Red Wine, Resveratrol and Cancer

New research suggests that drinking the occasional glass of red wine may help men to reduce their risk of developing lung cancer.

Research scientist Chun Chao investigated the relationship between lung cancer risk and beer, red wine, white wine, and liquor consumption in men. Adjustments were made for factors affecting lung cancer risk, such as age, race/ethnicity, education, income, body mass index, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or emphysema, and smoking history.

The results showed that lung cancer risk dropped by approximately 2% for every glass of red wine a man drunk each month. Results also revealed that drinking red wine dramatically reduced the risk of lung cancer in smokers - male smokers who drank one to two glasses of red wine each day were found to be 60% less likely to develop lung cancer than other smokers who did not drink red wine. However, Chao warns that male smokers who drink one to two glasses of red wine each day are still more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers.

Interestingly, when I wrote my latest book, The Healthiest Meals on Earth I based all the meals and recipes on the concept of the Polymeal- a notion first explored in the British Medical Journal by researchers who calculated that you could reduce heart disease by over 75% and give people an extra 9 good years of life if everyone ate a meal of 7 basic ingredients on a regular basis. One of those ingredients was red wine.

Consumption of white wine, beer, or liquor, was not found to have a significant effect upon lung cancer risk.

Although the reasons why red wine should reduce lung cancer risk are unconfirmed. Chao believes that "an antioxidant component" may well be responsible. "Red wine is known to contain high levels of antioxidants. There is a compound called resveratrol that is very rich in red wine because it is derived from the grape skin. This compound has shown significant health benefits in preclinical studies," Chao said in a news release issued by the American Association for Cancer Research.

I've long believed resveratrol- one of the most powerful antioxidants found in red wine and the skins of dark grapes- is one of the best anti-aging supplements you can take (I take resveratrol every day). We know resveratrol seems to have life extending properties from lab experiments- perhaps it also has cancer fighting ones as well.

The study is due to be published in the October Issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

B12: The New Star in the Vitamin Universe

Recently we've been hearing (and I've been writing) a whole lot of amazing things about vitamin D, which is turning out to be one of the most "underrated" vitamins on the planet. Now get ready to hear a lot about another vitamin that's about to be "discovered" by the media: Vitamin B12.

Look, these vitamins have been around since vitamins have been discovered. They're not new. But what happens is that the research mounts, people begin to pay attention, and slowly but surely a critical mass of intelligent folks in the health business realizes that this stuff is really important and amazing- and we're not getting enough of it.

Which is what's happening now with vitamin B12.

Many epidemiological studies have indicated that low levels of vitamin B12 are commonly associated with several ailments (many of which affect older people) like Alzheimer's, dementia, frailty, depression, osteoporosis, heart disease, stroke and even some cancers. For example, the famous Framingham study of 2,576 adults living in Massachusetts linked low blood levels of vitamin B12 to bone loss (in both men and women). And a study published this year of 107 people over 60 who were followed for five years linked low levels of B12 to shrinkage of the brain.

Here's the thing- in many studies, symptoms were seen with B12 levels just slightly below normal, or in some cases well above the level that causes anemia, the most famous B12 deficiency disease.

Once again, it's turning out that minimal levels of a vitamin- the levels known to prevent a specific deficiency disease- are very far from the optimal levels.

Vitamin B12 is needed in every cell in the body. It's water soluble, so you can't take "too much". And we absorb it poorly and probably don't get enough of it. Read on to see why.

Vitamin B12 is primarily found in animal foods (sorry, my vegan friends but it's the truth). To be assimilated it has to first be separated from the protein that contains it (like meat or fish) by stomach acid. It then binds to a compound called "intrinsic factor". The problems are threefold:

1. many people (especially vegetarians) are not eating animal protein;
2. many people do not make enough stomach acid, or they use antacids
3. many people don't make enough (or any) intrinsic factor. This is especially true once we hit forty.

Often, vitamin B12 deficiency doesn't show up for years. And it can influence depression, energy and performance, not to mention a whole host of degenerative diseases. Vegetarians (and vegans) especially must take supplements, and in my opinion, most everyone else would benefit as well.

Because of the limiting factor of stomach acid and intrinsic factor, many people prefer to get B12 in injections or take B12 as a liquid sublingually, so it bypasses the "gut". You can also take B12 in a small capsule. It's inexpensive and great insurance. I recommend you take it with folic acid, because the combination has been shown to lower levels of a nasty toxic inflammatory compound in your body called homocysteine.

Vitamin B12 is also known as cobalamin. But it's been shown that the more "potent" and effective form to use in supplements is a kind of "turbo" vitamin B12 called methylcobalamin. Make sure to always use supplements of methylcobalamin. And remember also that to make any kind of difference you need to take a dose of at least 1000 mcg. (And It's perfectly OK if you skip a day from time to time).

How to Get a Free Bottle of B12 in November For the month of November 2008 I will include 1 free bottle of vitamin B12 ($11.40 value) with any vitamin store order over $99. You don't need to add the product to your cart, I will simply toss it in your box as it goes out the door. (Unless you specify "b12 capsules" during order I will include the liquid form.)

Obesity, Pleasure and Addiction

Obese people anticipate enjoying food more than thin people do. But, according to a new brain imaging study, they actually enjoy it less.

For a long time there's been emerging research showing that there's a brain chemistry component to overeating. Studies by Gene-Jack Wang and others have demonstrated for example that obese subjects have fewer dopamine D2 receptors, meaning they are less "sensitive" to reward, a finding that is similar to what's found in drug addicts. It's as if the pleasure circuits of the brain are "hijacked".

"This makes sense because eating, like other activities regulated by dopamine reward circuits, is a highly reinforcing behavior. The behavior of overeating in obese subjects shares similarities with the compulsive use of drugs in addicted subjects", says Dr. Wang.

Dopamine is clearly involved in eating behavior, even for people who aren't obese. Smelling, seeing, and talking about food -- even without the pleasure of eating it -- increases brain dopamine in non-obese, food-deprived subjects. "This provides evidence of an involvement of dopamine in the motivational behaviors that drive food intake, independent of the pleasure of eating the food" says Dr. Wang.

The new research by Eric Stice, PhD, of the Oregon Research Institute shows that obese people anticipate enjoying food more than lean people do- but when they actually eat it, they enjoy it less.

The researchers showed women subjects two pictures- one of a chocolate milkshake, one of a glass of water. The heavier the woman, the more active the "pleasure circuit" in the brain.

But get this- once the women actually tasted the chocolate milkshake, the heavier ones showed less activity in their brains' pleasure centers than the leaner ones.

Food is one of the many stimuli in our lives that release dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure- specifically, the anticipation of pleasure. Think about the time you went on a first date with someone you had a crush on- that rush of pleasure and excitement and anticipation was coming from (you guessed it)... dopamine!

One addiction researcher has wisely called dopamine the "gotta have it!" neurotransmitter, while serotonin is the "Ah! Relax! Got it!" neurotransmitter.

Some people have a variant gene that dulls dopamine responses-these folks are more at risk for being obese (and possibly more at risk for addictions in general). Even if they're not obese, they seem to get less pleasure from eating - which puts them at greater risk of compensating by eating more, possibly in an unconscious attempt to increase dopamine and produce pleasure.

So is the take-home point here that obesity and overeating are "genetic"? No. But it does mean that there are powerful brain circuits involved in reward that can make you more at risk for overeating.

You don't need "genetic testing" on this one. Some proactive, empowering actions can help you combat even a genetic propensity to overeat. Find pleasure in as many things as possible, "spread it around" so that you have a repertoire of pleasurable activities (hopefully non-destructive ones!) and take care of your emotional and spiritual needs as much as possible.

And take a stand for your health. Your genes are not destiny.

Remember, genetics loads the gun. But environment pulls the trigger.

Fun with Research Studies: Something to Think About

When I was in graduate school, one of the classes I most expected to hate was statistics. But those two terms of statistics and research design turned out to be the most valuable courses I ever took. They allowed me to look critically at marketing claims for drugs ("Lipitor reduces heart disease by 33%!"), bodybuilding supplements (43% more muscle!), weight loss products (don't ask) and especially correlational studies ("saturated fat causes heart disease") that are deeply flawed and badly reported.

For example- does it really make sense that people taking some extra vitamin E are more likely to die? Or that people taking a multivitamin have a higher rate of prostate cancer? Come on.

Briefly, correlation studies show that two things are found together. But correlation studies do not demonstrate cause.

Two fun examples come to mind. Diabetes rates went up significantly during the Clinton presidency- the rate of diabetes and the Clinton years are significantly correlated. (Does this mean electing a Democrat will increase diabetes?) And in certain areas of Denmark the number of storks is correlated with the number of babies.

Both of these examples- and countless others- are 100 percent true.

So I read with amusement about a brand new study by World Bank economists showing that in houses with at least one smoker, a mobile-phone purchase led to a 32.6 percent drop in tobacco consumption for each adult, the equivalent of an entire pack a month! (The study was done in the Phillipines between 2003-2006)

You can imagine the field day that the press relations department of cell phone makers had with this one: "Stop smoking- buy a cell phone!"

I mention this because it provides an excellent object lesson: Read studies carefully. Just because two things are found together in a population does not mean that the presence of one causes the other. Dig a little deeper, and there's often another explanation.

Moral of the story: Think before unquestioningly accepting any sound bite on the news about the "findings" of a new study.

Sometimes there's really something there- but sometimes it's all smoke and mirrors.

My Favorite Superfood: The Memory Enhancer

I'm always amused by those multi-level marketing juice drinks (Xango, Mangosteen, Xocai, Mona Vie) that go for 40 bucks a bottle and promise to cure everything from hair loss to cancer. I don't believe for a moment that those juices provide any more antioxidant power or health promoting properties than a good mix of plain old berries (like blueberries) that you can get anywhere at a fraction of the price.

Consider this:

A new study published in the current issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showed that wild blueberries outperformed 2 dozen other commonly consumed fruits like apples, bananas, red grapes and strawberries in an expanded test using the Cellular Antioxidant Activity (CAA) assay (lab test). The research shows that wild blueberries have the highest cellular antioxidant activity of the 25 fruits tested, as well as the highest total phenolic content and ORAC (oxygen radical absorbance capacity) value.

ORAC value is a "combo score" based on the ability of mixed antioxidants in a given food to perform as a team, often delivering more punch and power than you might expect from any of the individual ingredients- think "The Rolling Stones" as a band as opposed to Mick Jagger as a solo artist!

Lead scientist Rui Hai Liu, Ph.D. used the cellular antioxidant activity (CAA) assay -- a new assay developed by the Cornell University Department of Food Science to determine antioxidant activity of antioxidants, foods, and dietary supplements.

According to Dr. Liu, the CAA assay was developed to investigate how antioxidant compounds found in foods react inside real cells as opposed to test tubes, using human liver cancer cells as the testing model. The new CAA test is a more biologically relevant method as it accounts for uptake, metabolism, distribution and activity of antioxidant compounds within cells versus solely looking at antioxidant value.

The recently published study shows the cellular antioxidant activity of 25 common fruits, an expansion from earlier CAA testing done in 2007. "In expanding the test to include more fruits, we found that wild blueberries had the highest antioxidant activity, with other berries and pomegranates also showing strong performance" said Dr. Liu.

Previous research that I reported on showed that blueberry extracts fed to mice improved their memory and maze learning ability, showing the blueberries truly are a "brain' food. Blueberries are one food I eat every single day- without exception. I've written glowingly about them in The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth.

The new research is more evidence for what we've known for a while- blueberries are at the top of the heap when it comes to providing antioxidant power.

And by the way- you don't have to wait for them to be in season. Buy 'em frozen. In fact, eat them right from the freezer sprinkled with some nuts and a little raw milk or Pomegranate juice. There's nothing like it for staving off the craving for an 800 calorie pint of ice cream.

Vitamin C and the Risk for Diabetes

In a recent issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers at the University of Cambridge reported an association between higher levels of vitamin C in the bloodstream and a lower risk of developing Type ll Diabetes.

The researchers looked at over 21,000 participants from 1993-1997 who did not have diabetes when the study started. Their vitamin C levels were tested, and the participants were given dietary questionnaires to fill out when they enrolled in the study. Then the researchers followed the participants till 2005.

Over the twelve years of follow-up, 423 men and 312 women developed diabetes. But those men and women who were in the top 20% of vitamin C levels had a whopping 62% lower risk of developing the disease compared with those in the bottom 20%.

There are a couple of things that are interesting here. One, vitamin C is often a "marker" for fruit and vegetable intake in the diet- people who eat more fruits and vegetables have more vitamin C in their blood stream, and in the Western diet, 90% of our vitamin C comes from fruits and vegetables. So the protection against diabetes may have come from the vitamin C, but it also may have come from fruits and vegetables and all their assorted protective vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals.

So the authors did an interesting statistical analysis. They also evaluated fruit and vegetable intake independently of vitamin C in the blood. Not surprisingly, fruit and vegetable intake was also associated with a lower risk of diabetes (22% lower) but- perhaps surprisingly- fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with a lower reduction of risk against diabetes than high vitamin C levels in the blood.

"Higher plasma vitamin C level and, to a lesser degree, fruit and vegetable intake were associated with a substantially decreased risk of diabetes," the study authors wrote.

Never in the world would I recommend taking a vitamin supplement instead of eating vegetables and fruits. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of plant compounds found in the plant kingdom that probably have synergistic effects on our health, and many have specific health benefits besides the ones looked at in this study.

But the fact is that vitamin C is an incredibly important vitamin and most of us don’t get the optimal amount, even when we do eat a lot of fruits and vegetables. (Much vitamin C is lost between the time the fruit is picked and transported to your grocers shelf- more is lost once it’s cut.) My personal recommendation: Eat all the vegetables and fruits you possibly can- and also take a high quality vitamin C supplement such as Stellar C or Bio Fizz for added protection!

Omega 3's and Vegetables Reduce the Risk for Alzheimers

I've been praising omega-3's in these pages (and in articles and books) for as long as I've been writing about diet, nutrition and health. So I love when new studies come out supporting what we in the nutrition community have known for a long time- omega-3's protect your brain!

In one study done just last year, and published in the journal Neurology, the health and dietary patterns of over 8,000 French men and women 65 years old (or older) were monitored for a minimum of four years. The study found that daily consumption of fruits and vegetables was associated with a decreased risk of dementia from any cause. The study also found that weekly fish consumption also reduced the risk for dementia from all causes, including the most famous type of dementia of all- Alzheimer's disease.

The relationship between eating fish on a weekly basis and lowering the risk for Alzheimer's was found in individuals lacking genes for apolipoprotein-E4 (also known as apoE4). This genotype is a separate and independent risk factor for Alzheimer's.

An interesting thing about this particular study was the side finding that too much intake of omega-6's- unbalanced by consumption of omega-3's- actually increased the risk of dementia, and this was true even when people did not have the genetic risk factor.

We've been saying for what seems like forever that the balance between omega-6's and omega-3's is a critical variable in human health. Our Paleolithic ancestors and hunter-gatherer societies typically consumed omega 6: omega 3 in a ratio somewhere between 1:1 and 4:1, and that range is believed to be the optimal intake. Modern industrial societies like ours consume anywhere between 20:1 and 60:1 omega 6- omega 3!!

Why is this so bad?

Because omega-6's are the building blocks of inflammatory compounds (eicosanoids) in the body. It's not that those inflammatory compounds are all bad- we need them for various biochemical responses to injury, for example. But when our body is making way too many of them and not enough of the balancing anti-inflammatories, we're in big trouble. After all, we do plenty to our bodies- even inadvertently- to cause low level injury and inflammation. We don't need an "inflammatory factory" working overtime while its anti-inflammatory counterparts are asleep at the metabolic wheel.

You can't swing on a rope without consuming omega-6's- they're in everything. All vegetable oils are high in omega-6. To make matters worse, most of the omega-6's we consume are really crummy, highly processed vegetable oils like corn oil and soybean oil (rather than things like evening primrose oil).

Which brings us full circle to the issue of inflammation.

I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons that fruit and vegetable eating adults had less risk for dementia in that French study was because of the enormous amount of natural anti-inflammatories in the plant kingdom. Inflammation is a silent killer, and is a major factor in every degenerative disease from heart disease to diabetes to obesity.

A diet high in natural anti-inflammatories- supplemented with omega-3's- is one of the best things you can do to fight this silent killer.

Cold water fish, fish oil and flaxseed oil are all good sources of omega-3's.

Don’t forget- omega-3’s also help protect your bones. And this month, with any order of 99 or more from the vitamin store, you get a double whammy of bone strengtheners: Douglas Labs’ Cal-6-Mag plus Carlson’s Finest Fish Oil. It’s a winning combination!

Spice Quiz

If you've read my book, "The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth" or tried any of the recipes in "The Healthiest Meals on Earth" you know I'm a huge fan of spices.

Not only do they make food taste terrific, they have multiple health benefits.

Kathy Kastan and Suzanne Banfield, authors of Women'sHeart All Heart Family Cookbook (Rodale) submitted this terrific "spice quiz" to the Sacramento Bee newspaper. Below you will find seven true/false questions about spices. Try it yourself when you have a minute. The answers are at the bottom, so don't peek.

1. One recent study shows that consuming 1/4 teaspoon of cinnamon after meals reduces blood sugar levels by as much as 29 percent in some people.


2. In some studies, regularly adding cinnamon to your diet can reduce total cholesterol.


3. Mustard seed lowers LDL (bad) cholesterol and triglycerides, and raises HDL (good) cholesterol.


4. Ground red pepper causes blood clots.


5. Oregano raises HDL (good) cholesterol.


6. Ginger calms your stomach and reduces formation of blood clots.


7. Peppermint raises LDL (bad) cholesterol.

Answers: 1) True; 2) True; 3) True; 4) False. In fact, it can help dissolve clots. 5) True; 6) True; 7) False

Another Look at Soy

The latest issue of the journal Nutrition and Cancer reports on a study by Korean researchers showing a protective effect of soy on the risk of developing breast cancer.

If you've read my book, "The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth" you know that I've not been a huge fan of soy. And if you've read any of the writings of Sally Fallon and Mary Enig ("The Ploy of Soy") or the book, "The Whole Soy Story: The dark side of America's favorite health food" by Kalia Daniels, PhD, CCN, you probably know why.

Yet studies like this new one continue to pop up and can't be responsibly ignored. So I took some time to "re-evaluate" the whole soy controversy and would like to share some of my thoughts about it.

First, the new study. Researchers at Hanyang University in Seoul, Korea compared 362 women diagnosed with breast cancer with an equal number of healthy women matched for age and menopausal status. Participants were interviewed concerning their diets, and total soy protein intake was used as a measure of total soy food consumption.

High soy protein intake was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer. The researchers divided the women into five tiers depending on their soy consumption. Premenopausal women who were in the highest 20% for consumption of soy protein had a 61 percent lower adjusted risk of breast cancer compared with those in the lowest 20% of consumption. For postmenopausal women, those consuming the highest soy protein intake had a 78% lower risk.

But here's the thing- look at the kind of soy they were consuming. "Tofu, soybean paste, boiled soybeans and soy milk". This study was done in Korea. I've often said that the type of soy they consume in Asian countries is considerably different than the soy junk food we consume over here, a point that has been made by Fallon, Enig and Daniel many times.

Fact is, fermented soy is a whole different story, and even those who are "anti-soy" agree that this can be good stuff.

But that's a far cry from the stuff that lines the "health food" section of your local supermarket- soy products, soy chips, soy derivatives, soy concentrates, soybean oil and soy ice cream. These food products have little in common with traditionally fermented soy foods from the whole bean like tempeh, miso and the like.

Coincidentally, an excellent and well-researched article in this month's Townsend Newsletter for Doctors and Patients asks- and attempts to answer- the question "why the conflicting research on soy?" The article is detailed and well-researched and summing it up in a couple of sentences doesn't do it justice.

But here's the bottom line: All soy products are very far from equal.

As the Townsend Newsletter article points out, epidemiological studies examining the relationship between soy intake and health outcomes "have involved Asian populations and therefore evaluated the intake of traditional fermented foods such as tofu and other soy products that are derived from whole or dehulled soybeans". This is a far cry from many of the studies that use soy concentrates, soy isolates, isolated isoflavone mixtures or pure genisten.

"There are dozens of soy products used for research, and they differ markedly in micro (isoflavone, saponin, phytic acid, phytosterol, vitamin and mineral content) and macro (protein, fat and carbohydrate) content" says the author, Walter Wainright.

He's absolutely right.

This newsletter item isn't an attempt to resolve the soy controversy, which is complicated and fueled by partisanship and passion on both sides. I think the point here is that soy isn't always "bad" and it certainly isn't always "good". Like everything else in food and supplements, the source and quality and nature of the product is a huge determinant when it comes to sorting out its effects.

Grass-fed meat isn't the same as ballpark hot dogs- and "soy isolate" isn't the same thing as fermented miso. In an era when we tend to reduce complex issues to manageable sound bites ("soy is good" "soy is bad") it's good to remember that all soy products are not created equal.

Vitamin C and Vitamin E Reduced Post-Heart Attack Deaths in Diabetics

An interesting new study published in the journal Cardiology reported that giving vitamin C and vitamin E to diabetic patients who had recently had a heart attack significantly reduced their mortality during the thirty days after their attack.

The study was part of the MIVIT (Myocardial Infarction and Vitamins) study, a clinical trial designed to determine the safety and outcome of vitamins C and E in patients who have had a heart attack. Diabetic and non-diabetic heart attack patients were given intravenous infusions of 1000 mg of vitamin C, followed by a 3x daily oral administration of vitamin C (400 mg of vitamin E 200 mg). A control group was given a placebo.

Over the next thirty days, there was no significant difference in the death rate of the non-diabetic patients and the placebo group, but there was a huge difference in the death rate among the diabetics. Diabetic heart attack patients receiving the vitamins were a whopping 68% less likely to die!

One reason for the dramatic effect on diabetics may have to do with the enormous amount of oxidative stress and damage that happens in the bodies of diabetics.

Oxidative stress- or free radical damage- is an important part of the damage wrecked by diabetes. These free radicals damage arteries and increase the risk of complications and heart disease.

And elevated blood sugar significantly raises the levels of these free radicals, adding to the damage. (Yet another reason a low-sugar diet is such a good idea- but I digress.)

Vitamin C has been shown to increase blood flow and decrease inflammation in patients with both diabetes and coronary artery disease, and vitamin E is a powerful antioxidant.

Any vitamin, mineral, phytochemical, phenol, flavonoid, or any other member of the nutrient kingdom that helps fight oxidative stress and lower inflammation is a good thing, whether you're a diabetic or not. But diabetics and people with elevated blood sugar may have an even greater need for powerful antioxidants and anti-inflammatories.

One Way to Live Longer is...

I've been planning a book on "youngevity" for a while now (tentative release date early 2010) and later this year, my 2 DVD set ("The 7 Pillars of Youngevity") will be released, a program that also contains mp3's and written material. I'll be telling you more about that in coming weeks.

My point, however, is that aging well is a passion of mine, more so since I turned 60 (a mere two years ago this November)! And in preparing "The 7 Pillars of Youngevity" I've been combing the published research on long-lived societies. I'm not talking about people just managing to cling to life for a long time, in assisted living and hooked up to tubes. I'm talking about cultures where people in their 90's are out milking cows at 4:30 in the morning!

I want to know everything I can find out about these folks. I'll bet you do too!

What I've been finding out so far is very interesting, and not always what you might expect. But here's one thing you can take to the bank: It's absolutely possible to delay the loss of physical abilities into your 90's and beyond.

In fact, out here in southern California where I live, there's a legendary workout program that only about 10 people are able to do. The guy who runs it lives in Malibu, and meets daily with a small group of devotees. Their warm-up is known for making people throw up. Then they go out on mountain bikes and do the biking equivalent of double black diamond ski trails.

The guy who leads the whole shebang is 75.

OK, I can't do that workout and probably neither can you. But you can do a brisk daily walk.

Every single society I've read about that lives long and well does daily exercise. "With every increasing decade, exercise becomes more important in terms of quality of life, independence and having a full life", says Miriam Nelson, PhD, director of the Center for Physical Activities and Nutrition at Tufts University.

See, here's the thing: as you age, your body slowly and gradually becomes less efficient at consuming oxygen. Technically, your VO2 Max (Maximum Volume of Oxygen) drops. But vigorous walking for an hour a day can boost it back up by up to 25%.

When you raise your VO2 Max your heart pumps better and your muscles can receive more oxygen. Exercise- even walking- also has an "insulin-like" effect, one bout of exercise increases fat burning rate creating a demand by the exercising muscles for sugar, which they grab out of the bloodstream, increasing "insulin sensitivity" and reducing the risk of diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome.

Now I've long been a believer in higher intensity training like circuit training, interval training or the kind of Burst Training you can perform so effectively with the Xiser. And I think strength training is a must if you're going to be fit and firm.

But fact is, walking still does amazing things for your heart, your brain and the length and quality of your life.

While brisk walking might not turn you into a 20 year old, even 1/2 hour a day can increase your brain size, reduce your risk of death and strengthen your heart and lungs.

Which reminds me, it's time to take the dogs for a walk!

Good News for Starbucks Lovers

OK I admit it, I'm a big coffee drinker, so maybe I'm biased in looking for studies that confirm my belief that coffee's not such a bad thing after all, but truth be told, I don't have to look very hard.

As I wrote in "The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth", coffee is a major source of antioxidants. In fact in a 2004 Journal of Nutrition study that examined the dietary records of over 2600 adults in Norway, coffee was found to be the single greatest contributor to their total antioxidant intake.

And that's not all. Studies have shown that drinking six or more cups a day significantly reduces the risk of diabetes! Other studies show it increases alertness, exercise tolerance in heart patients, and decreases the incidence of Parkinson's and gallstone formation in men.

Now a brand new study from Japan's National Cancer Center adds to coffee's growing resume of benefits. The researchers monitored about 54,000 women over the course of 15 years. They divided the women into four groups depending on the amount of coffee they drank.

Women who drank more than 3 cups of coffee every day were more than 60 percent less likely to develop uterine cancer.

"Coffee may have effects in lowering insulin levels, possibly curing the risks of developing "womb cancer", the study reported. (Uterine cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women.)

This doesn't mean it's perfectly cool to drink 16 cups a day. It's really not. Coffee can give you the jitters (like you didn't know that!) and can disturb one of the best anti-aging stress reducing strategies in the world- a good nights sleep! Plus it can aggravate PMS.

But if you're one of those who's been under the impression that "giving up caffeine" is always, across the board, a good thing, it might be worth taking a second look at that belief.

If you enjoy coffee, I see no reason to stop.

PS: that doesn't apply to you drinkers of daily 440 calorie sugared concoctions at Starbucks. That stuff's no good for you, but it's not because of the coffee!