it does NOT have value, we should not be eating it. Then we take into account calorie content…so while dark chocolate is loaded with polyphenols, it is higher in calories so keep it to a minimum. Tea and espresso, on the other hand, are virtually calorie free, and can be taken in more liberally. This is exactly how we structure our weight loss program here at the clinic. Read More…
Environmental
Mesa AZ Back Pain Doctor Response to Medication Study
Medication Is NOT The Way To Go
MEDICAL ERRORS KILLS A 747’S WORTH OF PASSENGER PER DAY? To many, this data is not a surprise. And keep in mind that 98,000 deaths and 1 million injuries per year is, by most estimates, a very, very conservative number because it only includes errors, and does not include deaths that result from properly performed surgeries and proper medications. Medicine is, without a doubt, a dangerous game to play. The problem we see in this study is that, since the IOM’s report came out in 1999, there has been no improvement in the error rate. And, considering that our country’s prescription drug use is going nowhere but up, we can expect to see these numbers either stay the same or worsen. It is times like this that I am truly glad that I am a chiropractor who does not have the responsibility of prescribing a drug because it is considered the “standard of care” and not because it is the best thing to do. Read More…
Mesa AZ Chiropractor Explains the Dangers of High Calorie Drinks
SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE SLOW LEARNERS WHEN IT COMES TO OUR CHILDREN’S HEALTH. Can anyone explain to me WHY the sales of high calorie drinks went UP?? At an elementary school?? Let me say this now and make it very, very, very clear. We should NOT, without a doubt, be drinking our calories. Soda, milk (yes…dairy), juice (yes…even the 100% juices). Period. The fact that 92% of the elementary schools had flavored milk is unconscionable. Can someone please explain to me why our kids have accessibility to these types of drink on school campuses? Until we manage this, we will never get a grip on the obesity in children crisis. If we continue to feed their collective sweet tooth at an early age, they will never develop a healthy relationship with their taste buds.
Joint Pain Doctor Mesa AZ Provides Research
Caution! Drugs May Be Deceiving!
DON’T ALWAYS BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ ON THAT LITTLE SLIP OF PAPER THAT CAME WITH YOUR DRUG…We’d like to believe that all the info that our doctors and we get when we get a prescription is truthful and not deceitful by omission. But alas!! The world of pharmaceuticals is fraught with half truths and bloated outcomes. In this particular study, the authors looked for the printed incidence of cough associated with the use of ACE-inhibitors for high blood pressure that is given to the patient vs the actual incidence in clinical trials. One drug’s actual incidence was 9X higher in the study than in the print, another was 31X higher. Talk about deception! Read More…
“Smoking Gun” of Childhood Leukemia and Lymphoma Found
When a 50 year old 3-pack-a-day smoker gets lung cancer, we all shake our head. But when it’s a 6 year old, only horror is felt.
Personally, I have always believed that childhood cancers come from a bad combination of genetic susceptibility and environmental chemical exposure. Either way, it is in no way, shape or form from decisions that the child has made. Unless, of course, the child independently decided to take up smoking at 3 and moved next to a nuclear waste dump against parental advice.
Personally, I have done everything possible to reduce or eliminate my family’s exposure to toxic chemicals. Selective vaccinations (yes—this little tidbit is glided over when describing the risks of vaccination…), no non-stick cookware, glass or stainless steel containers and glasses, no herbicides, no pesticides, organic foods when possible and only essential-oil based fragrances.
I remember a time when we had an ant infestation. There was a clear trail from outside directly to one of the dog bowls, where they had immersed themselves in the leftover dog food. Outside and along the inside of the molding I sprinkled grits. But since grits take some time to work, I remember crawling around on the floor with duct tape capturing all of the home invaders. My then-toddler thought it was a blast.
This is not the extent to which most people would go through to protect their family from toxins, but I’ve always had a distinct fear of toxic chemicals, regardless of how “safe” they have been declared. (BTW—the “safety” of most of the pesticides in use today have been determined by the companies that manufacture them)
Time and time again, my fears, when it comes to how much of an impact that toxic, everyday, household chemicals have on our healthy, have proven well-founded. This time is no different.
In this particular study, researchers looked across 13 different studies to evaluate the impact that pesticides used in the home have on the risk of childhood leukemia and lymphoma.
Of all the cancers, the blood-origin cancers, leukemia and lymphoma, are among the scariest. The solid tumors like breast, prostate, colon and pancreatic, have very well-defined lifestyle risk factors like diet and exercise. Not so with leukemia and lymphoma. Sure, your dietary choices play a role, but this role is not as great as the hidden chemical exposures that increase risk.
“Hidden” being the scariest word in that paragraph. Personally, I’m pretty well aware of where these hidden chemicals lie, but the average person is unaware of most. And the ones that we should be aware of and avoid are so commonly used that no one questions them.
Household pesticides are one of these chemicals, as we really see in the results of this study:
- Overall, indoor residential insecticide exposure was linked to a 47% higher risk of childhood leukemia and a 43% higher risk of lymphoma.
- Even worse, when both indoor insecticide exposure and professional home treatment exposure was present, this risk jumped 204% higher.
- The overall risk for all childhood cancer from indoor pesticide exposure in general was increased 40%.
These are some scary numbers, especially with the combination of professional and non-professional home use. I know that many of the pesticide companies will only spray outside the house, but I would still be worried. We really have no idea how much of these chemicals make it into the home.
And here’s the rub—at least here in the Phoenix area, there are a large number of pest prevention companies. It’s a thriving business. And this means that there are a large number of people in developed countries that are exposing themselves and their families to toxic chemicals that are known to increase the risk of childhood cancers.
Maybe the next time you see a cockroach running across the floor it’s not the time to run to the phone and call the exterminators.
Do You Know What YOUR Child is Wearing? 5 Tips to Keep Them Safe
Chemicals are everywhere in our world. I’ve said before that we live in a toxic soup, and that absolutely includes our children.
Our kids have a particular susceptibility to toxins in our environment because their detoxification ability is not as strong as an adult’s. To make this worse, we are particularly sensitive to the plight of children and the scary fear that their pajamas may burst into flames at any given moment.
Yes. Spontaneous combustion. The eternal fear of lawmaking officials.
The problem is that it requires chemicals to meet the standards that are required. There are natural materials that a naturally flame-resistant, but industry doesn’t seem interested in using these fibers.
Still all of this would be OK if we are saving lives without the cost of toxic exposure to our children while trying to prevent the almost 200 burns due to clothing in the US per year. The current standards require the materials to resist an actual flame for a certain period of time. Clothing that fits close to the skin is far less likely to catch on fire and does not require the higher flame resistant standards.
California sets the standard for the rest of the country when it comes to flame resistance in household materials and the rest of the country just seems to follow suit. Which would be just fine if any of the chemicals used in the process of making children’s clothes flame retardant underwent any type of safety testing.
In other words, the use of chemicals to meet flame resistant standards is mandated, but any safety testing for these same chemicals is not required. Quite a catch-22.
(The following information is from a viewpoint article written by Dr. Eric Hecht, Dr. David Landy and Julien Thomas)
As a way of history to show just how backwards this is, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC-the government entity that oversees this type of thing), in 1977 banned the use of CFR 2,3-dibromyopropyl phosphate one year after it was introduced. Unfortunately, it turns out that this compound was absorbed through the skin and had the potential to cause DNA mutations.
After this, the polybrominated diphenyl esters (PBDE) took over and became the most widely used flame retardant. That was until 2004 when concerns again arose over the toxicity of certain PBDE and these were likewise removed from the market. These concerns ranged from endocrine disruptions, neurodevelopmental disorders and cancer.
Just in case you thought this was the end the debacle, another PBDE called decabromodiphenyl ester was banned in several states in 2013 over the same concerns.
Overall, some billion pounds of flame retardants are used annually in the US, where the typical household contains several pounds in clothing, furniture, electronics and insulation. As these materials break down, they attach to dust particles and can make it into ours and our children’s bodies by this route as well. This results in children in the US having toxic levels of flame retardants that are some 10 TIMES higher than other countries.
And our pets? That’s even worse since they are much closer to the sources of these chemicals.
All of this wouldn’t be an issue if these toxic chemicals were not linked in children to neurodevelopmental disorders, lower IQs, ADD and other behavioral problems.
The regulation of these compounds is slim, and a huge chunk were grandfathered in when the Toxic Substances Control Act was passed in 1976. Overall, this is a scenario where you need to be proactive in protecting your children from toxic exposures rather than trusting in the manufacturers and the government to ensure that products used are safe for your family.
Here are some tips:
- For pajamas, use form fitting clothing that do not require the flame resistant standards of loose pajamas.
- Look for clothing and toys made with naturally-flame resistant materials (this article is a great resource).
- Consider the mattresses your family sleeps on. Standards were changed in 2007 to include more toxic chemicals, but in my recent search for a new mattress, many of the larger manufacturers have move to naturally flame-resistant fibers to meet the standards.
- Throw out items that have been in use for too long. Drapes, carpets, rugs, dog beds, furniture–as these age, the toxic chemicals in them leach out into your house.
- Purchase air filters for your home and dust, sweep and vacuum frequently to keep dust to a minimum.
For a long time, I considered the foundation to health to consist of diet, exercise and stress management. Unfortunately, over the years which growing use of chemicals everywhere in our environment, I’ve had to add an environmental tab to this foundation. The problem with this aspect is that is remains largely unknown to most of us, yet has a direct effect on health.
Everyone knows that the McDonald’s Big Mac they are going to eat is bad for them, but few consider the hidden danger of returning to a car after that fast food meal that has been baking in the sun for a 1/2 hour and breathing in the toxic phthalates that have been off-gassing in the heat.
Scary.
Have You Gone BPA-free? Does it Really Make a Difference?
For several years now, the BPA-free craze has been on the rise. The initial concern focused on baby’s products.
Keegan is 9 now, and I do not remember any BPA-free water bottles when he was an infant, so the public demand for these types of products began after this time. Now, I don’t think you can actually buy any products that contain BPA.
During this same timeframe, the use of BPA-free plastics has become common in other plastic products. However, BPA is present in many other commonly used items, including:
- Thermal register receipts
- The lining of aluminum cans (both drinks as well as foods)
- Other plastic bottles
Overall, it seems like society has become aware of the BPA concerns in plastics and is a least driving the market for BPA-free containers. Unfortunately, it still seems like the health implications of BPA have not quite settled in.
Let me say this—the research on the links between BPA and breast cancer, obesity and diabetes is clear and consistent. This chemical compound has distinct hormonal effects on the human body. Despite this, you can’t go ten feet without seeing someone lugging around a plastic water bottle like their life depended on it. This just seems to represent a disconnect between the health effects of BPA and the reality of its continued usage.
For the rest of you that have moved to BPA-free plastics does it really make a difference? Are the BPA-free plastics that have replaced the BPA-loaded plastics really any better?
My gut feeling has also been to be leery of all plastics. My family moved to stainless steel and glass for containers and dishware our household for quite a while now. Unless there are no additional options, we do not drink out of plastic water bottles, regardless of whether or not the bottles are BPA-free or not.
Turns out that I may not be completely off my rocker on this one. In this particular study, researchers looked at the hormonal effects of the alternative plastics that have replaced BPA. Two of the common replacement plastics contain bisphenol S (BPS) and bisphenol F (BPF).
They looked across 32 studies (25 in vitro only, and 7 in vivo—meaning in actual patients). Here’s what they found:
- The majority of these studies found the potency to be as potent as BPA.
- These mechanisms included estrogenic, antiestrogenic, androgenic, and antiandrogenic.
- BPS also has estradiol-like properties as they relate to cell proliferation, differentiation, and death.
- BPS and BPF also showed other effects in vitro and in vivo, such as altered organ weights, reproductive end points, and enzyme expression.
In other words, the plastics that have been used by industry to replace BPA are likely no better for us than the plastics we are trying to avoid.
The bottom line is that you should be doing your best to avoid plastics for both you and your family. Switch to stainless steel and glass-based products when possible.
Firmiculates Bacteria in the Gut and Pollutants in Your Diet
Gut bacteria and your health. The microbiome. These strange bedfellows play a massive role in our health and yet we know so little about how to positively impact our microbiome using lifestyle and supplementation.
Luckily, it seems like weekly there are new studies published that help to fill in the major gaps in our understanding of this relationship. One thing that remains clear is that the types of bacteria acting as King of the Hill makes a big difference in your long term health. Firmicutes is a class of bacteria that is generally considered anti-diabetic, anti-obesity and an overall good guy.
Bacteroidetes, on the other hand, is on the other end of the scale, increased the risk of obesity and diabetes. It is far more common in Westernized societies while Firmicutes is found in higher levels in hunter-gatherer populations.
This is where the solidity in understanding what goes on in our microbiome stops, although it does seem like we are getting a better and better idea of how to change this bacteria in our gut to a more friendly neighbor. Diet, of course, plays a major role. Avoidance of antibiotics in all except the most necessary of conditions is a major factor in destroying your microbiome. Stress can change the character of your microbiome in a matter of minutes.
Other, less obvious factors can include certain amino acids. A recent article on glutamine demonstrated just how powerful a single amino acid could be at making positive changes in your microbiome. Another study found positive effects using cranberry extracts. And I’m sure there’s a bunch more I’ve missed.
But while you’re busy positively affecting your microbiome with cranberry-flavored glutamine powder, you have to remain vigilant to the environment in which we live. I have stated before that we live in a toxic soup that most of us blissfully swim through without being aware. Or maybe you are one of the enlightened ones. Maybe you stick to organics for the produce found on the Dirty Dozen list. Maybe you didn’t buy a mattress after July 2007 due to the increase in flame resistance standards and the chemicals required to withstand a Bunsen burner.
Maybe you even ditched your non-stick cookware and you would never dream of drinking out of a plastic water bottle.
If this describes you, then you’re going to feel vindicated in front of all of those friends who called you a hippie and a health freak. In this particular article, researchers looked at the effects of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) on the microbiome. In this mouse study, researchers exposed the animals to a specific POP called 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF). This compound is sometimes referred to as a dioxin (although it is better described as dioxin-ish) and we are typically exposed to it through the food we eat.
Most common exposures are through diet and, more specifically, animal products. This is because, like heavy metals, animals cannot get rid of persistent organic pollutants so they just keep getting concentrated up the food chain. This makes it very difficult to actually avoid exposure to POPs, although there are things you can do to reduce your exposure. More on that in a bit.
In the study, mice were given a high dose of TCDF along with their food for five days. The dose was 1,000 times the level that we are normally exposed to TCDF in our food supply, but the levels are in line with high dose occupational exposures. Here’s what they found:
- There was a shift in the gut microbiota Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes (not good).
- There changes in bile acid metabolism.
- The TCDF triggered inflammation and changed the way the liver was handling and storing both fat and glucose.
Granted, the levels of exposure were very high, but in a linked editorial, it was noted that further studies at dosages more in line with human exposures are showing the same types of negative changes in the gut microbiome.
So what can you do? While you cannot avoid exposure completely, here are some tips:
- Considering that POPs are retained in animal tissues, living a vegetarian, vegan or plant-based lifestyle will lower your risk.
- If you do consume animal products, it would make sense that organic sources of food would have lower levels of POPs.
- Lifestyle choices that promote growth of Firmicutes (as noted above) can counteract the chemical exposure-related changes.
For me, one of the scariest and most insightful things that I glean from studies like this is that so many of the negative consequences of our lifestyle choices are mediated through the gut bacteria. Just how much of a role do these bacteria play? In other words, it is well established that chemical compounds like POPs are associated with diabetes and obesity and certain cancers. But is it the actual chemical compounds themselves causing problems internally, or is it that these chemicals are altering the gut microbiome and THIS is how these chronic conditions are created?
I’m sure it is a combination of the two, but what does this say about the importance of maintaining a good, solid, healthy microbiome? Personally, I think it says everything.