The modern science of Epigenetics began with a few litters of skinny brown mice at Dukes University in 2003. What made these baby mice surprising was their lineage – their parents, grandparents and generations before them, were bred to have a gene that made them fat and yellow. The only difference was these mothers had been given what was essentially a prenatal vitamin, which left the gene intact while somehow turning it off. By the way the brown mice were not only slimmer but had lower rates of diabetes and cancer than their yellow ancestors. Similarly pregnant mice supplemented with choline had babies that developed super memories and as adults broke all the maze records.
External triggers suppress a gene by a process called methylation. A methyl marker on a gene turns it off, partially or completely. An environmental trigger either adds or removes a methyl marker, thus affecting the expression of that gene. Epigenetic triggers could be a vitamin, a toxin, a nutrient deficiency or even an emotional experience. They can come from your mother, grandmother or father, and can occur before conception, in utero, shortly after birth or throughout adulthood. And methyl markers may be passed down to future generations.
Babies born in Holland after the “Hunger Winter” famine of 1944-45 had low birth weights and, as adults, were at higher risk of obesity, coronary disease and certain cancers. A generation later their babies also had low birth weights. A British study found that men who started smoking before puberty had sons (but not daughters) with a higher risk of obesity. Grooming by mother rats affects their babies’ brain development, causing them to grow up calmer and more confident than babies ignored by their mothers. Identical twins experience different triggers throughout their life that alter their risk for diseases such as cancer, allowing one to develop cancer while the other does not.
What are the implications of epigenetics? The importance of prenatal nutrition and maternal nurturing are obvious. More important is the epiphany that we need not be slaves to our genes. Just because our parents and grandparents suffered from obesity, diabetes or cancer doesn’t mean we have to. We can – and I would argue should – do something about it. Improving our nutrition, reducing stress, getting sufficient exercise and rest could free us from much of our genetic destiny.
Source: Survival of the Sickest – the surprising connections between disease and longevity by Dr Sharon Moalem, 2007
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 19, 2014
268 What is the Paleo Diet? [19 May 2014]
You have probably been hearing a lot about a so-called paleo diet. What is it and what can we learn from it?
Paleo is a Latin prefix meaning “old” or “ancient”. In this case it is short for Paleolithic, or “Old Stone Age”, a period in human history prior to agriculture. The paleo diet is a modern attempt to recreate the diet of our pre-agricultural ancestors.
The paleo diet movement started in the 1970s with a book called “The Stone Age Diet” by Walter L. Voegtlin, who argued that humans are primarily carnivorous with an ideal diet of mostly protein and fats and little carbohydrates. The diet has been adapted and promoted by many since, and is now more popular than ever. Advantages touted by the promoters include having more energy, getting & staying slim, and living longer. The diet is said to reduce the risk of degenerative diseases including obesity, depression, diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, MS, rheumatoid arthritis, and cancer, and often reverse the symptoms in people already suffering from these conditions.
So what foods are allowed in the paleo diet?
• lean proteins like grass-fed beef, bison, free range chicken
• fish & seafood
• nearly all fruits and vegetables
• nuts and seeds in moderation
• healthy fats like avocados, fish oil, olive oil
Foods to be avoided:
• grains, legumes, starchy vegetables
• dairy & alcohol
• processed foods & sugar
If you think you would like to try the paleo diet, there are several books and many websites for more information.
Many people who do a 30 day trial decide to stay with it because of how great they are feeling. There are many different versions and you can choose how strictly you wish to follow it. Let me know how you do.
For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.
Paleo is a Latin prefix meaning “old” or “ancient”. In this case it is short for Paleolithic, or “Old Stone Age”, a period in human history prior to agriculture. The paleo diet is a modern attempt to recreate the diet of our pre-agricultural ancestors.
The paleo diet movement started in the 1970s with a book called “The Stone Age Diet” by Walter L. Voegtlin, who argued that humans are primarily carnivorous with an ideal diet of mostly protein and fats and little carbohydrates. The diet has been adapted and promoted by many since, and is now more popular than ever. Advantages touted by the promoters include having more energy, getting & staying slim, and living longer. The diet is said to reduce the risk of degenerative diseases including obesity, depression, diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, MS, rheumatoid arthritis, and cancer, and often reverse the symptoms in people already suffering from these conditions.
So what foods are allowed in the paleo diet?
• lean proteins like grass-fed beef, bison, free range chicken
• fish & seafood
• nearly all fruits and vegetables
• nuts and seeds in moderation
• healthy fats like avocados, fish oil, olive oil
Foods to be avoided:
• grains, legumes, starchy vegetables
• dairy & alcohol
• processed foods & sugar
If you think you would like to try the paleo diet, there are several books and many websites for more information.
Many people who do a 30 day trial decide to stay with it because of how great they are feeling. There are many different versions and you can choose how strictly you wish to follow it. Let me know how you do.
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 12, 2014
267 Lactose Intolerance – a new treatment [12 May 2014]
About 70% of the world’s human population loses the ability, as adults, to produce lactase, the enzyme which breaks down lactose (milk sugar). In cultures such as ours where dairy is a part of the normal diet, this creates a problem. Typical symptoms observed within an hour or two of consuming milk sugar include abdominal pain, bloating, flatulence, nausea and diarrhea. There are two strategies to deal with lactose intolerance – dietary avoidance and lactase supplements.
Now there is a third option. Just this year a new product has been approved in Canada for the treatment of lactose intolerance. Sulmedol®, a special form of sulfur, actually restores the ability to digest lactose by reactivating lactase production in the intestine. It was accidentally discovered in 2003 by Dr Airudin Khan at the U. of Western Ontario, London, who was studying homocysteine levels. Sulmedol® works in two ways: by reactivating the genes that control lactase production, and by increasing the production of the amino acid L-Cysteine, an essential component of the lactase enzyme.
The treatment requires taking 2 capsules daily, while avoiding all sources of lactose, for 4 to 12 weeks. Lactose intolerance is tested at 4 weeks and every 2 weeks after that until symptoms have disappeared. The program is continued for another 4 weeks and then stopped. You should then be able to consume dairy symptom-free. Some people may need to repeat the treatment in a few years. The treatment is not effective for true dairy allergies involving the immune system.
In a clinical trial, 90% of 41 adults tested had their lactose tolerance restored after 12 weeks (some sooner). Most remained tolerant for a median of 76 weeks without further treatment. Side effects were minimal – three people experienced some bloating and flatulence during the treatment phase.
Sulfur is the third most abundant mineral in the body, after calcium and phosphorus. Other expected benefits from taking the sulfur supplement would be lowered homocysteine levels (implicated in heart disease, osteoporosis and brain dysfunction) and increased glutathione, arguably the most important antioxidant in our cells. Healthy skin hair and nails all require sulfur containing amino acids.
Source: www.sulmedol.com and lecture by Marva Ward, CNP.
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.
April 21, 2014
264 Omega-7 a beneficial fatty acid [21 April 2014]
Omega-7 is a family of mono-unsaturated fatty acids of which palmitoleic acid is the most common. I first wrote about this nutrient two years ago in an article on Seabuckthorn.
Recent research (mostly animal studies so far) has found this oil to have many benefits:
• promotes burning of body fat for energy
• improves blood lipid levels (cholesterol)
• prevents atherosclerotic plaque by keeping artery walls smooth and non-sticky
• reduces C-reactive protein, a measure of inflammation
• increases insulin sensitivity thus helping to prevent metabolic syndrome
• protects insulin-secreting pancreatic beta cells
• beneficial for the mucous membranes of the digestive, urinary and reproductive systems
• promotes growth of healthy skin, hair and nails
• supports wound healing
Omega 7 is abundant in only a few foods: Seabuckthorn berries, macadamia nuts, and some cold water fish like anchovies and wild salmon. It is available in supplement form as Seabuckthorn berry oil and in so-called “Purified Omega-7” oil made from fish.
Michael Roizen, MD promotes supplementation with the “purified omega-7” which is free of palmitic acid. This is important, he claims, because palmitic acid, found in Seabuckthorn oil, increases inflammation. The Seabuckthorn promoters counter that this is just a marketing ploy and that palmitic acid, especially in small amounts along with other fatty acids, is actually beneficial. And they remind us that Seabuckthorn is still the richest known source of omega-7.
Other scientists like Irena King, PhD of the U. of New Mexico advises caution in the use of any omega-7 supplement: “I think we’re way too early for supplements of omega-7—way too early. The studies haven’t figured it out yet.” Instead she suggests simply including macadamia nuts in your diet.
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 14, 2014
263 Coffee – our favorite herbal beverage [14 April 2014]
More good news for coffee lovers.
The Singapore Chinese Health Study, published this month in the journal Hepatology found that those who drank 2 or more cups of coffee had 66% lower risk of dying from non-viral cirrhosis of the liver. Alcohol, not surprisingly, had a “strong dose-dependent positive association between amount of alcohol and risk of cirrhosis mortality” which simply means the more you drink the more likely you are to die from cirrhosis. Drinking black or green tea, fruit juices, or soft drinks neither increased nor decreased the cirrhosis mortality rate.
This adds to a growing list of benefits of coffee consumption. A 2013 study from Japan found that 5 oz of coffee increased blood circulation by opening blood vessels and reducing inflammation, reducing risk of heart attack and stroke.
Other research has found that drinking coffee:
• protects against Parkinson’s Disease
• reduces risk or delays onset of Alzheimer’s Disease
• lowers risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes
• lowers risk of liver and prostate cancers
• offers a slight protection against heart failure
• improves cognitive function (lets you think better).
For some of these benefits like the protection from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, it’s the caffeine that does the trick. For others it’s the high levels of antioxidants found in coffee – decaf seems to work as well as regular.
Like most things, moderation is key. Most of the benefits reported occurred with 1 or 2 cups of coffee a day (although it took 4 cups to protect against prostate cancer in one study). Drinking 5 or more cups, however, could do more harm than good, causing problems such as anxiety, high blood pressure and heart palpitations.
We shouldn’t be too surprised by this good news—after all coffee is our nation’s favorite herbal beverage.
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)