Last week (#318) I showed you how to raise your glutathione levels. Which brings up the question of who would benefit from increasing glutathione.
In medicine we think of one drug for one disease, and are taught to be skeptical of “panaceas” that promise everything. But in natural healing many different nutrients must work together to improve one condition; and a single nutrient can improve many different conditions. Glutathione is a perfect example of the latter because its powerful antioxidant properties make it essential for health in every cell of the body.
You could benefit from increasing glutathione levels if you:
• want to look and feel younger – as we age our bodies produce less glutathione
• are an athlete – improves strength, endurance and reduces recovery time
• are a smoker, welder, mechanic, chemical farmer, consume alcohol, or are otherwise exposed to chemical toxins – protects your organs from damage
• use a cell phone or WIFI, are exposed to microwaves or ultraviolet radiation – protects cells from radiation damage
• have a chronic disease like asthma, Alzheimer’s, Lupus, Parkinson’s, arthritis, macular degeneration – all associated with low glutathione
• are fighting a viral infection such as a cold, hepatitis, herpes, bronchitis, pneumonia, even AIDS – strengthens the immune system to fight infections
• have impaired or diseased organs including heart, liver, kidneys, prostate, stomach, intestines, colon – all benefit from increased glutathione
• have atherosclerosis (risk for heart attack & stroke) – prevents lipid peroxidation and plaque formation
• are healing from trauma – promotes growth of healthy new tissue
• want to sleep better – promotes better more restful sleep
• are sick and tired of feeling sick and tired – supports mitochondria to produce more energy
• are healthy and want to stay that way – helps prevent all above conditions
Sources:
Immunotec website
Nutraxis website
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
Showing posts with label pesticides. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pesticides. Show all posts
September 22, 2014
286 Maybe it’s not Gluten [22 Sept 2014]
We all know someone with gluten sensitivity (or have it ourselves) but it wasn’t that long ago that this condition was rare or at least not well recognized. Why the sudden increase? Aicacia Young, a registered dietitian writing for the MindBodyGreen e-newsletter asks if gluten is really the culprit and proposes two possible alternatives.
It is known that people with non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) improve on a gluten free diet. A double-blind crossover study in 2013 tested 37 adults with NCGS to determine if gluten was in fact the culprit. The participants were placed on three different diets: low gluten, high gluten, or whey (as a control). The diets didn’t make a significant difference in their digestive symptoms and fatigue – they were about the same with all three. Interestingly though, when they were put on a special diet in preparation for the study, all 37 improved significantly. This special diet is low in fermentable, oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols called FODMAPS. A low FODMAPS diet eliminates: dairy, wheat, apples, pears, watermelon, garlic, onions, legumes, avocados, honey and sugar alcohols. Young suggests that while gluten-free diets, which eliminate wheat, will reduce some of the symptoms of NCGS, temporarily going on a low FODMAPS diet could do even more.
The other possible cause of symptoms attributed to gluten is the herbicide glyphosate. I have previously discussed [#265 April 28, 2014] how glyphosate accumulates in our food crops and appears in human tissue in North America where it wreaks havoc with our gut flora. The resulting dysbiosis leads to intestinal permeability (aka leaky gut) which is linked to inflammation and food allergies. Even though “Roundup-ready” wheat has not been approved for production, glyphosate is used on some wheat fields as a desiccant so wheat can still have traces. Other crops sprayed with glyphosate would be canola, soybeans, corn and sugar beets. Shopping organic for these foods or avoiding them altogether (and replenishing your gut biome with probiotics) should reduce symptoms caused by glyphosate.
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
It is known that people with non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) improve on a gluten free diet. A double-blind crossover study in 2013 tested 37 adults with NCGS to determine if gluten was in fact the culprit. The participants were placed on three different diets: low gluten, high gluten, or whey (as a control). The diets didn’t make a significant difference in their digestive symptoms and fatigue – they were about the same with all three. Interestingly though, when they were put on a special diet in preparation for the study, all 37 improved significantly. This special diet is low in fermentable, oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols called FODMAPS. A low FODMAPS diet eliminates: dairy, wheat, apples, pears, watermelon, garlic, onions, legumes, avocados, honey and sugar alcohols. Young suggests that while gluten-free diets, which eliminate wheat, will reduce some of the symptoms of NCGS, temporarily going on a low FODMAPS diet could do even more.
The other possible cause of symptoms attributed to gluten is the herbicide glyphosate. I have previously discussed [#265 April 28, 2014] how glyphosate accumulates in our food crops and appears in human tissue in North America where it wreaks havoc with our gut flora. The resulting dysbiosis leads to intestinal permeability (aka leaky gut) which is linked to inflammation and food allergies. Even though “Roundup-ready” wheat has not been approved for production, glyphosate is used on some wheat fields as a desiccant so wheat can still have traces. Other crops sprayed with glyphosate would be canola, soybeans, corn and sugar beets. Shopping organic for these foods or avoiding them altogether (and replenishing your gut biome with probiotics) should reduce symptoms caused by glyphosate.
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
August 4, 2014
279 Organic - There is a Difference! [4 August 2014]
Two years ago in October 2012 (#185) I wrote about a review by Stanford University which concluded that “The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods”.
Last month a meta-analysis of 343 peer-reviewed publications – described as the largest study of its kind – was published in the British Journal of Nutrition. The authors found “statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods.” More specifically they found that conventional compared to organic crops had:
• substantially lower levels of antioxidant compounds
• pesticide residues 3-4 times more likely with levels 10 – 100 times higher
• nearly double the concentration of Cadmium
• some nutrients (minerals and vitamins) were significantly lower, most about the same, and protein was generally higher
Antioxidants including phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins were 18 to 69% higher in the organic crops. Antioxidants are linked to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease (heart attack and stroke), neurodegenerative diseases (eg Alzheimer’s and MS), and some cancers.
Cadmium is a heavy metal which displaces zinc in the body and is highly toxic at very low levels. According to the authors, a doubling of cadmium intake from food could put some people over safe intake levels.
Charles Benbrook, the sole American co-author wrote:
Sources and Resources
BJN abstract
Washington State University News - with list of resources links
Mercola review
The Salt blog post
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
Last month a meta-analysis of 343 peer-reviewed publications – described as the largest study of its kind – was published in the British Journal of Nutrition. The authors found “statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods.” More specifically they found that conventional compared to organic crops had:
• substantially lower levels of antioxidant compounds
• pesticide residues 3-4 times more likely with levels 10 – 100 times higher
• nearly double the concentration of Cadmium
• some nutrients (minerals and vitamins) were significantly lower, most about the same, and protein was generally higher
Antioxidants including phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins were 18 to 69% higher in the organic crops. Antioxidants are linked to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease (heart attack and stroke), neurodegenerative diseases (eg Alzheimer’s and MS), and some cancers.
Cadmium is a heavy metal which displaces zinc in the body and is highly toxic at very low levels. According to the authors, a doubling of cadmium intake from food could put some people over safe intake levels.
Charles Benbrook, the sole American co-author wrote:
“This study is telling a powerful story of how organic plant-based foods are nutritionally superior and deliver bona fide health benefits”.Why the change from the earlier study? Project leader Carlo Leifert explains: “We benefited from a much larger and higher quality set of studies than our colleagues who carried out earlier reviews.” The team found the quality and reliability of comparison studies had greatly improved in recent years, leading to the discovery of significant nutritional and food safety differences not detected in earlier studies.
Sources and Resources
BJN abstract
Washington State University News - with list of resources links
Mercola review
The Salt blog post
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
May 5, 2014
266 The Retracted GMO Study [5 May 2014]
Back in December of 2012 I reported on a French animal study published that September in Food and Chemical Toxicology that showed significantly increased kidney and liver toxicity, including large tumor growth, in rats fed genetically engineered (GE) corn. Then in November 2013 this study was retracted by the editor.
While I’m sure proponents of GE crops viewed this as a vindication of the safety of their technology, anti-GE lobbyists like J. Mercola and J. Wright saw it as the capitulation of science to pressure from big business. Just what was wrong with the study that merited its retraction?
In response to a large number of letters to the editor questioning the validity of the findings, the Editor-in-Chief reviewed the study examining all aspects of the peer review process and even requested the raw data from the authors (which was supplied). He found no evidence whatsoever of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data but did have concerns about the small number of animals (200) and the strain of rats used (tumor-susceptible), both of which had been noted in the original peer review process. He concluded that “the results presented while not incorrect are inconclusive” and on that basis decided to retract the paper.
The authors later published, in the same journal, a detailed response to all the criticisms received. They noted that 75% of the first week’s letters critical to their mammalian toxicology study came from plant biologists (not animal toxicologists) and Monsanto employees. The strain of rats used was the same as in the only previous study done on one of the corn varieties (which used 400 rats but lasted only 90 days). They reiterated that their work remains “the most detailed study involving the life-long consumption of an agricultural GMO… and the first long term detailed research on mammals exposed to a highly diluted pesticide in its total formulation”.
It seems to me that this study, representing the longest (lifespan) GMO study to date, is worthy of publication, even if its results are inconclusive. I have seen many studies that are inconclusive and call for bigger or better studies. I am sure, though, that the industry will not be in any hurry to repeat this one.
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
While I’m sure proponents of GE crops viewed this as a vindication of the safety of their technology, anti-GE lobbyists like J. Mercola and J. Wright saw it as the capitulation of science to pressure from big business. Just what was wrong with the study that merited its retraction?
In response to a large number of letters to the editor questioning the validity of the findings, the Editor-in-Chief reviewed the study examining all aspects of the peer review process and even requested the raw data from the authors (which was supplied). He found no evidence whatsoever of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data but did have concerns about the small number of animals (200) and the strain of rats used (tumor-susceptible), both of which had been noted in the original peer review process. He concluded that “the results presented while not incorrect are inconclusive” and on that basis decided to retract the paper.
The authors later published, in the same journal, a detailed response to all the criticisms received. They noted that 75% of the first week’s letters critical to their mammalian toxicology study came from plant biologists (not animal toxicologists) and Monsanto employees. The strain of rats used was the same as in the only previous study done on one of the corn varieties (which used 400 rats but lasted only 90 days). They reiterated that their work remains “the most detailed study involving the life-long consumption of an agricultural GMO… and the first long term detailed research on mammals exposed to a highly diluted pesticide in its total formulation”.
It seems to me that this study, representing the longest (lifespan) GMO study to date, is worthy of publication, even if its results are inconclusive. I have seen many studies that are inconclusive and call for bigger or better studies. I am sure, though, that the industry will not be in any hurry to repeat this one.
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
April 28, 2014
265 Glyphosate – more toxic than DDT? [28 April 2014]
I just listened to an interview with Dr. Don Huber, a professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University. Huber’s five decades of agriculture research on soil-borne plant pathogens (disease-causing micro-organisms) has made him very concerned about the increasing use of glyphosate (Roundup®) pesticide.
Glyphosate is more than a herbicide – it was first patented as a mineral chelating agent and also as a powerful antibiotic. By taking certain minerals – calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese – out of the plant’s biochemical pathways, glyphosate makes it more susceptible to disease organisms, and it is the disease that actually kills the weeds.
As an antibiotic glyphosate also kills the beneficial soil bacteria (by disrupting certain amino acid pathways) that keep the disease organisms in check, so their populations explode. [I’d like to hear from farmers if they have found that regular crops are more susceptible to diseases on land that has been previously sprayed with glyphosate.]
Glyphosate has now been shown to accumulate in the edible parts of food crops and has been measured in blood, urine and breast milk of North Americans. It has been shown to lower the nutrient mineral content of food from crops sprayed with glyphosate. But more significant is its effect on our gut flora. As with the soil, glyphosate from our food preferentially destroys beneficial bacteria in our gut, causing many different health problems.
Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff in a paper published in April 2013 in the journal Entropy explain the physiological effects of glyphosate and link it to many modern chronic diseases. They explain that, as the industry claims, glyphosate’s acute toxicity is minimal, but its long-term chronic toxicity is a different story. Glyphosate toxicity has been documented for kidney cells at 10 ppm, liver at 1ppm, and the endocrine hormone system at 0.1 ppm, all of which are many times lower than toxicity levels of DDT. [Tobacco is another substance with low acute, but significant chronic, toxicity.]
So maybe glyphosate is more toxic than DDT!
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
Glyphosate is more than a herbicide – it was first patented as a mineral chelating agent and also as a powerful antibiotic. By taking certain minerals – calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese – out of the plant’s biochemical pathways, glyphosate makes it more susceptible to disease organisms, and it is the disease that actually kills the weeds.
As an antibiotic glyphosate also kills the beneficial soil bacteria (by disrupting certain amino acid pathways) that keep the disease organisms in check, so their populations explode. [I’d like to hear from farmers if they have found that regular crops are more susceptible to diseases on land that has been previously sprayed with glyphosate.]
Glyphosate has now been shown to accumulate in the edible parts of food crops and has been measured in blood, urine and breast milk of North Americans. It has been shown to lower the nutrient mineral content of food from crops sprayed with glyphosate. But more significant is its effect on our gut flora. As with the soil, glyphosate from our food preferentially destroys beneficial bacteria in our gut, causing many different health problems.
Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff in a paper published in April 2013 in the journal Entropy explain the physiological effects of glyphosate and link it to many modern chronic diseases. They explain that, as the industry claims, glyphosate’s acute toxicity is minimal, but its long-term chronic toxicity is a different story. Glyphosate toxicity has been documented for kidney cells at 10 ppm, liver at 1ppm, and the endocrine hormone system at 0.1 ppm, all of which are many times lower than toxicity levels of DDT. [Tobacco is another substance with low acute, but significant chronic, toxicity.]
So maybe glyphosate is more toxic than DDT!
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
January 28, 2013
201 Winter Tomatoes [28 January 2013]
Tomatoes are the second most popular vegetable in the USA (and probably in Canada too) after lettuce. Tomatoes are also the vegetable we most like to complain about, at least during the winter. While they might look attractive, commercial tomatoes taste nothing like those picked fresh from our summer garden.
There are reasons for winter tomatoes’ lack of taste (and several reasons besides taste to avoid them). Most commercial table tomatoes for the USA winter market are grown in Florida. There they are picked while still hard and green and are later gassed with ethylene in the warehouse to ripen. So they look red and pretty, but the taste is unsatisfactory to say the least.
The problems with commercial winter tomatoes go far beyond taste. To withstand being shipped great distances they are bred for the hardiness of the fruit, not for its nutritional content. USDA tests show that modern tomatoes contain 30% less vitamin C, 30% less thiamin (B1), 19% less niacin (B3) and 62% less calcium than tomatoes tested in the 1960’s. (Actually I was surprised that their nutrient content was even this good.) One mineral that actually increased is sodium – by a whopping 1400%. Another reason, besides breeding, for the lower nutrient content is the low soil fertility in Florida which requires high amounts of chemical fertilizer. The problem with commercial fertilizer is that it contains only the macronutrients required to improve yield while ignoring trace minerals (like selenium) which improve the nutritional value but are invisible to shoppers and do not add to the price the farmer can get for his crop.
The other problem with Florida for growing tomatoes is the humidity which promotes fungal diseases and insect pests, all of which require very high amounts of more than 100 different pesticides, some of which remain on or in the fruit.
Vine-ripened locally grown greenhouse tomatoes should be somewhat better on several counts (besides tasting better) – natural ripening, lower use of pesticides, possibly more nutritious varieties, and possibly better micronutrient fertilization. Well worth the extra price, in my humble opinion.
Source: Tomatoland: How Modern Industrial Agriculture Destroyed Our Most Alluring Fruit, 2011, by investigative food journalist Barry Estabrook.
There are reasons for winter tomatoes’ lack of taste (and several reasons besides taste to avoid them). Most commercial table tomatoes for the USA winter market are grown in Florida. There they are picked while still hard and green and are later gassed with ethylene in the warehouse to ripen. So they look red and pretty, but the taste is unsatisfactory to say the least.
The problems with commercial winter tomatoes go far beyond taste. To withstand being shipped great distances they are bred for the hardiness of the fruit, not for its nutritional content. USDA tests show that modern tomatoes contain 30% less vitamin C, 30% less thiamin (B1), 19% less niacin (B3) and 62% less calcium than tomatoes tested in the 1960’s. (Actually I was surprised that their nutrient content was even this good.) One mineral that actually increased is sodium – by a whopping 1400%. Another reason, besides breeding, for the lower nutrient content is the low soil fertility in Florida which requires high amounts of chemical fertilizer. The problem with commercial fertilizer is that it contains only the macronutrients required to improve yield while ignoring trace minerals (like selenium) which improve the nutritional value but are invisible to shoppers and do not add to the price the farmer can get for his crop.
The other problem with Florida for growing tomatoes is the humidity which promotes fungal diseases and insect pests, all of which require very high amounts of more than 100 different pesticides, some of which remain on or in the fruit.
Vine-ripened locally grown greenhouse tomatoes should be somewhat better on several counts (besides tasting better) – natural ripening, lower use of pesticides, possibly more nutritious varieties, and possibly better micronutrient fertilization. Well worth the extra price, in my humble opinion.
Source: Tomatoland: How Modern Industrial Agriculture Destroyed Our Most Alluring Fruit, 2011, by investigative food journalist Barry Estabrook.
October 1, 2012
185 Benefits of Organic – the Stanford Study
Eating organic foods is believed by many to be a healthier choice, but is it? A recent study put this question in doubt. A systematic review of 240 English language studies by researchers at the Stanford University was published September 4, 2012, in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The abstract concluded: “The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria”.
The Stanford University press release, titled “Little evidence of health benefits of organic foods, Stanford Study finds”, downplayed the positive findings. Mainstream news items with few exceptions repeated the negative tone. Two health writers that I follow - the Health Sciences Institute and Dr. Joseph Mercola - dug a little deeper into the study and discovered several benefits of organic foods that are not that insignificant:
• 30% less pesticide residue in organic produce
• 33% lower risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in organic meat
• higher levels of phenols and other antioxidants in organic chicken
• higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk
There are many other studies that weren’t included in the Stanford analysis that show greater benefits of organic farming. A University of Stuttgart study, for example, published in July 2012, found that organic fruits and vegetables averaged 180 times lower pesticide content than conventional produce. And a well controlled study at University of California-Davis found that kiwis grown organically had a higher mineral, vitamin C and antioxidant content.
I buy and eat organically grown food whenever possible, but realize that it is what foods we eat (and how much), rather than how they were grown, that has the biggest influence on our health.
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
The Stanford University press release, titled “Little evidence of health benefits of organic foods, Stanford Study finds”, downplayed the positive findings. Mainstream news items with few exceptions repeated the negative tone. Two health writers that I follow - the Health Sciences Institute and Dr. Joseph Mercola - dug a little deeper into the study and discovered several benefits of organic foods that are not that insignificant:
• 30% less pesticide residue in organic produce
• 33% lower risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in organic meat
• higher levels of phenols and other antioxidants in organic chicken
• higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk
There are many other studies that weren’t included in the Stanford analysis that show greater benefits of organic farming. A University of Stuttgart study, for example, published in July 2012, found that organic fruits and vegetables averaged 180 times lower pesticide content than conventional produce. And a well controlled study at University of California-Davis found that kiwis grown organically had a higher mineral, vitamin C and antioxidant content.
I buy and eat organically grown food whenever possible, but realize that it is what foods we eat (and how much), rather than how they were grown, that has the biggest influence on our health.
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)