wellness tips

Share

It may seem surprising that the grocery store is not the place to go to find the healthiest food. Thankfully there are other options.

The last couple of weeks we've explored two branches of the industrial food chain – conventional farming and big organic – and highlighted some of the problems with each, according to the research done by Michael Pollan, and delineated in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma. Further to the problem of grocery store food, this morning I was reading about how Tyson Foods is suing the USDA in order to be allowed to use the label "Raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans" in its chickens, even though they inject the antibiotic, gentamicin, into the eggs. They are fighting to be allowed to deceive us with their label – to make us believe that their chicken is antibiotic-free. Over the last few years I have pointed out several deceptive practices that food companies use to make food found on grocery-store shelves appear healthier than it actually is, including:

• Carbon monoxide put in packaged meat to minimize brown spots and make it look fresher, so consumers buy it even if it is past its prime.
• The complete absence of labelling of genetically modified food (70% of food in the supermarket contains genetically modified ingredients )
• all almonds in North America that are labelled as raw, are actually either sterilized through heat or chemicals, and therefore not raw at all
• In Canada, bread labelled as "whole wheat", actually means bread with 70% of the wheat germ is stripped away. The wheat germ is where the bulk of the nutrition is.
• Chickens and eggs are labelled as free-range and as "having access to outdoor pasture", which they are strongly discouraged from using
• Meal-replacement drinks being sold as healthier than real food, even though they are very high in sugar and contain damaged fats
• Lower-fat milks and yogurts most likely containing unlabelled powdered milk, which is essentially oxidized cholesterol and dangerous to our health
• Soy isolate ingredients being hidden on labels as textured vegetable protein, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, bouillon, natural flavour etc.
• Sugar being hidden on labels as various kinds of syrups, words ending in "ose" or "saccarides".
• Using the word "light" to mean light in colour or texture rather than low calorie as the consumer may think
• The label "made with real fruit" may mean "contains fruit flavours", and no actual fruit at all
• Pictures of a farm with cows grazing implying that the milk was pasture fed – almost always a lie
• Putting health claims on a label usually indicates it is not healthy. No 7-Up does not grow on fruit trees, Splenda is not a form of sugar, and Cheerios is actually highly processed and far less good for our hearts than a cooked whole grain would be.

So, staying away from grocery stores that sell us these foods can do a lot to improve our health. And even Industrial Organic, although far better than conventional, can be problematic because they are frequently still using industrial methods such as feeding cattle organic grain which makes the cattle sick. One of the reasons industrial farming methods came to pass in the first place (in addition to the obvious profitability), was the worry about being able to actually feed the growing world population. There is another way.

In his book, Michael Pollan introduces the reader to an entirely new kind of farming – or perhaps I should say "the old way" of mixed farming with a twist, which is highly productive, making it possible to feed large numbers of people with highly nutritious food from the land AND actually improve the quality of the soil the longer the land is farmed this way. No more compromising nutrition to put out more food, no more torturing of animals in the name of feeding humankind, no more pesticide run-off into the waterways damaging our drinking water or the habitat the fish we eat live in, no more relying on oil to run our whole agricultural system. This is a completely sustainable system that follows the laws of nature, and actually increases the health of the animals and plants that are a part of it, and it encourages plant diversity, the opposite of what mono-farming does. I think it's brilliant, and would encourage all farmers to consider it!

Michael Pollan introduces us to a permaculture farmer, Joe Salatin, who runs Polyface farm in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia. On 100 acres of grass, using low technology methods, Mr. Salatin produces per season 30,000 eggs, 10,000 broilers, 800 stewing hens, 25,000 pounds of beef, 250 hogs, 1000 turkeys, and 500 rabbits – an enormous amount of food produced in a way that improves the soil each year. Joe sees himself as primarily a grass farmer, because it can be argued that all flesh is grass. (I think all flesh is soil, actually.) The key to how his farm works, is keeping the grass at its healthiest. His only technology is a movable electric fence, which he uses to fence off a portion of his pasture in early evening, into which he introduces his cattle, which then have a day to graze that area. The next evening, he fences off another portion of pasture, into which the cattle move. If grass is over-grazed it cannot survive, and one winds up with a mud-pile. So, by moving the cattle daily, he not only prevents the grass from dying, but actually encourages it to form a stronger plant, much like how pruning a bush does. He is converting grass and sunshine into meat and dairy – using solar energy rather than fossil fuels.

Exactly three days later, he introduces the chickens into the same area that the cows were. The chickens go straight for the cow paddies, which are now full of plump maggots that are about to hatch into flies. Introducing the chickens at that time gives the chicken their favourite food, spreads the cow manure around via chicken feet, prevents a fly problem, and also further nourishes the grass with chicken droppings. The cows and chickens both get to eat their favourite and most healthy food, and they get to do what they do best – be cows and chickens, living their life to the fullest. And the grass, cut down by the cows, sheds some of its root system, which is turned into soil by the earthworms, soil bacteria and fungi, and fertilized by the animal waste, grows again very quickly, making it possible to repeat the process in about 5 weeks. And the food that comes from this low tech method of farming is brimming with nutrition, unlike the food that comes from a factory farm. What makes this farm so productive is the symbiotic relationship between the animals and the grass, resulting in improved soil fertility and improved plant diversity year after year. What a boon to countries struggling to feed themselves, like those in Africa, for example!

Joe Salatin refuses to sell his food via the industrial food chain, even to a store such as Whole Foods. He is trying to build local economies where "bar-codes are unnecessary". His customers come to his farm to buy eggs and chickens, and he sells at local farmers' markets, through metropolitan buying clubs where groups of families put in a large order for food twice a month, through CSAs or "Community Supported Agriculture", where customers subscribe to the farm and get a box of produce a week all summer, and to chefs in the neighbouring towns, who love the quality and flavour of his food. His customers are those that want to know exactly where their food is coming from, how it is grown or raised, and demand highly nutritious, flavourful food. His customers relearn that all food is seasonal – that beef, lamb and pork are fall/winter foods, and that chicken is a summer food. These people have opted out of the industrial food chain in order to better nourish their families and to support a style of agriculture that gives more back to the planet than it takes away.

I agree with Michael Pollan, who says that what we choose to eat is a political act. What we decide to put in our mouths either feeds a system that results in the degradation of the planet and our health, or one that improves it.The industrial food chain relies on the false idea that in order for humankind to win, nature must lose. It also relies on the ignorance of its customers with respect to its practises, and sells based on price alone. They want their customers to believe that an egg is an egg, or an apple is an apple – that the growing method has no impact on its nutrition. We know that this is untrue. What the animals we consume are fed, alters the composition of their fats. A strong argument can be made that it is this fat-ratio alteration that is behind a lot of the sickness we suffer today. The nutrients or lack thereof in the soil greatly impacts the nutrition in the plants we eat. By opting out of the industrial food chain as much as possible and growing some of our own food, purchasing "bar-code-free food" by supporting smaller, local farmers at farmers' markets or through weekly local organic food-box programs, we can nourish our families and our local economies. This does require some work to source out food, and also to spend time cooking, but becoming a part of the local "slow food" movement is well worth the effort.

Feel free to watch Michael Pollan discuss these ideas in this 17 minute video on Youtube, or read Michael Pollan's fantastic book – it is well worth it.

If you want to search for other posts by title or by topic, go to www.wellnesstips.ca.

Related posts
Industrial agriculture – what's the real cost of cheap food?
The problem with organic food
Choose local and save the world!
Processed food is taking over our supermarkets
Food, our raw material
Bacteria, the soil, the gut, and detoxification
Worm composting to eat your garbage and feed your garden

Pollan, Michael The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals Penguin Press, New York, 2006.

Eisen, Michael Michael Pollan Interview The Progressive Nov. 2008.

Gutierrez, David Tyson Foods Injects Chickens with Antibiotics Before They Hatch to Claim "Raised without Antibiotics" Natural News.Com Nov. 9, 2008.

Howden, Daniel Organic farming 'could feed Africa' – Traditional practices increase yield by 128 per cent in east Africa, says UN The Independent Oct. 22, 2008.

Lowitt, Kristen A Comparative Case Study of Nova Scotia Farmers’ Markets: Exploring Connections Among People, Places and Food Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada Sept. 2008.

Henderson, Paul Raw deal. . .or are they just milking the system? Chilliwack Times Nov. 4, 2008.

Copyright 2008 Vreni Gurd

To subscribe go to www.wellnesstips.ca

Share

Does the label “organic” deliver on its promise?

What does the word “organic” conjure up for you in your mind? For me, ten years ago before I began to research food, “organic” meant over-priced, blemished fruits and veggies. I certainly didn’t understand why anyone would pay extra for what I thought must be subpar produce. Of course, I had never seen an organic apple at that time – I just believed they would be full of worms, since no pesticides were used. Later, after I’d actually gone into a store that sold organic produce, and found my first organic apple to not only be blemish free, but also to be the tastiest apple I had ever had in my life, the word “organic” took on a new meaning for me. Now it meant tastier food, and it also took on the pastoral meaning of the traditional family farm – the type of mixed farm we read about in our first-grade readers.

Organic food now means food grown without chemical pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and organic animals are fed organic feed, and are antibiotic and hormone-free, but according to Michael Pollan in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, originally the word “organic” meant much more than that – a communal bond that was trying to change the relationship people had with the planet in order to save it. The organic movement was born in the late 60s as a protest against the collective – anything industrial and centrist. The California hippies at the time were environmentalists that wanted to create that one-on-one connection with the earth, and to grow healthy food in a cooperative, “more gentle on the earth” way that wasn’t contaminated by the industrial, collective, “conquest” of nature” system. Living organically was a political act based upon three ideals: chemical-free farms (how food was grown), anticapitalist food co-ops (how food was distributed), and “countercuisine” or “brown food” (brown rice, brown bread etc.) which was pitted against the “white foods” created by industrial agriculture. Pollan explains how the original organic hippies believed completely that “you are what you eat”, in every sense of the word, and that one cannot separate the food you eat from how it is grown, and how it arrives at your table.

In nature, plants and animals are symbiotic. Animals poop on the plants which nourishes the soil that the plants need to grow, that the animals eat. It is a closed system that replenishes itself, and is therefore sustainable. So, mixed farms actually work quite well. But is the organic food we buy in the supermarket actually coming from these mixed farms we imagine in our heads, and does it fit the ideals of the originators of the organic movement?

I think unfortunately a lot has been lost. Over the last 40 years the growth in organic food has been tremendous, the word “organic” now representing an 11 billion dollar a year industry. With the demand for organic food being so big, suddenly organic food is being shipped thousands of miles from where it was grown, using lots of fuel for its transport. Organic farms have grown in size to handle the demand, meaning they have needed to adopt many of the industrial agriculture methods in order to process the food. Sure, the food is grown without chemicals, but heavy machinery is needed to pick, wash and package all those organic mixed leafy greens or organic baby carrots we see at the grocery store. Last week I discussed the problem of feeding cattle corn rather than grass. Organic beef is probably fed organic corn, and an organic cow will get just as sick on organic corn as a conventional cow will on conventional corn. So, we have organic factory farms which are indeed feeding their animals organic feed, but not the animals’ natural diet, putting out organic beef, milk, chicken and eggs. But now the farmer can’t use drugs to keep the animals healthy. The organic food movement has become industrialized in order to handle demand. Also, processed organic food uses the word “organic” to denote something healthy, but organic ketchup made with organic high fructose corn syrup is just as unhealthy as the conventional product.

And what do the words organic “free-range” mean when it comes to chicken and eggs? The words conjure up the idea of happy chickens running about outside in the grass, pecking out grubs – being a chicken! According to Pollan, who visited Petaluma Poultry in California which sells free-range organic roasting chickens and organic free-range eggs via the brand name “Judy’s Family Farm” through Whole Foods, 20,000 chickens live together in huge sheds. They are not in battery cages, but still live in pretty cramped quarters due to the number of chickens and the space available to them. Along the side of the shed is a grassy yard that the chickens can explore should they wish, but apparently because the door to the outdoors is shut for their first 5 weeks, they never bother going outside during the last 2 weeks of their life. But the farmer can put “free range” on the label because that option is available to the chickens for the last quarter of their life. The chickens eat the organic feed that is in trays above the ground in the sheds. So much for “free-range” chicken and eggs – seems a bit of a scam to me! They are unlikely to be getting the grubs they need to alter the nutrition of their eggs or their meat for the better, after all. I have yet to see “pasture fed” on milk, cream, yogurt, cheese or butter in my grocery store, so one must assume it is grain fed, even if it is organic.

So the organic movement, brimming with the ideals of the late 60s has turned into industrial organic, a method of farming that closely resembles that of conventional industrial agriculture. Ideals have fallen by the wayside, since the farming and distribution methods are essentially the same. Industrial organic is probably slightly better than conventional farming due to the lack of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, which would not only produce a less toxic, potentially healthier food, but would also do much more preserve the soils and protect the streams from chemical run-off. But is that good enough?? When it comes to meat, poultry, eggs and dairy, is the food healthy enough to provide us with the nutrition we need? Is this the food system we should be supporting with our hard-earned dollars?

There is a third option – a much better way, that provides healthy food and sustains the planet. Next week we’ll discuss opting out of the industrial food system. Do read Michael Pollan's fantastic book – it is well worth it.

If you want to search for other posts by title or by topic, go to www.wellnesstips.ca.

Related tips
Industrial agriculture – what’s the real cost of cheap food?
Conventional vs. Organic vs Pasture-fed meats, poultry, eggs and dairy
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Processed food is taking over our supermarkets
Food brands that contain genetically modified ingredients
Essential fats: Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratio
Food, our raw material

Pollan, Michael The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals Penguin Press, New York, 2006.

Gonzalez F. et al.Grain feeding and the Dissemination of Acid-Resistant Escherichia coli from Cattle Science Washington, Sept. 11, 1998, Vol. 281, Iss. 5383: p. 1666-69. (A study that shows the difference in e-coli levels between grass and grain fed cattle.)

Copyright 2008 Vreni Gurd

Share

Most of us are eating a huge amount of corn (and soy) and are not aware of it. What is that doing to our health, and the health of our planet?

I’ve been reading a great book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan, who looks at food from a rather unique perspective – that of the food itself. So instead of looking at corn as a commodity, he wonders how corn has managed to propagate its seed so well, becoming the most successful plant on the face of the earth. Considering the rather large obstacles that corn must overcome to reproduce, its success is astonishing. He notes that the corn kernels (the seeds) are all contained in a thick husk, and should the cob fall to the ground those seeds would have to make their way through the husk to the soil in order to germinate, and even if they did manage to accomplish that task, considering all the seeds are bunched together, there would be a huge overcrowding problem which would further diminish the chance of success. Corn’s domination over other plants has been due to its amazing versatility at a low cost, filling the bill for food globalization perfectly. We are now planting it in vast quantities in order to put it into pretty much all processed, packaged foods as well as factory-farmed meat, poultry, eggs and dairy on the market.

Most of the corn in our food is not the same corn that we enjoy by the cob in the autumn – it is an industrial, genetically modified corn, grown for its super cheap calories , grown for its oil (sold for cooking, salad dressings and for hydrogenation into transfat margarines and shortenings), its sweetness (high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, maltodextrin, maltose), its meal, flour and starch, which is further processed into stabilizers, emulsifiers (mono-, di-and triglycerides, lecithin, xanthan gum) thickeners, gels and viscosity control agents for food, as well as adhesives, coatings, and plastics for industry, not to mention ethanol for fuel. Most of the corn grown by far is fed to animals like cows and chickens, in order to fatten them up quickly for market.

Why were animals forced off the grazing fields to be packed together like sardines in the barns of factory farms? Grazing animals take a lot of space, and also it takes more time to convert the sun’s energy that is stored in grass into the meat of a grazing animal than it does to convert petroleum-based energy from chemical fertilizers into corn, and then into meat by feeding the animals that corn. So, in the eyes of industrial agriculture, petroleum-based / corn-based farming makes a lot of economic sense. And the processed food companies like Cargill and General Mills love it, because corn is a cheap filler, preservative, and sweetener which can easily be disguised to replace more expensive or more perishable ingredients, increasing their bottom line. So for example, fruit juices become fruit drinks made of corn, strawberry shakes are not made from strawberries but from corn, and chicken becomes chicken nuggets (hard to determine how much of that chicken nugget is actually chicken).

So, according to Pollan, if you were to read the ingredients in a fast-food meal at McDonalds to determine how much of the food was derived from corn, depending on what you order, from the french fries at about 23%, to a cheeseburger at 56% (including the corn fed to the beef in the patty), to a salad dressing at 65%, to a milk shake at 78%, to a soft drink at 100%, that is a lot of corn we are eating. And a lot of fossil fuel was used to make that fast-food meal, considering not only the chemical fertilizers to grow the corn, but also all the trucking involved from farm to grain elevator to processing plant to food plant to fast-food outlet.

Here's the thing. Even though to the industrial agriculture / food processing industries, using corn and oil as the basis for making cheap food products is very profitable, there is a huge hidden cost to all this cheap food. First of all, at the most basic level, we have switched from a style of farming that uses the sun to create food energy to one that uses petroleum (chemical fertilizers) to create food energy, which is not sustainable. Industrial agriculture depletes soils, rather than maintaining them or improving them. Chemical fertilizers don't provide complete nutrition to the plant, resulting in plants that contain less nutrition for the animals that eat them. Huge fields of one kind of crop reduces the diversity of plant life, which not only harms the food chain, but also creates economic risk, as all the eggs are in one basket should that crop fail. And all monoculture crops need to be trucked for processing, AND ALSO trucked to supermarkets and fast food restaurants, further utilizing petroleum energy.

Feeding corn to ruminant animals who's bodies are designed to eat grass makes cows very sick. The rumen, the organ that ferments grass, can't handle corn, which causes gas to become entrapped in the slimy build up, bloating the rumen which causes it to press upon the lungs of the animal. The animal must be intubated to prevent suffocation. Also, corn causes the rumen, which normally has a neutral pH, to become acidic, resulting in a heartburn type of condition, and over time the acid can wear a hole in the rumen allowing bacteria into the blood stream, causing liver problems and eventually death. E-coli levels are very high in corn-fed cattle. So, the cows are given drugs to combat these conditions. And all of this could be avoided if the cows were allowed to eat their natural diet – grass. Scientists have even shown that if the cows are fed hay for the last two weeks prior to slaughter, e-coli counts would drop dramatically, but the industrial farmers won't even do that because of the perceived extra cost.

Industrial agriculture also creates a huge pollution problem. Chemical fertilizers sprayed on crops, as well as manure waste from factory farms leach into streams and rivers, sickening and/or killing off marine life. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, industrial agriculture is the biggest polluter of rivers in the States.

And at the top of the food chain we find us. And we are unwittingly eating huge amounts of processed GMO corn (and soy) in packaged food, factory-farmed meat, dairy, poultry, and eggs from animals sickened and drugged because of the corn they are eating (remember – when you see "grain fed" beef at the supermarket, that is NOT a good thing!) If the food we eat is inherently unhealthy is it a surprise we are getting sicker and sicker? It is predicted that today's children will not live as long as their parents. More and more of us are overweight and suffering from type 2 diabetes and heart disease at younger and younger ages due to so much starch, sugar and omega 6 fats (found in corn and soy) in our diet and in the diet of the animals we eat, and the lack of nutrition found in packaged and factory-farmed food. So, ask yourself. Is the cheap food provided by the industrial agricultural system really that cheap, when you consider the environmental and health costs as well? How much are you paying out in drugs each month to treat health conditions largely caused by consuming industrial food?

There is a much better way … We'll get into that soon.

Do read Michael Pollan's fantastic book – it is well worth it. If you want to search for other posts by title or by topic, go to www.wellnesstips.ca.

Related tips
Conventional vs. Organic vs Pasture-fed meats, poultry, eggs and dairy
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Processed food is taking over our supermarkets
Food brands that contain genetically modified ingredients
Essential fats: Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratio
Food, our raw material

Pollan, Michael The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals Penguin Press, New York, 2006.

Gonzalez F. et al.Grain feeding and
the Dissemination of Acid-Resistant Escherichia coli from Cattle Science Washington, Sept. 11, 1998, Vol. 281, Iss. 5383: p. 1666-69. (A study that shows the difference in e-coli levels between grass and grain fed cattle.)

Copyright 2008 Vreni Gurd

To subscribe go to www.wellnesstips.ca

Share

Is it possible that dehydration plays a role in the degradation of the cartilage found in Osteoarthritis?

Unlike rheumatoid arthritis, which is an auto-immune disease, osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disease, where the cartilage (the smooth, cushiony, rubbery, white stuff that surrounds the ends of the bones that form a joint) deteriorates, eventually degrading the bone itself, resulting in stiff, painful joints. The big question in my mind is what causes the cartilage to begin deteriorating in the first place? I have searched, as has my colleague, Sue Bond who helped me research this topic, and we have found nothing much in the scientific journals that provides a satisfactory answer. Getting older and being overweight seems to be commonly associated with osteoarthritis, but many that are older and overweight do not get it. And there are some who are young and thin who do. A previous joint injury may pre-dispose someone to osteoarthritis, but once again, not everyone that has suffered a joint injury goes on to get OA. And unlike most of today’s chronic diseases, osteoarthritis has been around for a very long time. There is fossil evidence that some dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals suffered from OA (Wells, 1973), as did many of the Egyptian mummies (Braunstein, 1988), as well as two thirds of the Romano-British skeletons studied (Thould and Thould 1983).

I think there must be a biochemical imbalance of some kind that must create an unhealthy environment within the joint space resulting in the cartilage wearing away, and even though science has not as of yet put its finger on what exactly that issue is, I have a theory. I agree with Dr. Batmanghelidj that body dehydration may play an important role – I fully admit I cannot back this idea up with scientific studies, but I think it is worth considering because healthy cartilage is full of water, and water plays an integral role in how cartilage works. Cartilage functions something like a very dense sponge, and as we put weight through our joints, the water it contains squishes out, and when we take the weight off our joints, the water diffuses back into the cartilage. The water within the joint space also provides lubrication allowing the bones to glide smoothly on each other. If one is not drinking adequate water, the body would prioritize the viscosity of the blood over joint health, and water would be pulled from the cartilage resulting in it "drying out", probably making it more likely to degrade due to increased friction and weight-bearing stress. This theory would fit the observation that those that are older and overweight are more likely to suffer from osteoarthritis, as it is well known that as we age we tend to dry out, and putting a greater amount of weight through the joints would wear them out faster. And I think it is reasonable to expect that at all times in history some people would have been chronically dehydrated.

Cartilage is actually uncalcified bone. New cartilage cells grow on the bone surface, so cartilage nutrition come via the bone itself, and if wear and tear strip away the surface cells faster than the underneath cells can grow, the cartilage layer will become thinner. If the bone marrow and the cartilage are competing for water, the cartilage will lose out, losing its supply of nutrition. Now the joint needs to get nutrition another way, via the arteries in the joint capsule, which then expand causing swelling and increased synovial fluid in the joint space. But water coming from the joint space does not hydrate or nourish the cartilage in the same manner is water coming via the bone itself, and this extra fluid is often inflammatory and painful.

I don't know if it is reasonable to expect that damaged bone and cartilage will repair itself much if one suddenly pays attention to drinking sufficient water, but it may be worth while to do so in order to prevent further damage because as osteoarthritis progresses it becomes increasingly more painful, and anything that can be done to prevent further degeneration of the joint surfaces can only be viewed as helpful.

Other things one can do to decrease progression of the disease and reduce pain? The big one is to lose weight, which would result in less wear and tear on the joints. Studies have shown that a combination of glucosamine and chondriotin also aid in preventing further degenerative damage and reduce pain, especially in those that are suffering the most. News stories a couple of years ago on a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggesting that these supplements did nothing are misleading, as these popular-press articles unfortunately did not fully explain the results. Although the study showed that glucosamine and chondriotin did not help everyone with OA, they helped 79% of those that were the most seriously affected and in the most pain. (If you are allergic to shellfish, you are most likely allergic to glucosamine, so don’t take it.) It makes sense to me that eating soups made from bone broths, which provide hydrophilic gelatin to the body would not hurt either. Increased omega 3 fatty acid consumption (fatty fish and fish oils) reduce body inflammation, which studies have also shown reduces the pain of OA. Tumeric is also very anti-inflammatory, and research supports its use to reduce the pain of arthritis. And many studies also support acupuncture for reducing the pain of OA. Maintaining strength and flexibility about the affected joints is also helpful, and water exercise can be particularly beneficial, as strength and muscle endurance can be gained without putting undo weight-bearing stress through the joints.

If you want to search for other posts by title or by topic, go to www.wellnesstips.ca.

Related tips
Water, our critical solvent
How much water should we drink?
Reducing the pain of rheumatoid arthritis
How to lose weight
Walking, sacroiliac dysfunction and hip pain

To subscribe go to www.wellnesstips.ca