Natural Selection

'Do No Harm' - Hippocates

2011-03-09T17:06:00.000-08:00

Vaccinations are a extremely emotive issue and I am far from the point of making blanket recommendations on whether you should or shouldn't vaccinate your children. What I do recommend is to read everything you can get your hands on on the topic and don't just accept blindly that it is the only way to protect yourself and your family from illness. Knowledge is power. I come from an extremely evidence based background which is often hard to ignore but new bits of knowledge I have attained about the levels of bias in trials run by pharmaceutical companies and the amount of money they make from vaccines leads me to question just how necessary some of these vaccines are.

I am aware that much of the anti-vaccination camp is governed by personal experience but we live in world where decisions are dictated by previous experience and it is often up to those people to become devil's advocates for important issues. Despite my evidence based background, I am not exempt from being influenced by personal experiences. For example, given that I had a downturn in my health after the series of three Hepatitis B vaccinations, I would be somewhat reluctant to hand over a newborn baby for the first jab, which is what happens in hospitals currently. My current personal feeling on the subject generally, if I had a child right now, would be to weigh up the risk of the disease (and dying from that disease) to the risk of harm. For example, whooping cough (definitely) vs chicken pox (maybe not). There are disadvantages of this approach, mainly because vaccinations are often combined.

What I know for sure is that the vaccination for the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which is associated with cervical cancer has had enough reported adverse events (thousands) and deaths (almost 100) to warrant serious concerns about whether young girls should be vaccinated for a disease which usually occurs much later in life when the vaccine, which only covers four strains of the virus, will likely have worn off. The vaccine contains aluminum and it is this allergenic and toxic ingredient which is suspected of causing these events. It also contains sodium borate which is a pesticide.

Ryan and David Richardson were prompted to make a documentary called "One More Girl" after their sister started suffering from serious side effects such as seizures in response to the vaccine. You can donate money to the production of the doco at Kickstarter to help get the message out about the very real risks of this vaccine. Here is a preview of their work.

The truth about mineral make-up

2011-02-28T19:55:00.000-08:00

Did you know Bismuth is a toxic mineral used as a cheap and nasty filler in many mineral make-ups? It is extremely irritating if you suffer from dermatitis, acne or rosacea and can become toxic in the body. Bismuth is abosrbed into the body via ingestion, skin absorption and inhalation and it deposits along the gum line as a black line. At toxic levels it can cause irritation, foul breath, gingivitis, diarrhoea and weight loss, headache, fever and depression. Long term toxicity lead to anaemia, stomach inflammation, anaemia and damage to the kidneys and liver.

Not something you want to be dusting on your face on a regular basis hey? Look for a mineral make-up without bismuth such as Miessence Mineral Foundation Powder which provides silky, lightweight, breathable coverage whilst offering natural sun protection. Sericite mica reflects light, reducing the appearance of pores and wrinkles and provides a matte coverage. Delicately scented with pure organic rose otto.

Breathing...more difficult than you think!

2011-02-20T20:30:00.000-08:00

So today a attended an information session on the breathing method called Buteyko because I knew that it was effective for sleep apnoea and asthma and I wanted to understand a little more about it so that I could confidently refer my clients to the method. It was delivered by Buteyko Practitioner Brian Firth from Buteyko Health who then goes on to run the 4 day course on consecutive days. I just thought I'd give you a summary of what I learnt so that you can consider it for yourself if you have any type of respiratory or sleep related illness.

Buteyko was invented by a Russian physician in the 50s that learnt that the cause of many chronic health problems are due to the fact that people, in response to stress (physical, chemical, emotional), breathe too much. Sounds crazy but basically when we breathe too often and deeply we don't retain enough carbon dioxide and when this occurs we do not release enough oxygen from haemoglobin (the oxygen carrying protein in our red blood cells). The end result being we are not oxygenating our tissues enough.

One of the ways that this excessive breathing occurs is through chronic mouth breathing and so one of the strategies of buteyko is to retrain people to breathe through their nose again. This not only regulates the volume of breathe but more effectively filters out allergens, dirt and microbes and decreases appetite. I'm told you learn many more breathing strategies if you complete the course.

I also learnt that many mainstream medications for asthma and hayfever actually compound these conditions because of their overall effect on the adrenal glands. The end result being increased stress on the body and therefore increased disruption to normal breathing. In the case of sleep apnoea, sufferers are faced with the prospect of wearing an uncomfortable CPAP machine for the rest of their life which do nothing to treat the problem only ensure consistent breath throughout the night.

Buteyko appears to be most appropriate for sufferers of asthma, hayfever, sinus and sleep apnoea but can benefit anyone who feels they have a constantly stuffy nose, get colds and flu easily, have poor sleep, restless legs, snoring, panic attacks and headaches and migraines.

There is another free information session on tonight at Adamstown RSL at 6pm.

Visit the website to find out more.

Charity begins in your own body.

2011-01-18T20:58:00.000-08:00

Lately it has been occurring to me that fast food companies have been supporting some very unusual causes. Not unusual in that the charity, event or condition is unheard of but unusual in that they seem to be in direct contradiction to the outcome of eating fast food. It all started during the Commonwealth Games when, not only was I frustrated by the frequency of the ads during the telecast but the frequency of a particular single ad. I'll give you a hint: "The burgers are better at...." What is most frustrating is the motive of the fast food company. Sure they advertise at that time, on that channel because there are many people watching but there is also an unspoken association between the food and athleticism (I'm not kidding, there were literally people running, riding etc through the ad). That company doesn't care for athletes? Elite athletes would not be seen dead eating such food. Other examples spring to mind where fast food companies support sport, the worse being Ronald McDonald encouraging your children to join Little Athletics. On the cricket a few nights ago I heard one of the commentators stating you could win a years supply of fried chicken if you entered a particular competition. You'd be struggling to play backyard cricket if you were the lucky winner of that competition.

Worse though, than the sporting events, are the charities. Now don't get me wrong I don't have anything against charities, especially those such as Ronald McDonald house which support the families of sick kids. But do we really need a day where people are encouraged to come and eat food that contributes to cancer, diabetes and heart disease in order to donate to it? It makes you wonder why the particular fast food company doesn't just donate a proportion of their profits every year. Do you think the day in question has something in it for them? Of course, they get to keep more than three times the amount that gets donated from every burger. In a similar vein, a certain fried chicken company is currently donating $1 per bucket of fried chicken to the McGrath Foundation. From a public health perspective this is extremely alarming. It sends the message to the public that eating high saturated fat, nutritionally poor food laced with flavour enhancers and hormone growth promotants is compatible with the fight against breast cancer..... when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

An ounce of prevention....

2010-12-22T18:44:00.000-08:00

Some of you may have noticed the results of a trial has been published on the efficacy of Echinacea for the common cold finding that there was no statistically significant improvement in duration or severity compared to placebo. The authors of this study do list several limitations of the study such as the fact that some of the participants may in fact have had the flu and that their sample size perhaps shoud've have been bigger than they had actually planned.

It amuses me how all the herbal naysayers are now talking about Echinacea (even herbal medicine) like it doesn't work at all for anything. Based on plentiful evidence Echinacea is a great herb for prevention rather than cure but that's not the way conventional medicine operates is it? You can't make much money from prevention. On the internet and a particular breakfast show this morning the sensational headline read "Chocolate better than Echinacea for colds". I don't recall there being an actual study comparing chocolate to Echinacea and the actual study on chocolate was testing a component called theobromine on the coughing reflex.... not cold at all.

I use Andrographis for cold/flu which stimulates a type of immune cell called the Natural Killer (NK) cells in a combination with Picorrhiza which dampens down the allergic response to the virus (this is what makes you sneeze).

The proof is in the packaging

2010-12-12T20:45:00.000-08:00

So why exactly are food labels notoriously difficult to decipher? The reason behind this is simple; because the primary goal of most food companies, particularly processed food, is to sell their product to you so the fact that their product contains harmful ingredients, empty calories and even addictive substances is not going to be used as a marketing point. Food companies will always use the positive points about the product to encourage you to buy it and deliberately omit the negative aspects of the product. For example:

1. A label may say "Free from artificial colours, flavours and preservatives" and yet it will contain toxic and addictive flavours enhancers such as monosodium glutamate (MSG or 621) and the ribonucleotides (627, 631, 625).
2. A particular product (usually breakfast cereals) may promote itself as being fortified with vitamins and minerals. The fact that a product has been fortified with a handful of vitamins and minerals does not make up for the fact that 13 vitamins and 16 minerals along with fibre and a multitude of other phytonutrients and antioxidants have been stripped in the processing and that sugar and artificial colours have been added.
3. A product may promote itself as being 'light' but this may mean nothing more than it is light in colour.
4. The words 'fat free' usually means the product is laden with sugar and 'cholesterol free' laden with fat

The proposed traffic system of labelling food will do little to contribute to the easy selection of healthy foods because these systems usually only deal with key food components such as fat, sugar and salt and do little to differentiate foods that have a high nutrient content and that are free from nasty chemicals.

But, there are steps you can take to protect yourself and your family from the poor food quality that abounds these days. But how can food quality be so poor when there is such an abundance of it? I hear you ask. The best example is obesity. Overweight and obesity is basically the outcome of nutrient deficiencies. No matter what the volume of food some people eat they will continue to crave food whilst their food choices are poor and/or the nutrient density is low. This may be due to something so basic as the quality of our soils.

Here are my tips for a high quality nutrient dense diet and navigating those food labels.
1. Re-prioritize your budget towards organic food. Let's face it feeding your family nutritious food is more important than a new flat screen (or is that just me?). Organic produce is free from toxic pesticides and richer in nutrients (check out this table) and the packaged products will not contain harmful additives.
2. Can't afford organics? The next best rule is 'fresh is best': avoiding processed food altogether eliminates the need to decipher food labels. Recipes needed be complicated and you can flavour your own food with herbs and spices.
3. Don't have time to cook from scratch? Become an expert in food labeling by bypassing the front of the packet altogether and going to the ingredient list and nutrition panel.
4. The nutrition panel: Always look at the per 100g column and go for under 10g sugar and 10g fat per 100g (3g for dairy). Saturated fat should be restricted to a third of the fat content. If you are trying to lose weight aim for 3g of both fat and sugar per 100g.
5. Fat in the ingredient list: If fat is listed as one of the first 5 ingredients of a product, it is likely to contain a fair bit as ingredients are listed in descending order by weight. To make matters more confusing fat and sugar often masquerade under other names. Other names for fat include vegetable oil/fat, animal oil/fat, ghee, dripping, shortening, copha, lard, tallow, coconut oil, palm oil, chocolate chips, milk solids, chocolate and butter.
5. Sugar in the ingredient list: The same rule applies for sugar and other names for sugar include sucrose, maltose, lactose, dextrose, fructose, glucose, molasses, treacle, malt extract, raw or brown sugar, cane sugar, castor sugar, syrup, disaccharides, monosaccharide, polysaccharide, honey and invert sugar
6. Additives in the ingredient list: this is an absolute minefield and I recommend you get the magnifying card from the Food Intolerance Network. It is a handy card you can carry with you while shopping that magnifies the ingredients and lists all additives which are harmful.

What all of this amounts to is that in order to have a healthy diet we should fundamentally be eating food as close to nature as possible so we are less likely to consume highly processed, sugar, fat and additive laden food which might taste great but doesn't offer much in the form of disease prevention. We live in a society where consumerism reigns supreme....don't let your diet, and ultimately your body, fall victim to it as well.

An ounce of prevention...

2010-11-15T16:40:00.000-08:00

Another reoccurring theme I've noticed in the media lately; efforts by particular governments to make fast food less appealing to people. These include listing the sugar, salt and fat content on fast food packaging in NSW, removing the toy from happy meals in San Francisco
and generally having tighter restrictions on junk food advertising to children. There seems to be two schools of thought as far as efforts go to improve the nutrition of children thereby reducing the prevalence of obesity and associated illnesses. Whilst some people feel it is the responsibility of the government to remove the barriers to, and create a supportive environment for healthy eating others feel the entire responsibility rests with the parents.

Having worked in health promotion previously, I appreciate what a huge undertaking it is implement strategies to educate parents about how to provide healthy food for their children and how costly those strategies are, even if they are successful. Incidentally, the government only sets aside a miniscule amount of money for health promotion and most projects are funded by grants. When you consider the opposition health promotion workers are working against such as large advertising budgets, convenience, the addict-ability of fast food due to flavour enhancers and refined carbohydrates and socio-economic inequalities you may also appreciate what an enormous task it is. For example, a 2002 paper why Reidpath et al reported that there were 2.5 times more fast food outlets in the poorest socioeconomic areas than the wealthiest per head of population. It seems the government has a duty of care to be changing legislation regarding this industry especially when you consider that in NSW in 2007 overweight and obesity accounted for the most burden of disease in women (still 2nd to tobacco in men) and this comes with a treatment cost. This really puts the phrase 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' in perspective.

Two of the principles of the Ottawa Charter (the health promotion bible) are to 'create supportive environments' and develop 'healthy public policy'. I would say these two principles fall firmly in the scope of governments to act resolutely towards changes in the fast food industry.

To eat or not to eat....that is the question

2010-09-13T18:52:00.000-07:00

I recently read the comment that a major clothing brand aimed at teenage girls considered size 10 to be plus size. This is ludicrous, not only because they are lumbering girls with an unrealistic adult size system which they are never going to be able to comply with as they get older but they are being given the message early on that that normal and average sizes are grossly overweight (the average size of Australian women is 12-14).

What makes this scenario worse is that there seems to be competing pressure from the fast food industry, who directly market to this age group, to eat nutrient poor food which is laden with additives, saturated fat and sugar. Food which is inevitably going to make them put on weight and also leads to conditions such as anxiety and depression and may even affect their fertility in the future.

What are we producing? Girls who have unhealthy eating habits and who now have low self esteem because they do not fit into a now unattainable mould of what society considers to be beautiful.

On the other extreme you can now see how girls develop eating disorders (8.8% of adolescent girls). These girls typically have anxiety, depression and the extreme need for perfection and control. How do they get control in a world where we can't even get the messages right. Society should be teaching girls to nourish their bodies (and their brains) and love their body not using competing marketing messages aimed at their fears about not fitting in.

Sugar and spice and all things nice...

2010-08-25T23:32:00.000-07:00

There seems to be a recurrent theme in the media lately about girls in the west going through puberty earlier and earlier. So why is it so and isn't it enough that young girls are being exposed to sexually explicit images (anyone seen a Rihanna video clip lately?) and that the purpose of marketing to the tween age group (8-12) is all about making them look older (eg. padded cropped tops). Now they have to cope with the early onset of menstruation when they are not emotionally developed enough to deal with it (nor should they be). Their bodies are behaving in such a way as to prepare them for childbirth and yet they haven't even had any sex education. How is a girl in the 6-10 age group supposed to wrap their head around that.

The average age of menarche (menstruation onset) in Victorian times was 17-18 which may be as much about malnutrition as anything else but what does that say about our society when you have girls as young as six showing signs of puberty (eg breast tissue) because of their weight (fat cells can produce estrogen). It's not that I'm being judgemental, I'm just concerned about these girls because precocious puberty (that is before the age of 8) causes emotional disturbances, stress, confusion and even depression. Then there's the physical risks; stunted bone growth, breast cancer and diabetes.

And what of diet? You know the urban myth? They're putting hormones in the chicken. Well that's not quite true but the meat industry does use these chemicals called 'hormone growth promotants'. The CSIRO has set safe limits for the presence of these chemicals in the meat and the statement has been made that there is more estrogen in 200mls of milk than 500g of beef but the problem I have is these chemicals may not be unsafe in isolation but isn't there a cumulative effect when you combine them with all the other toxins in our environment called 'endocrine disruptors'.

The most common type of endocrine disruptors are chemicals that have a structure similar to estrogen so the estrogen receptors in the body recognise them as such. The most prolific of these are those used to harden plastic; the phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA). These chemicals leach out of the plastic when heated (even washing with hot water). As per usual Food Standards Australia are following the American lead and waiting until a review of safety is concluded until they remove these chemicals from the manufacture of plastics (read the factsheet here). It reminds me of their responses to unnecessary food additives ie evidence of harm has to be demonstrated before they remove them.....um shouldn't it be the other way around? Introduce them if they are safe? Given that in Canada the chemical BPA has been found in more than 9 out of 10 adults (read the story here), and I can't imagine Australian rates being much different, doesn't it make sense to reduce our exposure if there is any risk at all. It's a sad state of affairs when manufacturers of baby bottles have to take it upon themselves to remove BPA which is what is starting to happen.

Other endocrine disruptors which directly mimic estrogen include triclosan (found in antibacterial hand washes, toothpastes and mouth wash), Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (flame retardants), parabens (preservatives in skin care), dioxins (sanitary products) and pesticides. Phthalates are also used in skin care, shampoos, cosmetics and sunscreen.

The official average age of menarche in Australia at the moment is 11-12 but when you hear anecdotal stories of girls as young as six showing the first signs of puberty and primary schools having to move personal development classes forward by years something doesn't sit right with me. And what about the future generations? There is new evidence that these chemicals disrupt genes and get transferred to the babies of these girls (read this report) who will then be subjected to their own toxic load during life.

And I haven't even started on boys, what are these estrogen mimickers doing to them.....?

People in glass laboratories shouldn't throw stones

2010-08-10T17:48:00.000-07:00

When comparing conventional medicine to alternative medicine the point is often raised that there hasn't been adequate rigorous study on herbal and nutritional medicine's effectiveness and safety to warrant it as being a valid course of treatment. I wanted to explore this notion a bit further, that is that people must blindly trust the reliability of clinical drug trials and be scared of the alternative (aka traditional medicine) for, in my opinion, fear mongering is the most abhorrent form of marketing because it plays on negative emotions.

There's no denying that we live in a consumer society and the more money pharmaceutical companies make, the more they have to spend on clinical trials for the next drug and the marketing that goes along with it. But just how reliable are those double blind randomised controlled trials that the mainstream medical industry take pride in being so rigorous and so transparent. There have been two stories in the media recently to dispute this trust. One eminent doctor has fabricated his data on the effectiveness of Celebrex and Lyrica for post operative pain. Given these two drugs have prominent side effects this is disturbing. More generally, it has been discovered that clinical trials funded by the drug industry are more likely to yield positive outcomes. I'm not talking small differences either; there were positive outcomes in 85% of industry funded trials compared with 50% in government funded studies. I'm no statistician but that seems pretty significant to me.

One of the key concepts of the Hippocratic Oath (you know the one doctors swear by) is that '...I will keep them from harm and injustice'. In America approximately 106,000 people die every year from taking their prescribed medication as directed. In 2008 the American Association of Poison Control Centres' National Poison Data System (NPDS) reported not one death from any vitamin, herb or dietary supplement. Yet the fear mongering about safety doesn't get transferred to mainstream medications, it gets squarely placed on natural therapies. It is also as though side effects from medication is so common now that it is just accepted. On researching the side effects of a common psychiatric drug I recently found them to be anything from nightmares (considered a mild side effect but I'm sure people taking it would disagree) to bringing on lactation and diabetes.

Trying to fit alternative medicine into the confines of mainstream research and practice is often like trying to fit a square peg in a round whole. In Australia we are not allowed to use some very useful herbs because mainstream scientists have lumbered them with their rules. They've labelled certain herbs as dangerous purely because they contain active compounds which, when extracted, may be dangerous in large amounts. This ignores the most obvious difference between herbs and drugs - herbs have complex chemistry which promotes synergy and protection. A fine example of this is the herb ephedra, one of the best known herbs for asthma and sinus. As ephedra contains ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine you can no longer even buy the seeds in Australia and before then proponents of herb were made to feel like common drug users for seeking it out for personal use. If the powers that be honestly don't think that alternative practitioners can be trusted to prescribe the more powerful herbs than there is even more argument for registration in the profession.

Another example of trying to force traditional medicine into the confines of mainstream rules is the concept of patenting herbs. Luckily you cannot place patents on nature for if you could herbal medicine would then fall victim to the pharmaceutical money making machines. Recently a Chinese pharmaceutical company tried to patent the herb pudina but luckily it was denied because it was determined, and confirmed by ancient texts, that the herb was part of the traditional system of medicine in India (Ayurveda).

Health should be about empowerment and self-sufficiency and I'm not saying modern pharmaceuticals cannot play a role in that but the consumerism which has crept into medicine over the years has taken control away from the person and placed it firmly in the hands of the pharmaceutical companies, biasing trials and influencing doctors and above all making patients feel powerless and vulnerable. It has brainwashed people in to forgetting that they are part of the natural landscape and like the herbs that exist to complement their treatment, they are intuitive beings.

I'm an evidence based person and happy to see rigorous trials conducted on herbal medicine but maybe it's going to take some time because those studies are not conducted by cashed up pharmaceutical companies that are more likely to extract the active chemical, undertake biased studies which do not take into account lifestyle and then go onto patent the chemical so they are the only ones who can make money. And you know what? I'm OK with that.

The Great Kefir Making Experiment

2010-07-30T22:04:00.000-07:00

For some time I have been looking for a good probiotic supplement which includes both variety of good bacteria and strength to get past the hostile environment of the stomach. In Australia we have some pretty good products like "Inner Health Plus" which are suitable for treatment and post anti-biotic prevention of dysbiosis (the imbalance between good and bad bacteria). I was looking for more though, something low cost I could incorporate into my daily diet long term. The use of probiotics for wellness is well researched and provides reliable treatment for a range of conditions such as cold and flu, eczema, irritable bowel syndrome and even depression. This makes perfect sense when you consider that a large proportion of the immune system resides in the gut and that many of our neurotransmitters are made there.

A few years ago I came across something called Kefir (pronounced Keh-fear). Kefir is a traditional, fermented milk product that you can make in your own home from small, white 'grains' which look like little cauliflowers. It originated from the Caucasus Mountains where the people, who referred to it as the "Gift from God" used it as a method of preserving the milk. As a result they enjoyed good health and longevity.

A little more than a fortnight ago I received my grains from Dom, an Australian who is arguably the world's most respected expert on the subject. Kefir is so easy to make, you simply place two tablespoons of the grains in a glass bottle with 1.5 cups of milk and let it ferment at room temperature for twenty four hours. You then strain off the kefir and place the grains back into the bottle with more milk for the next batch. The kefir can be drank immediately or stored in the fridge for next day. I've been blending fruit into mine and having it for breakfast each morning. It tastes a little sour, much like plain yoghurt, and is slightly effervescent.
After much experimentation with the type of milk I have settled on full fat organic milk but you can also use low fat, skim, unhomogenised, soy, rice and even breast milk.

The benefits of kefir are many and include:
1. It's self perpetuating - the grains grow the more you use them, and the more they multiply the more kefir can be made from them. Alternatively you can store extra grains by drying or freezing them.
2. It's cheap - I decided to purchase my grains but there is a worldwide community of people who give spare grains away. Once you have the grains all you need to buy is the milk. It's worth noting that there is also a water based kefir available.
3. Effectiveness - There wouldn't be much point of drinking kefir every day if it didn't have strong probiotic properties. It has a large variety of species - up to 29 types of bacteria and 27 types of yeasts (all beneficial) and a number of studies have been done to demonstrate it's effectiveness in treating a number of conditions (see Dom's site)
4. The ease of use - It literally takes 5 minutes to strain the kefir everyday and set up the next batch.
5. Additional health benefits - not only is kefir rich in probiotics but during the fermentation process B vitamins and an array of enzymes are produced and the lactose is greatly diminshed.
6. It's versatility - Kefir can be used to make a range of different foods including cheese, sour cream, butter, pizza dough, ice cream, smoothies and lassis.

In short, I've enjoyed incorporating kefir into my daily routine. I treat the grains like the precious living things they are look forward to making some more yummy foods with it.

For more information on kefir the best reference site is Doms

Everyone's a winner

2010-07-25T04:15:00.001-07:00

So as I sit here with one eye on the Masterchef Australia finale I begin to speculate on the success of the show, not only in compelling people to watch but in compelling people to cook again.

Part of the problem with the fast food industry is that it panders to people's notion that cooking, feeding the family and indeed even eating is a chore, something extra they have to fit into their already jam packed schedule.

Conversely, I think the success of Masterchef has been it's ability to renew people's interest in cooking, to make them remember that cooking can be creative and enjoyable, bring the family together and even rewarding when you get to the eating part.

From a nutritionist's point of view Masterchef holds even more appeal. In reminding people that cooking from scatch is a valid and fun activity it inherantly teaches them the value of natural ingredients, that herbs and spices, not just flavour enhancers, add flavour and that fresh food doesn't need harmful additives like preservatives, artificial colours and flavours.

Culturally it's a step in the right direction.

My milkshake brings.....

2010-05-26T18:45:00.000-07:00

An ice creamery in the United States has been given the dubious title of offering the most unhealthy milkshake. It contains a whopping 131 grams of fat, more than half of which is (the most unhealthy) saturated and the equivalent of more than 30 teaspoons of sugar. Reader comments on this news story have been mixed, some saying that this is ethically irresponsible whilst others saying that people should be allowed to do what they want.

The crux of the argument, for me, comes down to this. Are people doing what they want? This milkshake has the same saturated fat content as 25 rashers of bacon. I'm sure the average person wouldn't sit down to a massive pile of bacon. These type of fast food drinks offer the most deceptive and easily absorbable form of calories, saturated fat and sugar. You don't even have to chew them. Additionally diets based on fast food such as these deprive the body of essential nutrients, such as chromium which controls future sugar cravings. Lucky we don't live in America hey, or are these types of drinks starting to creep in here too, think coffee house chains and the types of drinks on offer there. It's a slippery slope to obesity and your milkshake will be soon bringing more than boys to the yard, but heart disease, stroke and diabetes too.

A Box Of Cereal & A Loaf Of Bread A Day Keeps...

2009-10-14T14:37:00.000-07:00

It seems I only seem to turn the Sunrise program on when they have that GP on commenting on natural medicine. Remember her - I spoke about her lack of knowledge about detoxification around this time last year.

Today she was speaking about natural pain relief. She didn't seem to know how to elaborate on the difference between the role of fish oil vs glucosamine for arthritis and had no idea about the new omega 3 on the market, krill oil, which means you have to take far less capsules a day.

She also recommended, along with thiamine, magnesium for period pain suggesting that 100mg per day would be sufficient. I can't imagine getting much relief from that dosage. Next she stated that you get these vitamins and minerals if you eat breakfast cereals for which she had a box of Kelloggs (fortified) cereal on the table. She obviously hasn't heard the saying amongst nutritionists - 'You may as well eat the box'. There's thiamine in bread, perhaps people with period pain should just eat a loaf of bread a day!

To top it all of she went on to state that chilli is starting to be used successfully for pain relief. She would we disappointed to learn that it has actually been used successfully for thousands of years in the Western, Chinese and Ayurvedic traditions of herbal medicine.

Again, I'm sure she is a great doctor but why do they have people comment on things they know little about....

Internationally Certified Organic Skin Care

2009-06-14T20:11:00.000-07:00

Australian Company ONEgroup is responsible for the world's first comprehenisive range of certified organic skin care products; Miessence. Free from nasty chemicals often used in skin care products such as parabens, sodium lauryl sulfate, parabens and fragrance it includes a range of cleansers, conditioners and moisturisers for normal/combination, dry/mature, sensitive and oily/problem skin types. The range also includes treatment gels, masks and renewing serums.

Visit the site today and receive loyalty discounts as soon as you join and free shipping on orders over $100.

Fresh is Best

2009-04-02T23:31:00.000-07:00

My big bug bear at the moment is food companies (particularly of the fast kind) that suggest or imply in their marketing that they are 'fresh' thereby giving the impression that they are a healthier option to some of the other companies that have the reputation of being very bad. Let me provide you with some examples. Hmmm let's look at a particular chain of sandwich outlets. For some time we have been inundated with ads on TV with the uplifting 'I feel good' song and moronic shufflers wiggling across our screens. As usual the 'Eat Fresh' slogan is rolled out. If their sandwiches are so fresh then why do they use two (not one no two) types of preservative in their bread alone. Those same two preservatives are notorious for causing food intolerance symptoms, especially calcium propionate (282).

So my question is why, why, why?

They tell us they bake their bread daily...you can even smell it when you walk past. How many people do you know buy a sandwich and take it home and sit it in their fridge for a few days. I would hazard a guess in saying that the large majority of people eat it within a few hours at most. This is just one example of the reckless and needless use of additives without consideration of the consequences on health.

Another example of this is a particular outlet which specialised in muffins. Now I'm not by any means saying that their food is particularly healthy but their slogan is "Always Fresh". Always fresh all right...there's so many preservatives in their food it would be in mint condition if you returned to it in a week.

Even if you or your children don't suffer from food intolerances is it really acceptable that we are irresponsibly mislead into believing that food is pure. I don't think we yet know the consequences on health of these chemicals. Come back and tell me how you feel in 10, 20, 50 years.

Sad State of Affairs

2008-12-18T15:20:00.000-08:00

Is it a surprise that today's generation of women are experiencing depression at higher rates than their mothers and grandmothers. No. With poor nutrition due to over processed foods and the diminished soil quality feeding our crops coupled with the toxic society we live in (eg phthalates in plastics) it is any wonder that any woman is getting adequate nutritional precursors to serotonin (the happiness neurotransmitter) and able to convert those precursors. Given this is all taking place in a society where unrealistic expectations are often placed on women to have both have a successful career and raise a family there is no surprise in this story at all.

Its nice that the story end with a modicum of concern about the number of women taking anti-depressants long term but it begs the question what are they willing to do about it?

WHO supports TCM in China

2008-11-17T21:24:00.000-08:00

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has advocated for the integration of TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) into conventional medicine, especially in poorer areas where access to adequate health care is compromised.

Wouldn't it be great if the same thing happened in Western countries, such as Australia, and governments allowed for consultations with Medical Herbalists to be bulk-billed. At the moment health funds (although not all) offer rebates for consultations with herbalists but not the herbal medicine. Yes, inequality in health care exists in the complementary field as well.

Can I have some water with my chemicals please?

2008-11-14T16:48:00.000-08:00

I know this is an old news story but I was reminded of this continuing debate the other day when a well known media doctor was pitching the pros (no, no cons) of fluoridating bottled water on morning television. In some areas of the world (including Australia) folk are strong enough to resist fluoridation of the town drinking water and yet now some well meaning (dare I say it) Jack of All Trades GP is on the bandwagon about fluoridating bottled water as well and giving people no affordable choice at all about whether they want a toxic substance, no matter how small the dose, coursing through their bodies.

I did a fair bit of reading on this issue a few months ago when I had an allergic reaction to something. One of the suspects was a new imported toothpaste I had began using which had around three times the amount of fluoride as our leading brands here in Australia. The reaction turned out to be to something else but in the process I learnt a fair about fluoridation. Having a background in public health I was all for this method of mass medication in the past but sometimes all you have to do is dig a little.

Did you know:

1. Fluoride is a major industrial air pollutant;

2. So the fluoride which is placed in the water supply comes from industrial waste (fertilizer producers in this country);

3. The scientist who established the safe level of fluoride to be added to water (i.e. 1 part per million) was involved in experiments where he injected plutonium into hospital patients. Not exactly Mr Ethics now was he?

4. It was in the interest of this same scientist to declare fluoride as safe because he was involved in an industry that produced fluoride as industrial waste (the nuclear bomb making industry to be exact).

5. It is contentious whether fluoride, other that that applied directly to the tooth, has any benefit to the tooth surface.

6. There is a small subset of people who are allergic to fluoride;

7. A senior toxicologist at the Environmental Protection Agency in the US was fired in the 1990s when he spoke out about how studies linking fluoridation to liver and bone cancer had been downplayed and doctored.

8. An eminent toxicologist, Dr Phyllis Mullenix at the Forsythe Dental Institute, found that even modest doses of fluoride was neurotoxic and produced symptoms in animals similar to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. She no longer receives any research funding.

9. More recently, in 2005, the Environmental Working Group (a health advocate group in the US) issued a complaint to the ethics committee of Harvard University alleging that compelling evidence from a four year old thesis of a PhD student had been suppressed by her professor. The thesis: it linked linked fluoridation to osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in pubertal boys. The Professor: he is a consultant for Colgate. The Ethics Committee exonerated the Professor but something still smells other than peppermint fresh there.

In conclusion, my opinion on mass fortification of the water supply with fluoride has changed, particularly for a substance that is not an essential vitamin or mineral and has the potential to be toxic and/or cause allergic reactions. I am still a proponent of public health but in a way that is natural or in the very least still provides people with informed choice. If bottled water becomes fluoridated, people who do not want to ingest this substance will have to purchase expensive reverse osmosis filters or rely solely on rain water. As usual it will be the conscientious few who have to work harder to stay natural in an unnatural world.

Detox much?

2008-10-13T15:11:00.000-07:00

Did anyone catch the General Practitioner on the Sunrise program disputing the benefits of detoxification programs on the body? Why do they ask so-called experts to comment on topics they know nothing about? The concept of detoxification is not congruent with the principles of conventional medicine so of course the same old dogma of 'it's not evidence based' were quickly but surely uttered. Alternative medicine, by the way, is much less amenable to evidence based research because it focuses on prevention (for which detox programs play a vital role) and is much more holistic in it's approach, both through the use of whole plant parts, not just chemicals isolated from them, and the treatment of the whole body.

This 'expert' quickly showed her ignorance about detox by only discussing the liver and quite alarmingly in doing so, carelessly gave the message that binge drinking is OK saying that even alcoholics and hepatitis sufferers experienced no ill effects for twenty years. Where did they find this person? If she can't even get the simple health messages right then what sort of doctor is she?

One of the major benefits of detox is of course that it is useful for conditions that conventional medicine doesn't recognise and cannot treat, even those that don't have a name, just a set of symptoms that don't neatly fit into some diagnostic tool.

For your information doctor, a good detox program focuses on the gut just as much as the liver. It kills any major parasites, safely removes them and heals the gut wall. When administered by a qualified alternative practitioner it may even focus on the other eliminatory organs such as the kidneys and skin if the symptoms so warrant it.

Of course, you are right, it does always target the liver. Someone's got to give a helping hand to our hardest working organ. It does indeed have to process all the drugs you doctors peddle.

Is Obesity a Black and White Issue? Or is it Green, Amber & Red?

2008-09-30T18:00:00.000-07:00

A survey of consumer group Choice and health groups such as the Institute of Obesity has concluded that food labels are confusing to consumers and that perhaps a traffic light system which ranks foods according to their fat, sugar and salt content would help them decide what is healthy.

On face value this would appear to be a good idea but what about the other constituents of food that make us healthy? What about the vitamins and minerals which help us convert food to energy (& burn it off), carry oxygen to our cells and act as antioxidants for example.

From my perspective what is just as alarming is that foods, under this system, could contain multiple additives and still be given a green rating. In fact from personal experience, those foods modified to become 'low fat' are more likely to contain preservatives and flavour enhancers.

One might say 'so what' if the only aim here is to help people with the single goal of losing weight, but given recent evidence that the more 'toxic' a person is the more overweight they are likely to be, it appears the level of processing of foods is vital to this issue. As is the possible scenario where people may become correct weight but lacking in many essential nutrients.

A representative from Choice pointed to low socio-economic groups as having the least amount of label reading skills. This may well be true but food choice in these areas is far more complex than this. Given that food companies constantly trick consumers into believing certain foods are healthy (see wholegrain Coco Pops!) and fast food outlets are in higher numbers per head of population in low socio-economic areas, something needs to be done at a political level to regulate these companies.

On an individual level then, the message is simple - that fresh is best. Best becasue of it's simplicity, its nutritive value and, most appealing to these groups, its value for money.

A pill for every ill?

2008-09-22T17:42:00.000-07:00

Further evidence in the scientific literature that the excessive use of pharmaceuticals can cause other health problems down the track. A study published in The Lancet demonstrated a strong link between high use of paracetamol in babies in the first year of life (once a month or more) and the risk of developing asthma and eczema by the time a child is seven.

There are more contributing factors than the wanton use of paracetamol by parents. Of course there are those parents who ply their children with said drug if they seem a little excited but generally, I'm sure many parents feel there is no other way. In a world where exposure to a range of germs occurs much quicker because parents feel pressured to work and place their baby in childcare, where nutrition is lacking due to decreased breastfeeding rates and lack of nutrients in the food supply and where babies immune systems are perhaps not developing as gently as they should, it is difficult to find a baby who goes a month without suffering fever.

Diabetes, Heart Disease - more to blame than bad genes and lifestyle.

2008-09-14T16:20:00.000-07:00

A recent study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology which followed up the mortality rates of residents of the town of Sevesco in Italy, twenty-five years after a toxic explosion, has found an alarming trend. The residents, which were exposed to the toxic cloud of dioxin, and then to levels in the soil post-explosion, were grouped according to their exposure levels (very high, high and low levels of exposure) and then cause of death data were collected during that time. Those in the 'high' exposure zones had significantly more deaths from lymphatic and hematopoietic (blood) cancers, diabetes and cardiovascular events (eg, heart attack), providing evidence that toxins in the environment do contribute to the diseases which were previously blamed purely on genetics and lifestlye risk factors such as diet, physical activity and smoking.

This supports the use of detoxification techniques in the prevention and treatment of so called lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and heart disease and provides further explanation as to why efforts to lose weight are often accelerated after a comprehensive detoxification program.

Vital Spirit Natural Health Site Map

2008-09-09T23:20:00.000-07:00

www.vitalspirit.com.au

www.vitalspirit.com.au/why-natural-medicine/

www.vitalspirit.com.au/about-us/

www.vitalspirit.com.au/services/

www.vitalspirit.com.au/clinic-hours/

www.vitalspirit.com.au/virtual-herb-garden/

www.vitalspirit.com.au/case-studies/

www.vitalspirit.com.au/lizs-blog/

www.vitalspirit.com.au/links-/

www.vitalspirit.com.au/enquiries/

Not all kids hyperactive after colours....well who cares about them?

2008-09-08T18:00:00.000-07:00

Getting back to the petition to ban six food colours in the Australian food supply, a well known allergist has come out criticising the petition saying that the people signing the petition aren't experts and that the petition is misrepresenting the Southampton study by suggesting that food colours cause hyperactivity in all children. Well my response to that is SO WHAT!

For a start I don't think you have to have a medical degree with a speciality in immunology to be an expert in food intolerance. Just ask anyone who nearly went insane with ribo rash for years on end or a parent who was at their wits end because they thought their child was autistic or had ADHD. They are eminently qualified to tell you which food additive(s), and their numbers, cause which symptoms for them and their family, what they are likely to be contained in and, most importantly, how hard it is to avoid them. Talk about professional snobbery doctor.

Secondly who cares that not all children get hyperactive after eating food additives, the fact that a proportion of children do, and the difficulty involved in eliminating these foods completely from the diet justifies change. It's a question of equality in health. Everyone deserves the same access to good quality food for the sake of nutrition.

Lastly, hyperactivity is only one symptom of food intolerance. What if the study had measured others like oppositional defiance, bed-wetting, anxiety and eczema to name a few. Perhaps the results would have been even more indicative of harm. Obviously it warrants more study but why make the general population unconsenting guinea pigs until that happens.

If you aren't looking for pure science (and believe me I'm an evidence based person) there are hundreds of additives in the food supply and doesn't it seem strange that the same usual suspects keep arising as causing problems. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

It makes no sense that an 'expert' would concern himself with semantics when there is a groundswell of support for positive change. One wonders what vested interests are at play.

Organisational Health Gone Mad

2008-09-07T17:24:00.000-07:00

Well here is evidence that shows organisational health gone mad in order to minimise the risk of a future event.

On one hand you have Ergon Energy employees in Queensland being made to continue wearing costly flame retardant uniforms that are clearly toxic. These workers have a right to go about their daily work without being exposed to harmful chemicals, even the ones who are not reacting allergically. Who knows what else it could be doing to the body. Common sense dictates that something that emits a yellow nauseating gas when you iron it isn't exactly a health tonic.

On the other hand you have school students banned from doing cartwheels, a fun and active pastime, in a Townsville primary school because of the risk they might hurt themselves. Their punishment for being caught doing cartwheels is to sit still; obviously ridiculous given the rates of childhood obesity in Australia and the fact that Education Queensland named 2008 'The Year of Physical Activity' not 'The Year of Living Dangerously'.

It seems schools and workplaces really care more about the risk of litigation or the waste of money than the everyday welfare of their students and employees.

Can the Colours Campaign

2008-09-06T01:37:00.000-07:00

The groundbreaking Southampton study, published in The Lancet in November 2007, provided definitive evidence that 6 artificial colours (102, 104, 110, 122, 124 & 129) and the preservative sodium benzoate (211) caused hyperactivity in groups of 3 year old and 8/9 year old children. As a result all six food colours are being removed from foods in the UK by end of 2009.

Help the good people at Additive Alert lobby Food Standards Australia & New Zealand (FSANZ) to have the same thing happen here in Australia.

Click here to add your name to the letter addressed to chair of the FSANZ petitioning an end to these harmful chemicals in our food supply and the addition of warning labels on those foods containing these colours in the meantime.

Mercury fillings

2008-09-03T17:54:00.000-07:00

Check out this video on the dangers of mercury amalgam fillings.

According to the Australian Dental Association only about 30% of new fillings are amalgam based. However, there's still a lot of Australians with mercury based fillings in their head. You need to find a dentist willing to do amalgam removal if you are concerned that your fillings are affecting your health.

Walk to the dead cows come home

2008-09-03T00:37:00.000-07:00

One positive and one negative health related story in the news today...presumably to balance things out but I don't think any amount of walking would burn off the disturbing blood clot waiting to happen which is the 'Quad Stack' burger from Hungry Jacks.

I mean fair enough to have a range of foods available to people but this rates up there with deep fried mars bars and fisherman's baskets. Sadly, it is those people who are already overweight, with elevated cholesterol, blood pressure and insulin resistance who are more likely to succumb to the tasty looking.....ummmm blob. In one word it's overkill, and that's not just of the cows.

On a good note there is more good quality research to prove that physical activity not only helps maintain/lower all the things that 'monster' burger wreaks havoc with (like a bull in a china shop if you will) but it delays age related cognitive damage as well.