Read This if You Care About Your Bones!

Of the many documented benefits of omega-3 fats- from improving the circulatory system to improving mood, from lowering inflammation to lowering blood pressure- one that we haven't heard much about is bone strengthening.

That's about to change.

A new study published in the Sept 18 Journal of Urology measured the bone density of 247 older adults. They also asked the subjects to report on their daily omega-3 intake.

The researchers found a significant correlation between omega-3 intake and bone strength.

The average intake of omega-3 fatty acids in this group was only 1.27 grams per day, not a particularly high amount. But those consuming less than that had significantly lower bone mass scores than those consuming more than the average.

Exactly how omega-3's help support bone strength isn't completely clear yet, but bone demineralization is a huge problem for older adults. We're inundated with commercials for milk and told that if we don't take copious amounts of calcium, we're just asking for a hip fracture later in life. Maybe we should start focusing on other supporting nutrients like omega-3's (not to mention magnesium, boron and vitamin D).

Hip fractures are very very serious in older adults. A recent study in the scientific journal Injury says that mortality after a hip fracture is between 11-23% at 6 months and between 22-29% at 1 year from fracture!

In related news, the FDA is amending its labeling regulating that now authorizes a limited health claim on the relationship between calcium and a reduced risk of osteoporosis to include vitamin D.

Of course, if you've been reading this newsletter, the relationship of vitamin D to strong bones (as well as a host of other positive things) is no news to you.

But it's evidently news to others. According to new research published at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research in Montreal, less than half (43%) of patients in Europe with osteoporosis take both calcium and vitamin D with their osteoporosis treatment. "Patients with a low intake of calcium and vitamin D may not be receiving the full benefit of their osteoporosis treatment if they don't take enough supplementation" says Professor Steven Boonen, MD, PhD of Leuven University in Belgium.

For the record, two excellent bone formulas that I recommend highly are OsteoSheath and OsteoPrime Forte. You can't go wrong with either, and both of them blow the ordinary "calcium/ magnesium" supplements away. A daily dose of OsteoSheath contains 1200 mg of calcium, 600 IUs of vitamin D, 600 mg of magnesium, plus all sorts of supporting minerals including boron and silicon, which are usually missing from bone-strengthening formulas. It comes in a small tablet (4 a day) and a slightly larger tablet (3 a day).

OsteoPrime Forte takes a slightly different approach, including even more minerals and vitamins (but slightly less calcium and magnesium). It was designed by the legendary physicians Alan Gaby, MD and Jonathan Wright, MD and can virtually be used as a multiple vitamin.

A third option is to use Douglas Lab's Cal-6-Mag, a terrific basic calcium/ magnesium formula with 400 IUs of vitamin D included and supplement it with omega-3's.

For the month of October, we will be featuring an amazing free offer: With every order from the vitamin store of $99. or more, you'll get a FREE bottle of Douglas Labs' Cal-6-Mag AND a free bottle of Carlson's omega-3's.

A Single Bout of Exercise Can Help Increase Fat-Burning Rate

A new fascinating study presented at the American Physiological Society meeting shows that a single bout of exercise can reduce fat by-products inside the muscle, thus affecting insulin sensitivity.

Readers of this newsletter know about insulin resistance- that metabolic state in which the cells become less able to "listen" to insulin. When this happens, blood sugar stays high and the combined effect of high blood sugar and high insulin leads to enormous health problems including metabolic syndrome (a huge risk factor for heart disease), type ll diabetes and obesity. ( A high number of overweight people are in fact insulin resistant). You don't want insulin resistance- you want insulin sensitivity.

In this study, researchers took obese women and put them on three separate two day trials. In the first trial they consumed a "weight-maintaining" diet (this was the control arm of the study). In the second, they overate by a set amount, consuming 700 calories above their "normal" weight maintaining diet. And in the third condition, they also consumed that excess 700 calories, but they exercised to the point where they expended the 700 excess calories.

The researchers found that overeating suppressed fat burning (technically called fatty acid oxidation), while exercise increased it. Even that single workout helped the subjects become less insulin resistant. According to Andrea Cornford, a member of the research team, "Exercise decreases everyone's insulin resistance and therefore reduces the chances of developing diseases such as type 2 diabetes. This study shows that even a single bout of exercise helps obese individuals increase their body's fat-burning rate and improve their metabolic health".

Woman Loses 160 Pounds on Raw Foods

Angela Stokes is a British woman who, about six years ago, tipped the scale at 300 pounds. Today, she weighs a stunning 138 and exudes a kind of inner peace that only comes from a profound inner transformation.

She lost the weight on a raw food vegan diet.

"So what do you have to say to that, Mr. Low Carb?" I've been asked (smugly) by more than a few people.

Actually, a few things. Starting with "Congratulations".

Here's the thing: The Standard American Diet (or in Angela's case, the Standard English Diet) is horrendous. One of the reasons that people lose weight- and frequently regain their health- on such a wide variety of eating plans is that nearly any "diet" or conscious eating strategy is a vast improvement over what they were doing.

Or, in other words, "anything is better than McDonald's!"

In Angela Stokes own words, "I ate junk food all the time. I was very closed down emotionally. I had no interest in dieting; I just wanted to eat all the time... that was my comfort in life".

Now it happens that Ms. Stokes accomplished what she accomplished using raw foods. Her diet was heavy on nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits and fresh juices. I can't see a thing to object to in that. Remember, I'm not really "Mr. Low Carb" I'm "Mr. No Junk". There's nothing incompatible about eating fresh whole foods and eating controlled carbohydrates.

Eating as she did, Ms. Stokes automatically cut out a good portion of the foods and ingredients that cause the scale to rise just as they cause your health to deteriorate: sugar, processed grains, trans-fats... need I go on?

Now we can quibble over details. Does this make Raw Foods "better" than Low- Carb or better than Weight Watchers or Low-Fat?

I think that's the wrong question.

It's just as easy to find people who've transformed their life and lost even more than 138 pounds on a classic Atkins-like low-carb regimen (just ask Jimmy Moore). And it's possible to even find people who've done it on low-fat (just ask Dean Ornish).

The point is not to ask "is my diet better than yours"?

The point is that different regimens work for different people.

Personally, I have a few issues with a 100 percent raw food diet. I think- unless you're getting at least 2 tablespoons a day of flaxseed oil- you won't be getting optimal amounts of the valuable EPA and DHA omega-3's found naturally in fish. You will definitely not be getting enough vitamin B12, deficiencies of which don't make themselves known for many months if not years. And an exclusively raw food diet is very hard to follow, and is too low in protein for many- though not all- people.

But that shouldn't blind us to the very valid point that when you change your diet from- excuse the expression- crap to good food, you're going to see benefits. I should point out that it's almost impossible to over eat calories on a raw food diet and that alone is a major benefit.

The take home point from Ms. Stokes experience is that whole foods are beneficial and any change from a junk food diet is going to produce terrific results.

The take home point should not- repeat not- be that raw foods is the only way to go.

I've often maintained that some percentage of the diet should be raw. How much? Don't know. Maybe for some people, 20%. Maybe for others, 50%. Maybe for a few, 100%. And most likely, for most, it will shift from day to day (or season to season).

As a postscript it's worth noting that Angela Stokes didn't change her whole life just by losing weight. She now counsels others about healthy eating, has joined support groups, has an active network of social connections, and has obviously done a lot of work on her emotional life.

That's a prescription for health and success.

Congratulations, Angela!

Anchors Away or Laughing Gas Musings

Yesterday I went to the dentist for a little procedure, and I was given nitrous oxide- otherwise known as laughing gas.

Now I won't bore you with the inner psychedelic details of what happens in the brain when you're given laughing gas as an anesthesia- suffice it to say that it has nothing whatsoever to do with laughing.

But it has a lot to do with losing your anchors- which, depending on the circumstances, can be very relaxing or very frightening.

Which got me thinking.

We all have "anchors"-- unexamined truths by which we live, "fixed principles" that allow us to go through the business of life without having to stop and think about each little detail. Many of these are socially agreed upon customs that live in the background of our lives:

• people stop at red lights


• the mailman delivers the mail


• and so on.

But in light of recent events, this is a great time to look at some of our unexamined anchors, and consider what might happen if they were not as true as we think.

For example:

• My money is safe in the bank.


• My investments will be there when I need them.


• The value of my house is going up.

Beginning to get my drift?

How about these:

• My wife (husband) is basically happy with our relationship.


• I spend "a lot" of time with my kids.


• I'm a good listener.

I've been thinking a lot about these "anchors" because I'm currently working on the new, revised edition of "Living the Low Carb Life", my 2004 book which will be re-released in 2009, possibly with a new title (I'm lobbying for "Low Carb 3.0- what we've learned since Atkins, or "Low Carb 3.0- It's not your father's low-carb!")

There are a ton of anchors in the health field, many of which I'm exploring in the book:

• "Saturated fat is bad for you"


• "Cholesterol predicts heart disease"


• "Low carb diets are unhealthy"

You get the drift.

But this whole thing about anchors really intrigues me. I've met more than a few male friends who, now divorced, told me they had no idea that their wives were unhappy. The divorce action took them completely by surprise (most divorces are initiated by women) because one of their anchors- "everything's fine"- became unmoored.

So I propose an exercise:

When you have time, write down 10 of the "anchors" that you live by. Things that you take for granted. Things that you think are absolutely true about you and your life. They can be in the area of health, relationships, spirituality, work, or any other area.

Then spend a moment and examine them.

Ask yourself- is this really true? How do I know? And if it weren't true- or was less true than I thought (i.e. maybe my kids don't think I pay much attention to what's important to them)- then ask yourself this:

What could I do- right now- to make it better?

Remember what Socrates said: "The unexamined life is not worth living".

Maybe this is a good time to do a little examining.

Vitamin D, Cancer and Kids

Each week I comb the research newsletters, journals, press embargoed stories etc for new reports I think might interest you, and it seems each week there's another one (or two or three) on vitamin D. Seems like I've written about this little vitamin a million times, but the research just keeps coming.

One study, recently published in the June 15 issue of the International Journal of Cancer found that the active form of vitamin D acts on a gene which increases the activity of an important antioxidant enzyme (glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase). The researchers exposed prostate cells to the active form of vitamin D (D3) which triggered enzyme activity that virtually mopped up free radicals in the prostate cells, protecting them against injury and death.

The researchers believe that this potent antioxidant activity may be part of the reason vitamin D has anti-cancer activity.

In a related story, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute found that patients with colon cancer who had the highest levels of vitamin D in their blood were less likely to die than those with the lowest levels. The researchers looked at data from two huge studies- the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study- and found 304 patients who had been given a diagnosis of colorectal cancer between 1991-2002.

As it turned out, these patients had provided blood samples early on in the studies, which began back in the 1970's. Their vitamin D levels had actually been checked at least a couple of years before their diagnosis of cancer.

The team then followed the study participants till either 2005 or till their death (whichever occurred first). They then looked at the earlier blood tests to see how vitamin D levels correlated with survival.

The results were pretty amazing. Patients with the highest levels of vitamin D were- get this- 48% less likely to die from any cause (including colon cancer) than the patients with the lowest levels of vitamin D in their blood. From colon cancer alone, patients with the highest blood levels of vitamin D were 39% less likely to die.

According to lead researcher Kimmie Ng, MD, vitamin D may improve survival in colon cancer patients by slowing the growth of tumor cells. It may also be involved in killing cancer cells and inhibiting the growth of blood vessels in tumors.

Finally, a related article came out in the July issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism entitled "Short term and long term safety of weekly high dose vitamin D3 supplementation in school children". The researchers found that supplementation was perfectly safe in children at a dose of 2,000 IUs per day, which is 10 times higher than the current ridiculously low recommendation of 200 IUs per day.

Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended a doubling of the paltry 200 IU recommendation to 400 IUs. The researchers in this study advocate raising it to 2,000 IUs daily for children and adolescents.

I personally take 2000 IUs daily but even 1000 IUs would be a huge improvement over what most people are getting. I'd love to see all of you taking this vitamin along with me. It's one of the cheapest vitamins, it's tiny and easy to swallow, and the evidence of its multiple benefits just keeps accumulating. All the vitamin D supplements on our website are the high quality bioavailable D3 form (used in the studies) and even at 2000IUs per day it's only about $2 per month. At 1000 IUs, it's about $1.65 per month. Why not add it to your vitamin order today?

Overweight, Obesity and the Brain

Here's a really interesting connection for you.

Back in June I wrote about studies by Arthur Kramer, a professor of neuroscience and psychology at the University of Illinois, who found that exercise increases brain volume. One way it may accomplish this is by boosting a protein in the brain called BDNF.

This study was widely reported largely because of the promise it showed for helping people improve memory, cognition and brain function. In fact, Kramer wrote at the time that their analysis showed in "unequivocal" terms that aerobic exercise improves cognition in older people.

That alone would be reason enough to want to boost brain levels of BDNF.

Now a new study shows that low levels of BDNF are associated with obesity!

The study, in the Aug 28 edition of the New England journal of Medicine noted that- based on animal studies- BDNF may help regulate calorie intake. People who- for possibly genetic reasons- have low levels of BDNF have a considerably greater risk of being overweight.

"BDNF is the critical biological link between thought, emotions, and movement" said John Ratey, MD, when I interviewed him recently. Ratey is a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the author of "SPARK: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain". He calls BDNF "Miracle-Gro" for the brain.

Evidently it can also help your waistline.

The new study isn't the first time scientists have noticed a connection between obesity and BDNF. In a study published last year in the journal of Neuroscience, researchers removed the BDNF gene in two of the primary appetite regulating areas of the brains of mice. They promptly became fat mice!

Researchers were able to get the mice back to normal weight by restricting their food, the mouse equivalent of a strict diet, showing that genes aren't destiny.

But it's always easier to eat less if you aren't too hungry, and always harder to "restrict your calories" when you are!

So for those of us who aren't mice, why not boost levels of a natural compound that seems to help us not want to eat that much in the first place?

Especially when it can be done so easily with basic everyday exercise!

The Real Skinny On Flaxseed and Flaxseed Oil

"Wherever flaxseed becomes a regular food item among the people, there will be better health", said Mahatma Gandhi. He was right. The true nature of flax as a health food has been known for centuries. In the eighth century, Charlemagne considered flax so essential for health that he actually passed laws requiring its use. Flax was one of the original medicines, used by Hippocrates himself.

Flaxseed oil can help protect against cardiovascular disease, cancer, arthritis, and many other degenerative diseases. And though it's primarily a source of omega-3, the oil has the virtue of containing some other fatty acids as well, notably some omega-6's and some heart healthy omega-9's, providing a nice fatty acid balance.

There's been a long-standing controversy among health professionals over the relative virtues of flaxseed oil and fish oil. Fish oil contains two omega-3 fatty acids- EPA and DHA-, which are absolutely critical to human health. Many people believe that those are the true "superstars" of the omega-3 community.

And herein lies the heart of the controversy.

Flaxseeds and flaxseed oil are one of the best sources on the planet for the important omega-3 fatty acid called alpha-linoleic acid. Alpha-linoleic acid (ALA) is considered an essential fatty acid because the body can't make it- it has to be obtained from the diet. The body can then take that ALA and theoretically convert it to EPA and DHA. The problem is that it doesn't do a very efficient job of conversion. Best estimates are that the body will convert about 8-20% of ALA to EPA, and only .5-9% into DHA.

But this ceases to be a problem at all if you simply take a tablespoon of flaxseed oil every day. And it's a non-issue if you're taking both flaxseed and fish oil!

Here's why: one tablespoon of Barlean's flax oil is 14 grams (14,000 mg) of which 55% (7,700 mg) is omega-3's. IF you convert 7% of that to EPA you get 539 mg EPA and if you convert even 5% to DHA you'd get 385 mg of DHA. So even if you were a vegetarian and using flaxseed oil as your only source of omega-3's you'd be OK, though I'd recommend a couple of tablespoons a day instead of one.

And conversion to EPA and DHA isn't the only reason to take flaxseeds or flaxseed oils. A recent article in Nutrition Reviews (June 2008) pointed out that ALA may have "independent, therapeutic properties similar to those of other omega-3 fatty acids" and "may also be of particular importance for neural development".

But the benefits of flax are not limited to the omega-3 content. Both the oil and the seeds (especially the seeds!) are a great source of something called lignans which have a whole host of health benefits of their own, for both men and women. Lignans have a protective effect against cancer, especially those that are hormone-sensitive like breast, uterine and prostate cancer.

Yes, if you put a gun to my head and told me I could only take fish oil or flaxseed oil, I'd probably choose fish oil. But truth be told I take them both. Every single day. And if you won't or can't eat fish or take fish oil, then simply up your intake of flaxseed oil! A recent study of male firefighters found that only 2.4 to 3.6 grams of flaxseed oil alone raised the firefighters EPA levels (though not their DHA levels). That's about 1/4 to 1/3 of a tablespoon! If you upped that dose a bit to just the one or two tablespoons a day I recommend, I'm willing to bet both EPA and DHA levels would rise.

This month (September 2008) we're offering a free bottle of Barlean's new cinnamon flavored flaxseed oil with every vitamin store order of $99. or more. This stuff is really great- I use it daily on my yogurt, nuts and fruit breakfast. The cinnamon flavor makes it really easy to get down even if you just take it right off the spoon, and if you add it to something like yogurt, it's even better!

Big Breakfast Eaters Drop Weight

New research from Virginia Commonwealth University found that a high-protein breakfast (containing 40 grams of protein) is one key to weight loss.

In this eight-month study, obese individuals who ate a 600-calorie breakfast (and a small lunch and dinner) lost an average of 40 pounds, which is huge when you compare it to the weight loss results in typical diet studies.

This is very much in keeping with all the other research showing that protein for breakfast (indeed eating breakfast period) is a great weight loss strategy, especially when that breakfast is part of an overall program. Simply adding eggs to your pancakes and syrup and toast and changing nothing else about your diet does nothing, as I reported a couple of weeks ago.

So far so good.

It gets tricky in the details.

The researchers actually compared a "low-carb" breakfast (of 290 calories) with the 600-calorie "mixed" breakfast. Both breakfasts were high in protein, but one of them was also low in carbs while the other was not. A typical 290-calorie low-carb breakfast was a cup of milk, one egg, three slices of bacon and two teaspoons of butter-- no bread. (Yes, I checked. If you use a small egg and skim milk, all that food is indeed less than 300 calories.) The typical 600-calorie "mixed" breakfast was- get this- cup of milk, turkey, cheese, two slices of bread, mayonnaise, 1 ounce of chocolate candy, and a protein shake.

Both groups stayed on the diet for four months (the weight loss phase) and then switched to "maintenance".

The low-carb breakfaster's actually lost more weight in the first four months. (Not surprising- the breakfast was both low-carb and low-calorie.)

But during the next four months, things changed. When everyone went on "maintenance" the low-carber's gained a big chunk of the weight back and the "mixed" breakfast group continued to lose.

What I want to know is two things:

One: Why on earth didn't the researchers test a low-carb breakfast and a "mixed" breakfast of equal calories? When there are two big variables that differ (the composition of the breakfast- i.e. low-carb vs. mixed- and the calorie content- i.e. 290 vs. 600) it's impossible to tell what's responsible for what.

Two: What in the heck was "maintenance"?

See, the problem with "weight gain" after a low-carb diet is simply this: people take their fabulous low-carb breakfast that they lost weight on and keep eating it but add back bread and pancakes. They think as long as they're eating the protein and fat they can add back the junk that made them fat in the first place. This has been found time and again, and I believe it's the bugaboo behind all those reports of low-carber's "gaining the weight back".

When they stay on low-carb- even relatively low-carb- they keep weight off. When they don't, they gain it back.

It's worth noting that both groups in the study were eating under 1200 calories during their weight loss phase.

Still, I can't help wondering if the researchers could have gone further, and what would have happened if "maintenance" had been more carefully controlled, and if the breakfasts of the two groups had been more on a level playing field. For example, maybe eating a "big" breakfast contributes to weight loss- but why not give a "big" breakfast to the low-carb group as well?

But let's be grateful for small blessings. I'm glad this study was reported as showing that high protein at breakfast contributes to weight loss. And I'm glad it was reported as showing that eating breakfast helps fight obesity. Both are true, and both are lessons well learned.

How to Beat Cravings for Soda

WebMD had a great piece this week on sodas, which I'd like to summarize for you, since I basically agree with everything they said.

First things first: We bought 10 billion- that's billion, not million- cases (that's cases, not bottles) of soft drinks last year.

Let that sink in for a minute.

And, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, soda is the single greatest source of calories in our diet- a very hefty 7% of all calories consumed come from soda. For kids, it's even worse. A June 2008 study in Pediatrics found that children and adolescents today derive 10-15% of total calories from sugar-sweetened beverages and "100% fruit juice".

And if you think this doesn't concern you since you drink diet soda, I'll get to you in a minute.

There's a ton of research that links soda drinking with obesity. One Harvard study found that for each additional soda consumed, a kid's risk of obesity goes up by 60%. Just last week a study published in the Journal of Critical Care examined the effects of soda drinking in Dubai of all places, and found that "soda drinking was associated with a higher risk of obesity and decreasing levels of blood calcium which may lead to osteoporosis later in life".

I can't resist pointing out that in 2001- the same year the Harvard study was published- the American Dietetic Association predictably published a paper- "Straight Facts About Beverage Choices"- that was largely devoted to dispelling concerns about soda such as "possible links" to weight gain, cavities and bone-thinning. Incidentally, their "Straight Facts About Beverage Choices" was sponsored by the National Soft Drink Association. What a shock.

And you wonder why I tell you to run the other way every time you hear advice from the American Dietetic Association?

But don't get me started.

David Katz, MD, of the Yale School of Medicine put it well when he told WebMD "Studies funded by the beverage industry have suggested no link between soda and childhood obesity; studies funded by everyone else have begged to differ".

So is diet soda any better? Not really. A Jan 2008 study in Circulation which I wrote about in this newsletter found that people who drank just one diet soda a day faced a 34% higher risk of developing metabolic syndrome.

To be fair, experts have pointed out that there are really two types of diet soda drinkers- one who drinks diet soda and eats healthy food, and one that drinks diet soda to justify super-sized meals at McDonald's. So maybe it's only the second type that gets in trouble. Still, I'm not convinced that diet sodas are benign. For one thing they seem to boost the cravings for sweets. "We have a sweet tooth not a 'sugar tooth'", Katz told WebMD. "Sweets feed a sweet tooth and the more sweets you get the more you tend to want".

And that doesn't even address the thorny question of the artificial sweeteners (typically aspartame) and chemicals in diet soda. I think it's bad news.

So what to do?

I like WebMD's suggestions, which is why I'm passing them on:

1. Start slowly by replacing the sugared sodas with diet ones. They still stink, but it's an intermediate step in the right direction.


2. Cut down gradually- replace one regular soda (or diet soda) per day with an alternative. Note: "energy drinks" are often just as bad- read the label for sugar content. The best alternative is water (but you knew that anyway)!


3. If you need flavor, try calorie-free flavored waters and seltzers.


4. If it's the caffeine you're craving, you're better off with tea or coffee. Seriously. Black tea improves the flow of blood and may reduce the risk of stroke—(you already know all the terrific things about green tea). And coffee is a great source of antioxidants.

Stop Acid-Reflux Without the Drugs that Can Boost Fractures

If you've been reading my newsletters and articles for a while, you've undoubtedly heard me rant against the widespread use of antacids and acid-suppressing drugs (Proton Pump Inhibitors), which I think is one of the dumbest ideas conventional medicine has ever sold to the American public.

This class of drugs such as Prevacid, Nexium and others, are among the most widely prescribed in the country. We pop them like candy.

Magic purple pill indeed.

Regular use of acid-suppressing drugs is associated with increased risk of hip fractures, probably because of impaired calcium absorption. A recent Canadian study finds that long-term use of acid reflux drugs (Proton Pump Inhibitors) may boost the risk of osteoporosis related bone fractures.

The fact is that common antacids and acid-lowering drugs do not treat the cause of acid-reflux.

Why? Because heartburn is almost never caused by an excess of stomach acid! Rather, it's the stomach acid ending up in the wrong place (reflexing back up into the esophagus instead of remaining in the stomach).

The body makes stomach acid for a reason. We need stomach acid for digestion of protein and absorption of minerals like calcium and iron (one of many reasons why prescribing TUMS as a source of calcium is patently idiotic!)

Stomach acid is also essential for preventing the growth of bacteria and yeast in your stomach. So it's no wonder that curbing acid with drugs can lead to problems. Taking acid-suppressors may increase the risk of acquiring a food-borne intestinal infection or lead to the overgrowth of bacteria in the stomach and small intestine. Overgrowth of bacteria in the stomach probably explains some other risks generally associated with regular use of acid suppressors including vitamin B12 deficiency, stomach cancer and pneumonia.

If these drugs can boost risk of hip fractures and food borne illness, what natural therapies can we take for acid-reflux?

In areas of digestion and gut health, one of my go-to guys is Leo Galland, MD. Dr. Galland is a giant in the field of integrative medicine and has been putting out cutting edge information for as long as I can remember. He's respected by absolutely everyone in my field.

Dr. Galland's office recently sent me information on an effective natural approach that can help reverse the causes of acid reflux and improve symptoms without the use of risky PPI's. And when Dr. Galland talks, I listen. So should you.

Dr. Galland's put together a new electronic booklet called "The Heartburn and Indigestion Solution". In it you can learn simple and effective steps to heal heartburn. The booklet covers:

• The signs and symptoms of Acid Reflux (GERD): Its not just about acid, but about the proper movement of food and fluid through the gastrointestinal tract.


• Why you need stomach acid: proper digestion, and to help fight food-borne infection.


• The surprising risks of taking acid-lowering drugs: higher risk of bone loss and food poisoning, for example.

In The Heartburn and Indigestion Solution, you can learn the program Dr. Galland has developed for addressing acid-reflux and indigestion naturally. I highly recommend it.

You can get Dr. Gallands e-book on the natural secrets for fixing acid reflux and heartburn here:
http://fatresistancediet.com/alternative-medicine/gerd/

Boomers take note: Vitamin B12 Protects the Aging Brain

Vitamin B12 may protect against brain volume loss in older people, according to a study published in the September 9, 2008, issue of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

For the study, 107 people between the ages of 61 and 87 underwent brain scans, memory testing and physical exams. Researchers also collected blood samples to check vitamin B12 levels. Brain scans and memory tests were also performed again five years later.

The study found that people who had higher vitamin B12 levels were six times less likely to experience brain shrinkage compared with those who had lower levels of the vitamin in their blood.

What's really interesting here is that none of the people in the study technically had vitamin B12 deficiency. (This parallels recent findings showing all the problems associated with less than optimal levels of vitamin D, even when people aren't classified as technically "deficient".)

"Many factors that affect brain health are thought to be out of our control, but this study suggests that simply adjusting our diets to consume more vitamin B12 through eating meat, fish, fortified cereals or milk may be something we can easily adjust to prevent brain shrinkage and so perhaps save our memory," said study author Anna Vogiatzoglou, MSc, with the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom.

"Research shows that vitamin B12 deficiency is a public health problem, especially among the elderly, so more vitamin B12 intake could help reverse this problem", she added.

This study didn't investigate whether taking vitamin B12 supplements could reverse the problem, but it sure makes sense.

I wrote about the connection between B12 and brain function in "The Most Effective Natural Cures on Earth". Interestingly, it's not just the elderly who are at great risk for not getting enough of this important vitamin. Despite arguments to the contrary, so are vegans and vegetarians.

B12 is essential for proper functioning of the brain. It's necessary for proper nerve conduction- when you have less of it, nerve impulses or "messages" are less effective at getting to their destinations.

B12 is also critical (along with folic acid and vitamin B6) to bringing down levels of a toxic compound in the blood called homocysteine, high levels of which increase the risk of stroke, heart disease and Alzheimers.

I've seen many people whose mood and energy has substantially improved once they started getting more B12 in their diet.

What the Conventions Have to Teach Us About Nutrition

As I write this, the second of the two political conventions has just come to a close. By all accounts, more people are paying attention to these gatherings than any time in recent memory- the top "attractions" of both parties easily drew in millions more viewers than the 2008 American Idol season finale.

For people who are interested in health, nutrition and diet, I think this provides us with a unique teaching moment.

Stay with me for a moment here, and I'll bring it together for you

In the last two weeks, millions of people heard (from the other party) what they would consider complete distortions of facts, misreadings of the record, selective reporting on issues, cherry picking of evidence, and downplaying of any opposition points. Whichever party you might belong to, I'm sure you found yourself rolling your eyes in amazement at the distortions and "lies" of the other party, and felt a certain degree of disbelief that "other people" could be so easily fooled.

This is exactly- and I mean exactly- what happens when partisans of "low-carb" and partisans of "low-fat" discuss weight loss.

But, you might say, isn't that all based on science? What is there to disagree about? Hard facts are hard facts, right?

Actually, "hard facts" are anything but hard.

Recently, there have been a spate of books about "The Political Brain", suggesting that the choices we make, the issues we resonate to, the candidates we pick and the political parties we join have much less to do with our intellect and the issues than we think they do. The short version of these well-argued theses by very smart social psychologists and behavioral scientists is that we make our alliances based on unconscious motivations and then selectively look for evidence to back up and justify the choices we make on a gut level.

Our choices, in other words, are more likely to be influenced by who we were bullied by in high school, who we identify with, who pulled our pigtails, who beat us in dodge-ball, or who were our heroes when we were in grade school. Even whether we identify more strongly with our mothers or our fathers. We may think we're debating "the issues" intellectually, but they've long been "decided" in our subconscious brain. That's why "who we identify with" is such a powerful motivator in politics. That's why twins raised apart tend to vote for the same candidates. Most people do not know the details of health care policy, but they darn well know whether they "like" or "trust" a candidate and that has much more to do with the unconscious than you might think.

In traveling the roads of the diet wars for almost two decades now, I have noticed an amazing parallel between choosing "sides" in the nutrition war, and choosing "sides" in the political arena.

In preparing for a new book I'm doing, I'm reading through the mountain of research on diets, including the "dangers" of saturated fat in the diet, low-carb diets for weight loss, low-fat diets for weight loss, the cholesterol controversy (yup, there's a big one!), diet comparison studies, and other stuff far too boring to recount here.

And the parallel between what I'm reading and what I've just watched at the two conventions is uncanny.

When studies showing low-carb "works" come up, you can count on a "rapid response" from the other side to discredit the study. When studies showing the supposed "danger" of saturated fat or cholesterol are published (they're far fewer than you might think), the other side can be counted on to do the same thing.
Now I happen to be firmly on one of these "sides"- but that doesn't mean I can't observe this dynamic clearly. It looks and sounds exactly like the talking heads from the two political parties debating the "facts" on MSNBC.

When it comes down to it, I think we actually "choose" a side in the diet wars based on the same gut feelings and identification that we do when we "choose" a side in the political wars.

As Robert Lee Hotz wrote recently in a column in the Wall Street Journal aptly entitled "The Biology of Ideology", some of the factors in "choosing" sides may even have a genetic influence. This is compounded in the diet wars by individual metabolic factors- most of us get very attached to a dietary program that worked for us personally and tend to think that program is therefore "right" for everyone.

But what about the "science"?

If you think scientists are any different than the rest of us in having biases and emotions and unconscious forces that shape their studies and their conclusions, I've got a nice bridge to nowhere to sell you. There is ample evidence that they are just as "foolable" and subject to the vagaries of these forces as mere mortals. Just ask any magician. Every one of them will tell you that he'd rather perform in front of an audience of physicists than an audience of five year olds.

"They're more easily fooled", said one famous illusionist.

The Charles Schultz (Peanuts) Philosophy of Life:

The following is the philosophy of Charles Schulz, the creator of the 'Peanuts' comic strip. You don't have to actually answer the questions. Just read straight through, and you'll get the point.

I promise, it's worth it.

1. Name the five wealthiest people in the world.
2. Name the last five Heisman trophy winners.
3. Name the last five winners of the Miss America pageant.
4. Name ten people who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer Prize.
5. Name the last half dozen Academy Award winners for best actor and actress.
6. Name the last decade's worth of World Series winners.



How did you do?

Not so great, right?

Me neither.

The point is, none of us remember the headliners of yesterday. These are no second-rate achievers. They are the best in their fields. But the applause dies. Awards tarnish. Achievements are forgotten. Accolades and certificates are buried with their owners.

Here's another quiz. See how you do on this one:
1. List a few teachers who aided your journey through school.
2. Name three friends who have helped you through a difficult time.
3. Name five people who have taught you something worthwhile.
4. Think of a few people who have made you feel appreciated and special!!
5. Think of five people you enjoy spending time with.



Easier?

The lesson: The people who make a difference in your life are not the ones with the most credentials, the most money or the most awards.

They simply are the ones who care the most.

Resveratrol for Weight Loss?

I got an interesting comment on my blog post about Resveratrol. She wrote that she was obese, and had begun taking Resveratrol and had noticed an improvement in her energy and digestion. She also told me that a number of people she knew had reported weight loss and a loss in body fat just from taking 600mg of the supplement without changing anything else.

I'm delighted that she felt better, and I'm a huge fan of Resveratrol, but frankly, I was surprised. I've never heard of Resveratrol having any effect on weight loss and honestly, am not sure why it would. Then I came across a new research study that may shed some light on the connection.

In this study, research collaboration between scientists from Massey University in New Zealand and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, rats fed extracts of blueberries gained up to 10 percent less body weight than their counterparts not fed the blueberry extract.

The mechanism by which this happened may shed some light on the Resveratrol mystery.

"Antioxidants may trigger receptors in your upper intestine that tell your brain you're full", said lead researcher Abdul Molan, PhD. Lab animals fed the extracts also decreased their food intake by about 8%.

If the antioxidant hypothesis turns out to be true, this could explain why Resveratrol- a powerful antioxidant- might have produced a weight loss effect in my reader's experience.

Interestingly, though I've always been a fan of eating the whole food (and taking supplements as well!), a previous study at the USDA Arkansas Childrens Nutrition Center and the University of Arkansas reported that purified forms of extracted anthocyanins from berries may decrease obesity- but oddly, the whole food doesn't produce the same benefits. (That doesn't mean the whole food doesn't have a ton of other benefits, just that the concentrated extract of anthocyanins was able to produce a result in these lab mice that the whole fruit was unable to produce.)

Bottom line: The nutritional components of whole foods- including Resveratrol from grapes, antioxidants from blueberries, and thousands of other plant compounds- work in mysterious ways.

But while science continues to elucidate the ways that whole foods, antioxidants, fiber, phytochemicals and omegas benefit your health and life, it makes an awful lot of sense to keep taking them!

No Weight Loss Claims for Supplements?

A year or so from now, you may well turn on CNN and hear the following:
All supplement makers will no longer be allowed to make any weight loss claims for their products. Any such claims will now have to be pre-approved by the FDA.

And if you're like most Americans with limited attention to spend on the details and backgrounds of such reports, you'll probably come away with the impression that these regulations were passed because the FDA considers weight loss claims for supplements to be bogus. And, after all, the FDA knows what it's talking about, and they're looking out for you, right?

So it must be true. And another nail will be hammered into the coffin of the supplement industry and righteous doctors will talk about how this stuff isn't regulated, all of this natural medicine stuff is unproven, and, hey, it's about time somebody did something about it!

You'll also probably hear (correctly, as it turns out) that this all happened because of a Citizens Petition to the FDA to "stop weight loss claims" for dietary supplements.

Ah, Democracy in action! Citizens were fighting back against these unscrupulous makers of green tea supplements!

So I thought you might like to know a little behind the scenes scoop about how this scenario is likely to come into being.

Right now, as we speak (or read) there is indeed a Citizens Petition to Disallow Weight Loss Claims for Dietary Supplements. (It sounds so "grass roots", doesn't it?)

The "Citizens Petition" was filed, on April 17, 2008. But not by a bunch of your citizen neighbors. Rather, it was filed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies. The "Citizens Petition" requests that the FDA now classify weight loss claims as "disease claims" effectively requiring all nutritional supplements that have any effect on metabolism or weight to be treated as drugs and regulated similarly.

The petition was also filed on behalf of the wonderful, always-lookin'-out-for-you American Dietetic Association, which was given a substantial financial grant as a reward for its participation.

GSK is the manufacturer of Alli, a watered down over the counter version of the weight loss drug Orlistat (Xenical) which even at full strength is next to useless. You may remember from an earlier newsletter item that GlaxoSmithKline spent over 150 million bucks marketing Alli the first year it came out. Largely due to the superb marketing campaign, Alli is a cash cow- so far, it's generated cumulative sales of about 315 million and counting.

The GSK petition claims that dietary supplements are ineffective in treating overweight conditions. The language of the argument is incredibly arcane and hinges on all kinds of paper thin legal distinctions. For example: "Petitioners are not asking FDA to conclude that the state of being overweight is a disease…petitioners are requesting FDA to restrict weight loss claims because they purport to treat an unhealthy condition that is a risk factor for disease- not the disease itself". (I could not make this up.)

The bottom line: the Pharmaceuticals don't want any competition from natural products and will use any lobbying they can to influence regulatory agencies to use their powers to keep the competition off the market.

Some of the specific supplements the petition is mentioning by name include

• CLA (conjugated linolenic acid)


• Garcina Cambogia (Super CitriMax)


• chromium picolinate

Green tea extract wasn't specifically mentioned, though you can be sure there will be collateral damage to all supplements if this ridiculous petition goes through. (Studies have shown that green tea extract can reduce body weight and increase metabolism.)

The point is that this "Citizens Petition" filed by one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in collusion with the American Dietetic Association has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting your health and everything to do with protecting their turf.

The sad part is that almost no one knows that this stuff goes on- and it does-- all the time. You only hear the end result- "no claims allowed" and, if you're like most people, assume that must be because there's something fishy about the claims and the FDA is looking out for you.

Without getting too political, I think one of the reasons that the vast majority of my colleagues in the natural health movement were so crazy about the Ron Paul candidacy is that he was the only candidate who actually cared about health freedom and would have done something about the wholesale corruption and abuse of power that keeps people from having access to information and products that could really help them. (I personally had a few problems with some of his other positions, but on that particularly one, he was on the money!)

The FDA normally has to respond to such a petition within 180 days of receiving it. You can read comments from nutritionists, doctors, supplement manufacturers, health foods store owners, concerned citizens, and (hopefully) leave your own comment at regulations.gov.