Is "Bad" Cholesterol actually GOOD?

Doctors have been taught that so-called bad LDL cholesterol is a killer. When high, statins are almost always prescribed. New data challenge that idea.
A new analysis of prior research suggests that higher levels of so-called bad LDL cholesterol is associated with longer life for older people. Not surprisingly, many cardiologists are outraged over the idea that bad LDL cholesterol might be good for senior citizens. After all, they have spent decades convincing people that lowering LDL cholesterol is essential for heart health. That is why statins have been prescribed to tens of millions of people. The New Study Turns Conventional Wisdom Upside Down:

The investigators reviewed epidemiological studies in which bad LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) had been studied as a risk factor for cardiovascular deaths or mortality for any reason (BMJ Open, June 12, 2016). The subjects were people over the age of 60. In total, 19 studies were analyzed involving over 68,000 participants.

In theory, people with high levels of bad LDL cholesterol should have been at increased risk for deaths from heart attacks and strokes. So-called all-cause mortality should also have been higher when LDL-C was elevated.

What the Researchers Actually Found:

Contrary to expectations, no link was found between bad cholesterol and premature deaths. In this older population (people over 60) there was a surprising discovery. The higher the subjects’ LDL cholesterol, the longer they lived and the less heart disease they seemed to experience. This is exactly the opposite of what conventional cardiology would have predicted. Here are the conclusions in the words of the investigators:

“High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.”

That’s doctorspeak for saying older people didn’t benefit by having low LDL cholesterol and may in fact live longer if their LDL-C is higher. They go on to challenge the foundation of cholesterol-lowering treatments by questioning the idea that LDL cholesterol causes clogged coronary arteries. This flies in the face of conventional medical wisdom and makes the billion-dollar statin industry flinch.

The Backlash About Bad LDL Cholesterol was Fast and Furious:

Cardiologists and other health professionals were quick to condemn the new study published in BMJ Open. They characterized the research as:

• “Deeply flawed”
• 
“Unwarranted conclusions”

• “Disappointingly unbalanced”
• 
“Serious weaknesses and completely wrong conclusions”

Not a Totally New Story:

Although many people think of cholesterol as the enemy, it is actually essential for health. Not only does cholesterol serve as a building block for vitamin D, estrogen and testosterone, it is crucial for neurons in the brain. Without cholesterol our nerve cells would not function.

Results from the Honolulu Heart Program 2001:

One of the most interesting studies that has been forgotten over time is the Honolulu Heart Program. Scientists at the University of Hawaii studied 3,500 Japanese-American men born between 1900 and 1919. The volunteers’ total cholesterol levels were measured when they were middle-aged and again in the early 1990s, when they were elderly. Then the scientists kept tabs on who survived and who died.

To their surprise, the men with the lowest cholesterol levels had the highest risk of dying over the next several years. Those with cholesterol levels between 188 and 209 fared the best. Even men with elevated cholesterol, over 209, were less likely to die from any cause than those with the lowest cholesterol readings. The investigators confessed their confusion:
“We have been unable to explain our results. These data cast doubt on the scientific justification for lowering cholesterol to very low concentrations (<4 .65="" 180="" dl="" elderly="" in="" less="" mg="" mmol="" people="" span="" than="">

“Our data accord with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases the risk of death. Thus, the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death.”

[Reference: Schatz, I. J., et al. “Cholesterol and All-Cause Mortality in Elderly People from the Honolulu Heart Program: A Cohort Study.” Lancet 2001;358:351-355]

Other Contrary Research:

No doubt most physicians prescribing statins to people over 60 are not familiar with the Honolulu Heart Program data, or if they are, they have conveniently ignored the conclusions. There are other studies, including a report to the American Heart Association in 1999 that suggested people with total cholesterol under 180 were twice as likely to suffer a bleeding stroke as those with cholesterol of more than 230.

The Japanese Experience:

Researchers in Japan have long noted that people with low cholesterol are more susceptible to bleeding strokes than people with higher cholesterol levels. A study of 12,334 healthy adults between the ages of 40 and 69 was conducted in 12 rural areas of Japan (Journal of Epidemiology, online, Jan. 5, 2011). The subjects were followed for nearly 12 years. The conclusions:

“Low cholesterol was related to high mortality even after excluding deaths due to liver disease from the analysis. High cholesterol was not a risk factor for mortality.” 

The idea that low total cholesterol, or especially low LDL cholesterol could be associated with premature death comes as a shock to most health professionals. When such research is published it disappears almost without a trace or is forgotten or ignored because the data do not conform to the predominant paradigm. This cholesterol contrariness is not the only big shock to the cardiology community.

Saturated Fat:
Over the last several months the basic foundations of American cardiovascular medicine have been challenged. Next to bad LDL cholesterol, saturated fat was the other villain behind heart disease. But a study published in BMJ (April 13, 2016) found that people who lowered cholesterol levels by consuming foods high in vegetable oil actually died faster than people eating a standard saturated fat-containing diet. This was data resurrected from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment. More details can be found at this link.

Salt:
As if the cholesterol and saturated fat problem were not trouble enough, along came a large salt study published in the journal The Lancet (online May 20, 2016). The authors reported that a low salt diet like the one recommended by the American Heart Association (less than 1,500 mg of sodium per day) was associated with an increased risk for heart attacks, strokes, heart failure and death.

Not surprisingly the cardiology community was quick to respond that the study was flawed. The criticism was not unlike the remarks we are reading today about the new study suggesting that older people may actually live longer if their LDL cholesterol levels are higher.

We hope that no one would ever stop taking medicine without first discussing the research with health providers. At the same time, we would hope that physicians would keep their minds open. Medicine constantly changes as new data are revealed. Perhaps some of the old beliefs will change as research reveals alternate hypotheses and understandings.

Source Article 

The Study this is Based on

This Scale Helps Track Your Heart Health

I've always been a fan of empowering people to manage their health.  This sounds like a positive step forward to me!  If it gets someone out walking and eating better, it's well worth the bucks, in my opinion.  I have no interest in Withings, by the way - just using it as an example of useful new health tech.

Consumer electronics company Withings has launched two new high-tech scales that sync with an app and offer information ranging from the day's weather to your weight and heart rate. One of them is a seeming game changer that measures your heartbeat variations – a recognized indicator of heart health.

The $179 device, called Body Cardio, measures pulse wave velocity, produced by the heating of one’s heart and can correlate with high blood pressure. This measurement can only normally be done in a clinical setting, according to Withings.

“Body Cardio redefines how people use connected scales,” said Cedric Hutchings, digital health VP at Nokia Technologies. “It is like getting information from your annual physical every day.”

Nokia just recently acquired Withings for $191 million, putting the French health and wearables company in charge of its digital health business.

Body Cardio is said to offer its users a “holistic” look into their health via measurements of 

weight, body mass index (BMI), body composition, standing heart rate and pulse wave velocity (PWV), which has been linked not only with hypertension but also cardiovascular risk.

PWV is the speed at which heartbeat vibrations spread out along one’s arterial wall. The stiffer the arteries, the more quickly blood moves through one’s body – and a low PWV indicates more flexible arteries as well as a lower blood pressure.

This means that the scale does not measure one’s blood pressure per se – but better gauges heart health, according to co-founder Eric Carreel.

"This blood velocity measurement normally requires an expensive device (called a sphygmometer) that only cardiologists usually have, and now it's available to anyone as a household device,” he told Endgadget.

Body Cardio works in tandem with its app Health Mate to interpret the measurements of one's PWV over time, and show whether it is normal, optimal, or at risk.

Withings, too, will anonymously collect health data from users who gave consent, aiming to refine its data analysis. The information will be shared with researchers and hospitals to see the influence of PWV on cardiovascular risks on a bigger picture.

If you are wondering how the device looks, it’s 0.7-inch thick and boasts of a flat aluminum base, footless design, and tempered glass. Its built-in battery is rechargeable and can last up to one year in total.

The device, part of the company’s fourth-generation wireless scales, is sold exclusively at Apple Stores and Withings.com. Withings’s other new smart scale, Body, is available at $129.95 and sold at different retailers.

See more at: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/163939/20160609/withingss-body-cardio-scale-can-also-track-your-heart-health.htm#sthash.5ItVA6Y4.dpuf

Weight Loss: The Failure of Moderation

Great article about moderation and overeating.  As someone who's battled a lifelong weight problem and won - I've been in my target range for over six years now - I highly recommend putting some of your trigger foods on your "not in my house" list and then sticking to it.  If you were good at controlling how much of those foods you ate, you wouldn't be struggling. Keep those foods out of your life, and you'll be amazed how your palate resets itself to healthier flavors!

One of the biggest problems I have with nutrition education is the “everything in moderation” approach... We were taught that unless you told people that no foods were “off limits” and that all foods are healthy “in moderation”, you could be doing people a disservice.

The problem is, people don’t want to hear the truth…

I think this mentality largely comes from the fact that many dietitians are themselves recovering from disordered eating. My instructor, while drinking her diet coke in-between powerpoint slides, would tell us how limiting food groups could lead to “orthorexia” and this led to an eating disorder. I remember raising my had and saying, “Don’t you think a certain level of orthorexia might be important in our modern food landscape with hyper-palatable foods everywhere we turn?”. The entire class gasped and stared at me. I hear whispers among the students. This challenge to what we were being taught was blasphemy. I would clearly induce anorexia by suggesting someone avoid processed sugars. My professor stood behind her statement.

Someone recently told me she had bariatric surgery a few years ago. Clearly the moderation thing is working for her.

People going on crash diets often gain the weight back. Frustrated with this, many are gravitating to the “everything in moderation” theory, and simply trying to maintain their weight. This is supported by dietitians, our government’s advice and by the food industry (of course)!

Chick-fil-A’s to-go paper bag states suggests that you “Stay Balanced” so if you splurge during the day, balance it with more exercise. Oh, and eat their 8-count chicken nuggets every three to four hours.

A new study, published in the journal Appetite illustrates how “moderation” means different things to different people. The researchers hypothesized that people’s own food preferences would have a huge influence on what they consider “moderation”.

When considering their own food intake, people like to “favor themselves” and are notoriously poor judges of how much they’ve just consumed, both in volume and in calories. They can’t seem to remember what  they just ate, but often feel that they’re doing well with their food choices, regardless of their weight.

Proving their hypothesis, the researchers found that the more people consumed of a particular item, the larger their sense of “a moderate amount” was. Furthermore, people tended to view their own consumption as “better than moderate”. Meaning, what they ate was less than what they consider a “moderate intake”. This was regardless of their BMI, so both healthy and obese participants answered the questions in a similar manner.

The University of Georgia’s Michelle vanDellen, an assistant professor in the department of psychology, led a study that found that the more people like a certain food, the more forgiving their definitions of moderation. 

“These results suggest people evaluate their own consumption as moderate. If anything, people seem to define moderation as greater than their current consumption, indicating that they do not actually think of it as limited consumption of an item. Moreover, definitions of moderate consumption are related to levels of personal consumption: the more people consume of a food or beverage item, the more of that item they consider to be moderate consumption. In contrast, people’s perceptions that they consume an item moderately were unrelated to the amount of each item they actually consumed and the amount of that item they consider moderate… That is, people may implicitly endorse their reported consumption as appropriate because the typical amount they eat is less than what they define as moderate.” The researchers concluded. 

Additionally, in “Better Than Before“, author Gretchen Rubin describes how moderation usually fails most dieters, but also mentions that most nutritionists are moderators. Her book is a fascinating look into what motivates people, and what works in order to change habits. If you haven’t already read it, I recommend it highly.

A few months ago, I was allowed to sit in on an Overeaters Anonymous meeting, to learn what they were like. It was really eye opening. People were describing how they would go to the store and buy cake mix, bake themselves a cake, and then EAT THE WHOLE THING. Others would talk about how they would have to take the junk food in the house and toss it in the garbage, then cover it with water so they wouldn’t go back into the garbage, dig it out, and binge on it. One woman reported that her car was her “vehicle” and that she could never make it home from the store without devouring and entire package of cookies. You know what worked for all of them? Abstinence. Nearly all said they were only successful when they cut out wheat and sugar, which were “trigger foods” for them.

The more I work with people, the more I realized that people are looking for clear answers. Most people really like to hear, “eat this, don’t eat that”. This is why paleo works as a weight loss tool. The reason why people sometimes gain wait following their 30-day challenge is because 80/20 is very hard to self-regulate. I’ve noticed it quickly becomes 60/40, then 30/70. I personally am blessed to have Celiac disease, because I am automatically abstaining from a large group of foods that most people have no “off switch” for. Sugar doesn’t really do it for me – but salt does! I know that I can’t go near potato chips and even gluten free pizza can be an issue for me.

It’s also completely NOT YOUR FAULT that certain foods can trigger overeating. Our brains are designed to seek out calorically dense foods. During our hunter-gatherer times, berries were hard to come by, so our receptors are highly stimulated by sweet and or salty foods. That’s what kept us alive. Today, however, our brains have not caught up to our modern 24/7 access to junk food. This food bypasses our normal satiety signals and we can’t help but overeat it. The only solution is to develop a mild form of orthorexia and eliminate certain foods from your lunchbox, pantry, diner plate, and dessert tray. If you know that you can’t have just one bite of ice cream, then it’s probably not a great idea to keep it in your house.

A note on paleo treats like cookies, brownies, cakes and everything in that category: I don’t have an issue if people eat them, but please don’t consider them in your first 30 days if you’ve had issues with overconsumption of hyper-palatable foods. A paleo brownie is still a brownie. If you’re trying to reset your palate, then do yourself a favor and abstain as you’re getting used to eating “normal” foods like meat and veggies. I don’t keep baked goods in my house, I don’t “bond” with my kids over making cookies, and I advise my nutrition clients to do the same.

Now, if you’re in the 1-4% of Americans that happens to have an actual eating disorder that requires you to view “everything in moderation”, I’m not speaking to you in this post.

Maybe you’re one of the few healthy, successful moderators. If so, great. But if you’re in the position of giving out nutrition advice, then it’s time to reconsider the “everything in moderation” stance, as it’s likely going to fail the majority of your clients. I know for many of my nutrition clients, if I tell them “a little bite won’t hurt”, they would eat the whole damn pie.

original article:
http://robbwolf.com/2016/06/07/a-little-bite-wont-hurt-the-failure-of-moderation/

study on moderation:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566631630099X

Better than Before, by Gretchen Rubin
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Than-Before-Habits-Procrastinate/dp/0385348630?ie=UTF8&keywords=better%20than%20before&qid=1465415295&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

Some of you know that I have a son with autism.  Once you raise one of these children, life is never the same again.  I cannot unsee what I have seen in my own child, or unhear what I have heard from literally hundreds of other parents.  The vaccine safety issue is way too complex to be handled in headlines and news bytes.  It's not just about vaccines or autism, and it affects all of us.  

Here is one of the best explanations I've seen.  Hang in there, it's long, but worth it, if you really do wish to understand why this issue will not go away.

- Terri

Problem: How to explain the issue of synergistic toxicity in vaccines...

Importance of the problem: There are many who believe "The Problem" is Thimerosal. There are many who believe "The Problem" is the MMR vaccine. It's neither. It's both. And SO MUCH MORE.

A baby is born. On day one, that baby receives the Vitamin K shot (not a vaccine), which contains quite a lot of alcohol (9 mg. Benzyl Alcohol in Hospira) and many times the level of vitamin K that any infant would take in during a 24-hour period naturally. Alcohol is detoxified by the liver. On that same day, that baby receives the Hepatitis B vaccine - which contains 250 micrograms of aluminum. The FDA safety limit for aluminum in other injected medications (not vaccines - never been studied) is 5 micrograms per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight, administered over a 24 hour period. The reason for the FDA limit is because before it was set, adults who received doses above that limit had such problems as kidneys shutting down and brain damage from too much aluminum.

Aluminum also targets mitochondrial function. At each of the 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 month "well-baby checks" infants who are vaccinated according to The CDC's Childhood Schedule receive up to 1,200 micrograms of aluminum in a matter of seconds. Those babies also receive (through injection or ingestion) multiple viruses, bacteria, and toxins, including, but not limited to: Thimerosal, aluminum, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 and MSG.

Stop. Concept time.

Have you ever heard of the terminal complement immune system? If not, you should look it up (LIU). In short: The Terminal Complement Immune System contains three different arms: one to deal with viruses, one to deal with bacteria, and one to deal with toxins. Each part responds like a designated army going after whatever invader happens to be identified on the horizon (your infant's blood stream - after everything injected goes through the capillaries...)

Okay. Re-orient your attention here... At each of the 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 month "well-baby checks," infants are injected with viruses and bacteria (Hepatitis B, Rotavirus, Polio, multiple strains of streptococcus in the prevnar vaccine, Haemopholis B, Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, 3 strains of influenza [beginning at six months], and possibly multiple strains of meningococcus). Obviously, those parts of the terminal complement immune system are going to be VERY BUSY during the first couple of years of your child's life.

Reorient again...

Thimerosal is 49.5% mercury. Mercury is toxic. Period. It is toxic to the brain and it is toxic to the immune system.

Mercury is not the only toxin in vaccines. Compared to the Childhood Vaccine Schedule of the 1990s, there is far less mercury in vaccines today's children are receiving. However, it is NOT true that it's gone. There are still "trace amounts" of the second most toxic substance on the planet in vaccines given to infants and children every day in the United States.

How much of a poison is safe to inject into your children?

So glad you asked... The answer depends on how much aluminum your child receives at the same time.

Aluminum is an adjuvant. Its purpose in vaccines is to ramp up the immune system. Aluminum increased in childhood vaccines at the same time when mercury (Thimerosal) was being reduced. These two things are not mutually-exclusive events. They are directly related. Here's how... Thimerosal (mercury) is a preservative and an anti-microbial. It was used (and still is) in multi-dose vials of vaccines because it helps to prevent contamination. In multi-dose vials, each time the seal is pierced, it increases the chance that the remainder of the vaccine inside the vial will be contaminated. Thimerosal helps to prevent that.

Multi-dose vials are cheaper to produce than single-dose vials of vaccines. When the U.S. government agencies finally made the recommendation for mercury to be taken out of vaccines for American children, vaccine manufacturers were faced with the problem of losing profits because single-dose vials are more expensive. What to do? Well... they figured out a way to use smaller bits and pieces of viruses and bacteria, but they needed an adjuvant to be sure the weaker vaccines were able to stimulate the immune system response. That's why the amount of aluminum has increased so much since Thimerosal was "removed." (It wasn't)

Aluminum makes single dose vials of vaccines cheaper.

Okay... Like mercury, aluminum is also neuro-toxic and immuno-toxic (remember The FDA safety limit? It was set for a reason.) But... aluminum is a very good adjuvant, so it ramps up the immune system and makes it respond to even smaller bits and pieces of viruses and bacteria... AND TOXINS.

The reason why aluminum is used in vaccines in the first place, is exactly why aluminum is SO DANGEROUS when combined with even the smallest amounts of OTHER TOXINS - including Thimerosal (still present in "trace amounts"), formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, MSG and others.

Aluminum ramps up the immune system - and just think about what that does when food proteins are injected along with aluminum... Do you think it's any great coincidence that those proteins used in vaccines for infants and children (milk, egg, yeast, peanut) are among the most frequently diagnosed and the most serious food allergies in children?

So.... Gather your thoughts for a moment. Here's what happens...

Infant is vaccinated with hep B (virus) containing 250 mcg. Aluminum on first day of life. Liver is already overwhelmed from alcohol in the vitamin K shot. Infant develops jaundice (or worse). Infant receives 6-9 vaccines simultaneously at each of his/her "well-baby checks" at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. At each appointment, infant receives way more than the FDA "safe" amount of aluminum and mercury (since there is no safe amount of mercury), along with multiple viruses, bacteria, food proteins, animal proteins and DNA. Infant starts having signs of immune-system problems, usually within a short time of the 4 month vaccinations (if not before), and is then started on multiple rounds of antibiotics for ear infections and upper respiratory infections. Infant also starts having weird rashes ("viral") and "fevers of unknown origin."

What parents and physicians don't realize or take into account is what happens to the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) and the lining of the gastrointestinal tract as a result of the repeated injection of aluminum and mercury.

Nutrition time! There are certain things that are ESSENTIAL in the human body. Among those that are most important are Calcium, Magnesium and Zinc. These, along with Elemental Lithium, are "ESSENTIAL MINERALS." They are essential because when they are out of whack, nothing works right. (Technically, they are "essential" because the body can't manufacture them and they have to come from dietary intake or supplementation.)

Magnesium and Zinc are each involved in more than 300 enzymatic processes in the body, so when either one of them is depleted, or bio-unavailable, enzymes don't work. When the enzymes don't work, the body doesn't work. Period. And here's another fun fact - the essential minerals have to be in the right ratio in the body and if they aren't, they don't work. So if you have zinc, but you don't have the right amount of magnesium, zinc doesn't work (it's bio-unavailable), and vice-versa.

Aluminum and mercury deplete magnesium and zinc.

Here's a little information about zinc: ZINC is essential to maintain the integrity of BOTH the blood-brain-barrier AND the lining of the gastrointestinal tract. Read that again. The linings of the GI tract and the protective covering of the brain both contain something called "zinc fingers." Zinc fingers are like the weaves in a very well-constructed basket. Native Americans used to make baskets with weaves so tight they would not leak when filled with water. That's what zinc fingers do for the brain and the gut. They keep the weaves tight. They keep good things in and they keep bad things out. When zinc is either depleted or bio-unavailable, due to displacement by aluminum and mercury, those weaves open up. The GI tract and the BBB become "hyper-permeable." As in... intestinal hyper-permability ("leaky gut syndrome") and increased permeability of the blood-brain-barrier, which allows the passage into the central nervous system (CNS) of things like viruses and bacteria which should NOT be there.

Some of the research regarding MMR vaccine and "autism" involves the finding of active measles virus in the gastrointestinal tract and in the central nervous systems of children diagnosed with "autism."

Those researchers who are looking at MMR vaccine may say, "Aha! MMR vaccine causes the GI problems and brain problems that lead to the behaviors and then the diagnosis of 'autism!'"

Some of the research regarding Thimerosal/mercury and "autism" involves the finding that symptoms of "autism" are identical to symptoms of mercury toxicity, and children who regress into 'autism' after receiving vaccines containing mercury tend to have problems with the excretion of mercury. Those researchers may say, "Aha! Thimerosal in vaccines causes "autism!"

Both are correct.

Neither is exclusively correct, and neither is wrong.

Let's invite the 800-pound Aluminum Gorilla to the discussion and start talking about the fact that the amount of aluminum injected in vaccines has never been studied for safety or efficacy. And while we're at it, let's talk about the fact that those 6-9 vaccines given at each of the "well-baby checks" have never been studied as they are being administered.

Next, let's talk about The Nuremberg Code and how medical experimentation on human subjects without their consent or knowledge is against international law.  

Diet and Exercise Best way to Fight Cancer

Newly diagnosed cancer patients should be told to diet and exercise, amid mounting evidence that shedding the pounds is the best way to fight the disease, global experts have advised.

A daily brisk walk of just 25 minutes was found to almost halve mortality among breast cancer sufferers, while a waistline larger than 35 inches increased death rates by one third.

Results from a slew of trials showed “powerful” and “groundbreaking” evidence of the benefits of a slim waistline, with weightloss and exercise helping even those with advanced cancer.

Even those who took little exercise before diagnosis saw major benefits, experts told the world’s largest cancer conference, in Chicago.

"This is absolutely ground-breaking. These were women with late stage ovarian cancer. They were able to exercise and willing to and having very favourable results."

Melissa Irwin

Health watchdogs the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence last night said they would consider the evidence, which could result in fresh advice to millions of Britons, with two in three adults overweight or obese.

Experts said losing 5 per cent of body weight – which could mean as little as ten pounds – could lead to a 20 per cent increase in breast cancer survival. 

Leading oncologists said a cancer diagnosis offered a “window of opportunity” to convince patients to make lifestyle changes which could prolong their lives. 

They said those receiving a diagnosis should be warned to lose weight and take more exercise, even if such conversations were “sensitive”. 

One expert at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual conference, launching the first trial into high intensity exercise for prostate cancer patients, said the NHS should prescribe personal trainers for those diagnosed with cancer.

Obesity is linked to more than 10 types of the disease, including breast, bowel and ovarian cancer.

But until now, much of the emphasis has been on preventing weight gain to reduce the chances of developing the disease, rather than raising the issue in patients with cancer. 

Prof Melinda Irwin, Associate Director of Cancer Prevention for Yale Cancer Center, said diagnosis was a time for patients to make lifestyle changes. 

She said: “After treatment, weight loss is the most powerful thing you can do. It’s the next best pill to treatment and it’s free and has no side effects.”

Prof Irwin said doctors needed to be “sensitive” in raising the issue with newly diagnosed patients, but should not duck the issue. 

“Every woman diagnosed with breast cancer should be being counselled about weight loss and weight management, and about the role of exercise,” she said. 

“Diagnosis offers a window of opportunity, and diet and exercise can have a profound and powerful effect.”

Yale research led by Dr Irwin tracking almost 5,000 breast cancer sufferers found that three hours brisk walking a week was linked to a 46 per cent fall in mortality.  Even when women took up such regimes after decades of sedentary living, death rates fell by as much as 33 per cent. 

The observational study could not prove that the exercise caused the gains. 

But a raft of studies by Yale released in Chicago this week will reveal direct evidence about the mechanisms activated via weight loss and exercise. 

Dr Irwin said she was particularly excited about results from the first ever randomised controlled trial looking at the impact of exercise on ovarian cancer.

More than half the women in the six month trial had advanced disease.  

But those enrolled in a walking programme, doing at least 20 minutes a day of exercise saw “profound changes” in key biomarkers which reflect cancer progression.

“This is absolutely ground-breaking. These were women with late stage ovarian cancer. They were able to exercise and willing to and having very favourable results,” she said. The study of 144 women, found the half who were prescribed exercise saw a 27 per cent drop in levels of leptin, a hormone associated with cancer, and a 15 per cent decrease in IGF-1, a natural human growth hormone which fuels cancer spread. 

Article in the Telegraph dated 6/6/16

Make your own Laundry Soap

I LOVE making my own homemade cleaners - it makes me happy in about a million ways: my home is less toxic, I save bundles of money, I have fun experimenting in the kitchen, I feel smart and I teach my kids good values and save the earth.  Oh, and it's a little more fun to keep the house clean.  What could be better?

Here's one of my faves.  I adapted some recipes I found on the web, with my own suggestions for which kinds of soap I like best, how I make it, and how we use it in our house.  Enjoy!

• 1 Bar of natural bath soap (recommended: Kiss My Face Lemon Sage or 365 Lemon Verbena)
• Borax*
• Washing Powder*

* Use equal amounts of borax and washing powder.  How much varies depending on the size of your bar of soap.  You can extrapolate to other sizes:

• 7 oz bar of soap    =   1 1/2 cups each of the two powders.  
• 4.5 oz bar of soap =   1 cup of each.  
• 8 oz bar of soap    =   1 3/4 cups of each.

You can find borax and washing powder at some grocery stores or hardware stores.  In my area, I had to look at a few stores to find both of them.  A box of each will make several batches of laundry soap. 

FIRST: Grate the soap - You want the soap really finely ground.  This is the best way I've found so far.  It's pretty easy.  Otherwise, you'd want to grate it by hand.
I do the following, in my food processor:

1. Put in grating blade
2. Cut bar of soap in half
3. Grate each half (the whole bar is too big for my food processor intake)
4. Move the grated soap to a large bowl.  Put in grinding blade
5. Put the grated soap back in the food processor.  
6. Add 1/2 cup each of borax and washing powder
7. Pulse grind the mixture until soap is as small as you can get in

Now add to the rest of the borax and washing powder:

1. Dump the soap mixture from the food processor into a large bowl.
2. Add the rest of the borax and washing powder and mix well.
3. It's ready to use!  Put it in a convenient container with directions for using.

I keep my laundry soap powder in a large clear tupperware on top of the washer, with a 1 tablespoon measure in it.  You could also use a coffee can if you have a spare one.  I wrote directions suggesting 2-3 Tablespoons per load.  In reality, you can use 1 tablespoon for a very light load, and 3 for a really dirty one, with maybe a little splash of commercial detergent if the clothes are super dirty.  

MAKE SURE to give it a little stir before using, so the bits of ground soap and the white powdery parts are well mixed.  The yellow of the lemon soap helps make it visible when you do this.  We also like the lemon scents better than most other soap we tried, but you can experiment and see what you like.  

Healthier Fatty Acids Found in Organic Milk

Organic milk contains a healthier balance of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids compared with milk from cows raised on conventionally managed dairy farms, according to a new study.

Add it to the list of things that are bad for you: milk!

The healthier fatty acid profile of organic milk is likely a result of cows foraging on grass, the researchers said.

The scientists took 400 samples of organic and conventional milk from multiple regions in the United States over an 18-month period, and looked for the levels of various fatty acids in the milk. In particular, they looked for the balance between omega-6 and omega-3 contents , essential fatty acids that the human body cannot make from other raw materials and needs to obtain from diet.

The lab results showed that organic milk had an average ratio of omega-6 fatty acid to omega-3 fatty acid of 2.3, whereas conventional milk had an average ratio of 5.8, according to the study published today (Dec. 9) in the journal PLOS ONE. The study was partly funded by two organic farmers' cooperative organizations, which were not involved in the design of the study.

A high ratio of omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3 fatty acids in people's diets has been linked to a higher risk of health problems, such as heart disease . Studies have suggested that the healthiest ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 in the diet is about 2.3.

The results are in line with previous research showing that eating grass and legumes promotes cow health as well as improves the fatty acid profile of organic dairy products, said study author Charles Benbrook, of the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.
"The impact of fresh grass on the fatty acid profile of the milk is a well-accepted phenomenon. It is rooted in the physiology and metabolism of dairy cows," Benbrook said.

"A conventional farm that provides their cows with access to grass would reap the same benefit in terms of the quality of the milk," Benbrook added.

Organic farmers are required to follow standards set by the United States Department of Agriculture. These rules include providing access to the outdoors, including to pasture for ruminants.

READ MORE