While this may get a little too deep into biochemistry for most of us, the bottom line is that certain types of healthy fats are protective to our brain.  This is yet another reason to believe that many of our neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinson's are indeed diseases of lifestyle.  Less intake of healthy fats over a lifetime leaves brain cells more suseptable to damage and cell death.

 

 

The implications for this are staggerring.  Consider a few scenarios:  pregnant mother told antidepressants are okay in the 3rd trimester, a pregnant mother under abnormal levels of stress, or an insulin resistant mother with abnormally high levels of cortisol.  All of these scenarios lead to differring levels of neurotransmitters in the bloodstream.  The developing fetus is bathed in these hormones.  So, take the antidepressants--the developing fetus becomes used to abnormally high effectiveness of serotonin.  Baby gets born, no more drugs and their brain now detects a serotonin deficiency, even though their is no true physiological deficit.  Run the same scenario for a stressed out mom with high cortisol levels.  Not a good situation for the child, and this is one of the reasons I am a little pessimistic about our future generations' risk of chronic diseases.  I think we have yet to have scratched the surface of chronic diseases and shortened lifespans.

 

There are probably many CFS patients out there that were convinced that their symptoms were "all in their head."  The common fault in this type of situation is thinking that, because a doctor ordered all the tests he or she were familiar with, the condition has no physical basis.  What physicians should be thinking instead, would be what type of tests might explain some of the feelings that this patient is experiencing?  The measurement of isoprostanes appears to be one of those tests..

 

 

The fact that TSH levels increase with improper weight loss is nothing new--just thought I'd add it here as a reminder.  Our physiology is incredible, and if you attempt weight loss by just cutting back calories, our bodies think starvation is at hand, and will reduce the metabolism in an effort to conserve energy.  A weight loss program CANNOT focus on calorie restriction alone-you will end up worse than when you started.

 

 

While this is not new news and is a quite consistent finding in the research, it does beg the question of how the high protein, "carbs are evil" crowd would respond...

 

 

So we all know that fruits and veggies contain compounds that are good for us.  Most noteable are the carotenoids--those compounds that bring the brilliant colors to fruits and veggies (reds, yellows, purples, blues...).  But one glass of OJ can fight off rheumatoid arthritis?  By half?  Sometimes we really forget just how powerful Mother Nature is, but studies like this really bring the concept back home.

 

 

This study finds that the addition of soluble fiber added to the diet increased both the amount of calcium absorption and the amount of bone density at 1 yr.  I'm sure there are a multitude of other dietary factors that will also increase calcium utilization.  Put this into the picture of cultures that have very low intakes of calcium and yet very low incidence of osteoporosis.  We have become so programmed by the dairy industry that calcium from dairy is the end all and be all for bone health, that we have forgotten that there are many other dietary factors that go into bone health.  Osteoporosis is a disease of lifestyle, NOT calcium deficiency.

 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/471

 

 

We generally think of medical research as a good thing.  Billions of dollars go into new approaches, new treatment, new methods of detection.  But do they really change things?  In many cases, the answer is no.  How many untold billions have gone into AIDS research without anything even resembling a cure?  Many cancers still have high mortality rates.  This study reviews 50 years of technological advances in renal treatment, but finds no overall change in mortality rates.  I've said it a thousand times before and I will continue to say it--prevention is infinitly better than a cure.  Lets spend even a mere 10% of the large organizations' budget (Amer Heart, Amer Cancer, Amer Diabetes) for prevention and we would see a huge return on investment in just a few short years.  Does everyone know that Tylenol and ibuprofen damage the kidneys?  Or that a large chunk of patients on dialysis got there because they took too much Tylenol?  Probably not.

 

 

Geez!!  Does no one in the midst of this travesty see this as a problem?  It's almost laughable if it didn't affect all of us so much.  We've done study after study after study that confirms that YES--the drug companies' advertising that both patients and doctors is effective at changing prescribing behavior.  So do we stop it?  No.  We do another study to confirm the same thing.  Is it just me, or is there a problem here.  There's no question that we recognize the problem in it's illicit form--the drug pusher on the corner gives a small child their first taste of some drug and the child gets addicted.  So where are the studies finding that drugs given to children on the playground influence future drug buying decisions on the playground?  There are none--we take a strong proactive approach.  So how does the behavior and relationship differ between prescribed and illicit drugs?  Does it influence your decision to know that death by pharmaceutical is the leading cause of death in the US?