Selecting Supplements

Because vitamins and supplements can be pricey, it's easy to get excited when you compare the cost a natural, food-sourced product with an easy-to-take, all-in-one and much cheaper synthetic, but you really aren't saving any money. In fact, several respected studies indicate that if you opt for the synthetic product, you may even be causing yourself harm.

While some physicians actually argue in favor of synthetic vitamins by stating that it's technically a chemically purer product, they fail to add that they are also nutritionally inferior, in addition to being toxic (Consider that heroin, cocaine and sugar are also examples of chemically pure substances.)

There is a classic experiment where scientists take two groups of rats. They feed one group a diet of "synthetic" vitamin-fortified cereal, and the other rats are fed the cardboard box the cereal came in. The box eating rats live far longer.

The following excerpt from the book, "The Vitamin Myth," illustrates this issue.

Generally speaking, evaluating the proper milligrams of a synthetic vitamin supplement, as related to the potency of a vitamin, is a confusing and misleading proposition. This is because synthetic vitamins are refined, high potency chemicals, and therefore can be accurately measured in milligrams, just like drugs. Measuring synthetic vitamin compounds in milligrams has nothing to do with real vitamin activity or nutrition. The vitamin activity and real potency of the vitamin is dependent upon its authenticity as a whole, naturally-occurring vitamin, not its synthetic chemical fractionated potency or weight.

For example, it is often suggested to digest, or take intravenously, 1000’s of milligrams of vitamin C, E or A. This action is not only alarming to your immune system, but sends your body into a state of confusion.

A noxious bio-chemical chain reaction may begin with the body working to eliminate these toxins with none of the false nutrients entering the system as a natural food. When someone experiences dangerous side effects from synthetic vitamin consumption it is usually because synthetics cannot be utilized or metabolized, so they build up in the body as toxins and are eliminated as best as possible.

On the contrary, complete, food sources of vitamin C, E or A have normally lower milligram levels than those offered in “high potency” synthetic vitamin ingredients, yet the body can easily absorb and use them as real, whole complexed vitamins from food. When someone is concerned about the safety of vitamins, they are generally concerned about the dangers of overdosing on synthetic vitamins. Many people have experienced the dangers of toxic “vitaminosis” when indulging in mega doses of synthetic vitamins.

Some synthetic vitamins are made from coal tar. This base material, typically a crystalline yellow coal tar derived from fossil fuel sources, is not only used as a base to make some synthetic vitamins, but also as a host for other synthetic compounds including colorings, paints and many other chemical materials used as ingredients such as toxic preservatives or harmful food excipients. Coal tar is widely used in both the food and cosmetic industries and is a known carcinogen.

Taking synthetic vitamins in milligram quantities is related to the RDA’s (Recommended Daily Allowance) or the more modern RDI’s (Recommended Daily Intake), but this still does not actually relate to potency because potency of a vitamin has to do with its effectiveness and assimilation not its weight. Weight and potency, in this case, are two different things. Naturally occurring whole complexed vitamins from foods created by nature are more “potent” per milligram than synthetic fractions of those vitamins because it is the whole, real vitamin that the body requires not a synthetic chemical substitute of a fraction of a vitamin that has been chemically synthesized a laboratory.

So, the quantity of vitamin milligrams is not as important as the quality of the vitamin milligrams. Many vitamins supplement brands play the “milligram game” which is often confusing to the consumer. The idea of “more is better” works fine for some things, but not for toxic synthetics. We have to be aware of what is really going on here. The important first question should be whether or not the vitamin is natural (NOS) and not how many milligrams are available. If the vitamin product is synthetic then, I believe, it does not matter how many milligrams are offered since every synthetic vitamin milligram offered should be avoided. You get more nutrition from a lower number of milligrams when the vitamin is a whole naturally occurring complex from real food.

Let’s try to avoid the milligram game and play the naturally occurring game instead. We can’t win the synthetic milligram game, but we can definitely win and benefit our health while playing the NOS game.

So if your supplement does say "all natural" or "organically synthesized," what does it really mean? Consider this next article from Dr. Schulze:

In my many years as a Nutritional Consultant I have seen many philosophies and products come and go. I have seen the fads, the cure-alls, and the laziness in all of us that wants a pill to replace a sound nutritional program. Nutritional fads can even be dangerous by consuming large amounts of trace elements that we only need in microscopic amounts, or maybe none at all such as the latest toxic fads of silver and chrome.

I used to prescribe only the best vitamins and minerals to my patients. I knew that these products were in a base of natural ingredients and herbs, but wondered what the actual vitamins and minerals were made out of, I had assumed food.

All vitamin and mineral supplements currently made are NOT blended foods. In fact most are made from very undesirable, even horrifying substances. If you look on your current bottle of nutrients, it will state it contains many vitamins, minerals, and a long list of no's like starch, wheat, cellulose, soy, lactose etc. It will even be in a base of herbs but you will notice that it doesn't state what the actual vitamins and minerals are made from. I can tell you right now no one is grinding up fresh raw vegetables and organic grains to make these pills.

Commercial grade vitamin and mineral concentrates are synthesized by the big pharmaceutical and chemical industries from the same starting material that drugs are made from, (coal tar, petroleum products, animal by-products / waste and fecal matter, ground rocks, stones, shells and metal. They are then wholesaled out to the various nutrient manufacturers. The manufacturers are just mixing middlemen. Most of them don't even know how these various vitamins and minerals are made, or from what, nobody asks. Everybody just assumes a vitamin is a vitamin.

After all The United States Pharmacopoeia (U.S.P.) states that if a product looks similar under a microscope, or in analysis, that it is the same regardless of what it is made out of. For instance salicylic acid u.s.p. is considered identical whether it comes from wintergreen leaves or by boiling coal in carbolic and sulfuric acids. It also considers glycerin u.s.p. identical whether it is made from fresh vegetables, toxic minerals or boiled down animal carcasses, cartilage and feet. Does it make a difference to you?

The Vitamins: Many so-called natural vitamins are made from horrible substances.

All the vitamin B-12, cyanocobalamin, on the market is made from either ground up toxic cow livers or activated sewage sludge. These cow livers are overloaded with steroids and antibiotics, and the pesticides the cow assimilates while eating. The sewage sludge is just that, fecal matter. In today's environment of depressed immune diseases I can think of hundreds of reasons that these materials would be a health risk, not benefit. Just because a so-called natural substance, (fecal matter is natural), is high in a particular vitamin, does that also mean it is a good food?

Vitamin A from fish liver juices loaded with toxic PCB's and mercury, B vitamins from coal tar and petro-chemicals known central nervous system depressants, respiratory irritants and carcinogens, Vitamin C from acid blends irritating to the lining of the digestive tract, Vitamin D from radiated oil, Vitamin E from Eastman Kodak, need I say anymore?

The Minerals: All minerals used in nutrient manufacture are basically dirt. The iron, calcium, zinc etc. are just mined ore, pulverized and powdered to a fine dust. This doesn't make it any easier to assimilate. Some calcium is made from ground up oyster shells. This reminds me of when I was a kid watching the Three Stooges fix dinner, they would throw the oysters away and try and chew the shells. We all laughed at them and now we are doing the same thing. Modern research shows us that minerals of this type are 99% inassimilable. The manufacturers response to this is to add pig digestive enzymes, which supposedly pre-digests it or chelates it, in their attempts to force our body to accept this toxic material. Is this practice of chelating minerals really to our benefit or a dangerous act of ignorance?

We are currently entering a new era of nutrition. It is no longer a matter of how many milligrams you take of a particular nutrient but how much of what you are taking is actually getting into your bloodstream, and the organs that need it. And even more important, what are these vitamins and minerals made from and do they have toxic side effects.

When evaluating a supplement, look at the ingredients. If they aren't clearly listed on the label, call the company. If they are not forthcoming with real answers that involve actual botanical components, put it back on the shelf. It pays to spend a little extra on a supplement that is actually good for you.

The Ploy of Soy

This is a (slightly) edited article from the Weston A. Price Foundation....
Check out their site for more on soy and other nutritional info.

The Ploy of Soy

Commercial milk products have been linked to a number of disease conditions including allergies, asthma, arthritis, diabetes, auto immune diseases, childhood anemia, heart disease and cancer. Many have turned to soy products as substitutes for dairy products. A popular booklet describes soy foods as " . . . uniformly high in protein but low in calories, carbohydrates and fats, entirely devoid of cholesterol, high in vitamins, easy to digest, tasty and wonderfully versatile in the kitchen, [which] positions them as irresistible new food staples for the evolving American diet. . . . with each mouth watering soy food dish," says the author, "comes a balanced, adequate and sustainable nutritional package."

Leaving aside the question of whether products like tofu and soy milk are really "mouthwatering" and "irresistible," those charged with providing nutritious meals for their families should carefully examine claims that newly introduced soybean products provide an easily digested and complete nutritional package, one that adequately replaces dairy products like milk, butter and cheese, which have, after all, provided nourishment for generations of Americans.

History of the Bean

Soybeans come to us from the Orient. During the Chou Dynasty (1134 - 246 BC) the soybean was designated one of the five sacred grains, along with barley, wheat, millet and rice. However, the pictograph for the soybean, which dates from earlier times, indicates that it was not first used as a food; for whereas the pictographs for the other four grains show the seed and stem structure of the plant, the pictograph for the soybean emphasizes the root structure. Agricultural literature of the period speaks frequently of the soybean and its use in crop rotation. Apparently the soy plant was initially used as a method of fixing nitrogen. soybean did not serve as a food until the discovery of fermentation techniques, sometime during the Chou Dynasty. Thus the first soy foods were fermented products like tempeh, natto, miso and shoyu (soy or tamari sauce). At a later date, possibly in the 2nd century B.C., Chinese scientists discovered that a puree of cooked soybeans could be precipitated with calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate (plaster of Paris or Epsom salts) to make a smooth pale curd - tofu or bean curd. The use of fermented and precipitated soy products soon spread to other parts of the Orient, notably Japan and Indonesia. Although the highly flavored fermented products have elicited greater interest among scientists and epicures, it is the bland precipitated products that are most frequently used, accounting for approximately 90% of the processed soybeans consumed in Asia today. The increased reliance on bean curd as a source of protein, which occurred between 700 A.D. and the present time, has not necessarily been a beneficial change for the populations of the Orient and Southeast Asia.

Fit for Human Consumption?

The Chinese did not eat the soybean as they did other pulses (legumes) such as the lentil because the soybean contains large quantities of a number of harmful substances. First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors which block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. These "antinutrients" are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking and can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer. The soybean also contains hemaglutinin, a clot promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together. Trypsin inhibitors and hemaglutinin have been rightly labeled "growth depressant substances." They are deactivated during the process of fermentation. In precipitated products, enzyme inhibitors concentrate in the soaking liquid rather than in the curd. Thus in tofu and bean curd, these enzyme inhibitors are reduced in quantity, but not completely eliminated.

Soybeans are also high in phytic acid or phytates. This is an organic acid, present in the bran or hulls of all seeds, which blocks the uptake of essential minerals-calcium, magnesium, iron and especially zinc-in the intestinal tract. Although not a household word, phytates have been extensively studied. Scientists are in general agreement that grain and legume based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries. Analysis shows that calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc are present in the plant foods eaten in these areas, but the high phytate content of soy and rice based diets prevents their absorption. The soybean has a higher phytate content than any other grain or legume that has been studied. Furthermore, it seems to be highly resistant to many phytate reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans. Thus fermented products such as tempeh and miso provide nourishment that is easily assimilated, but the nutritional value of tofu and bean curd, both high in phytates, is questionable.

When precipitated soy products are consumed with meat, the mineral blocking effects of the phytates are reduced. The Japanese traditionally eat tofu as part of a mineral-rich fish broth. Vegetarians who consume tofu and bean curd as a substitute for meat and dairy products risk severe mineral deficiencies. The results of calcium, magnesium and iron deficiency are well known, those of zinc are less so. Zinc is called the intelligence mineral because it is needed for optimal development and functioning of the brain and nervous system. It plays a role in protein synthesis and collagen formation; it is involved in the blood sugar control mechanism and thus protects against diabetes; it is needed for a healthy reproductive system. Zinc is a key component in numerous vital enzymes and plays a role in the immune system. Phytates found in soy products interfere with zinc absorption more completely than with other minerals. Literature extolling soy products tends to minimize the role of zinc in human physiology, and to gloss over the deleterious effect of diets high in phytic acid.

Milk drinking is given as the reason second generation Japanese in America grow taller than their native ancestors. Some investigators postulate that the reduced phytate content of the American diet—whatever may be its other deficiencies-is the true explanation, pointing out that Asian and Oriental children who do not get enough meat and fish products to counteract the effects of a high phytate diet, frequently suffer rickets, stunting and other growth problems. The current climate of medical opinion in America has cast a cloud of disapproval on tallness. Parents would do well to ask their six-year-old boys whether they would prefer to be six-foot-one or five-foot-seven when they grow up, before substituting tofu for eggs, meat and dairy products.

Marketing the Soybean

The truth is, however, that most Americans are unlikely to adopt traditional soy products as their principal food. Tofu, bean curd and tempeh have a disagreeable texture and are too bland for the Western palate; pungent and musty miso and natto lose out in taste tests; only soy sauce enjoys widespread popularity as a condiment. The soy industry has therefore looked for other ways to market the superabundance of soybeans now grown in the United States.

Large scale cultivation of the soybean in the United States began only after the Second World War, and quickly rose to 140 billion pounds per year. Most of the crop is made into animal feed and soy oil for hydrogenated fats- margarine and shortening. During the past 20 years, the industry has concentrated on finding markets for the byproducts of soy oil manufacture, including soy "lecithin", made from the oil sludge, and soy protein products, made from defatted soy flakes, a challenge that has involved overcoming consumer resistance to soy products, generally considered tasteless "poverty foods". "The quickest way to gain product acceptability in the less affluent society," said a soy industry spokesman, " ... is to have the product consumed on its own merit in a more affluent society." Hence the proliferation of soy products resembling traditional American foods-soy milk for cows milk, soy baby formula, soy yogurt, soy ice cream, soy cheese, soy flour for baking and textured soy protein as meat substitutes, usually promoted as high protein, low-fat, no cholesterol "healthfoods" to the upscale consumer increasingly concerned about his health. The growth of vegetarianism among the more affluent classes has greatly accelerated the acceptability and use of these ersatz products. Unfortunately they pose numerous dangers.

Processing Denatures and Dangers Remain

he production of soy milk is relatively simple. In order to remove as much of the trypsin inhibitor content as possible, the beans are first soaked in an alkaline solution. The pureed solution is then heated to about 115 degrees C in a pressure cooker. This method destroys most (but not all) of the anti-nutrients but has the unhappy side effect of so denaturing the proteins that they become very difficult to digest and much reduced in effectiveness. The phytate content remains in soy milk to block the uptake of essential minerals. In addition, the alkaline soaking solution produces a carcinogen, lysinealine, and reduces the cystine content, which is already low in the soybean. Lacking cystine, the entire protein complex of the soybean becomes useless unless the diet is fortified with cystine-rich meat, eggs, or dairy products, an unlikely occurrence as the typical soy milk consumer drinks the awful stuff because he wants to avoid meat, eggs and dairy products.

Most soy products that imitate traditional American food items, including baby formulas and some brands of soy milk, are made with soy protein isolate, that is the soy protein isolated from the carbohydrate and fatty acid components that naturally occur in the bean. Soy beans are first ground and subjected to high-temperature and solvent extraction processes to remove the oils. The resultant defatted meal is then mixed with an alkaline solution and sugars in a separation process to remove fiber. Then it is precipitated and separated using an acid wash. Finally the resultant curds are neutralized in an alkaline solution and spray dried at high temperatures to produce high protein powder. This is a highly refined product in which both vitamin and protein quality are compromised-but some trypsin inhibitors remain, even after such extreme refining! Trypsin inhibitor content of soy protein isolate can vary as much as 5-fold. In rats, even low level trypsin inhibitor soy protein isolate feeding results in reduced weight gain compared to controls. Soy product producers are not required to state trypsin inhibitor content on labels, nor even to meet minimum standards, and the public, trained to avoid dietary cholesterol, a substance vital for normal growth and metabolism, has never heard of the potent anti-nutrients found in cholesterol-free soy products.

Soy Formula Is Not the Answer

Soy protein isolate is the main ingredient of soy-based infant formulas. Along with trypsin inhibitors, these formulas have a high phytate content. Use of soy formula has caused zinc deficiency in infants. Aluminum content of soy formula is 10 times greater than milk based formula, and 100 times greater than unprocessed milk. Aluminum has a toxic effect on the kidneys of infants, and has been implicated as causing Alzheimer's in adults. Soy milk formulas are often given to babies with milk allergy; but allergies to soy are almost as common as those to milk. Use of soy formula to treat infant diarrhea has had mixed results, some studies showing improvement with soy formula while others show none at all. Soy formulas lack cholesterol which is absolutely essential for the development of the brain and nervous system; they also lack lactose and galactose, which play an equally important role in the development of the nervous system. A number of other substances, which are unnecessary and of questionable safety, are added to soy formulas including carrageenan, guar gum, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), potassium citrate monohydrate, tricalcium phosphate, dibasic magnesium phosphate trihydrate, BHA and BHT. Nitrosamines, which are potent carcinogens, are often found in soy protein foods, and are greatly increased during the high temperature drying process. Not surprisingly, animal feeding studies show a lower weight gain for rats on soy formula than those on whole milk, high-lactose formula. Similar results have been observed in children on macrobiotic diets which include the use of soy milk and large amounts of whole grains. Children brought up on high-phytate diets tend to be thin and scrawny.

Fabricated Soy Foods

A final indignity to the original soy bean is high-temperature, high-pressure extrusion processing of soy protein isolate to produce textured vegetable protein. Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to TVP products to mask their strong "beany" taste, and impart the flavor of meat. Soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein are used extensively in school lunch programs, commercial baked goods, diet beverages and fast food products. They are heavily promoted in third world countries and form the basis of many food give-away programs. These soy products greatly inhibit zinc and iron absorption; in test animals they cause enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland, and increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver. Human feeding tests to determine the cholesterol lowering properties of soy protein isolate have not shown them to be effective. Nevertheless, they are often promoted as having beneficial effects on cholesterol levels.

Cancer Preventing or Cancer Causing?

The food industry also touts soy products for their cancer preventing properties. Isoflavone aglycones are anticarcinogenic substances found in traditionally fermented soybean products. However, in non-fermented soy products such as tofu and soy milk, these isoflavones are present in an altered form, as beta-glycoside conjugates, which have no anti-carcinogenic effect. Some researchers believe the rapid increase in liver and pancreatic cancer in Africa is due to the introduction of soy products there.

The fatty acid profile of the soybean includes large amounts of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids compared to other pulses (legumes); but these omega-3 fatty acids are particularly susceptible to rancidity when subjected to high pressures and temperatures. This is exactly what is required to remove oil from the bean, as soybean oil is particularly difficult to extract. Hexane or other solvents are always used to extract oil from soybeans, and traces remain in the commercial product.

Soy Protein Is Not Complete

While fermented soy products contain protein, vitamins, anti-carcinogenic substances and important fatty acids, they can under no circumstances be called nutritionally complete. Like all pulses, the soybean lacks vital sulfur-containing amino acids cystine and methionine. These are usually supplied by rice and other grains in areas where the soybean is traditionally consumed. Soy should never be considered as a substitute for animal products like meat or milk. Claims that fermented soy products like tempeh can be relied on as a source of vitamin B12, necessary for healthy blood and nervous system, have not been supported by scientific research. Finally, soybeans do not supply all-important fat soluble vitamins D and preformed A (retinol) which act as catalysts for the proper absorption and utilization of all minerals and water soluble vitamins in the diet. These "fat soluble activators" are found only in certain animal foods such as organ meats, butter, eggs, fish and shellfish. Carotenes from plant foods and exposure to sunlight are not sufficient to supply the body's requirements for vitamins A and D. Soy products often replace animal products in third world countries where intake of B12and fat soluble A and D are already low. Soy products actually increase requirements for vitamins B12 and D.

Are soy products easy to digest, as claimed? Fermented soy products probably are; but unfermented products with their cargo of phytates, enzyme inhibitors, rancid fatty acids and altered proteins most certainly are not. Pet food manufacturers promote soy free dog and cat food as "highly digestible".

Only Fermented Soy Products Are Safe

To summarize, traditional fermented soy products such as miso, natto and tempeh-which are usually made with organically grown soybeans-have a long history of use that is generally beneficial when combined with other elements of the Oriental diet including rice, sea foods, fish broth, organ meats and fermented vegetables. The value of precipitated soybean products is problematical, especially when they form the major source of protein in the diet. Modern soy products including soy milks and ersatz meat and dairy products made from soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein are new to the diet and pose a number of serious problems.

Consumer Beware!

To summarize, there may be some beneficial factors in soy foods prepared according to traditional fermentation methods. In the Orient these are eaten in small amounts as condiments, and not as a replacement for animal foods. Highly processed soy protein isolates and textured vegetable protein have little in common with traditional soy products. They might be compared to plastic processed cheese slices, which have nothing in common with traditionally processed whole milk natural cheeses.

Promotion of modern, industrially processed soy products should be viewed with skepticism. This is a huge and powerful industry. Archer Daniel Midlands, the world's major soy processor, spends heavily on advertising, especially for news programs on major networks. The company spent $4.7 million for advertising on "Meet the Press" and $4.3 million on "Face the Nation" during the course of a year.

ADM also has holdings in major newspapers. Naturally, the press presents soy in a favorable light. ADM lobbies heavily in Washington, and supports university research programs. ADM president Dwayne Andreas is a fanatic about spreading soy-based food around the world. There's a lot in it for him-but not much in it for us. Consumer beware. There is no joy in soy--it's a ploy.

The Whole Story About Whole Foods Market

From Natural News and Mercola.com; reconsidering the Farmer's Market

The Whole Story About Whole Foods Market

Many organic food fans trust stores that sell largely organic produce. However, the merger of Whole Foods and Wild Oats may be a sign that it's time for the rose-colored glasses to come off.

It is growing harder to make the case that shopping at Whole Foods is socially commendable. Whole Foods has faced well-deserved criticism for its effects on the environment, and its employees.

Whole Foods is an "industrial organic" company that has done away with the local distribution that was the center of the 1960's back-to-nature movement. There is nothing environmentally friendly about Whole Food's practice of importing asparagus in from Argentina in January.

Whole Foods is also the second largest union-free food retailer, right behind Wal-Mart. Whole Foods has taken the position that unions are not valid.

Many of Whole Foods’ canned or boxed items contain MSG, even though it is on Whole Foods list of unacceptable food ingredients. Their dairy products may or may not contain rBGH.

Whole Foods is a Fortune 500 Company that owes its allegiance to its shareholders. It is exploiting a niche market, and has now cleared the field of major competitors, leaving it free to raise prices and reduce quality.

Whole Foods, the largest premium natural and organic supermarket chain in the United States, first entered into a merger plan with its chief rival Wild Oats in February 2007. Their plans were halted by the Federal Trace Commission (FTC) at the time, who contended that the merger violated federal antitrust laws by eliminating the substantial competition between the two close competitors. They also said it would give Whole Foods unilateral market power resulting in higher prices and reduced quality, service and choice for consumers.

Well, money spoke the loudest again, it would seem.

Certainly, Whole Foods Market has helped bring organic healthy and unprocessed foods to the mainstream market, but, like most large corporations, it will have to contend with its shareholders, even if that means cutting corners here and there in order to make a profit.

Are Large Corporations Friend or Foe in the Organic Market?

The creation of the organic market niche is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the involvement of large corporations has turned organic food into a $16-billion business, with sales growing by as much as 20 percent per year. What this means for many Americans is access to more organic foods, likely at lower prices.

Large corporations also have big advertising budgets, which means the idea of eating foods free from pesticides, genetically modified ingredients and raised in sustainable, humane ways is getting a lot of publicity, whereas just a couple of decades ago it was next to unheard of.

The downside, however, might outweigh the benefits.

Because as soon as big corporations dip their hands into a project, it automatically becomes about maximizing profits by churning out the largest amount of product for the least expense. If this means sacrificing some ethics and skimping on some quality, that’s a price they’re willing to pay.

As a result of organic going mainstream in national super-chains such as Wal-Mart and Whole Foods, the term “organic” has virtually lost its meaning, and it is no longer a guarantee that the food is any better for either you or the environment.

You can now buy organic versions of ice cream, potato chips, crackers, soda and just about anything else, but these foods are STILL not good for you; they’re still junk foods with little or no real nutritional value. And, from an environmental aspect, at least one study has found that the transportation of organic produce causes an environmental impact large enough to cancel out any environmental benefits.

So, when you take all these factors into account, buying local is often better than buying organic, because you get fresher foods that didn't use up excess fuel to be transported long distances. They’re also likely to be somewhat less expensive since the rising fuel costs inevitably get passed down the line to the end consumer...

Kombucha: An Ancient Beverage for Modern Times

by Conan Milner
5.12.2007

"Right now what really gets the most attention in the beverage industry is the energy drinks," laments G.T. Dave, founder of a beverage company. "They're loaded with stimulants, which can give you heart palpitations and jitters, and they affect your sleep patterns."

In this fast-paced world, we all crave a little pick-me-up. But perhaps an ancient beverage could offer a healthy alternative to our modern woes.

Dave makes kombucha: a fermented ancient Chinese drink with a history of thousands of years.

"I like to think of my product as the anti-energy drink," explains Dave. "That's not to say that it doesn't give you energy-it certainly does-but it's a good, clean form of non-stimulant energy that puts you back in touch with your body."

Many health enthusiasts have long championed fermented foods like sauerkraut, kefir, yogurt, and kombucha because of their enzyme-rich profile. Sadly, traditional fermentation has fallen out of favor with modern production, and overall health has been the worse for it.

It might be hard to imagine that such a healthful beverage could generate from what looks like a shiny pancake, but the kombucha culture, often referred to as a mushroom, is actually a symbiotic colony of beneficial yeast and bacteria. The resulting tea is made by combining this culture with a mixture of tea (black, green, or oolong) and sugar, and fermenting these ingredients for a week or two.

A healthy beverage made with sugar? While the sweet stuff is required to make the ferment, very little remains in the finished drink. During the brewing cycle, the culture consumes your ingredients, leaving behind life-giving nutrients, including a full range of B-vitamins, enzymes, probiotics, and special acids found to quickly move toxins out of the body.

"According to traditional Chinese medicine, kombucha tea was referred to as the Tea of Immortality and the elixir of life," writes Ed Kasper, a California licensed acupuncturist, medicinal herbalist, and a master kombucha brewer. Kasper has been selling the beverage, as well as kombucha cultures and brewing kits, online since 1997. "I started giving it to my patients and clients and found that it addressed some of their health concerns."

"It helps control my hunger at night," says Jennifer Zielinski, a mother of three from Chicago, who has been making kombucha for the past year and a half. "If I drink a big glass of kombucha in the evening, it keeps me from raiding the fridge."

People report many different health benefits from drinking kombucha, including better digestion, clearer skin, and reduction in joint and body pain.

G.T. Dave' s mom's regular kombucha consumption maybe even helped with her cancer. After she started doing better "she started to research kombucha to find out what made it so healthy," explains Dave. "She came across several articles and reports that talked about kombucha and its positive impact on suppressing cancer and any other kind of metabolic disease."

"It's not a miracle; it's just not understood," says Ed Kasper, a California licensed acupuncturist, medicinal herbalist, and a master kombucha brewer, who stated that, like much of traditional Chinese medicine, kombucha simply works to bring the body back into balance.

While Dave and Kasper both offer ready-made kombucha for purchase, with a little effort it can also be made at home.

"It's fun, easy, and cheap. You could make it from white sugar and Lipton tea for 50 cents a gallon," says Kasper appealing to the thrifty, yet who, like Dave, brews his own kombucha with the finest ingredients. "You can make it so that it tastes good to you, not like medicine. You can make a [beverage] that is really pleasant to drink, and it's healthy for you."

Several factors (including time, temperature, and choice of ingredients) can affect the flavor of the batch, so the taste of kombucha can vary quite widely—from sparkling apple cider to effervescent vinegar. Manipulating these variables can yield a brew closer to your liking, but some people are still wary of trying it.

"My husband would like to drink it, but he can't get over the mushroom," says Zielinski, who mentions that her kombucha brews on a shelf in their basement.

"If people have to make it on their own it can be too much of a science project," says Dave who salutes those who do make it themselves but aims to offer a quality product to those who can't. A tactic Dave uses in converting consumers to the joys of kombucha is a taste of the familiar. "I noticed that if I just added a hint of fruit juice, it would give it a different color and a hint of a flavor that [consumers] were already familiar with, so they would be more inclined to embrace it," he explains. Zielinski, who bought some of the beverage and makes her own brew, employs this juice addition to make kombucha more palatable to her kids and friends. "You only need a teaspoon," she says.

Literature and testimonials on the benefits of kombucha are extensive, but Dave admits that nothing can replace experience. "When even the most skeptical people drink that first bottle, they can feel it," he says.

Spring Newsletter

Happy New Year! 3/2008

2008 (2/7/08- 1/25/09) is the year of the Rat in the Chinese Zodiac—a time of renewal, activity, and hard work. The Rat is the first sign in the cycle of the 12 animal signs of Chinese Astrology. It is a good time for new beginnings, opportunity and prosperity.

Spring is also a time for new beginnings and renewal. Spring is the time to cleanse the body, especially the liver and gallbladder. We are excited to offer a class on detoxing (see enclosed flyer). Most courses of this level are only open to health care professionals, but we are offering this course for everyone. This is important information we all need on how to prevent and treat chronic disease and stay healthy in today’s toxic environment. We’d like to encourage you to attend the class and bring anyone you know who would like to lead a healthier life.

We have a brand new website, but we’ve kept our same web address: www.whitemoonhealingcenter.com

It has lots of new photos and pages to check out. This is a great place to refer your family and friends for information on what our clinic has to offer.

In the past few years Mary Helen has taken the following continuing education classes:

Treating Emotional and Psychiatric Disorders with Oriental Medicine by Dr. Mary Rogel. Mary is one of the teachers of the Detox Class Mary Helen will be teaching. She has a PhD in Psychology and worked in that field for many years before becoming an acupuncturist.

Mary Helen attended a seminar by Giovanni Maciocia—one of the most internationally known acupuncturists and author of several Oriental Medicine textbooks. His seminar dealt with the Treatment of Male Disorders as well as Acupuncture Using the 8 Extraordinary Vessels. Mary Helen’s other seminars included: Cosmetic Acupuncture and Dermatology with Dr. Shu Yuan Hung, Tibetan Medicine I & II with Dr. Tenzig Dakpa and Acupuncture and Associated Reproductive Therapy—a class on treating infertility.

Conan joined Mary Helen in taking the following courses: Hormonal Imbalance and Psychosomatic Disorders Treatment with Physiological Regulating Medicine. Dr. Alessandro Perra from the Academy of Biological medicine in Italy taught this course. This is a type of homeopathy working with the principles of homotoxicology and Psycho Neuro Endocrine Immunology (PNEI). We attended a seminar on The Pros and Cons of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Chinese Medicine with Dr. John Chen— a PhD Pharmacist and Oriental Medical doctor. This seminar covered possible herb/drug interactions and herbal safety. We also took Herbal Applications for Female Hormone and Endocrine Disorders with Dr. Angela Hywood— a Naturopath from Australia . We are eager to share all of the new information that we have learned with you.

We are always happy to talk to people on the phone about health concerns. Feel free to call or email us for all you health needs.

Blessings for a Healthy New Year,

Mary Helen & Conan

773-743-5229

whitemoonacu@yahoo.com

This article makes a lot of sense, but I wouldn't recommend as much dairy as they do...

Fat, Carbs and the Science of Conception

In a groundbreaking new book, Harvard researchers look at the role of diet, exercise and weight control in fertility. Guarantee: you will be surprised.

Owen Franken / Corbis

By By Jorge E. Chavarro, M.D., Walter C. Willett, M.D., and Patrick J. Skerrett | NEWSWEEK

Dec 10, 2007 Issue

• Digg It!
  
• Newsvine
  
• Del.icio.us
  
• Facebook
  
• Yahoo! Buzz
  
• MySpace
  

Every new life starts with two seemingly simple events. First, an active sperm burrows into a perfectly mature egg. Then the resulting fertilized egg nestles into the specially prepared lining of the uterus and begins to grow. The key phrase in that description is "seemingly simple." Dozens of steps influenced by a cascade of carefully timed hormones are needed to make and mature eggs and sperm. Their union is both a mad dash and a complex dance, choreographed by hormones, physiology and environmental cues.

A constellation of other factors can come into play. Many couples delay having a baby until they are financially ready or have established themselves in their professions. Waiting, though, decreases the odds of conceiving and increases the chances of having a miscarriage. Fewer than 10 percent of women in their early 20s have issues with infertility, compared with nearly 30 percent of those in their early 40s. Sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea, which are on the upswing, can cause or contribute to infertility. The linked epidemics of obesity and diabetes sweeping the country have reproductive repercussions. Environmental contaminants known as endocrine disruptors, such as some pesticides and emissions from burning plastics, appear to affect fertility in women and men. Stress and anxiety, both in general and about fertility, can also interfere with getting pregnant. Add all these to the complexity of conception and it's no wonder that infertility is a common problem, besetting an estimated 6 million American couples.

It's almost become a cliché that diet, exercise and lifestyle choices affect how long you'll live, the health of your heart, the odds you'll develop cancer and a host of other health-related issues. Is fertility on this list? The answer to that question has long been a qualified "maybe," based on old wives' tales, conventional wisdom—and almost no science. Farmers, ranchers and animal scientists know more about how nutrition affects fertility in cows, pigs and other commercially important animals than fertility experts know about how it affects reproduction in humans. There are small hints scattered across medical journals, but few systematic studies of this crucial connection in people.

It had a silver lining, though, and not just for those selling low-carb advice and products. All the attention made scientists and the rest of us more aware of carbohydrates and their role in a healthy diet. It spurred several solid head-to-head comparisons of low-carb and low-fat diets that have given us a better understanding of how carbohydrates affect weight and weight loss. The new work supports the growing realization that carbohydrate choices have a major impact—for better and for worse—on the risk for heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and digestive health.

New research from the Nurses' Health Study shows that carbohydrate choices also influence fertility. Eating lots of easily digested carbohydrates (fast carbs), such as white bread, potatoes and sugared sodas, increases the odds that you'll find yourself struggling with ovulatory infertility. Choosing slowly digested carbohydrates that are rich in fiber can improve fertility. This lines up nicely with work showing that a diet rich in these slow carbs and fiber before pregnancy helps prevent gestational diabetes, a common and worrisome problem for pregnant women and their babies. What do carbohydrates have to do with ovulation and pregnancy?

More than any other nutrient, carbohydrates determine your blood-sugar and insulin levels. When these rise too high, as they do in millions of individuals with insulin resistance, they disrupt the finely tuned balance of hormones needed for reproduction. The ensuing hormonal changes throw ovulation off-kilter.

Knowing that diet can strongly influence blood sugar and insulin, we wondered if carbohydrate choices could influence fertility in average, relatively healthy women. The answer from the Nurses' Health Study was yes. We started by grouping the study participants from low daily carbohydrate intake to high. One of the first things we noticed was a connection between high carbohydrate intake and healthy lifestyles.

Women in the high-carb group, who got nearly 60 percent of their calories from carbs, ate less fat and animal protein, drank less alcohol and coffee, and consumed more plant protein and fiber than those in the low-carb group, who got 42 percent of calories from carbohydrates. Women in the top group also weighed less, weren't as likely to smoke and were more physically active. This is a good sign that carbohydrates can be just fine for health, especially if you choose good ones.

The total amount of carbohydrate in the diet wasn't connected with ovulatory infertility. Women in the low-carb and high-carb groups were equally likely to have had fertility problems. That wasn't a complete surprise. As we described earlier, different carbohydrate sources can have different effects on blood sugar, insulin and long-term health.

We set out to change this critical information gap with the help of more than 18,000 women taking part in the Nurses' Health Study, a long-term research project looking at the effects of diet and other factors on the development of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer and other diseases. Each of these women said she was trying to have a baby. Over eight years of follow-up, most of them did. About one in six women, though, had some trouble getting pregnant, including hundreds who experienced ovulatory infertility—a problem related to the maturation or release of a mature egg each month. When we compared their diets, exercise habits and other lifestyle choices with those of women who readily got pregnant, several key differences emerged. We have translated these differences into fertility-boosting strategies.

At least for now, these recommendations are aimed at preventing and reversing ovulatory infertility, which accounts for one quarter or more of all cases of infertility. They won't work for infertility due to physical impediments like blocked fallopian tubes. They may work for other types of infertility, but we don't yet have enough data to explore connections between nutrition and infertility due to other causes. And since the Nurses' Health Study doesn't include information on the participants' partners, we weren't able to explore how nutrition affects male infertility. From what we have gleaned from the limited research in this area, some of our strategies might improve fertility in men, too. The plan described in The Fertility Diet doesn't guarantee a pregnancy any more than do in vitro fertilization or other forms of assisted reproduction. But it's virtually free, available to everyone, has no side effects, sets the stage for a healthy pregnancy, and forms the foundation of a healthy eating strategy for motherhood and beyond. That's a winning combination no matter how you look at it.

Slow Carbs, Not No Carbs
Once upon a time, and not that long ago, carbohydrates were the go-to gang for taste, comfort, convenience and energy. Bread, pasta, rice, potatoes—these were the highly recommended, base-of-the-food-pyramid foods that supplied us with half or more of our calories. Then in rumbled the Atkins and South Beach diets. In a scene out of George Orwell's "1984," good became bad almost overnight as the two weight-loss juggernauts turned carbohydrates into dietary demons, vilifying them as the source of big bellies and jiggling thighs. Following the no-carb gospel, millions of Americans spurned carbohydrates in hopes of shedding pounds. Then, like all diet fads great and small, the no-carb craze lost its luster and faded from prominence.

Evaluating total carbohydrate intake can hide some important differences. So we looked at something called the glycemic load. This relatively new measure conveys information about both the amount of carbohydrate in the diet and how quickly it is turned to blood sugar. The more fast carbs in the diet, the higher the glycemic load. (For more on glycemic load, go to health.harvard.edu/newsweek.) Women in the highest glycemic-load category were 92 percent more likely to have had ovulatory infertility than women in the lowest category, after accounting for age, smoking, how much animal and vegetable protein they ate, and other factors that can also influence fertility. In other words, eating a lot of easily digested carbohydrates increases the odds of ovulatory infertility, while eating more slow carbs decreases the odds.

Because the participants of the Nurses' Health Study complete reports every few years detailing their average daily diets, we were able to see if certain foods contributed to ovulatory infertility more than others. In general, cold breakfast cereals, white rice and potatoes were linked with a higher risk of ovulatory infertility. Slow carbs, such as brown rice, pasta and dark bread, were linked with greater success getting pregnant.

Computer models of the nurses' diets were also revealing. We electronically replaced different nutrients with carbohydrates. Most of these substitutions didn't make a difference. One, though, did. Adding more carbohydrates at the expense of naturally occurring fats predicted a decrease in fertility. This could very well mean that natural fats, especially unsaturated fats, improve ovulation when they replace easily digested carbohydrates.

In a nutshell, results from the Nurses' Health Study indicate that the amount of carbohydrates in the diet doesn't affect fertility, but the quality of those carbohydrates does. Eating a lot of rapidly digested carbohydrates that continually boost your blood-sugar and insulin levels higher can lower your chances of getting pregnant. This is especially true if you are eating carbohydrates in place of healthful unsaturated fats. On the other hand, eating whole grains, beans, vegetables and whole fruits—all of which are good sources of slowly digested carbohydrates—can improve ovulation and your chances of getting pregnant.

Balancing Fats
In 2003, the government of Denmark made a bold decision that is helping protect its citizens from heart disease: it essentially banned trans fats in fast food, baked goods and other commercially prepared foods. That move may have an unexpected effect—more little Danes. Exciting findings from the Nurses' Health Study indicate that trans fats are a powerful deterrent to ovulation and conception. Eating less of this artificial fat can improve fertility, and simultaneously adding in healthful unsaturated fats whenever possible can boost it even further.

Women, their midwives and doctors, and fertility researchers have known for ages that body fat and energy stores affect reproduction. Women who don't have enough stored energy to sustain a pregnancy often have trouble ovulating or stop menstruating altogether. Women who have too much stored energy often have difficulty conceiving for other reasons, many of which affect ovulation. These include insensitivity to the hormone insulin, an excess of male sex hormones and overproduction of leptin, a hormone that helps the body keep tabs on body fat.

A related issue is whether dietary fats influence ovulation and reproduction. We were shocked to discover that this was largely uncharted territory. Until now, only a few studies have explored this connection. They focused mainly on the relationship between fat intake and characteristics of the menstrual cycle, such as cycle length and the duration of different phases of the cycle. In general, these studies suggest that more fat in the diet, and in some cases more saturated fat, improves the menstrual cycle. Most of these studies were very small and didn't account for total calories, physical activity or other factors that also influence reproduction. None of them examined the effect of dietary fat on fertility.

The dearth of research in this area has been a gaping hole in nutrition research. If there is a link between fats in the diet and reproduction, then simple changes in food choices could offer delicious, easy and inexpensive ways to improve fertility. The Nurses' Health Study research team looked for connections between dietary fats and fertility from a number of different angles. Among the 18,555 women in the study, the total amount of fat in the diet wasn't connected with ovulatory infertility once weight, exercise, smoking and other factors that can influence reproduction had been accounted for. The same was true for cholesterol, saturated fat and monounsaturated fat—none were linked with fertility or infertility. A high intake of polyunsaturated fat appeared to provide some protection against ovulatory infertility in women who also had high intakes of iron, but the effect wasn't strong enough to be sure exactly what role this healthy fat plays in fertility and infertility.

Trans fats were a different story. Across the board, the more trans fat in the diet, the greater the likelihood of developing ovulatory infertility. We saw an effect even at daily trans fat intakes of about four grams a day. That's less than the amount the average American gets each day.

Eating more trans fat usually means eating less of another type of fat or carbohydrates. Computer models of the nurses' diet patterns indicated that eating a modest amount of trans fat (2 percent of calories) in place of other, more healthful nutrients like polyunsaturated fat, monounsaturated fat or carbohydrate would dramatically increase the risk of infertility. To put this into perspective, for someone who eats 2,000 calories a day, 2 percent of calories translates into about four grams of trans fat. That's the amount in two tablespoons of stick margarine, one medium order of fast-food french fries or one doughnut.

Fats aren't merely inert carriers of calories or building blocks for hormones or cellular machinery. They sometimes have powerful biological effects, such as turning genes on or off, revving up or calming inflammation and influencing cell function. Unsaturated fats do things to improve fertility—increase insulin sensitivity and cool inflammation—that are the opposite of what trans fats do. That is probably why the largest decline in fertility among the nurses was seen when trans fats were eaten instead of monounsaturated fats.

The Protein Factor
At the center of most dinner plates sits, to put it bluntly, a hunk of protein. Beef, chicken and pork are Americans' favorites, trailed by fish. Beans lag far, far behind. That's too bad. Beans are an excellent source of protein and other needed nutrients, like fiber and many minerals. And by promoting the lowly bean from side dish to center stage and becoming more inventive with protein-rich nuts, you might find yourself eating for two. Findings from the Nurses' Health Study indicate that getting more protein from plants and less from animals is another big step toward walking away from ovulatory infertility.

Scattered hints in the medical literature that protein in the diet may influence blood sugar, sensitivity to insulin and the production of insulin-like growth factor-1—all of which play important roles in ovulation—prompted us to look at protein's impact on ovulatory infertility in the Nurses' Health Study.

We grouped the participants by their average daily protein intake. The lowest-protein group took in an average of 77 grams a day; the highest, an average of 115 grams. After factoring in smoking, fat intake, weight and other things that can affect fertility, we found that women in the highest-protein group were 41 percent more likely to have reported problems with ovulatory infertility than women in the lowest-protein group.

When we looked at animal protein intake separately from plant protein, an interesting distinction appeared. Ovulatory infertility was 39 percent more likely in women with the highest intake of animal protein than in those with the lowest. The reverse was true for women with the highest intake of plant protein, who were substantially less likely to have had ovulatory infertility than women with the lowest plant protein intake.

That's the big picture. Computer models helped refine these relationships and put them in perspective. When total calories were kept constant, adding one serving a day of red meat, chicken or turkey predicted nearly a one-third increase in the risk of ovulatory infertility. And while adding one serving a day of fish or eggs didn't influence ovulatory infertility, adding one serving a day of beans, peas, tofu or soybeans, peanuts or other nuts predicted modest protection against ovulatory infertility.

Eating more of one thing means eating less of another, if you want to keep your weight stable. We modeled the effect that juggling the proportions of protein and carbohydrate would have on fertility. Adding animal protein instead of carbohydrate was related to a greater risk of ovulatory infertility. Swapping 25 grams of animal protein for 25 grams of carbohydrates upped the risk by nearly 20 percent. Adding plant protein instead of carbohydrates was related to a lower risk of ovulatory infertility. Swapping 25 grams of plant protein for 25 grams of carbohydrates shrank the risk by 43 percent. Adding plant protein instead of animal protein was even more effective. Replacing 25 grams of animal protein with 25 grams of plant protein was related to a 50 percent lower risk of ovulatory infertility.

These results point the way to another strategy for overcoming ovulatory infertility—eating more protein from plants and less from animals. They also add to the small but growing body of evidence that plant protein is somehow different from animal protein.

Milk and Ice Cream
Consider the classic sundae: a scoop of creamy vanilla ice cream crisscrossed by rivulets of chocolate sauce, sprinkled with walnuts and topped with a spritz of whipped cream. If you are having trouble getting pregnant, and ovulatory infertility is suspected, think of it as temporary health food. OK, maybe that's going a bit too far. But a fascinating finding from the Nurses' Health Study is that a daily serving or two of whole milk and foods made from whole milk—full-fat yogurt, cottage cheese, and, yes, even ice cream—seem to offer some protection against ovulatory infertility, while skim and low-fat milk do the opposite.

The results fly in the face of current standard nutrition advice. But they make sense when you consider what skim and low-fat milk do, and don't, contain. Removing fat from milk radically changes its balance of sex hormones in a way that could tip the scales against ovulation and conception. Proteins added to make skim and low-fat milk look and taste "creamier" push it even farther away.

It would be an overstatement to say that there is a handful of research into possible links between consumption of dairy products and fertility. The vanishingly small body of work in this area is interesting, to say the least, given our fondness for milk, ice cream and other dairy foods. The average American woman has about two servings of dairy products a day, short of the three servings a day the government's dietary guidelines would like her to have.

The depth and detail of the Nurses' Health Study database allowed us to see which foods had the biggest effects. The most potent fertility food from the dairy case was, by far, whole milk, followed by ice cream. Sherbet and frozen yogurt, followed by low-fat yogurt, topped the list as the biggest contributors to ovulatory infertility. The more low-fat dairy products in a woman's diet, the more likely she was to have had trouble getting pregnant. The more full-fat dairy products in a woman's diet, the less likely she was to have had problems getting pregnant.

Our advice on milk and dairy products might be criticized as breaking the rules. The "rules," though, aren't based on solid science and may even conflict with the evidence. And for solving the problem of ovulatory infertility, the rules may need tweaking. Think about switching to full-fat milk or dairy products as a temporary nutrition therapy designed to improve your chances of becoming pregnant. If your efforts pay off, or if you stop trying to have a baby, then you may want to rethink dairy—especially whole milk and other full-fat dairy foods—altogether. Over the long haul, eating a lot of these isn't great for your heart, your blood vessels or the rest of your body.

Before you sit down to a nightly carton of Häagen-Dazs ("The Fertility Diet said I needed ice cream, honey"), keep in mind that it doesn't take much in the way of full-fat dairy foods to measurably affect fertility. Among the women in the Nurses' Health Study, having just one serving a day of a full-fat dairy food, particularly milk, decreased the chances of having ovulatory infertility. The impact of ice cream was seen at two half-cup servings a week. If you eat ice cream at that rate, a pint should last about two weeks.

Equally important, you'll need to do some dietary readjusting to keep your calorie count and your waistline from expanding. Whole milk has nearly double the calories of skim milk. If you have been following the U.S. government's poorly-thought-out recommendation and are drinking three glasses of milk a day, trading skim milk for whole means an extra 189 calories a day. That could translate into a weight gain of 15 to 20 pounds over a year if you don't cut back somewhere else. Those extra pounds can edge aside any fertility benefits you might get from dairy foods. There's also the saturated fat to consider, an extra 13 grams in three glasses of whole milk compared with skim, which would put you close to the healthy daily limit.

Aim for one to two servings of dairy products a day, both of them full fat. This can be as easy as having your breakfast cereal with whole milk and a slice of cheese at lunch or a cup of whole-milk yogurt for lunch and a half-cup of ice cream for dessert. Easy targets for cutting back on calories and saturated fat are red and processed meats, along with foods made with fully or partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.

Once you become pregnant, or if you decide to stop trying, going back to low-fat dairy products makes sense as a way to keep a lid on your intake of saturated fat and calories. You could also try some of the nondairy strategies for getting calcium and protecting your bones. If you don't like milk or other dairy products, or they don't agree with your digestive system, don't force yourself to have them. There are many other things you can do to fight ovulatory infertility. This one is like dessert—enjoyable but optional.

The Role of Body Weight
Weighing too much or too little can interrupt normal menstrual cycles, throw off ovulation or stop it altogether. Excess weight lowers the odds that in vitro fertilization or other assisted reproductive technologies will succeed. It increases the chances of miscarriage, puts a mother at risk during pregnancy of developing high blood pressure (pre-eclampsia) or diabetes, and elevates her chances of needing a Cesarean section. The dangers of being overweight or underweight extend to a woman's baby as well.

Weight is one bit of information that the participants of the Nurses' Health Study report every other year. By linking this information with their accounts of pregnancy, birth, miscarriage and difficulty getting pregnant, we were able to see a strong connection between weight and fertility. Women with the lowest and highest Body Mass Indexes (BMI) were more likely to have had trouble with ovulatory infertility than women in the middle. Infertility was least common among women with BMIs of 20 to 24, with an ideal around 21.

Keep in mind that this is a statistical model of probabilities that links weight and fertility. It doesn't mean you'll get pregnant only if you have a BMI between 20 and 24. Women with higher and lower BMIs than this get pregnant all the time without delay or any medical help. But it supports the idea that weighing too much or too little for your frame can get in the way of having a baby.

We call the range of BMIs from 20 to 24 the fertility zone. It isn't magic—nothing is for fertility—but having a weight in that range seems to be best for getting pregnant. If you aren't in or near the zone, don't despair. Working to move your BMI in that direction by gaining or losing some weight is almost as good. Relatively small changes are often enough to have the desired effects of healthy ovulation and improved fertility. If you are too lean, gaining five or 10 pounds can sometimes be enough to restart ovulation and menstrual periods. If you are overweight, losing 5 percent to 10 percent of your current weight is often enough to improve ovulation.

Being at a healthy weight or aiming toward one is great for ovulatory function and your chances of getting pregnant. The "side effects" aren't so bad, either. Working to achieve a healthy weight can improve your sensitivity to insulin, your cholesterol, your blood pressure and your kidney function. It can give you more energy and make you look and feel better.

While dietary and lifestyle contributions to fertility and infertility in men have received short shrift, weight is one area in which there has been some research. A few small studies indicate that overweight men aren't as fertile as their healthy-weight counterparts. Excess weight can lower testosterone levels, throw off the ratio of testosterone to estrogen (men make some estrogen, just as women make some testosterone) and hinder the production of sperm cells that are good swimmers. A study published in 2006 of more than 2,000 American farmers and their wives showed that as BMI went up, fertility declined. In men, the connection between increasing weight and decreasing fertility can't yet be classified as rock solid. But it is good enough to warrant action, mainly because from a health perspective there aren't any downsides to losing weight if you are overweight. We can't define a fertility zone for weight in men, nor can anyone else. In lieu of that, we can say to men who are carrying too many pounds that shedding some could be good for fertility and will be good for overall health.

The Importance of Exercise
Baby, we were born to run. That isn't just the tagline of Bruce Springsteen's anthem to young love and leavin' town. It's also a perfect motto for getting pregnant and for living a long, healthy life. Inactivity deprives muscles of the constant push and pull they need to stay healthy. It also saps their ability to respond to insulin and to efficiently absorb blood sugar. When that leads to too much blood sugar and insulin in the bloodstream, it endangers ovulation, conception and pregnancy. Physical activity and exercise are recommended and even prescribed for almost everyone—except women who are having trouble getting pregnant. Forty-year-old findings that too much exercise can turn off menstruation and ovulation make some women shy away from exercise and nudge some doctors to recommend avoiding exercise altogether, at least temporarily. That's clearly the right approach for women who exercise hard for many hours a week and who are extremely lean. But taking it easy isn't likely to help women who aren't active or those whose weights are normal or above where they should be. In other words, the vast majority of women.

Some exciting results from the Nurses' Health Study and a handful of small studies show that exercise can be a boon for fertility. These important findings are establishing a vital link between activity and getting pregnant. Much as we would like to offer a single prescription for conception-boosting exercise, however, we can't. Some women need more exercise than others, for their weight or moods, and others are active just because they enjoy it. Some who need to be active aren't, while a small number of others may be too active.

Instead of focusing on an absolute number, try aiming for the fertility zone. This is a range of exercise that offers the biggest window of opportunity for fertility. Being in the fertility zone means you aren't overdoing or underdoing exercise. For most women, this means getting at least 30 minutes of exercise every day. But if you are carrying more pounds than is considered healthy for your frame (i.e., a BMI above 25), you may need to exercise for an hour or more. If you are quite lean (i.e., your BMI is 19 or below), aim for the middle of the exercise window for a few months. Keep in mind that the fertility zone is an ideal, not an absolute. Hospital delivery rooms are full of women who rarely, or never, exercise. Not everyone is so lucky. If you are having trouble getting pregnant, then maybe the zone is the right place for you.

Whether you classify yourself as a couch potato or an exercise aficionado, your fertility zone should include four types of activity: aerobic exercise, strength training, stretching and the activities of daily living. This quartet works together to control weight, guard against high blood sugar and insulin, and keep your muscles limber and strong. They are also natural stress relievers, something almost everyone coping with or worrying about infertility can use.

Exercise has gotten a bad rap when it comes to fertility. While the pioneering studies of Dr. Rose Frisch and her colleagues convincingly show that too much exercise coupled with too little stored energy can throw off or turn off ovulation in elite athletes, their work says nothing about the impact of usual exercise in normal-weight or overweight women. Common sense says that it can't be a big deterrent to conception. If it were, many of us wouldn't be here. Our ancestors worked hard to hunt, forage, clear fields and travel from place to place. Early Homo sapiens burned twice as many calories each day as the average American does today and were fertile despite it—or because of it.

Results from the Nurses' Health Study support this evolutionary perspective and show that exercise, particularly vigorous exercise, actually improves fertility. Exercising for at least 30 minutes on most days of the week is a great place to start. It doesn't really matter how you exercise, as long as you find something other than your true love that moves you and gets your heart beating faster.

Chavarro and Willett are in the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. Skerrett is editor of the Harvard Heart Letter. For more information, go to health.harvard.edu/newsweek or thefertilitydiet.com .

© 2007

Mammograms: More Harm Than Good

Mammograms: More Harm than Good

From Alternative Medicine, October 2007

Breast Check: Do mandatory mammograms do more harm than good? By Vonalda M. Utterback, CN

"Time to make breast pancakes," says one friend of mine, referring to her scheduled mammography screening. And although she may crack jokes about the experience, she's never once questioned the need for her annual pilgrimage, nor has her physician discussed the risks versus the benefits it entails. After all, if you are a woman aged 40 or beyond, yearly mammograms are simply de rigueur.

When your doctor refers you for a screening, he or she is likely following the guidelines of the two leading national cancer research and information organizations primarily responsible for setting public health policy on cancer screening: The private American Cancer Society (ACS) and the government's National Cancer Institute (NCI). Both, along with other well-funded, high-profile organizations, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, recommend regular mammogram screening of symptom-free women beginning at age 40.

All this official blessing shouldn't make regular screening mammography sacrosanct, however. In fact, it's way past time for women to start asking hard questions about the exam's efficacy and its potential harm, say many women's health experts, advocates, and researchers. "Screening mammography is clearly a double-edged sword," explains Lisa Schwartz, MD, co-director of the Veteran's Administration Outcomes Group in White River Junction, Vermont, and associate professor of medicine at Dartmouth Medical School.

False truths
According to the National Academy of Sciences 2005 publication, Saving Women's Lives: Strategies for Improving breast cancer Detection and Diagnosis, the risk of a false-positive result in a mammogram is about 1 in 10. About three-quarters of the resulting biopsies turn out to be benign, it's true, but to learn that a woman has to endure the fear that she has breast cancer and bear the cost, discomfort, and risk of additional medical procedures.

"Regular screening will save some lives, but it will cause even more women to be harmed through the unnecessary diagnosis and treatment of cancer that would never have affected their health, were it not for screening," says Schwartz. She's referring to false-positives associated with "ductal carcinoma in situ" (DCIS), a result that many experts consider one of the most harmful risks associated with screening mammography.

DCIS is a noninvasive condition in which abnormal cells are found in the lining of a breast duct. It is not cancer, but it may, in some cases, become invasive cancer and spread to other tissues. Because they can't predict which lesions will become invasive cancer and which will remain contained in the breast duct, doctors usually treat DCIS like cancer. "Most women with DCIS will be advised to undergo invasive treatment of unknown benefit, such as lumpectomy combined with radiation," reports Schwartz.
Harm from over-diagnosis of invasive cancer also may occur because many malignant cancers grow quite slowly, says Peter C. Gotzsche, MD, researcher and director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, Sweden. If cancer had not been found during screening, he explains, it would not have become apparent before the woman died from other causes. "This is a basic and critical factor, often ignored," says Gotzsche, "that many cancers are histologically malignant, but biologically benign.

The search for balance
Many women don't know about the negative side of mammography, and, it seems, they tend to overestimate its benefits. In a survey of more than 4,000 women designed to assess perception of the benefits of mammography, a full 68 percent believed screening prevents or reduces the risk of contracting breast cancer (screening has nothing to do with prevention); 62 percent believed screening reduces breast cancer mortality by half (although studies results vary, the 2006 Cochrane Review confirmed screening mammograms reduce the absolute risk of dying from breast cancer by a very modest 0.05 percent); and 75 percent believed 10 years of regular screening will prevent 10 or more breast cancer deaths per 1,000 women—approximately 10 times the most optimistic estimates.

One of the lone voices offering a balanced view on screening mammography (according to a 2004 study published in the British Medical Journal rating 27 cancer education websites) is the San Francisco-based breast cancer awareness and advocacy group, breast cancer Action (BCA). "The United States' public campaign to eradicate breast cancer has not focused on prevention, but largely on efforts that promote mammography screening," says BCA's executive director, Barbara Brenner, herself a two-time survivor of breast cancer. (See "Prevention Is Key" for ways to stop cancer before it starts.) Since its inception in 1991, BCA has raised concerns about mammography's effectiveness, and the dangers of misleading the public about the benefits of breast cancer "early detection" through screening mammography.

According to Brenner, mammography has several potentially harmful outcomes, especially for younger women, among them radiation risks (the earlier you begin screening mammography, the more radiation exposure you will experience) and a high incidence of false-negative (and false-positive) readings because younger women typically have denser breast tissue, which makes accurate mammogram readings more difficult. In sum, routine mammography screening, particularly for younger or pre-menopausal women, may cause more harm than good. (For more information on radiation risk, see "Why Fear Radiation?")

The evidence is in
A group of researchers led by Gotzsche, whose nonprofit organization is part of the highly-regarded Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization providing health-care analyses worldwide, reviewed all seven randomized mammography trials conducted prior to June 2005, involving half a million women. Most of the trials enrolled women ages 45 to 64, although one, the Canadian National Breast Screening Study included women ages 40 to 49.

In Gotzsche's review (updated several times, the latest in 2006), the four trials judged by the Cochrane researchers to have the poorest scientific quality yielded the greatest apparent benefit for screening mammography—a 29 percent reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality after seven years and a 25 percent reduction after 13 years. In contrast, the two trials considered to have the highest scientific rigor, with adequate randomization, showed no significant reduction in breast cancer mortality.

One of the two highest quality mammography trials in Gotzsche's review, a Canadian study led by Cornelia J. Baines, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, followed more than 50,000 women. The results after seven years in 1992 showed 36 percent more deaths from breast cancer among screened women than among unscreened women. Called the "breast cancer mortality paradox" at the ten-year follow-up, this percent then fell to 14 percent.

Although the numbers aren't statistically significant, Baines reports that similarly alarming trends were observed in other screening trials in women aged 40 to 49 years, including the Swedish Two-County Trial from 1985, as well as three other trials included in the Cochrane review. "Even if the results are not officially statistically significant, when the same results are observed multiple times, in multiple studies, the trend deserves attention," says Baines.

And as mentioned, Gotzsche's overall findings based on all trials, including those of poor quality, show an absolute risk reduction in breast cancer mortality of just 0.05 percent (for all women attending annual or semi-annual mammography screening). Screening also led to over-diagnosis and over-treatment, resulting in an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. "This means for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged," explains Gotzsche. "In addition, 10 healthy women will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated as such, unnecessarily."

What to do?
Simply put, the decision of whether to screen or not to screen is a tough one. Women have been sold on the idea that mammograms will save their lives. And yet the best studies don't seem to support this claim. Additionally, the blanket recommendation for screening mammography comes without solid information on the risk involved and the potential harm the procedure can cause.

Even mammography's most outspoken advocates acknowledge, however, that women should first focus on prevention and decide for themselves if the potential benefit of screening mammography outweighs the risks. Certainly, the controversy over screening should not deter a woman from getting a diagnostic mammogram if she has any troublesome symptoms or signs of breast cancer, such as a newly discovered lump, pain, or nipple discharge. (See "Assess Your Risk".)

And it's not as though you have many proven alternatives. Of the few options are available, none is a hands-down winner. (Look to "What Are the Alternatives?" for more information.) In the future, better, noninvasive tests may carry less risk than mammography. For now, says Lisa Schwartz, women face a difficult choice. "Our approach to breast cancer screening has fostered a climate where women are seen as irresponsible if they do not undergo screening. But screening has important trade-offs. We need to make sure that women understand this is a real decision that carries real consequences in both directions."

Vonalda Utterback is a frequent contributor to Alternative Medicine magazine.

Prevention Is Key
"It's counterproductive to get stuck in the debate on screening mammograms," says Christine Horner, MD, surgeon, author, and a tireless crusader for women's breast health. "It's far more important for women to focus on prevention. Simply through good nutrition, supplements, and herbs, along with the right lifestyle choices, a woman can reduce her risk of breast cancer by more than 75 percent."

In Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner's Program to Protect Against and Fight breast cancer (Basic Health, 2005), Horner recommends eating the following nutrient-rich foods every day:
Fresh, organic fruits and vegetables. Concentrate on anti-cancer cruciferous veggies like broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage, and high-antioxidant berries.
Organic whole grains. Grains are rich in cancer-fighting antioxidants, vitamins, trace minerals, fiber, and lignans.
Immune-enhancing maitake mushrooms.
Health promotingfats, such as omega-3 fatty acids from 2 to 3 tablespoons of ground flaxseeds daily. Avoid health-destroying saturated and trans fats.
Green tea, as a drink or a supplement. Women who drink six to 10 cups of green tea per day lower their risk of breast cancer.
Tumeric. The number one anti-cancer spice and a potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory. Add one-quarter of a tablespoon at the end of cooking to almost any food.
Seaweed, such as wakame. Seaweed is high in iodine, which may be more effective at killing breast cancer cells than many common chemotherapeutic drugs, according to Horner.
Vitamins and minerals. Vitamin B12, folate, vitamin D, vitamin E, and selenium—help to crush cancer growth. Horner says as little as 200 micrograms (mcg) a day of selenium lowers your risk of breast cancer—and most other types of cancer—by 50 percent.
Coenzyme Q10. Consider this supplement if you are over the age of 35. Essential for the production of energy in cells, it may help contain or inhibit tumor growth.
Horner also urges women to nix these health busters:
Red meat. Woman who eat the most red meat have a higher risk of breast cancer.
Inactivity. Fat cells manufacture estrogen, notably after menopause. That's why obesity is thought to be responsible for 20 to 30 percent of all post-menopausal breast cancers. Just thirty minutes of aerobic activity three to five times a week can lower your risk of breast cancer by 30 to 50 percent, Horner says.
Cigarettes. Research shows that women who smoke or inhale passive smoke; have as much as a 60 percent increased risk of breast cancer.
Birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Long-term use may contribute to breast cancer.
Toxins. Avoid toxic overload and keep your home and body as toxin-free as possible; use only natural, nontoxic cleaning, bath, and beauty products.
All things that deplete melatonin, the sleep hormone. Melatonin arrests and deters breast cancer in many ways. Staying up past 10 p.m., alcohol, and electromagnetic fields from all electric appliances cause melatonin levels to drop.

Why Fear Radiation?
Mammograms employ low-dose X-rays to examine the breast. All X-rays use ionizing radiation, a known carcinogen with a cumulative effect on the body—in other words, the more you expose yourself, the more damage your body endures. In addition to annual radiation exposure from a screening mammogram, every false-positive mammogram reading often leads to a diagnostic mammogram and even more radiation exposure. Because radiation-induced mutations can actually cause breast cancer, radiation exposure over a lifetime increases cancer risk.

According to the US Department of Energy, a woman's radiation dose from a typical mammogram is 2.5 mSv (millisievert or effective dose). By comparison, the effective dose from a chest X-ray is considerably less at 0.1 mSv.

Assess Your Risk
You can estimate your risk for invasive breast cancer quantitatively with the website calculator provided by the National Institutes of Health (http://bcra.nci.nih.gov/brc/q1.htm). The calculator takes into account many of the known risk factors for breast cancer. Be sure to discuss your results with your healthcare practitioner. Although the model accurately predicts the risk for breast cancer for groups of women, its ability to discriminate between higher and lower risk for an individual woman is limited.

What Are the Alternatives?
Although a number of additional screening or diagnostic methods exist, most health professionals still consider the various options adjuncts to mammography, not replacements for it. This applies to breast self-exams (BSE) and clinical breast exam (CBE) —two very important screening tools that are, of course, non-harmful and non-invasive. (For more information on CBE and step-by-step instructions on how to effectively perform a BSE, go to www.cancer.org.) Here's a brief report on the top noninvasive methods used as adjuncts for early detection of breast cancer:

Thermography, or Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging (DITI)The promise. DITI is a painless, noninvasive procedure that uses a state-of-the-art, ultra-sensitive infrared camera and sophisticated computers to detect, analyze, and produce high-resolution diagnostic images of temperature variations within the breast (or any other part of your body). One of the main benefits of DITI is its sensitivity in detecting abnormalities, or changes in tissue, long before mammography or other screening methods could, which is why DITI advocates see it as a first-line screening method for breast cancer. While mammography relies primarily on finding the physical tumor, DITI detects the new blood vessels and chemical changes associated with a tumor's genesis and growth.

The pitfall. DITI can't pinpoint the exact location of damaged or cancerous cells, so you still need additional procedures, such as mammography, to determine if an actual tumor is forming or has already formed, or to pinpoint the precise location of an existing abnormality. Another drawback to DITI: a lack of uniform regulation in DITI equipment and training for diagnostic technicians—and insurance plans rarely cover its use.

Ultrasound

The promise. Ultrasound is a noninvasive, harmless, and painless imaging technique in which high-frequency sound waves bounce off breast tissue and convert them into an image of the breast's interior, called a sonogram. The procedure is helpful in distinguishing between solid masses and harmless cysts and may prevent the need for an invasive breast biopsy.

The pitfall. Although ultrasound is a helpful diagnostic tool in separating benign lumps from cancerous tumors in dense breast tissue (i.e., younger women), it is most often used to evaluate lumps that already have been detected by CBE or mammogram. It's still considered complementary to mammograms and not a replacement for mammograms, even in dense breast tissue, because ultrasound cannot detect microcalcifications, small calcium deposits found within the breast tissue that may or may not indicate an underlying tumor.

Elasticity Imaging

The promise. An emerging, yet exciting new offshoot of ultrasound, elasticity imaging holds promise for even greater specificity in distinguishing benign from cancerous breast lesions. A 2006 study by Northeastern Ohio University's College of Medicine published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that a real-time hand-held elasticity imaging device used in correlation with a routine ultrasound exam was 99 to 100 percent effective at identifying malignant versus benign lesions. Study investigators plan to expand their research in an international, multicenter trial this year.

The pitfall. Similar to ultrasound, above. While elasticity imaging holds great promise to predict, with stunning accuracy, malignant versus benign lesions, and help reduce a major harm of screening mammography (over-diagnosis, resulting in unnecessary biopsies) no one is ready to say it's a replacement for mammography.

Find Out More
According to a survey published in the British Medical Journal of 27 websites containing information on mammography screening, the following websites garnered a top rating for balanced, unbiased information:
National breast cancer Coalition: www.stopbreastcancer.org
breast cancer Action: www.bcation.org