wellness tips

Share

It’s December, and that means that in my neck of the woods in southwestern Canada we are getting a lot of dark, dreary, rainy days. The sun comes up after 7h30am and goes down around 4h30pm. Many of us long for a nice sunny vacation at this time of year to cope with the lack of light and the winter blues. "The winter blues" is mild compared to what those that suffer from Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) go through – severe depression in the winter time that then clears up in the spring when there is more light. Seasonal Affective Disorder is not something to be taken lightly, as it can impair one’s life to the point of not being able to function. People that are affected not only feel depressed, but frequently also feel lethargic, sleep excessively, are more sensitive to pain, tend to withdraw socially, crave sugar and often gain considerable weight.

Just as we need adequate dark time each night, we also need adequate light during the day for good hormone function. It seems that those who suffer from SAD need bigger differences in light and darkness for their hormonal systems to function appropriately, and interestingly enough, a far larger percentage of SAD sufferers than would be expected by chance, were born in the fall and the winter when there is less bright light during the day, and fewer light-time hours. I wonder if the lack of light exposure in the first few months of life has anything to do with developing SAD later. If we consider primitive humankind, it would make sense to time the birth of children to when food would be plentiful to encourage survival, just like in the rest of the animal world. And plentiful food usually occurs when there is more daylight and plants are growing. That said, snow-cover in the winter can be extremely bright, but most of us in our modernized world do not spend all day everyday outdoors when it is cold and snowy.

The hormones melatonin and cortisol and the neurotransmitters serotonin and probably dopamine are involved in SAD. Melatonin doesn’t seem to turn off adequately at dawn, causing morning drowsiness and oversleeping. Cortisol doesn’t seem to rise adequately in the morning which may contribute to lethargy during the day. Melatonin and cortisol influence serotonin function, and low serotonin levels are linked to depression in general. So gaining control over cortisol and melatonin is key to feeling better.

The most successful treatment method for SAD is using a full-spectrum fluorescent light box that provides about 10,000 lux of light each morning upon awakening for half an hour to an hour. Such a light box provides about 25 times more intense light than does most indoor lighting, and research shows that this boosts morning cortisol and suppresses melatonin. These light boxes can be purchased for home use, and they need to be used consistently each morning for at least three weeks before most people suffering from SAD will begin to feel better. It makes sense to me that the opposite side of the equation should be addressed too – complete darkness at night, and a good nine hours of darkness to boot. Black-out drapes are very helpful. Because SAD seems to be a circadian rhythm dysfunction, being very consistent with bedtimes and wake up times may help get the body clock back on track. So, turning out the lights at 10pm and using the light box at 7am consistently should work well.

As I have explained before, light and darkness play a fundamental role in our desire for carbohydrates. The later the lights are on at night, the higher our evening cortisol, the more we want to snack on carbs and sugar, the fatter we get. The cortisol connection may explain why SAD sufferers crave carbohydates and gain so much weight. Eating quality fats when wanting carbs may help suppress the cravings.

Morning exercise would probably also be extremely helpful, as exercise would not only boost morning cortisol, but would also reduce depression.

Related Tips
Is going to bed too late making you fat?
Depression
Melatonin, our rest and repair hormone
Cortisol, our stress hormone
Light pollution messes with our hormones

To subscribe go to www.wellnesstips.ca

Share

A couple of weeks ago a health report called Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer” came out indicating that obesity is a risk factor for cancer. No huge surprise there. The bit that caught my eye was the idea that red meat is simply horrible for us, and that we should not consume more than 500 grams a week.

That is not very much meat, and considering that for millennia many inland traditional cultures depended on hunting and consuming red meat to make it through harsh winters, I doubt they would have survived if they were following those guidelines.

So, how is it possible that these are the guidelines that have come out of the research?

The radio broadcast I heard on the subject talked about Dr. Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard, and how he found that the less meat one consumed the less the chance of developing cancer. (I hope I got that right.) I've been trying to find an actual copy of the report to verify this, but I'm not sure it has been published online.

So, I went to pubmed to see if I could find the studies upon which this idea was based. Based on the abstracts (and this is a rather major caveat!), it looks like in many of the studies, the diets were divided into what was called “the prudent pattern”, which included diets high in vegetables, fruit, legumes, fish and whole grains, and the “western pattern”, which included diets high in red and processed meats, refined grains, sweets and desserts, and the conclusions were that the “western diet” increases risk of stroke, heart disease, diabetes and colon cancer.

Clearly processed meat, refined grains, sweets and desserts are going to increase disease rates, but why is red meat lumped in with those non-foods?

Possibly when I read the actual studies that question will be answered, but on the surface that placement seems very arbitrary, and not one upon which to base a 500 gram limit.

The other problem inherent in epidemiological studies, is there is no control whatsoever on the quality of the food consumed. Even unprocessed red meat that is bought at a typical grocery store is very problematic, as most grocery stores sell factory-farmed meat.

These animals were not eating their natural diet of grass, but rather, fed pesticide-laden, probably GMO grain, making the animals sick. Antibiotics and hormones are given to the animals, in an effort to control illness, and to help the animals grow quickly for slaughter.

Then there is the increasing practice of injecting carbon monoxide into “case ready” meats being shipped to grocery stores, which keeps the meat looking red and fresh, even when it actually begins to spoil.

So, if consumers are only going by colour without looking at expiry dates, they may be deceived. Carbon Monoxide treatment has been banned in Europe, but is GRAS (generally regarded as safe), and therefore unlabeled under the FDA.

I would consider this meat to be “processed” too, and think that possibly consuming this kind of meat just might increase disease rates as was shown in the studies.

But what about REAL red meat – the kind that has been eaten by various cultures forever? Meat from animals that are eating their natural diet, and exercising daily as they go about their lives? Game, grass-fed bison, grass-fed beef, goat, sheep, lamb?

The natives of northern BC lived primarily on moose, grizzly bear and cariboo during the winter months, the natives near James Bay also relied on moose and other game (they avoided scurvy by eating the adrenal glands), the Masai and the Mahima tribes of Uganda in Africa ate mostly cattle, milk and blood etc.

Most cultures of the world did not have to rely entirely on red meat to survive as many had access to seafood as well as to vegetation, but most cultures of the world included red meat regularly in their diet.

Their skeletal remains indicate excellent bone and teeth formation, and no signs of the degenerative diseases we suffer from today.

Could it not be the case that our modernized methods of raising meat and treating meat is what has made it problematic, and not meat itself?

There are current studies that indicate that grass-fed meats are far higher in omega 3 fatty acids than grain-fed meats which would provide many health benefits, but I have not found any studies that have looked at grass-fed meats and heart disease, cancer or diabetes.

It is time that science became pickier about the quality of food that is used in food studies, rather than use modernized foods, or even better, to do studies comparing unprocessed, quality food traditionally prepared, with food using modernized growing and treatment methods when it comes to degenerative diseases.

It seems far too early to make a generalized statement that red meat is unhealthy, especially based on epidemiological studies that can’t possibly take into consideration meat quality.

And the other problem with modern science in my opinion, is that it is based on the fundamentally flawed assumption that all the subjects in the study are the same biochemically, giving the false impression that nutrition is a one-size-fits-all proposition.

Practical experience has shown that a diet that works for one person makes someone else worse, and that is why there is still no real consensus in the science world with respect to nutrition.

The take home message? Stay away from all processed, deli and grain-fed red meat. Look for game or grass-fed meats instead, especially if you are a protein type and need to eat a fair bit of meat to optimize your health. Bison and New Zealand lamb can be good options, as well as grass-fed beef.

Related Tips
Food Guide Fallacy
Organic vs. Conventional meat, poultry, dairy and eggs
Processed food is taking over our supermarkets
Nutrient-dense foods

Obesity Nears Smoking As Cancer-Causer CBS News, Oct. 31, 2007.

Copyright 2007 Vreni Gurd

www.wellnesstips.ca

Share

I’ve touched on this topic before, but I think it is worth the reminder that if we really want to maintain or regain our health, we really MUST avoid high fructose corn syrup like the plague. On food labels as Fructose-Glucose in Canada, high-fructose sweeteners are also deceptively labelled as inulin, iso-glucose, dahlia syrup, tapioca syrup, glucose syrup, corn syrup, crystalline fructose, agave syrup, and even fruit fructose. High-fructose sweeteners whether made from corn or from agave do a really good job of messing up our metabolism, which leads to diseases like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis and cancer.

The food-processing industry turned away from sugar from sugar cane and sugar beet when they discovered that a far less expensive, far sweeter sweetener that actually extended shelf life could be made from corn. So, from about 1970 when it was introduced into the food supply, we have been consuming larger and larger quantities of fructose, and interestingly enough, the rise in obesity levels has paralleled this increase. I admit that over that time we have also become less active, so clearly fructose is not entirely to blame, but all the same, it gives pause for thought.

Fructose was initially hailed as a boon to diabetics as it does not raise insulin levels like glucose does when it is metabolized. However, over time, high fructose consumption seems to increase insulin resistance by reducing insulin's affinity to its receptor, which causes the body to put out more insulin, further worsening the situation for diabetics. We now know that fructose is metabolized exclusively by the liver, converting into triglycerides (fats) very quickly. Fatty livers, increased triglycerides and uric acid in the blood-stream are a side-effect. High plasma uric acid is associated with heart disease.  Fructose contains no enzymes, minerals or vitamins, and uses our body’s resources for its processing.  Fructose does not stimulate insulin, nor does it stimulate leptin, two hormones that control satiety and therefore appetite, and it does not suppress ghrelin, a hormone that increases hunger. Therefore high fructose consumption may result in higher calorie consumption and weight gain.

Sucrose, or table sugar is made up of about 50% fructose and 50% glucose, and high fructose corn syrup is usually about 55% fructose and 45% glucose. How is it possible that that 5% difference can be so problematic? The reason is that in sucrose, the fructose is bound to glucose, but in high fructose corn syrup, there is much more free or unbound fructose, which interferes with the body’s use of minerals like copper, magnesium, iron, calcium and chromium. Copper deficiencies, common in those that consume high amounts of high-fructose corn syrup, can lead to osteoporosis, heart arrhythmias, insulin resistance, anemia, and unhealthy connective tissue and arteries due to problems in collagen and elastin formation. Manual therapists have noted that many kids of today feel like mush – their tissues don’t have the right consistency. Liver, an excellent source of copper, is rarely fed to today’s children.

Probably the biggest reason that high-fructose corn syrup is such a problem is that it is absolutely everywhere in our food supply, even in foods that one would not expect, resulting in us eating large quantities of the stuff, often completely unawares. The biggest HFC syrup culprits are soft drinks, fruit drinks (often sold in tetrapacks), and sports drinks, but it is also found in flavoured yogurts, frozen dinners / frozen food, canned food, breads, stuffing mixes, breakfast cereals, breakfast pancake/waffles, cookies/cakes, crackers, ice cream, children's vitamins, cough syrup, candy bars, condiments like ketchup etc., drink mixes, jams, jellies, syrups, some meats, salad dressings, sauces and marinades, and snack foods and bars.  For a list by brand, click here. Read labels carefully, or if this seems like too much trouble, simply stay away from ALL processed food by only consuming food that existed before the industrial revolution – food that comes from sources that one can pick, pull or chase after, and do not require a trip to a factory before being eaten.

Related Tips
Sugar – The disease generator
Artificial Sweeteners
Blood-sugar regulation
Insulin, our storage hormone

To subscribe go to www.wellnesstips.ca

Share

I have been asked by a few people why in the world I give up my Saturdays to spend 6 to 8 hours writing a tip for my readers for free. "Why not charge for your info?" I get asked. "Make it a paid subscription service charging a buck a tip or something. I'd pay you for your tips.” Well, that’s very kind, and I admit I have considered it. But I believe that even if the fee were nominal, readership would decline drastically, and my goal is to get this information out to as many people as possible. (If you want to pay me something, buy a book from Amazon on my site, or go through the Amazon link at the bottom of the left sidebar of my home page when you are doing your Amazon purchases. I get a tiny percentage of the price.) I want to provide info that will help everyone see the link between our health and the health of the planet. If enough of us return to following the laws of nature, we can probably save our Earth. And I admit, I am quite worried about our Earth. I feel a strong sense of urgency that we need to change how we live on a massive scale now, or my nieces and nephews, and all kids of today will have it pretty tough by the time they hit their 40s and 50s. And I wonder what kind of a life their kids will have. There isn’t much time left for us to turn this all around, and I think it is the grass-roots, the masses that have to force the companies and the governments to change by choosing carefully what we buy.

What brought that rant on?? I saw a documentary on PBS this week about the bees that are disappearing all over the world. The scientists are figuring that if the current rate of disappearance continues, the bees will be completely gone by 2035! This means that all vegetables and fruit as well as the grasses that the cows and other ruminants eat will have to be pollinated another way or disappear. The only plants that won’t be affected will be those that are wind pollinated, the grains, leaving us only grains and seafood to eat. Unfortunately much of our seafood is becoming more and more toxic due to high mercury levels. And grains alone do not a healthy diet make!  Obviously, we will attempt to do the job of the bees and find another way to pollinate the plants, but needless to say, that endeavor will be extraordinarily expensive, so vegetable, fruit, meat, eggs and dairy prices will go through the roof. Many complain that organic food today is expensive, but compared to what food prices will be if we have to resort to hand pollination … Better to do what is necessary to resolve the problem with the unpaid labour force – the bees.

According to this PBS program, the scientists have dismissed the electomagnetic field theory, and have turned their attention to three main theories – pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, mono-nutrition, and viruses.  When looking through the book Basic Guide To Pesticides: Their Characteristics And Hazards, it seems that many pesticides fall under the category of medium to high toxicity for bees.  Bees bring the pesticides back to the colonies, contaminating the colonies and the honey, bee pollen, royal jelly etc.  Just scroll down and look at these lawn-care pesticides and you will see how it isn’t just the bees that are suffering, but also birds and fish due to our ridiculous desire for perfect lawns! If you want to know the effects of different pesticide classes on warm-blooded animals such as humans, click here. So, we can choose to avoid using such products and refuse to support their use by purchasing food that we know has not been sprayed, by choosing organic or supporting local smaller farms that don’t spray.  Support golf courses that use natural lawn care methods and shun those that don't.

Bees are trucked great distances in order to pollinate crops. They are often brought to big agri-farms that grow only one kind of crop. Another theory on the demise of the bees is that malnutrition occurs because the bees don’t have access to a variety of plants on these huge mono-crop farms. This would weaken their immune system and make them more susceptible to sickness. Once again, we can play a role by supporting local, smaller farms that grow a variety of produce on their farms, and not purchasing from the large agri-business type farms whose farming practices are harmful on so many levels. Farmer’s markets, local organic delivery, coop programs etc. are all better places to get good quality food than the country-wide grocery chains that get their food from agri-business for the most part.

The US began importing bees from Australia to replace the bees lost through colony collapse disorder. It is now believed that part of the problem is an AIDs-like virus that came from Australia that is now infecting the North American bees and affecting their immune system. The scientists are working to resolve that issue, and hopefully they will. Most likely it is a combination of many things that have come together to create this catastrophe, and it will probably take a multi-pronged approach to reverse the trend. As individuals, we have a huge role to play through our collective purchasing power. Agri-business won’t get the message that we don’t want to eat their pesticide-laden food unless we stop buying it. So, save the bees by paying a little more for quality real food now from small farms that grow a variety of crops, enjoy the health benefits you and your family gain, and save our children from the possibility of not being able to afford nutritious food at all later should the bees die out.  If you have a back yard and your local laws allow it, becoming a beekeeper can be a fascinating and rewarding hobby that can play an important role in establishing healthy bees in your area.  The bees will compliment any backyard gardening efforts too!

Related Tips
Bee-population collapse, electric fields, and the implications for our health
Choose local and save the world!
Our toxic body burden
Bacteria, soil, the gut, and detoxification
Worm composting to eat your garbage and feed your garden

PBS Nature: Silence of the Bees
Briggs, Shirley, Rachel Carlson Council Basic Guide To Pesticides: Their Characteristics And HazardsTaylor and Francis, Washington D.C., 1992.

Copyright 2007 Vreni Gurd