Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Eight Types of Vitamin E— And the Most Popular One is the WRONG One!
We've known for a while that vitamin E helps prevent cancer. But as it turns out, some forms of the vitamin are more powerful than others. And sometimes certain forms of this vitamin may actually increase your chance of developing cancer. Details follow. . .
Continued below. . .
The secret to curing cancer:
You've been throwing it in the trash!
In 1921, a British doctor discovered that a remote tribal people was almost totally cancer-free. But when members of this tribe move away from their native land and change their diet, they get cancer just like anyone else.
It's all thanks to a food most of us throw away as waste!
Click here now and watch a video presentation about this cancer breakthrough. One cancer expert calls this overlooked food "the key to curing AND preventing cancer"—and you can benefit NOW—without going to a doctor or buying expensive supplements. This little throwaway food tastes great. Bill Clinton (of all people) eats it regularly, and so can you. [Click here now to watch the video!]
Even though scientists have known about vitamin E since 1922, they've only started to figure out what it can really do in the last several years.
For starters, there are actually eight types of vitamin E. Four are "tocopherols," and four are "tocotrienols." Each group has an alpha, beta, gamma, and delta subtype. The main difference between tocopherols and tocotrienols is a slight variation in chemical structure.
When you buy vitamin E supplements in the store, chances are you're buying alpha-tocopherol. The ingredient list might say "alpha-tocopherol and mixed tocopherols," but the reality is that it's mostly alpha-tocopherol. Few vitamin E supplements include any form of tocotrienols.
Yet by some estimates, tocotrienols are 50 times more powerful than tocopherols. This makes them much more effective in disease prevention. Of course, they're also a lot more expensive. But for those who can afford it, the benefits are extreme.
Tocotrienols and their incredible healing properties
Overall, vitamin E has a good reputation in the natural health world because it's known to protect DNA from free radical damage—one of the causes of cancer. Other benefits are that it enhances the immune system, protects cell membranes, and shelters active enzyme sites from damage. It may even block the formation of nitrosamines (carcinogens that form in the stomach from nitrites).
Tocotrienols take that good reputation one step beyond. According to current research, this form of vitamin E effectively reduces cholesterol, protects against brain cell damage, and prevents cancer.
Tocotrienols don't occur in nature as often as tocopherols, but they are natural compounds. They can be found in varying concentrations in vegetable oils, wheat germ, saw palmetto, barley, and certain nuts and grains.
Commercial sources of tocotrienol are rice, palm, and annatto. (Annatto is a natural yellow-orange food coloring. It comes from the fruit of the achiote tree, found in tropical South America.)
What's interesting is that tocopherols—the form of vitamin E widely available in our supplement industry—don't appear to have the same biological characteristics as their tocotrienol siblings.
In chemical terms, tocotrienols have an unsaturated side-chain that allows them to quickly penetrate tissues coated with saturated fatty layers. This boils down to a more functional molecular "tail." It's not as long or as stiff as the chemical tail found on tocopherols, so it's easier for the compound to move around cells and neutralize free radicals—something tocotrienols do far more efficiently than tocopherols.
Tocotrienols are also better at reversing oxidative stress to skin that's been exposed to UV rays. Overall, they appear to be much more potent than tocopherols when it comes to prompting an anti-oxidation and anti-cancer effect.
What's strange is that this isn't really new information. Scientists suggested back in 2000 that tocotrienols make better antioxidants than tocopherols, particularly when it comes to cancer prevention. So here we've known for over a decade that tocotrienols are more powerful and more effective, yet current formulations of vitamin E supplements still consist mostly of alpha-tocopherol.
Worse, alpha-tocopherol seems to interfere with tocotrienol benefits by decreasing absorption ability. A recent Japanese study even showed that tocopherols, and alpha-tocopherol in particular, interferes with the ability of delta-tocotrienol to induce apoptosis (natural cell death) in cancer cells.1 It does this by blocking the absorption of delta-tocotrienol.
Little-known anti-cancer research with promising possibilities
In terms of cancer prevention and treatment, tocotrienols seem to be able to neutralize something called vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). This is important when you're battling cancer, since VEGF prompts the development of new blood vessels built to feed growing tumors.
This process whereby cancer forms its own network of blood vessels is called angiogenesis. If tocotrienols indeed slow down or stop BOTH angiogenesis AND apoptosis, it's a very big deal.
At the very least, we've seen this promising research come out about the specific benefits of tocotrienols:
* Pancreatic cancer: Tocotrienols appear to be the more effective antioxidant over tocopherols thanks to their unsaturated side chain.
That chain allows the compound to penetrate better into saturated, fatty layers of the liver and brain, which gives it an advantage in terms of halting the formation of tumors, DNA damage, and cell damage.
A 1993 study on rats with liver cancer proved this.2 Less liver cell damage was detected in the group that received palm tocotrienols.
* Breast cancer: In vitro studies conducted in the 1990s showed tocotrienols helped inhibit the growth of human breast cancer cells. Tocotrienols appeared to work synergistically with tamoxifen, (a common breast cancer medicine) to kill cancer cells.3
Delta-tocotrienols appeared be the most effective in inducing apoptosis in cancer cells, and gamma-tocotrienols supposedly inhibit ld1, a key cancer-promoting protein.
* Prostate cancer: Different studies show delta- and gamma-tocotrienols suppress prostate cancer cell proliferation. In contrast, another study showed that alpha-tocopherol enhanced cancer cell growth.4
* Skin cancer: In a study at the University of Hong Kong, skin cancer cell numbers decreased when treated with gamma-tocotrienol and chemotherapy drugs.5 Other studies have shown tocotrienols suppress the growth of melanoma.6
These studies seem promising because they're focused specifically on tocotrienols. But as a whole the research is confusing. For example, some studies show lower prostate and breast cancer rates are associated with a higher intake of vitamin E. Yet, postmenopausal breast cancer incidence appears unaffected by vitamin E intake.
Part of the problem is that the scientific community only recently started to pay attention to tocotrienols. Most research up until a few years ago focused on alpha-tocopherol. Studies on tocotrienols made up less than 1% of total research on vitamin E.
That's starting to change. Now researchers have ramped up their efforts to understand tocotrienols. In the past few years, almost 30% of the peer-reviewed studies on vitamin E have been specific to tocotrienols.
Based on those few studies, tocotrienols so far have been shown to be safe. They appear to have no adverse effects when taken for a period as long as four years (the length of the longest study to date).
Right now, a study going on at the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, is recruiting participants for a study on tocotrienols. Researchers are hoping to determine the safest dose of delta-tocotrienol. They also want to establish how often it should be taken, along with how well it helps patients with pancreatic tumors. The study won't be completed till 2013.
How to get hold of this natural, cancer-altering treatment
You can buy tocotrienol supplements without alpha-tocopherol, but they're expensive. You want to look for supplements that are mostly made up of tocotrienols, with 15% or less of alpha-tocopherol.
You also want to look for supplements derived from natural sources—at least for now. It's known that synthetic mixtures of tocopherols are not the biological equivalent to naturally occurring compounds, though they're widely used in academic research and in commercial products. In fact, this is one of the problems with a lot of vitamin studies to date—they use synthetic tocopherols.
If you can afford tocotrienol supplements, you probably won't have much trouble avoiding synthetic products because they're not yet widely available. In theory, they should be relatively cheap to produce. They'd also likely provide many of the same clinical benefits natural tocotrienol appears to have.
Meanwhile, the research on widely-available alpha-tocopherol is confusing and contradictory. I wouldn't take more than 400 i.u. a day, given the strange studies that suggest it may actually promote cancer under some circumstances.
I'm sure this statement will bring me a few angry emails from readers, but it's a fact that the status of alpha-tocopherol is not at all clear right now. The research shows a confusing array of benefits and possible risks, with little to gain from taking large doses.
If you're looking for the most powerful anti-cancer properties from vitamin E, go for the tocotrienols. You'll probably have to pay a hefty price ... but it might be worth it.
As our last issue mentioned, nuts (especially walnuts) are a rich source of vitamin E and are probably a better bet than alpha-tocopherol pills. In fact, just eating walnuts can knock back the growth of cancer cells as much as 40%! If you missed this article, you can scroll down and catch it now. . .
Footnotes 1st article:
1Shibata A, Nakagawa K, Sookwong P, Tsuduki T, Asai A, Miyazawa T (June 2010). "alpha-Tocopherol attenuates the cytotoxic effect of delta-tocotrienol in human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells". Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 397 (2): 214-9.
2 Rahmat A., et al. "Long-term administration of tocotrienols and tumor-marker enzyme activities during hepatocarcinogenesis in rats." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8102564
3 Guthrie, Najla, et al. "Inhibition of Proliferation of Estrogen Receptor-Negative MDA-MB-435 and -Positive MCF-7 Human Breast Cancer Cells by Palm Oil Tocotrienols and Tamoxifen, Alone and in Combination." http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/3/544S.long
4 Campbell, Sharon. et al. "?-Tocotrienol induces growth arrest through a novel pathway with TGF?2 in prostate cancer." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584911000979
5 Piek Ngoh Chang, et al. "Evidence of ?-Tocotrienol as an Apoptosis-Inducing, Invasion-Suppressing, and Chemotherapy Drug-Sensitizing Agent in Human Melanoma Cells." http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01635580802567166
6 McAnally, Jennifer, et al. "Tocotrienols Potentiate Lovastatin-Mediated Growth Suppression In Vitro and In Vivo." http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/content/232/4/523.long
Friday, November 25, 2011
Cancer Defeated Update
By Lee Euler
Some cancer remedies work, some don't
As the publisher, I've had the opportunity to meet and work with some great doctors and researchers in this field. Thanks to them I know a lot more about successful cancer treatment than I did just a couple of years ago.
For sure I know two things: some alternative cancer treatments do work.
They don't work 100% of the time, and nobody claims they do. But there are plenty of people walking around healthy today -- years after conventional doctors told them they had only a few months left.
The second thing I've learned is this: there are DOZENS of alternative cancer treatments and some of them sound pretty flaky. It's really hard to sort out what you should do.
I'm in the same boat as you
I'm not a health professional and I'm not a scientist. I'm just a writer/publisher who got interested in this stuff because I want to know what steps to take if a doctor tells me I've got cancer.
My colleagues and I formed a new company, Online Publishing & Marketing, to help answer that very question. Our mission is to sort through the mountain of confusing information so you can make an informed decision about cancer treatment.
In the past several years, eight of my relatives and friends have been diagnosed with cancer, and two have passed away. It's a big, big topic in my family, I guarantee you.
That's why I want you to know about a natural health book I came across called Rethinking Cancer, by Ruth Sackman.
This is THE book if you want total health instead of a band-aid approach
Rethinking Cancer will surprise a lot of people. What's more, some people aren't going to like it - including some top experts in alternative health.
If you think there's a magic supplement out there that's going to cure cancer, you may not like this book.
Sackman is not against supplements. She even recommends some of them under certain circumstances. But in her opinion pills are not the answer.
She also believes that most of the people who offer cancer alternatives are sincere - they just happen to be wrong. That includes your cousin or your best friend's aunt who knows somebody who cured their cancer with an alternative approach.
Of course, they want to help. But Ruth Sackman believes their advice is usually wrong and sometimes it's downright dangerous.
There are a lot of alternative remedies, and Sackman admits that sometimes they shrink tumors 50 percent or 70 percent or even 90 percent. But that's not a cure, by her strict standards. It's a band-aid approach. All too often the cancer comes back worse than ever.
Why you should listen to Ruth Sackman
I'm not sure Ruth Sackman is completely right, but let me tell you, one light after another went on in my brain as I read her book and realized she could be on the right track.
Reading the book, I remembered that alternative therapists do often speak of shrinking tumors, not getting rid of them. And if you look at things the way Sackman does, those are weasel words. "Shrinking" is not enough.
Heaven knows I don't knock it. It's better than nothing!
But you should read and consider Rethinking Cancer if you want to get totally well - if you want to eliminate the root causes of this disease. In a moment I'll tell you how to get a copy.
How Sackman became a cancer crusader
Sackman lost a daughter, Arlene, to leukemia more than 30 years ago. That would be tragic for any of us, but it was even worse because the cancer was detected early, and her young, healthy daughter seemed like an ideal person to beat it.
Unfortunately, Arlene and her parents took the advice of conventional physicians and tried chemotherapy first. You won't be surprised that Arlene got worse instead of better.
She stopped the chemo and tried a nutritional approach, but her system was already so damaged by chemo that she didn't get the results she hoped for. Arlene panicked and went back on chemotherapy. As Sackman writes, "From then on it was all downhill."
After Arlene passed away, her mother took stock of what had happened. She saw that the nutritional approach had helped her daughter, and that Arlene probably should have stayed with it.
As a result of this horrible loss, Ruth Sackman became a lifelong cancer crusader. She co-founded a nonprofit group called the Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy, or FACT.
You can discover what's worked for thousands of patients over the last 30 years
FACT does not treat patients nor does it officially endorse one treatment over another. It exists purely to gather and distribute information about cancer prevention and non-toxic cancer therapies.
What's more, FACT is supported by contributions. It's totally independent of doctors and other healthcare providers. There's nothing wrong with doctors, but often they can't speak freely because they're afraid of losing their licenses, or they may have a vested interest in one particular therapy. FACT didn't want to be tied up by those limitations.
The folks at FACT are free to speak their minds. Over the years, FACT has referred thousands of patients to practitioners who get good results time and time again.
And it's the feedback from all these patients over such a long period that makes Ruth Sackman's Rethinking Cancer such a valuable book.
If you're ready to get serious about beating cancer. . .
You'll learn all about Sackman's approach in the book (which you can click here to order, available in the U.S. only). But the quick summary is this: cancer is a systemic disease. In other words, Sackman believes the whole system is sick - the whole body is sick. The tumors or cancer cells are just symptoms of something deeper.
It makes sense. Just think of how often surgeons tell patients "they got it all," only to have the disease bounce back. Sounds like a systemic problem to me.
What's more, our bodies are sick because of the food we eat. Poor elimination of wastes makes the problem even worse.
Cancer is a disease at the cellular level - Sackman agrees with conventional medicine to that extent. But she says killing the sick cells isn't the answer. Neither are drugs OR supplements.
The answer is whole, unprocessed foods that supply the nutrients the body needs to build normal, healthy cells.
This strict diet can be used in conjunction with other therapies. Sackman endorses hyperthermia, the number one therapy in our Special Report Natural Cancer Remedies that Work, by Dr. Morton Walker.
Hyperthermia is based on the fact that a high fever kills cancer cells, and now doctors have safe ways to raise the body temperature without resorting to infection. Sackman has some valuable insights to add to what we told you in Natural Cancer Remedies.
Sackman also speaks favorably of Essiac, the North American Indian herbal remedy that's credited with thousands of successful cancer treatments over the last 70 years (it's Remedy #10 in Natural Cancer Remedies that Work. Click here if you don't own this report and would like to order a copy.)
But Sackman views all these measures as mere adjuncts to proper diet and waste elimination.
Keep reading if you hate the word "diet"
If you're like me, your eyes glaze over when someone says you have to totally change your life to get well. Give up meat, sugar, white flour, caffeine, and alcohol, and live on juices and raw vegetables? You've gotta be kidding!
That was the reaction of Richard A. Mott. Sackman describes his case history in detail, along with those of six other patients who survived from ten to thirty years after being declared "hopeless."
"Mr. Mott heard [the dietary] instructions with a sinking heart," Sackman writes. "As one whose meat-and-potatoes diet had been a daily necessity, he wondered whether this deprivation was worth the effort of saving his life. But then he thought, "Since my doctors give me only three months to live, why not give it a try?"
In six months Richard Mott went from being unable to get out of bed to being up and around, exercising a little and taking long walks in the country. His friends couldn't believe how well he looked.
And a few months after that, the same doctors who had wanted to remove his lung had to admit they couldn't find a trace of cancer in his body. In other words. . .
He achieved 100 percent remission
I'm impressed with Ruth Sackman's ideas because they fit so well with everything else I'm learning about alternative cancer treatments.
It's not only this book that sold me. Before I came across Rethinking Cancer, I heard dozens of similar case histories from many other sources. The more I learn, the more sense this approach makes.
One of the methods she recommends is called the Gerson Therapy. You'll find details on the Gerson Therapy in Natural Cancer Remedies that Work by Dr. Morton Walker.
When my associates and I first published this report a couple of years ago, my reaction to Gerson's diet was, "Yeah, right. Who's going to do that?"
Now that I've learned more, I have to tell you it would be the first thing I'd do if I found out I have cancer. And meanwhile, my everyday diet is moving closer and closer to Gerson's recommendations. (You might be relieved to learn that Sackman thinks a little meat is okay.)
228 pages of priceless information that can save your life
I've barely touched the surface of Ruth Sackman's remarkable book. I urge you to get your own copy (click here available in the U.S. only) and see for yourself.
Besides the Gerson Therapy, she gives you details on five other nutrition-based programs with solid track records, so you can make an informed decision.
And there's something very important I haven't mentioned: Sackman is frank about the distressing symptoms you may experience as your body ejects decades of toxins and poisons.
In fact, even a one-day juice fast can make some people feel ill. It's not the fast, it's the release and elimination of the poisons.
If you read the book, you'll know what to expect and you won't make the tragic mistake of giving up because you think you're getting sicker.
It's not all about diet
Besides hyperthermia and Essiac (the Indian herbal), Sackman gives you four additional therapies every cancer patient should know about.
In other words, it's not all about diet. It's just that nutrition is the main event.
She winds up the book with the answers to 60 frequently asked questions. She already knows what you'd ask if you could meet her in person, because she's helped so many people over many decades.
Are chemotherapy or radiation ever the right decision? Surprisingly, Sackman says they sometimes are.
Do you have to be a total vegetarian? (The short answer is no. But see the details.)
Is surgery ever the right answer for breast cancer?
Are conventional cancer treatments leading to longer survival times, as doctors claim? Sackman says no, and she explains why the statistics are misleading. In fact, the cancer death rate is going up.
What can you do to get the facts out of a doctor who wants to be "kind" and not tell you the truth about your disease? You have the right to know, but have to know how to ask.
What does she think of the claims for vitamin C made by Linus Pauling and others?
Are child vaccinations a bad idea?
Do biopsies spread cancer?
You'll get the answers to these and many other questions.
You're protected by our money-back guarantee
Just take a look at Rethinking Cancer. You take no risk. If you're not satisfied with the book for any reason, return it to us and you'll receive a full, 100% refund, no questions asked. And take your time - you can look at it for 60 days before making a decision. CLICK HERE TO ORDER (Available in the U.S. only).
Hokie Playmakers Could be the Difference Saturday by Chris Coleman, TechSideline.com, November 25, 2011
Virginia Tech has defeated UVA for seven years in a row, and they've been statistically dominant in every single game. Only one contest in that span has been decided by single digits, and the Hoos haven't gained 300 yards of total offense against the Hokies since their last victory against Tech in 2003.
When you look at the total yardage in each game, and you see what an advantage the Hokies have had, it's easy to see why Tech has won seven in a row against their in-state rivals. VT vs. UVA
Year Margin VT Rush VT Pass VT Total UVA Rush UVA Pass UVA Total
2004 14 147 200 347 188 111 299
2005 38 333 170 503 114 140 254
2006 17 156 146 302 46 66 112
2007 12 131 299 430 97 144 241
2008 3 216 176 392 172 77 249
2009 29 298 185 483 175 120 295
2010 30 201 182 383 70 221 291
Average 20.43 211.71 194.00 405.71 123.14 125.57 248.71
The Hokies have won each game by an average of two touchdowns, they have outrushed the Hoos by nearly 90 yards per game, and they have gained over 150 yards per game more in total offense. Tech, not known for how they throw the ball in most years, has outgained the Hoos through the air in six of the past seven seasons. This rivalry has been completely one-sided in favor of the Hokies.
Virginia Tech has had many game breaking players participate in the games from 2004 through 2007: Bryan Randall, Eddie Royal, Brandon Flowers, Chris Ellis, Vince Hall, Xavier Adibi, Ryan Williams, Darren Evans, Tyrod Taylor, Josh Morgan ... the list goes on and on.
Virginia has had some first round talent, such as Chris Long, but overall the Hokies have had the impact players in this rivalry in recent years, and their presence on the field has been the difference. Again in 2011, Virginia Tech will have at least the two best college players on the field in David Wilson and Logan Thomas, and if the Hokies win, it will likely be these two players who are the difference.
Wilson leads the ACC in rushing yards per game, averaging 131.1 yards per game. He is the most explosive outside runner in the league. Meanwhile, Logan Thomas is gaining steam and getting stronger as the year goes on. As we pointed on in Wednesday's game preview, in his last six games Thomas has a quarterback rating of 158.17. He's thrown for 1,452 yards in that span, with 12 touchdowns and two interceptions.
Thomas has also been a force on the ground, and he has developed into Virginia Tech's top short yardage runner. In those six games, he has run for 257 yards and eight touchdowns.
Both Thomas and Wilson are ACC Player of the Year candidates. They have that type of talent. When two of the best offensive players in the league are in the same backfield, combined with the two leading receivers in school history, that becomes a very difficult offense to stop.
Virginia is a good football team that has earned their chance to beat the Hokies for the Coastal Division Championship. But do they have the star power to match up with Logan Thomas, David Wilson and the talented Tech offense? We'll find out on Saturday.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Simply eating a lot of walnuts may inhibit prostate cancer growth or stop it outright.
That was the finding of Paul Davis, UC Davis Cancer Center researcher. He proved the impact of walnuts by studying mice genetically programmed to develop prostate cancer.1 The results were startling. Details follow this word about one of the fine books we publish. . .
Continued below. . .
Ten-year breast cancer survivor was told:
"You'll be dead in a year" (Pssst!! That was 10 years ago!)
Doctors didn't give Wiltrude much hope when they diagnosed her with cancer in the year 2000. Wiltrude, a German psychologist, never thought cancer would happen to her. But it did. And it came as a big shock.
One doctor told her, "You'll be dead in a year." Late stage breast cancer is virtually incurable using conventional treatments. Even M.D.s admit it. They talk about "buying you more time." (Don't count on it. The evidence shows you're better off doing nothing than chemo.)
When Wiltrude told her doctor she was going to try alternative treatments, he said, "You are committing suicide with what you're doing." But she was determined to find a way to beat her cancer.
Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, this European woman came across a book by my good friend Bill Henderson, one of the smartest and wisest people I know when it comes to cancer treatment.
She tried Bill's top, number one recommendation—a gentle treatment you can do at home for just $5.15 a day. What's more, the cost goes down to $3.50 after six weeks because you just need a maintenance dose. And it even tastes good.
Not only has Wiltrude passed the five-year cancer survival mark, she's survived for ten years. We just interviewed her recently for this publication. The radiologist who tests her every year told her, "You're the only one with this kind of result."
You can find out about Bill's proven cancer treatment plan in a free video presentation—click here to watch it now.
When I ask him about some of the treatments that top alternative doctors use, Bill sort of shrugs and says, "They're fine, but why bother? My treatment works, you can do it yourself, and it costs practically nothing."
He's coached thousands of cancer patients with all different types and stages of cancer. Most of the people who follow the detailed, specific plan in this Special Report get over their cancer and live for years.
"Almost any kind of cancer is reversible," says Bill. "I never give up on anyone."
Click here and watch the free video presentation about Bill's amazing cancer protocol.
In Davis's experiment, the mice eating the human equivalent of 2.4 ounces of whole walnuts daily for 18 weeks had significantly smaller and slower growing prostate tumors than did the control group eating equivalent fats from other sources.
The whole walnut diet slashed prostate cancer growth by 30-40%.2
The study also established that walnuts affected multiple genes which control tumor growth. And walnuts aren't the only nut with healthy benefit. . .
Nuts may be that rare thing—something that's
fun to eat AND good for you
Portable, long shelf life, nutritious, no preparation needed...
One of the most convenient and nutritious snack foods available... Yet nuts get a bad rap for being "too high-fat".
But placing all the focus on their high fat level is missing the big picture. Nuts can be an important part of a low-carb diet. And after many years of hearing the arguments fly back and forth, and doing some experimenting on myself, I've decided carbs are the main enemy, not fats.
It was the cancer connection that was the last straw for me. Refined carbohydrates have a clear role in promoting cancer—not to mention diabetes and heart disease. And nuts are a great way of getting off carbs.
Nuts are a rich storehouse of omega-3 fatty acids and flavonoid antioxidants (carotenes, quercetin, resveratrol, and lutein)—with the added benefit of fighting inflammation. Nuts reduce your risk of:
* Various cancers
* High blood pressure, coronary artery disease
* Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, and depression.
Nuts have mineral power too... manganese, potassium, calcium, iron, magnesium, zinc, and selenium.
Manganese helps you produce the enzyme superoxide dismutase, a powerful free radical scavenger. Potassium helps control heart rate and blood pressure. And your body needs copper and iron to produce red blood cells.
What's more, nuts are a good source of B-complex vitamins, critical for energy and well-being.
Lastly, they provide high levels of vitamin E—a powerful lipid-soluble free radical scavenger.
Despite the warnings about the "high fat" content of nuts, I couldn't find evidence showing that eating nuts causes weight gain. In fact, replacing pastas and breads with a handful of nuts may control insulin resistance and help you lose weight.
Nuts are rich in this known cancer-fighter
Selenium shows great promise as a cancer preventive. Many studies show it's an effective tool against breast, esophageal, stomach, prostate, liver and bladder cancers. And it's an especially strong free radical scavenger that works synergistically with vitamins C, E and beta-carotene.
A 1996 study by Dr. Larry Clark showed a staggering 42% cancer rate reduction in those who took 200 micrograms of selenium daily for seven years, versus the placebo group. And in the selenium group, death rates were half that of the placebo group. Best results were for prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers.
Jean Carper, in Miracle Cures, called Dr. Clark's findings an "unprecedented cancer intervention study" that "bumped up the respectability of using supplements against cancer several notches."
Many foods contain selenium... But the bioavailable amount is heavily dependent on how selenium-rich the soil is. Soils rich in volcanic ash or in sediment deposited by sea water boast a higher selenium content than do other types of soil.
In the long run, your cancer risk may be determined by selenium levels where you live (assuming you eat locally grown food and don't take a selenium supplement). One theory for why cancer rates are so high in Linxian, China, dubbed "the world capital of cancer", is that the soil is woefully deficient in selenium and zinc.
It's been suggested that one reason American men are five times more likely to die from prostate cancer than Japanese men is that in general, "the Asian diet contains four times the amount of selenium as the average American diet."
What does selenium do? It activates an enzyme called glutathione peroxidase, which scavenges free radicals. Test tube studies show this enzyme inhibits tumor growth and regulates the natural life span of cells—ensuring they die when they're supposed to, instead of turning "immortal".
What else does selenium do?
* Converts hydrogen peroxide to water (preventing lipid peroxidation)
* Acts as an immune stimulant
* Produces antibodies
* Maintains a healthy heart and liver
Dr. Andrew Weil suggests this simple way to bump up your selenium levels...
Eat Brazil nuts!
Just one shelled Brazil nut—grown in central Brazil's selenium rich soil—gives you 120 micrograms of this mineral, getting you more than half way to your daily target of 200 micrograms.3
A staple in the Brazilian diet, these nuts—though high in fat and calories— actually reduce LDL cholesterol (the bad stuff), raise HDL (good cholesterol), and prevent cardiovascular disease and stroke. They're high in vitamin E, the B-vitamins, and minerals. Remember, selenium is more powerful when combined with vitamin E.
Selenium is especially important for those with prostate cancer.4
Like many nuts, Brazil nuts can cause allergic reactions in sensitive people, such as itchy mouth, wheezing, tight throat, hives, and even severe anaphylactic reaction. If you experience any symptoms after eating nuts, this issue's health tip is not for you. Consider taking a selenium supplement instead.
Excessive selenium levels may create toxicity. But since most people are deficient, that's a small concern.
What other specific kinds of nuts offer big health benefits? Check these out. Maybe you'll find a new excuse to eat your favorites.
Double the antioxidants of other nuts
You might want to eat a handful of walnuts every day to get the benefit of their potent antioxidant effects.
They deliver a near perfect balance of vitamins, minerals, and fiber—and also boast healthful oleic acid and omega-3 fats which lower deadly artery-clogging LDL cholesterol. Making walnuts part of your daily diet can help ward off cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Dr. Joseph Vinson compared walnuts to nine other nut species high in antioxidants—and found walnut's antioxidants were 2 to 15 times more powerful than vitamin E, doing more for your health than peanuts, almonds, pecans or pistachios.
His analysis also found that eating walnuts in their raw and natural form provides higher nutrient levels, because heating and roasting degrade its antioxidants.
Walnut's other benefits?
* Lower LDL and higher HDL5
* Rich source of vitamin E—a powerful lipid soluble free radical scavenger6
* Packed with B-complex, magnesium, zinc, calcium, iron, copper, selenium7
* Contain melatonin, ellagic acid, vitamin E, carotenoids, and poly-phenolic compounds8
* Fights cancer, inflammation, aging, heart attacks, stroke and neurological disease9
Walnuts may be particularly helpful for breast10 and prostate11 cancers. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, a diet rich in walnuts resulted in a 30 to 40 percent reduction in prostate cancer growth in mice.
And then there's...
The raw nut that's not really raw
Almonds have long been a symbol for wellness and health.
Like other nuts, they offer healthy levels of fats, vitamins, minerals, phyto-nutrients, vitamin E, B-complex vitamins, selenium, and other antioxidants. They're also gluten free and part of a Mediterranean diet.
As you might expect, they're protective against coronary disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and more.12
Almonds' high levels of folic acid are believed to help lower homocysteine levels, cutting your risk of arterial buildup. One study showed that just 3 ounces per day lowered cholesterol by 14%.13
Their high fiber improves digestive function, reduces constipation, and lowers colorectal cancer risk.
Almonds help control your blood sugar levels, too, making this snack beneficial for diabetics, the insulin resistant, and the overweight. Plus, munching on a few almonds after work may make you less inclined to overeat at dinnertime.
As with any food, once you heat it, you denature the proteins and make it less bioavailable. But unfortunately, the U.S. government has taken that risk to a whole new level.
Warning—U.S. 'raw' almonds are NOT raw!
In 2001 and 2004, there were small salmonella outbreaks associated with just two specific almond growers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture seized the excuse to mandate pasteurization of U.S. almonds. They make no exceptions for organic almonds, especially after organic almond growers opposed to pasteurization lost a lawsuit on this issue in 2009. All domestically grown almonds must be pasteurized, post 2007.
Not to worry, though... Richard Waycott, CEO of the Almond Growers of California reassures us that they no longer use heat or radiation to pasteurize.
Instead they use propylene oxide!
Per Wikipedia, propylene oxide was once used as a racing fuel, but that practice is now prohibited under the National Hot Rod Association rules for safety reasons. (Ironic, isn't it?) It was used in glow fuel for model aircraft and surface vehicles, typically as an additive in small percentages of around 2% to the typical methanol, nitromethane, and oil mix. And, it's also used in thermobaric weapons.
Warnings from the EPA's Hazard Summary sheet on propylene oxide:
* Short-term exposure causes eye and respiratory tract irritation.
* Skin contact, even diluted, causes irritation and necrosis in humans.
* Depresses the central nervous system (CNS) in humans.
* Causes tumors near the site of administration in rodents.
* Classified as a probable human carcinogen (Class 2B) by the EPA.
But yet, it's 'safe' for fumigating your almonds?
I can't recommend organically grown almonds.
You might be able to get true organic almonds by taking advantage of a loophole or two. You'd need to buy from a retailer or mail order supplier who sells imported almonds, or who buys from a farmer in amounts less than 100 pounds. Of course, this suggests that salmonella was never really the issue—but that's another whole story.
The rest of the nuts
In the space I've got, I can't go into detail on every conceivable nut. But certainly pecans and cashews rank high in popularity and deserve a mention here.
They both possess many of the qualities of other nuts.
Cashews contain small amounts of Zeaxanthin, a flavonoid antioxidant that can be absorbed into your eyes, and may be protective against age related macular degeneration. Cashews also contain healthy levels of selenium.
Pecans contain ellagic acid, which inhibits the DNA binding of certain carcinogens, protecting you from cancer.14 And they're a rich source of vitamin E.
Lastly, there's the peanut, which isn't actually a nut at all, but a legume. Peanuts boast many of the same nutrients as true nuts, including antioxidants. They protect from cancer (particularly stomach cancer), heart disease, degenerative nerve diseases, Alzheimer's, and more.
However, besides being a common and sometimes serious allergen, peanuts are susceptible to fungal (read: mold) infection from aflatoxin—a very powerful and dangerous toxin known to cause cancer and liver cirrhosis. Roasting helps reduce its toxic load, but other nuts may give you more health benefits with less risk.
The bottom line on nuts...
Provided you don't have nut allergies, they provide many health-protective benefits not easily achievable by replacement with other foods. I eat raw nuts, not roasted and salted, and I buy organic whenever possible.
Interesting question: Are pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers actually used much in growing nuts? It doesn't seem to me that nuts would be subject to pests since they're protected by a shell. And they're grown on a tree, so why would a grower need herbicides? A lot of smart people read this newsletter, so maybe someone out there can answer this question. If my guess is right, it may not matter much if you eat nuts that aren't organic.
Nuts are a great option for wholesome gifts during the holidays and any time—much better than candy and cookies. And you do a great favor to diabetics and the insulin resistant to provide nuts at parties and family get-togethers.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Tech Defense Performs Well Despite Losses
by Chris Coleman, TechSideline.com, November 11, 2011
Virginia Tech had the best performance you could hope for on Thursday night against a powerful Georgia Tech rushing attack. The Yellow Jackets entered the game #2 in the country in rushing, and the Hokies went to Atlanta with a young, patchwork and banged up defense. Things didn't look promising on paper, but Bud Foster's defense turned in a very impressive performance.
GT Rushing Yards this Year
Opp. Yards YPC
Western Carolina 297 6.2
Middle Tennssee State 382 5.9
Kansas 604 12.1
UNC 312 5.4
NC State 296 5.7
Maryland 272 4.5
UVA 272 5.1
Miami 134 2.8
Clemson 383 5.7
VT 243 5.0
Average 319.5 5.84
Only Miami held Georgia Tech to fewer rushing yards than the Virginia Tech defense did, and only the Hurricanes and the Maryland Terrapins limited the Yellow Jackets to fewer yards per carry. 243 rushing yards and five yards per carry might look like a lot on paper, but for Georgia Tech, its well below average.
Consider who Bud Foster had available to put on the field, and where he had to put them, and it's an even more remarkable accomplishment.
* A 6-0, 187-lbs cornerback (Kyle Fuller) playing whip linebacker
* A 6-2, 240-lbs defensive end (J.R. Collins) playing defensive tackle
* A 6-1, 219-lbs defensive end (Tyrel Wilson) in the starting lineup
* Missing from the lineup: Antoine Hopkins, Jeron Gouveia-Winslow, Alonzo Tweedy
* A mike linebacker who had played just four snaps all season
* A front seven that featured all sophomores with an average weight of just 237.7-lbs.
* A defense that featured just one starter (Kyle Fuller) who started against Georgia Tech at the same position in 2010
When you consider all of those facts, it just didn't seem likely that the VT defense would be able to put the clamps on the Georgia Tech offense, but they did. The Yellow Jackets broke their share of big plays, as they always do. But the VT defense took away the A-back option pitches, and Embry Peeples, Roddy Jones and Orwin Smith combined for just 10 touches all game. That was a big part of why the Hokies were successful on Thursday night.
Imagine if the Hokies had Antoine Hopkins to go along with his brother Derrick on the inside. That would have allowed J.R. Collins to play defensive end, and the defense probably would have fared even better against the Yellow Jackets.
Tech's defense will go back to normal next week against the traditional pro style offense of the North Carolina Tar Heels. While Thursday night's performance won't be looked back on as one of the best VT defensive performances ever, because of what the defense was missing heading into the game, it should be fondly remember by Tech fans.
Monday, November 7, 2011
GEORGE WASHINGTON WINS EXHIBITION OVER BOWIE STATE 92-65
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) The Bowie State University men’s basketball team dropped a 92-65 exhibition decision to Division I George Washington University Sunday night. GW’s Colonials are a member of the Atlantic 10 Conference and the former employer of Bulldogs head coach Darrell Brooks.
"We never gave ourselves a chance to win the game because we turned the ball over so much", said Brooks. "I thought we played pretty hard, the rebounds were even and I thought when we ran our offense we got good stuff out of it."
Junior Bryan Wilson (Upper Marlboro, Md.) and senior Jay Gavin (Seat Pleasant, Md.) and led Bowie State in scoring with 16 and 13 points respectively. Preseason All-CIAA selection Travis Hyman (Annapolis, Md.) struggled on offense, going 2-for-11 from the field but pulled down a game-high nine rebounds before fouling out with 7:57 left in the contest.
The Colonials jumped out to an early 8-2 advantage on three layups and a dunk. Bowie State pulled to within five at 16-11 with just over 13 minutes remaining in the first half, but would get no closer.
George Washington held a 51-26 lead at the half, shooting 60.6% from the floor (20-of-33). Bowie State shot 35.0% from the field (7-of-20) and committed 14 first period turnovers. Free throws were Bowie State’s main weapon in the first 20 minutes with the Bulldogs hitting 10-of-13 (76.9%).
The Colonials began the second half with a 15-4 run to open a very comfortable 66-30 cushion. George Washington’s largest lead of the night (84-43) came at the 5:41 left to play following a three-pointer by Bryan Bynes. Bynes came off the bench and hit 3-of-3 field goals to go along with four rebounds.
Points in the paint and points off turnovers were big for George Washington as the Colonials recorded 46 and 33 respectively.
Bowie State committed 31 turnovers overall and ended the night with a shooting percentage of 40.8. The Bulldogs did shoot free throws pretty well, converting 21-of-26 (80.8%). Bowie State won the battle on the glass, outrebounding George Washington 32-31.
Lasan Kromah paced George Washington with 23 points to go along with six assists. Tony Taylor and Aaron Ware added 12 points each for the Colonials. Taylor dished out a game-high nine assists. Other top scorers for the Colonials include John Kopriva and David Pellom with nine points apiece.
Brooks concluded his post game press conference saying, "I know we're going to be a better team come Friday ... taking care of the basketball and knowing what we're doing ... I'm excited about starting the regular season ... Tonight was a tough game but we've got to move on and get ready for the next one."
The Bulldogs officially tip-off the 2011-2012 season Friday, November 11th versus West Virginia State University at 6 pm on opening day of the Clarion Hotel Classic hosted by Shepherd University.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Let me begin with this statement. I have a cousin who is a VERY big fan of the WNBA.
We were having a discussion about whether the rim for the WNBA should be lowered by 4 - 6 inches, and it surprised me that we disagreed on this subject. I think it should be, and she thinks that it should stay the same. My main reason for lowering the rim is to add excitement for the fans. Her main reason for keeping it the same is that some people will think women are not as atheletic as men.
Looking strictly at the WNBA and NBA rules, there are already some differences:
1. 3 point line 20 feet 6 inches 23 feet 9 inches
2. Ball circumference 28.5 - 29 inches 29.5 - 29.875 inches
3. Ball weight 18 - 20 ounces 22 ounces
4. Time per quarter 10 minutes
5. Backcourt violation 8 seconds
There are probably other differences, but these are the only ones that was highlighted on each page that I researched.
The only difference I think is due to male vs. female is the ball circumference, which makes me believe that if the rim was lowered more women would be willing to attempt to dunk during games, thus making the games more exciting. I personally know and have seen at least 5 former or current WNBA players dunk on a 10 foot (regular height) basket.
Lisa Leslie is the first woman to successfully dunk during a WNBA game in 2002, the only woman to dunk twice in one season is Candace Parker in 2008, the most recent dunk is July 2009 by Sylvia Fowles, and there are only 4 women total who have dunked in a game. Of the 4 women that have officially dunked in a WNBA game, none are the 5 I mentioned. There is nothing anyone can say that will convince me that only 9 former or current WNBA players can really dunk, because I know it is not true. Michelle Snow, who dunked 3 times as a player at Tennessee, has not dunked once in the WNBA in her 9 seasons.
Lower the rim to make the game more exciting for the fans. Why would it make women look inferior to men? When I go to a basketball game I want to see something that is going to make me jump out of my seat and cheer. I'm not talking about just seeing a woman dunk like in the past, but seeing a woman attempt to dunk ON someone.
There is no LOSS of Integrity of the Game when there are already other differences.
What do you think?
MORGAN STATE HOLDS OFF BOWIE STATE 66-50 IN WOMEN’S EXHIBITION
(BALTIMORE, Md. – November 5, 2011) The Bowie State University Lady Bulldogs basketball team started slow, battled back in the second half, but came up short dropping a 66-50 exhibition to the Lady Bears of Morgan State University. Though the team took the tough loss, they had an impressive performance against their tough NCAA Division I opponents.
The Lady Bulldogs gave a good overall effort against their opponents, despite shooting 30% from the field (18-of-60). Morgan State shot slightly better, hitting 39% of their field goals (22-of-56). Senior forward Kimberly Jones (Upper Marlboro, Md. / Allegany C.C.) led the effort for the Lady Bulldogs with 15 points while sophomore forward Chanet Wallace (Baltimore, Md. / Westside Skills Center) and fellow sophomore Brooke Miles (Upper Marlboro, Md. / National Christian Academy) added 13 and 10 points respectively. Wallace and senior Juliette Turner (Atlanta, Ga. / John F. Kennedy HS) led Bowie State will nine rebounds each. Jones and Wallace blocked a game-high two blocks each for the Lady Bulldogs.
Bowie State trailed 31-18 after the first period of play, making just six-of-30 first half field goals. The Lady Bulldogs closed the deficit to seven twice in the second half with the last coming with 5:22 remaining and the Lady Bears leading 52-45.
Morgan State paraded to the free throw line over the final five minutes of play, making seven of 10 freebies down the stretch. Tracey Carrington paced the Lady Bears with a game-high 21 points to go along with 11 rebounds. Amarah Williams chipped in 16 points and Omara Parker hauled down a game-high 12 rebounds for the Lady Bears.
Bowie State will open the 2011-12 season next weekend when the team heads to Shepherdstown, W.Va. to take on Seton Hill in a 2:00 p.m. game hosted by Shepherd University.
LATE PENALTIES COSTLY IN BOWIE STATE’S 38-35 LOSS TO CHOWAN
(BOWIE, Md. – November 5, 2011) Late game penalties kill Bowie State comeback as the Chowan Hawks edge Bowie State 38-35 on 31-yard field goal by Ryan Murphy with seven seconds left in season finale for both teams. Chowan ends the season at 3-7 overall (2-5 CIAA) and Bowie State wraps up the year with a 4-6 overall record (3-4 CIAA).
Cameron Stover completed 23-of-35 passes for 187 yards and three touchdowns to lead the Hawks. Stover’s primary target was Robert Holland who led all receivers with 139 yard on 16 catches and was the recipient of all three TD passes.
The Hawks were led on defense by Jason Ampy with eight total tackles and Anthony Session, DaKorio DeSamme and Patrick Charles were credited with six tackles each.
Senior Clifton Budd paced the Bowie State Bulldogs with 100 all-purpose yards (11 rushing, 33 receiving and 56 return yards). Budd completed his final game in a Bulldogs uniform completing 11-of-20 passes. Senior quarterback Andre Johnson came off the bench to lead the Bowie State ground game with 84 rushing yards and one touchdown. Johnson also completed 10-of-17 passes for 78 yards and three second half touchdowns.
Senior Marcelus Manear had a career afternoon, tying for team-high tackles with eight to equal junior Bekewele Amadi.
Bowie State closed out the game with 335 total offensive yards and Chowan was right behind them with 315 total offensive yards. Penalties plagued Bowie State all season, and today was no exception. BSU’s Bulldogs’ tied their season-high of 15 penalties resulting in a school-record 215 yards.
Prior to the game 13 seniors (Reginald Berry, Clifton Budd, Terrance Hemsley, Kevin James, Andre Johnson, Delano Johnson, Tariq Jones, Marcelus Manear, Seth Minter, Matthew Odezugo, James Proctor, Kenneth Turner and Maurice Wilson) were honored with pictured plaques as a token of appreciation for their time as Bulldogs football players.
List Price $
Our Price: $180
You save $20.00
Not a TripleClicks Member? Learn more about the many benefits HERE.
Bye Week Hasn't Been Kind to Hokies
by Chris Coleman, TechSideline.com, November 4, 2011
A lot is being made of Virginia Tech having extra time to prepare for the Georgia Tech offense. A bye week is considered a good thing in this situation, and it certainly will help the Hokies get healthier. However, their recent results suggest that a bye week does not help them prepare better for the next opponent.
Hokies After a Bye Week, Last Six Games
Year Opp. Result Total Offense
2006 BC 22-3 L 181
2007 BC 14-10 L 265
2008 BC 28-23 L 240
2008 Maryland 23-13 W 400
2009 UNC 20-17 L 256
2010 GT 28-21 W 335
The Hokies have lost four of their last six games following a bye week. Their only wins came over a 6-7 Georgia Tech team in 2010, and an average Maryland team in 2008. Tech's offense has failed miserably in five of those six games, with their only 400 yard game coming in 2008 when Darren Evans rushed for a school record 253 yards.
All of those games were Thursday night games, and they've all but destroyed the myth that Virginia Tech was unbeatable in Thursday night games. On the contrary, the Hokies have played some of their worst football games on Thursday nights in recent years, particularly the offense.
In the past, Virginia Tech used to completely flatten teams when the Hokies were coming off a bye week.
Hokies After a Bye Week,
Previous Five Games
Year Opp. Result Total
2005 Virginia 52-14 W 503
2005 Maryland 28-9 W 497
2004 Maryland 55-6 W 376
2004 Georgia Tech 34-20 W 446
2004 Western Michigan 63-0 W 487
Tech won those games by an average of about five touchdowns, and they also averaged 461.8 yards of total offense in the process. Granted, the competition wasn't great. Western Michigan was a cupcake, and Maryland's 2004 team finished with a losing record. Even with the level of competition considered, it can't be argued that Tech hasn't been anywhere near as good following a bye week since the 2006 season.
Part of it is talent level. The Hokies struggled in 2006, 2007 and 2008 because they were not a good offensive football team in those years. It didn’t matter whether Tech had a bye or not, and it generally didn't even matter what team they were playing. Virginia Tech wasn't going to move the ball, and they weren't going to have a lot of high scoring, impressive victories.
However, the Hokies did have pretty good offenses in 2009 and 2010, and they were still very limited offensively against North Carolina (loss) and Georgia Tech (win).
Tech's 2011 offense, statistically speaking, is their best since the Michael Vick era. The Hokies have gained 400+ yards in each of the last four games, and that's the first time that has happened since the 1999 season. Tech certainly has the talent to put up good numbers offensively. With a few extra days to prepare, they'll have no excuse not to play well against Georgia Tech next week.
The Hokies will need their offense to play well, because Georgia Tech is a very good offensive football team that is going to be difficult to stop. Let's hope the bye week is kinder to Virginia Tech this week than it has been in recent years.
The Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball League (CRCBL) is proud to announce that it has expanded into the nation's capital, welcoming the new D.C. Grays as its tenth team in one of the country's premiere summer wood-bat college-level baseball leagues.
The Grays will play its home games at the newly-renovated baseball stadium, Hoy Field, at Gallaudet University in Northeast Washington, D.C., and will work with Gallaudet on a major new youth baseball outreach program for children in the District. The team, which boasts an ownership group that includes African-American representation, will also work to make sure that its roster includes a number of black college ballplayers. The team will do promotions and community events that celebrate the history of baseball in Washington D.C. The name chosen for the team evokes the memory of the Homestead Grays - the great Negro League champion team that played in Washington, D.C. in the 1930s and 40s.
The Grays will be the tenth team in the Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball League, which is made up of teams from the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. metropolitan region and feature amateur players from colleges and universities around the country. The Cal Ripken League, founded in 2005, is quickly becoming a 'destination point' for collegiate players as one of the top summer wood bat leagues in the country.
Back in the early 1990s, the FDA tried to make many supplements illegal. Consumers were so alarmed by the FDA's bullying that they staged a massive revolt. The result was that Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). That law protected supplements from the FDA unless the FDA could prove a supplement wasn't safe.
There was, however, a loophole in the 1994 law. The FDA was given the authority to regulate new ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994.
So what happened? Nothing at first. For 17 years, the FDA took no action, gave no guidance, and launched no enforcement of these "New Dietary Ingredients."
And that's been a good thing. Because for 17 years, the dietary supplement industry has enjoyed tremendous innovation. These innovations have allowed us to extract and concentrate the most effective natural ingredients. As a result, millions of consumers have benefitted. They've protected their hearts and arteries ... found relief from their joint pain ... boosted their memory ... and more.
And during this time, supplements have enjoyed a remarkable safety record. Statistics show that supplements are safer than prescription drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and even food!
According to the Poison Control Centers, there were zero deaths due to supplements in 2008. In 2009, there was one.
Supplements the FDA Wants to Ban
But now the FDA wants to act like the last 17 years never happened. The agency has drafted a proposal to regulate what it calls New Dietary Ingredients. If this proposal is implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you take will be pulled from the market. Nutrients like resveratrol ... ubiquinol CoQ10 ... bacopa ... strontium ... and more.
But that's not all. Under these guidelines, the FDA can define almost anything as a "new" dietary ingredient. For example:
* If a supplement includes more of an ingredient than was used 17 years ago — even something like vitamin C — it's "new."
* If an ingredient uses a different extraction process — like baking or fermentation — it's "new."
* If a supplement uses an ingredient at a different "life stage" — such as using ripe rather than non-ripe apples — it's "new."
* If a supplement duplicates an ingredient in a laboratory rather than extracting it from the food — even though it's chemically identical — it's "new."
* And if a probiotic formula includes a strain of bacteria that wasn't found in yogurt 17 years ago, it's "new."
So what would happen to all these "new" ingredients? The manufacturers would have to take them off the market until they could prove the ingredients are safe — even if those ingredients have been safely used for 17 years!
Why It's Nearly Impossible to Comply
What kind of proof is the FDA demanding? According to the guidelines, many companies would have to conduct animal studies using a dosage that's 1,000 times the typical dose.
I'm not kidding you. It's right there in black and white on the FDA's website. The FDA wants vitamin makers to do studies for a full year, at 1,000 times the typical dose.
So a fish-oil manufacturer would have to conduct a one-year study where animals are force-fed the human equivalent of 240,000 milligrams of fish oil each and every day! This outlandish dose would injure the animals and give the FDA an excuse to outlaw the product.
But wait, it gets even better. If one fish-oil manufacturer performs such a study and it passes, it doesn't mean the other fish-oil makers can use the same data. No sir. They are still required to go out and do their own studies before they're allowed to sell their product.
And these studies are very expensive. A study like the one above typically costs about $100,000-$200,000 to perform. Multiply that by several ingredients in several products, and you get an idea of the cost.
Say a company carries 6 products containing 6 ingredients each. It would cost between $3.6 and $7.2 million in studies before that company could even offer the products for sale. For a larger company offering 50 products or more, the costs would be astronomical.
Few supplement makers will be able to afford these studies, and many will be put out of business. And the ones that remain would still be at the mercy of the FDA's whim. That's because there are no requirements for the FDA to approve anything. They can approve or reject anything they want. And in the past, they have rejected the majority of ingredients submitted to them.
That means most of the nutrients you buy today will be pulled from the market and never return. Those that do return will be a lot more expensive — or may only be available as prescription drugs!
A Blatant Abuse of Power
This is a blatant abuse of power. What the FDA is doing here is performing an end-run around the existing law. According to the law, the FDA has to prove a dietary supplement is unsafe for it to be taken off the market. These new guidelines turn that on its head. They are clearly not what Congress intended.
Fortunately, these FDA guidelines have not yet been finalized. All federal agencies are required to give the public an opportunity to comment on a draft before it is made final. In this case, the FDA has given interested parties until December 1st to comment on the draft. That means there's a small window of opportunity for you to voice your disapproval.
Frankly, I wouldn't bother commenting to the FDA. The process is cumbersome, and those unelected bureaucrats don't care what you think anyway.
What You Can Do
The best way to defeat these new rules is to talk to the people you do elect — your congressman and your two U.S. senators. They have the power to rein in the FDA — and they have done so in the past when enough voters complained.
Back in the 1970s, the FDA tried to require "warning labels" on vitamins. Angry voters called and wrote letters, and Congress responded with the Proxmire Amendments which limited the FDA's power.
Then in the 1990s, the FDA went on the warpath again. When voters complained, Congress passed the Dietary Health Supplement Education Act, which once again limited the FDA's power.
But like a monster killed in a horror movie, the FDA keeps coming back. And so once again, it's time for us to step up and call the folks who rely on our votes.
Here's what you need to do:
Go to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml and look up the phone numbers of your U.S. Senators and your Representative (congressman). Then give them a call.
Don't be shy and don't worry. No one is going to bite you, no one is going to argue with you, and no one is going to quiz you to see how well you know the issues. The job of the staffers who answer is to listen politely and to relay what you say to their boss. So please do call. And please be polite and respectful of the staffers' time.
Here are some talking points to use when you call:
* Hello, my name is [name] and I am a constituent of [name of Senator or Representative].
* I am very concerned about the new FDA draft guidance on dietary supplements and new dietary ingredients.
* [Feel free to tell them about the supplements you take and/or the benefits you get from those supplements. Then feel free to make as many of the following points as you like:]
1. Supplements have an unrivaled safety record. Statistics show they're safer than drugs, safer than medical devices, safer than cosmetics, and even safer than food.
2. The FDA cannot define New Dietary Ingredients so broadly. According to these guidelines, almost everything is a New Dietary Ingredient. This will strangle innovation and deprive consumers of the supplements they depend on for their health.
3. The FDA did nothing about new dietary ingredients for 17 years. Now they want to wipe out 17 years' worth of innovation and 17 years' worth of benefits to the consumer.
4. When the Dietary Health Supplement Education Act was passed, Congress intended a simple notification process for new dietary ingredients. The FDA is turning this into a pre-approval scheme, which goes against the intent of the law.
5. The FDA already has ample regulatory authority to take action against a product if it's unsafe. They don't need to have this pre-approval power, too.
6. These could be disastrous to public health. At a time when preventative measures are even more important to health care costs, the FDA is limiting access to preventative health care.
7. The cost of complying with these guidelines would be astronomical. Experts estimate that the studies required would cost between $100,000 and $200,000 per ingredient notification. That adds up to millions of dollars per supplement company. Smaller companies would not be able to afford this and would go out of business.
The economy is already hurting and we have high unemployment. Experts estimate that this could cost the economy tens of billions of dollars and result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.
8. The government's resources are already stretched. We have record budget deficits and record debt. Why enact more regulations when there are no safety issues here?
* I request that Congress direct the FDA to carefully review their draft guidance. If they do not amend the guidance to reflect my concerns, I request that Congress call hearings at the end of the review process. I also call on Congress to write legislation that would "grandfather" all supplements currently on the market.
* Thank you for your time.
After the phone call, send a letter to your senators and reps, making the same points. Make sure the letter is in your own words (form letters tend not to work as well). You can find the e-mail and physical addresses at the same website, http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml.
Then send the same letter to President Obama. (His address and phone number are on the website, too.)
Please, please, please don't make the mistake of thinking that the FDA won't take your supplements away. Similar regulations were passed in other countries, and the result was disastrous. Many supplements were taken off the market forever. In some instances, the entire supplement industry was decimated. Don't let that happen here.
Take action now! You only have a small window of opportunity to make your voice heard. Get started by going to http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
* Name: Cassandra Orr
* E-mail: cassandraorr567(at)hotmail.com
* Age: 17
* Where: Alberta
* Height: 5'4"
* Weight: 127lbs
* Years Bodybuilding :1
* Favorite Bodypart: Abs/Shoulders
* Favorite Exercise: Cardio-Running/Beep Test
* Favorite Supplements: IsoFlex
How Did You Get Started?
I've always played a lot of sports. When I started playing more competitive sports I started training like crazy! I needed to be in top shape to be able to compete in the sports I was playing.
What Workout Plan Worked Best For You?
Day 1/Day 3/Day 5: Upper Body/Abs Circuit
* Treadmill: 32 minutes, 1-3 minutes intervals, varying between level 3 to 11
* Sprints: Sprint 50 meters, jog 50 meters, repeat 12 times
Dumbbell Bench Press: 3 sets of 20 reps
One Arm Row: 3 sets of 20 reps
Front Plate Raise: 3 sets of 20 reps
Overhead Raise: 3 sets of 20 reps (....More....)