Archive for November 2012

Some of our Testimonials!   Leave a comment

I’m 80 years old. Life left its marks after years of doing strenuous sports with hard loads and multiple fractures. Also serving in the navy was not a walk in the park. Later came hard work of building the house, digging up а well, etc – all with my own hands!

 

For many years now I’ve been experiencing exhausting pain in my shoulder and my hip. Various analgesics, compresses, exercises and other remedies didn’t help the problem. The worst time was during the night where I would wake up from the pain and stay awake till the morning suffering the torment.

 

Finally this year I got into the magic hands of Dr. Bradley Mouroux. Young, energetic, and attentive Dr. Brad made a miracle: my pain disappeared! I can now sleep well, walk and function in a way I didn’t think I would ever again.

 

Dr. Brad also helped my wife, who was suffering back pain for many years. She now doesn’t have to hold on to her back when walking and it definitely made her more active in the every day life.

 

Dr. Brad also has a wonderful assistant Galina. Her charm, care, and hospitality is a tremendous contribution to our healing!

 

Thank you kindly Dr. Brad and Galina.

 

-Vladimir and Tsilya Khodorkovsky (San Jose, CA)

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Initially, I came to Dr. Brad with a shoulder injury, and after about a week or so it felt like I had a new shoulder! Dr. Brad eliminated all of the pain in my shoulder. Next, came the leg injury. I felt weakness whenever I put pressure on my leg. After a couple days, it was almost completely recovered. This amazed me because even though I generally recover quickly from injuries, its never been this fast!

The office has a very warm atmosphere, and Galina is very nice and has a great attitude.

-Edward Zalinskiy (San Jose, CA)

________________________________________________________________________

 

I’ve been under Dr. Mouroux’s care for 2 ½ years and in this time, my neck and back pain are practically gone and my seasonal allergies that I have had for over 20 years are so mild that I no longer need to use any medication. He has also given me recommendations for my diet and fitness and I can definitely feel a difference when I don’t cheat and actually follow his advice. I’ve been able to lose 10 pounds just by making minor adjustments in foods to avoid as per Dr. Mouroux’s recommendations.
He is super knowledgeable and very easy-going, easy-to-get-along with guy. He also uses a lot of neurology and Chinese Medicine, which sets him apart from the other “rack em and crack em” chiropractors.

 

-Melissa K. (San Leandro, CA)

Advertisements

“Expert” Detractors on California Prop 37 are Shills for Big Biotech   Leave a comment

By Dr. Mercola

All eyes are on California where Proposition 37, which, if passed, would require labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering. It will be put to voters on November 6th. In recent weeks, the battle over GMO labeling has taken an ugly turn. In a true David versus Goliath battle, the opposition will apparently stop at nothing to defeat the measure.

What are they so afraid of?

A common corporate tactic, well-honed by the tobacco industry, is to hire “third-party experts” to bring your message to the public, especially through the media. The idea is that academic types carry much more credibility than the likes of Monsanto when it comes to defending genetically engineered food.

University of California at Monsanto?

It’s no accident that the “No on Prop 37” campaign has many academics on its side at the University of California at Davis. The school enjoys millions of dollars in research grants and other largesse from the biotech industry.

A 2004 story in the Sacramento Bee1 describes UC Davis as a research incubator for Big Biotech:

“You name it, and biotechnology companies help pay for it at UC Davis: laboratory studies, scholarships, post-doctoral students’ salaries, professors’ travel expenses, even the campus utility bill.”

According to Bill Liebhardt, former director of the UC system’s sustainable farming program:

‘The public is having a hard time figuring out where the corporate door ends and where the university door begins.’ And UC Davis cell biologist Eduardo Blumwald says that biotech companies ‘are influencing the way we do research.'”

That would certainly explain why so many UC Davis professors profess support for the “No on 37” campaign.

One article, co-authored by University of California at Davis professor Colin Carter,2 not only defends genetically engineered (GE) foods, but also makes unsubstantiated claims while mischaracterizing the language of Prop 37, as Tufts professor Parke Wilde pointed out in August.3 Another pair of UC Davis professors were paid by the “No on 37” campaign, which released their report4 with this dramatic headline:

“UC Davis Professors of Agricultural Economics Release New Report that Shows Proposition 37 Will Increase Costs for California Farmers and Food Processors by $1.2 Billion.”

The Los Angeles Times5 reported that the No campaign paid UC Davis professors Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner at least $30,000.

“This article would never stand to peer-review scrutiny, which explains why the report isn’t published anywhere but on the ‘No on 37’ website,”6 he says.

Professor Alston is no stranger to Monsanto largesse. According to the Sacramento Bee:7

“In July 2002, UC Davis farm economics professor Julian Alston found a patron in the private sector: Monsanto, one of the world’s five largest crop biotechnology firms. The official announcement came in the form of a letter. ‘Dear Dr. Alston,’ it read. ‘Please find enclosed a check for $40,000 that represents an unrestricted gift in support of your research program.'”

Next, UC Davis Professor Kent Bradford penned a curious op-ed in the Woodland Daily Democrat8 opposing Prop 37 that listed talking points bearing striking resemblance to the “No on 37” campaign’s arguments.9 That similarity just might be explained by Bradford’s deep ties to Monsanto. According to the Sacramento Bee,10 Branford is “director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at UC Davis, and a leader of Seed Central, a university-led initiative to attract seed industry to the Davis area.” He recently trumpeted Monsanto’s $31 million expansion at the Woodland, California campus, saying the investment, “capitalizes on UC Davis and the research capacity of the companies.”

Most recently, two UC Davis professors appeared on an episode of the Dr. Oz show defending genetically engineered foods.11 One of them, Martina Newell-McGloughlin is director of the University of California Biotechnology Research and Education Program,12 while the other, Alison L. Van Eenennaam, has worked for Monsanto.13

It’s no wonder the funders of “No on Prop 37” would keep dipping into the UC Davis deep well of alleged academic experts. They obviously made an excellent investment, and it’s payback time.

Monsanto Expert, Henry Miller: “I am Not a Stanford Professor, But I Play One on TV”

“No on Prop 37” has been putting Henry Miller front and center of its campaign. Miller has a long and sordid history14 of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to working for Big Tobacco. He also tends to misrepresent himself quite a bit. As the Los Angeles Times15 reported, a “No on 37” ad had to be pulled off the air because Miller was identified as, “Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Stanford University, founding dir. FDA Office of Technology.” Behind him in the shot was Stanford’s recognizable vaulted campus walkway.

Just one problem: Miller is not a Stanford professor but a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank that happens to be housed on the Stanford campus. Adding insult to injury, Stanford has a policy to not take positions on candidates or ballot measures, and does not allow political filming on campus.

Oops. The campaign admitted its error and edited the ad.

But the Stanford deception did not end there. Recently, the “Yes on 37” campaign complained16 that Stanford’s policy was being violated once again, this time in at least two different “No on 37” flyers sent to California voters that identify Miller as, “Henry Miller, MD, Stanford University.” The campaign claimed it wouldn’t happen again… Right.

False Claims and Misrepresentations Used to Mislead Voters

The “No on 37” campaign has been caught using fraudulent misinformation to confuse voters again and again over the past several months. For example, on October 18, the “California Right to Know Yes on 37” campaign requested the U.S. Department of Justice conduct a criminal investigation of the “No on 37” campaign “for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” According to the press release:17

“‘The Justice Department should investigate this fraudulent dirty trick perpetrated by the ‘No on 37′ campaign,’ said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager of ‘California Right to Know Yes on 37.’ ‘They are running a campaign of lies, deceit and trickery, and some of it may be criminal.’

The ‘No on 37’ campaign affixed the FDA’s seal to one of the campaign’s mailers. Section 506 of the U.S. Criminal Code states: ‘Whoever… knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description… shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.’

The letter also provides evidence that the ‘No on 37’ campaign falsely attributed a direct quote to the FDA in the campaign mailer. The quoted attribution, which appears below, is entirely false and fabricated. The FDA did not make this statement and does not take a position on Prop 37.”

FDA on Prop 37

According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the world’s largest organization for food and nutrition professionals), “No on 37” also misled the public about the Academy’s stance on genetically engineered foods in the Secretary of State’s Official California Voter Information Guide.

The press release18 issued by the Academy reads in part:

“…the California Official Voter Information Guide regarding Proposition 37… inaccurately states that the Academy ‘has concluded that biotech foods are safe.’ The statement is false… We are concerned that California voters are being misled… Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice.”

Fuzzy Logic Used to Confuse You on the Basic Issues

The anti-choice campaign likes to claim that Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers in order to hit small grocers and growers with lawsuits. The truth is that “Yes on Prop 37” is a grassroots effort, started by a concerned California grandmother who saw that there was no way of avoiding genetically engineered foods even if we wanted to, since they didn’t have to be labeled.

The labeling campaign is about having the right to know what’s in your food – just like you’re informed about the nutritional content, and the presence of peanuts (important for those with allergies) and other food additives. Whether genetically engineered ingredients are good or bad for your health is really beside the point. Aspartame is not good for you, yet it’s on the label, and people have the right to consume it as they please. That’s all this is about – just state what it is on the label.

The Monsanto campaign claims Prop 37 is “anti-science” and would ban safe foods. This is nonsense, as Prop 37 doesn’t ban anything. It simply requires the label to state whether the food contains genetically engineered ingredients or not. You’re still free to sell it and buy it.

The only thing it prohibits is the mislabelling of GE foods as “all-natural,” a term that many tend to associate with more organic standards – which GE crops cannot comply with. You’re currently paying a premium for “all-natural” foods that actually use GE ingredients, thinking you’re getting something better than conventional! THAT’S hurting your wallet. Accurately labeling these foods will not.

As for their argument that genetically engineered foods have been around for many years without health problems, this is another nonsensical claim, as there’s no way of tracing any potential health problems back to the food without labelling! The potential truthfulness of their claim in fact hinges on GE foods remaining unlabeled. Without labelling there’s simply no way to know, because there’s no way to track or trace side effects like people can now do with aspartame, or any other food allergy.

Science Media Centre aka Big Biotech Spin Control

A related tactic to hiring academic experts one at a time to do your bidding is to corral them all into one really important sounding organization; often, an “institute.” The Tobacco Institute was an arm of Big Tobacco that according to its own description,19 acted “as official spokesman for the industry, always reflecting official [strategy] position agreed upon by all members.”

Moreover, spinning science through a sophisticated public relations campaign was paramount. The institute’s main mission was:

“[P]ublicizing scientific research funded by the industry which produces counter evidence to unfavorable findings or, at least, helps to keep the question open.”

Sounds unbelievable now, but for decades this strategy was so effective that it delayed policy action while millions died. Enter the Science Media Centre.20 Headquartered in the UK, there is also a US-based outlet.21 Their mission (like their name), sounds innocuous enough:22

“Our aim is to ensure that when a major science story breaks, we can quickly offer news desks a list of scientists available to comment, a summary of the main scientific points involved and details of which press officers or web sites to go to for further information.”

They also provide handy tips in this document23 called, “Communicating risks in a soundbite: A guide for scientists,” on how to respond to media questions by downplaying problems. For example, if a reporter asks, “Is it risky?” the scientist should get the journalist to instead ask about the benefits by replying, “the benefits outweigh the risks.” Another suggested answer: “It is a very small risk. So small that I believe it is safe.”

Why would a “science media center” put words into scientists’ mouths?

Just take a look at the sources of funding, which include:24

  • BASF
  • Bayer
  • Biotechnology & Biological Sciences and Research Council
  • CropLife (pesticide and biotech trade group)
  • Monsanto
  • Novartis
  • Syngenta

Not exactly players with an objective view of science. This might explain why the center pounced25 on the recent French study showing organ damage and massive cancer tumors in rats fed GE corn. This was the first lifetime feeding study that has ever been conducted with GE food, so it was sure to be a major embarrassment to Big Biotech.

The very same day the French report was published came a press release26 from the Science Media Centre claiming “anomalies throughout the paper” despite the authors having been through the usual peer review process.

The main statement from the center was authored by Professor Maurice Moloney, head of Rothamsted Research, which was the target of a protest earlier this year.27 (A counter group formed at the time, calling itself “Sense about Science.” This is a common tactic, to portray those who object to tinkering with nature as anti-science luddites.) Moloney is certainly not an objective scientist when it comes to genetically engineered foods, as his Porsche license plate with the letters GMO indicates.


Image Courtesy of SpinWatch.org

His bio28 includes working at biotech incubator Calgene (which was later bought by Monsanto), “where he developed the first transgenic oilseed plants using canola as the model crop,” which became the basis of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready and Liberty Link canola products.”

How nice. So the man who gave us Monsanto’s premiere product – Roundup Ready – doesn’t think an independent study demonstrating harm from eating genetically engineered food is valid? Why am I not shocked?

Have You Fallen for Falsehoods?

Here is what should be shocking: that it’s so easy for opponents of GMO labeling to insert such obviously biased scientific spin into the public discourse. According to GM Watch,29 Moloney’s critique was picked up in numerous media outlets, at times, just attributed to unnamed “independent scientists.” Mission accomplished.

In addition to using experts for hire as spokespeople, the “No on 37” campaign has engaged in numerous other underhanded tactics, getting caught each time.

For example, the “Yes on 37” campaign recently sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting a criminal investigation for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.30 “No on 37” included the FDA logo on a mailer31 sent to California voters, along with a quote falsely attributed to FDA saying the agency was opposed to Prop 37.

“No on 37” has also misrepresented the positions of several health and nutrition organizations,32 even going so far as to deceive Californians in the official voter guide.

How sad that Monsanto and friends must stoop so low to keep consumers in the dark about what they are eating. What are they trying to hide?

Passing Prop 37 is Key to Expanding Sustainable Agriculture in North America

It’s quite evident that we have no real champions for food safety and labeling of genetically engineered foods within the federal government. As I recently reported, the last three U.S. Presidents and Presidential-hopeful Mitt Romney all have something health related in common – they all insist on 100% organic diets for their own families while promoting unlabeled GE foods on the rest of us.

But right now we do have a great opportunity to change this situation by circumventing Monsanto’s posse entirely. Americans are becoming very aware of a significant problem with our food, and that starts with transparency.

Although many organic consumers and natural health activists already understand the importance of Proposition 37, it cannot be overemphasized that winning the battle over Prop 37 is perhaps the most important food fight Americans – not just Californians – have faced so far.

But in order to win this fight for the right to know what’s in our food, we need your help. Please remember, the failure or success of this ballot initiative is wholly dependent on your support and funding! There are no major industry pockets funding this endeavor. In order to have a chance against the deep pockets of Big Biotech and transnational food corporations, it needs donations from average citizens.

 

So please, I strongly encourage you to make a donation to this cause. You can also contact EVERY person you know that lives in California and encourage them to view some of these videos and get educated on the issues so they can avoid succumbing to the propaganda, as Monsanto and company are paying tens of millions of dollars to deceive the voters in California. We need EVERY vote we can to win on November 6.

It’s important to realize that getting this law passed in California would have the same overall effect as a national law, as large companies are not likely going to label their products as genetically engineered when sold in California (the 8th largest economy in the world), but not when sold in other states. Doing so would be a costly PR disaster. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.

  • Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort, through the Organic Consumers Fund. If you live outside of the United States, you can still donate!  For International Donations, please call (218) 353-7651!
  • If you live in California and want to get involved, please contact CARightToKnow.org. They will go through all volunteer requests to put you into a position that is suitable for you, based on your stated interests and location.
  • No matter where you live, please help spread the word in your personal networks, on Facebook, and Twitter. For help with the messaging, please see CARightToKnow.org.
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!   Leave a comment

Have a Happy and Healthy Thanksgiving!!!!!

High-Intensity Interval Training and Intermittent Fasting – A Winning Combo for Fat Reduction and Optimal Fitness   Leave a comment

By Dr. Mercola

If you’re still not doing interval training, you’re likely wasting an awful lot of time in the gym. This is one of the most important developments in fitness science that I can think of, as you can reap far greater health benefits in less time.

But I’ve recently also started talking about the potential health benefits of intermittent fasting and working out in a fasted state (i.e. skipping breakfast before hitting the gym).

When you exercise while fasting, it essentially forces your body to shed fat, as your body’s fat burning processes are controlled by your sympathetic nervous system (SNS), and your SNS is activated by exercise and lack of food. The combination of fasting and exercising maximizes the impact of cellular factors and catalysts (cyclic AMP and AMP Kinases), which force the breakdown of fat and glycogen for energy.

Evidence is indeed mounting in support of this strategy, and I believe it could be quite beneficial, provided you’ve already made some fundamental lifestyle changes with regards to diet and exercise.

When combined, high-intensity exercise and intermittent fasting could very well be a winning strategy to bring your fitness to the next level.

Keep in mind that fasting, or exercising in a fasted state, would be unwise if you’re still eating a diet full of processed foods, so addressing your diet is absolutely crucial before you venture into any kind of fasting. Also, when undertaking any kind of calorie restriction, such as intermittent fasting or simply skipping breakfast, it’s critical to cut the right calories, namely carbohydrates (those from sugars and grains that is, NOT vegetable carbs).

Carb Restriction May Improve Performance in Elite Athletes

A recent study from the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences1 shows that restricting carbohydrates can help burn calories more efficiently and increase muscle oxidative potential even in highly trained athletes.

Ten elite level cyclists performed one hour of interval training at approximately 64 percent of maximal aerobic capacity with either low or normal muscle glycogen levels, achieved by prior exercise or diet intervention. Muscle biopsies were taken before and three hours after exercise. Results showed that exercising in a glyocogen depleted state increased mitochondrial biogenesis. (Mitochondrial biogenesis is the process by which new mitochondria are formed in your cells.)

According to the authors:

“We conclude that exercise with low glycogen levels amplifies the expression of the major genetic marker for mitochondrial biogenesis in highly trained cyclists. The results suggest that low glycogen exercise may be beneficial for improving muscle oxidative capacity.”

Part of what makes working out in a fasted state so effective is that your body actually has a preservation mechanism that protects your active muscle from wasting itself. So if you don’t have sufficient fuel in your system when you exercise, you’re going to break down other tissues but not the active muscle, i.e. the muscle being exercised.

According to fitness expert Ori Hofmekler, author of The Warrior Diet, you can quite literally re-design your physique using a combination of under-eating and exercise. However this really only works well once you’ve become fat-adapted, meaning your metabolism has become proficient at burning fat. To learn more about this, please see my other recent article on this topic, What Does it Mean to Be Fat-Adapted?

Interval Training Burns More Calories in Less Time

In related news, research presented at the Integrative Biology of Exercise VI meeting2 in Colorado on October 10-13 this year, demonstrated that high-intensity interval training burns more calories in less time – a mere 2.5 minutes, divided into five 30-second sprint intervals at maximum exertion, each followed by four minutes of light pedaling to recuperate, can burn as much as 220 calories. All in all, in less than 25 minutes total, you can burn more calories than you would if you were cycling at a moderate pace for half an hour.

According to lead researcher, exercise physiology graduate student Kyle Sevits:3

“‘You burn a lot of calories in a very short time… Nearly all the calories are burned in those 2.5 minutes; you burn very few during the rest period.’ He also points to additional benefits that come from interval training, including increased insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance, both of which are important for overall good health.”

High-intensity interval training, which is part of my total Peak Fitness program, has also been shown to produce greater health benefits overall than conventional aerobic training. Back in April, I reported on a study that found doing just three minutes of high-intensity training per week for four weeks, could lead to significant changes in important health indices, including a 24 percent improvement in insulin sensitivity.

Another important benefit of high-intensity interval training is its ability to naturally increase your body’s production of human growth hormone (HGH), also known as “the fitness hormone.” HGH is a synergistic, foundational biochemical underpinning that promotes muscle and effectively burns excessive fat. It also plays an important part in promoting overall health and longevity. This is something you cannot get from conventional, aerobic endurance training.

How to Maximize the Health Benefits of Peak Fitness Training

While it’s theoretically possible to reap valuable results with as little as three minutes (plus rest periods in between spurts) once a week, it would be more beneficial doing them two or three times a week for a total of four minutes of intense exertion per session, especially if you are not doing strength training. You do not need to do high-intensity exercises more often than that however. In fact, doing it more frequently than two or three times a week can be counterproductive, as your body needs to recover between sessions.

Intensity is KEY for reaping all the benefits interval training can offer. To perform it correctly, you’ll want to raise your heart rate to your anaerobic threshold, and to do that, you have to give it your all for those 20 to 30 second intervals. Different studies will use different intervals of exertion and recuperation. For example, in the featured study on elite athletes, bouts of exertion were separated by four-minute rest intervals. They also didn’t “max out” during the exertion phase.

I use and recommend the program developed by Phil Campbell, which will trigger HGH production as you go “all out” during the exertion phase. Here’s a summary of what a typical interval routine might look like using an elliptical:

  • Warm up for three minutes.
  • Exercise as hard and fast as you can for 30 seconds. You should be gasping for breath and feel like you couldn’t possibly go on another few seconds. It is better to use lower resistance and higher repetitions to increase your heart rate.
  • Recover for 90 seconds, still moving, but at slower pace and decreased resistance.
  • Repeat the high-intensity exercise and recovery 7 more times.

When you’re first starting out, depending on your level of fitness, you may only be able to do two or three repetitions of the high-intensity intervals. As you get fitter, just keep adding repetitions until you’re doing eight during your 20-minute session. Once you regularly incorporate these 20-minute exercises about twice a week, most people notice the following benefits:

Decrease in body fat Improved muscle tone
Improved athletic speed and performance Ability to achieve your fitness goals much faster
Increase in energy and sexual desire Firmer skin and reduced wrinkles

Exercise is Key for Reducing Body Fat While Preserving Your Muscle

I’ve frequently stated that 80 percent of the health benefits you reap from a healthy lifestyle come from your diet, and the remaining 20 percent from exercise. However, it’s important to realize that there is a profound synergy between the two, as yet another recent study demonstrates.

The researchers examined data from 11 participants in the reality TV show “The Biggest Loser.” Total body fat, total energy expenditure, and resting metabolic rate were measured three times: at the start of the program, six weeks into the program, and at week 30, which was at least four months after participants returned home. Using a mathematical computer model of human metabolism, the researchers calculated the impact of the diet and exercise changes resulting in weight loss, to evaluate the relative contributions of each.

Interestingly, while diet alone was calculated to be responsible for more weight loss overall than exercise, only 65 percent of that weight loss was body fat. The remaining 35 percent reduction in total body weight was a reduction in lean muscle mass. Exercise alone resulted in fat loss only, along with a small increase in lean muscle mass. According to the National Institutes of Health press release:4

“The simulations also suggest that the participants could sustain their weight loss and avoid weight regain by adopting more moderate lifestyle changes – like 20 minutes of daily vigorous exercise and a 20 percent calorie restriction – than those demonstrated on the television program.”

Tips for Fasting and Exercising Safely: A Post-Workout Recovery Meal is Crucial

An effective exercise program that incorporates high-intensity interval training combined with intermittent fasting can help counteract muscle aging and wasting, and boost fat-burning. If at any point you don’t have enough energy or don’t feel good, then it is likely time to shift your experiment and reduce the hours of fasting. Intermittent fasting should make you feel better, and if it doesn’t then it is best to reevaluate your strategy.

Make sure to keep the following two points in mind:

    1. Timing of meals: Intermittent fasting is not extreme calorie restriction. You’re not supposed to starve yourself. Rather it’s simply a matter of timing your meals properly by abstaining from food during much of the day, and limiting your eating to a small window later in the evening. If you were to limit eating to say 4-7 pm, you are effectively fasting for 21 hours. Ideally, you’ll want to fast for at least 12-18 hours.

If you can’t abstain from food entirely during the day, limit it to small servings of light, low-glycemic, mostly raw foods such as fruits, vegetables, whey protein or lightly poached eggs every 4-6 hours. Whatever times you choose, it will be very helpful to avoid having any food or calories for three hours prior to going to bed as this will minimize oxidative damage to your system and give your body a major jumpstart in intermittent fasting.

  1. Break your fast with a recovery meal on workout days: On the days that you work out while fasting, you need to consume a recovery meal 30 minutes after your workout. Fast-assimilating whey protein is ideal. Then fast again until you eat your main meal at night. It’s very important that you eat an appropriate recovery meal after your workout session, as this will prevent brain and muscle damage from occurring, so do NOT skip this meal.

If the thought of fasting for 12-18 hours is too much, you can get many of the same benefits of fasting and exercise by simply skipping breakfast and exercising first thing in the morning when your stomach is empty. This is because eating a full meal, particularly carbohydrates, before your workout will inhibit your sympathetic nervous system and reduce the fat burning effect of your exercise. Instead, eating lots of carbs activates your parasympathetic nervous system, (which promotes energy storage – the complete opposite of what you’re aiming for).

Myth #1 – Chiropractors are not real doctors.   Leave a comment

A chiropractic college grants a D.C. or Doctorate of Chiropractic degree. Chiropractors are licensed as health care providers in every U.S. state and dozens of countries around the world. While the competition for acceptance in chiropractic school is not as fierce as medical school, the chiropractic and medical school curricula are extremely rigorous and virtually identical. In fact, chiropractors have more hours of classroom education than their medical counterparts. As part of their education, chiropractic students also complete a residency working with real patients in a clinical setting, supervised by licensed doctors of chiropractic. Once chiropractic students graduate, they have to pass four sets of national board exams as well as state board exams in the states where they want to practice.

Just like medical doctors, chiropractors are professionals that are subject to the same type of testing procedures, licensing and monitoring by state and national peer-reviewed boards. Federal and state programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Workers’ Compensations programs cover chiropractic care, and all federal agencies accept sick-leave certificates signed by doctors of chiropractic. Chiropractors are also commissioned as officers in the military.

The biggest difference between chiropractors and medical doctors lies not in their level of education, but in their preferred method of caring for people. Medical doctors are trained in the use of medicines (chemicals that affect your internal biochemistry) and surgery. Consequently, if you have a chemical problem, such as diabetes, hypothyroidism, or an infection, medical doctors can be very helpful. However, if your problem is that your spine is mis-aligned or you have soft tissue damage causing pain, there is no chemical in existence that can fix it. You need a physical solution to correct a physical problem. That is where chiropractic really shines. Chiropractors provide physical solutions — adjustments, exercises, stretches, muscle therapy — to help the body heal from conditions that are physical in origin, such as back pain, muscle spasms, headaches, and poor posture. Another distinction is the fact that it is completely appropriate to receive chiropractic care even if you do not have symptoms. Unlike standard medical doctors, whom you visit when you have a symptom to be treated, chiropractors offer adjustments to improve spinal alignment and overall well-being before symptoms develop.

The Ultimate Antioxidant: Fight Premature Aging for Free   Leave a comment

By Dr. Mercola

Do you notice you feel better when you walk barefoot on the Earth? Recent research has explained why this happens.

Your immune system functions optimally when your body has an adequate supply of electrons, which are easily and naturally obtained by barefoot contact with the Earth.

Research indicates that electrons from the Earth have antioxidant effects that can protect your body from inflammation and its many well-documented health consequences. For most of our evolutionary history, humans have had continuous contact with the Earth.

It is only recently that substances such as asphalt, wood, rugs, and plastics have separated us from this contact.

It is known that the Earth maintains a negative electrical potential on its surface. When you are in direct contact with the ground (walking, sitting, or laying down on the earth’s surface) the earth’s electrons are conducted to your body, bringing it to the same electrical potential as the earth. Living in direct contact with the earth grounds your body, inducing favorable physiological and electrophysiological changes that promote optimum health.

There is an emerging science documenting how conductive contact with the Earth, which has is also known as Earthing or grounding, is highly beneficial to your health and completely safe.  Earthing appears to minimize the consequences of exposure to potentially disruptive fields like “electromagnetic pollution” or “dirty electricity.”

Some of the recent evidence supporting this approach involves multiple studies documenting Earthing’s improvement in blood viscosity, heart rate variability, inflammation, cortisol dynamics, sleep, autonomic nervous system (ANS) balance, and reduced effects of stress.

The Ultimate Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory

Grounding or Earthing is defined as placing one’s bare feet on the ground whether it be dirt, grass, sand or concrete (especially when humid or wet). When you ground to the electron-enriched earth, an improved balance of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system occurs.

The Earth is a natural source of electrons and subtle electrical fields, which are essential for proper functioning of  immune systems, circulation, synchronization of biorhythms and other physiological processes and may actually be the most effective, essential, least expensive, and easiest to attain antioxidant.

Modern science has thoroughly documented the connection between inflammation and all of the chronic diseases, including the diseases of aging and the aging process itself. It is important to understand that inflammation is a condition that can be reduced or prevented by grounding your body to the Earth, the way virtually all of your ancestors have done for hundreds if not thousands of generations.

How the Modern Running Shoe May be Destroying Your Health

Materials such as metals are electrical conductors. They contain free or mobile electrons that can carry electrical energy from place to place.

Your body is somewhat conductive because it contains a large number of charged ions (called electrolytes) dissolved in water. Your blood and other body fluids are therefore good conductors. Free or mobile electrons can also move about within your body

Other materials, called insulators, have very few free or mobile electrons. Plastic and rubber are good insulators and are used to cover electrical wires to keep the conductors from touching each other and from touching your skin, which could otherwise give you a shock.

Traditionally shoes were made of leather, which actually conducts electrons and therefore maintains a conductive contact between the Earth and your feet. However modern day rubber and plastics are electrical insulators and therefore block the beneficial flow of electrons from the Earth to your body.

How the Different Types of Electricity Impact Grounding

There are three different forms of electricity:

  1. Direct current (DC) electricity
  2. Alternating current (AC) electricity, and
  3. Static electricity

All of these forms of electricity are present in the environment and can affect the way you feel.

Direct Current, consider an ordinary flashlight with two type D batteries. When the light is switched on, a current created by chemical reactions in the batteries causes electrons to flow to the bulb, which converts the electrical energy into light. The electric field travels to the bulb virtually instantaneously, while the electrons move slowly – about three inches per hour.

Alternating Current or AC is the type of electricity that is delivered to homes and businesses. Alternating current is produced by electric generators and is distributed throughout a community via wires that are overhead or buried under the ground.

In contrast to direct current electricity, the actual flow of electrons in an alternating current circuit is virtually zero, as the electrons mainly go back and forth (60 times per second in North America and 50 times in Europe) without actually progressing along the wire. Therefore, for an AC current in a typical lamp cord, the electrons do not actually “flow.” Instead they vibrate back and forth by a distance of about a hundred-thousandth of an inch.

This means that the electrons in your household wiring are probably the same ones present when your house was built.  In contrast to direct current, the electrons excited by a generator do not flow to your home and then return to the generator after delivering energy to your lights or appliances. The electrical energy flows at about the speed of light; the electrons only vibrate back and forth.

This point is important because of confusion about the subject from statements such as this: “Every time an electron leaves a power plant to create electricity for our homes, schools and offices it must return to create more electricity – fundamental law of physics.” This statement is completely incorrect.

There is absolutely no fundamental law of physics that requires the electron sent out from an alternating current generator to return to the generator to create more electricity.

It has also been asserted that power companies have begun using the Earth as one part of the alternating current circuit to save on the expense of wire needed to meet increasing demands for electricity. Again, this statement is completely inaccurate and misleading. It is a statement that leads some to believe that walking barefoot or using grounding devices will connect people to the electrical distribution system and thereby electrify their bodies with alternating current electricity.

In fact, the U.S. National Electrical Code does not permit connecting an electrical system directly to the Earth. In other words the Earth does not carry a return current back to the generator. Instead electrical systems are grounded to protect from lightening and other extraordinary events.

How Your Home Electrical Connections Can Zap Your Health

The wiring in homes and buildings and the power distribution system acts as an antenna that can transmit and receive both natural and man-made electromagnetic fields. Many technologies add significantly to our electromagnetic environment: cell phone towers, Wi-Fi, wireless routers, satellite TV and cordless telephones. And a variety of devices introduce spikes or transients that distort the 60 cycle electric field in the wiring, particularly when appliances are switched on or off.

Here are some common examples:

Ballasts used in fluorescent lighting High-efficiency lighting such as CFL (Compact-Fluorescent) bulbs
Computer hard drives Electric heaters
Hair dryers Refrigerators and air conditioners
Vacuum cleaners

 

To illustrate this phenomenon, we will use the example of your neighbor’s refrigerator or air conditioner switching on or off. This produces a sudden electrical “spike” that travels through the power lines to your household electrical system. A signal is also radiated into the atmosphere because the wiring acts as an antenna. Taken together the various signals and distortions to the alternating current field create what some people refer to as “dirty electricity.” Attempts have been made to link these phenomena to a variety of health effects. There has been considerable debate about this issue.

Some people appear to be very sensitive to electromagnetic fields and can become sick from exposure to them, whereas others are not sensitive. Some have advocated the use of filters to remove the so-called “dirty electricity” flowing through home wiring. The problem is that alternating electric fields are present everywhere in the environment – they are radiated from wires, even when no current is flowing through them.

It is therefore impossible for a filter to prevent exposure to electrical fields and the noise produced by appliances, as described above.

In a 2010 review, Frank De Vocht of the University of Manchester’s Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health in the UK found only seven published studies supporting the claim that dirty electricity is a biologically active component of standard electromagnetic pollution.  Each study had significant methodological flaws in its experimental design, assessment of exposure, and statistical analysis. De Vocht concluded that the flaws in the studies prevented a valid assessment of any causal links between exposure and adverse effects.10 Moreover, a few studies suggesting health benefits for using the filters were uncontrolled experiments involving only a few subjects.

You Can Actually Measure How Grounding Yourself Reduces Your Voltage

A Body Voltage Meter can determine how much electricity is being induced on you when you are lying in bed or sitting in a chair, and how much the electric charge is reduced by grounding.

Body Voltage Meter

A meter of this kind is shown above. A number of inexpensive meters like this are available from Radio Shack and other sources. One of the terminals of the meter is touched with your finger, while the other terminal connects to a wire (Earthing wire) that connects to a rod in the Earth or to a good ground in the electrical system. It is important that the body voltage meter have the capability to measure the AC electrical potential between your skin and the surface of the Earth.

Electrical Outlet

Just because an electrical outlet has a third plug does not necessarily mean that it was properly installed. The only way to know for certain would be to check it. The device shown here, called a circuit checker, can determine if the grounding terminal of an electrical outlet is properly grounded and can therefore be used with personal grounding systems or with the Body Voltage Meter described above.

The cord going to the lamp next to your bed is radiating an alternating electric field even when the lamp is turned off. Research has shown that walking barefoot on the Earth or connecting to the Earth with an Earthing system actually stabilizes the internal electrical milieu of your body and is therefore beneficial.

Until large-scale studies and mechanistic investigations are completed, many scientists and many electric utilities have suggested that those who use electrical appliances practice “prudent avoidance” meaning that they should minimize their exposure to sources of electric power until the scientific evidence is more definitive.

In the context of “prudent avoidance,” some proponents of Earthing systems have emphasized the fact that Earthing greatly reduces your exposure to fields from electrical wiring, using evidence provided by the body voltage meter as shown above. While this is probably correct, reducing exposure to power frequency fields (including dirty electromagnetic fields) is definitely not the most important consequence of Earthing. Far more significant for health is the ability of Earthing systems to deliver antioxidant electrons that stabilize the operation of the immune system and other physiological processes in the body.

The Health Benefits of Grounding

The most important health consequence of Earthing is providing  your body abundant electrons from the Earth. The scientific research and hypotheses related to Earthing point to a major impact on the inflammatory process as a result of this electron transfer.

Your body has evolved a means to kill bacteria using reactive oxygen species (ROS) that are delivered to a site of injury by white blood cells. Although very effective at this task, ROS are also very reactive biochemically and can damage healthy tissues. ROS are usually positively charged molecules that need to be neutralized immediately to prevent them from diffusing into healthy tissues.

That is one of the major reasons why your body needs an abundant supply of negative charges. Food based antioxidants like astaxanthin are helpful but a regular supply of electrons from the earth can supply them as well.

Nature has solved this problem by providing conductive systems within your body that deliver electrons from your feet to all parts of your body. This has been the natural arrangement throughout most of human history. Negative charges have always been available, thanks to the Earth, to prevent the inflammatory process from damaging healthy tissues.

All of this changed when we began to wear shoes with rubber and plastic soles, and no longer slept in direct contact with the Earth. A variety of measures of physiological stress show that the person who is grounded is less stressed and more relaxed. These measures demonstrate a shift from sympathetic to parasympathetic activation, reduction in muscle tension, and increased heart rate variability.

Regardless whether or not grounding reduces exposure to environmental fields, these studies firmly demonstrate that Earthing does not stress the body; in fact, Earthing reduces every measure of stress used in studies.

Concerns about Earthing

When I first became aware of Earthing in 2005 I was initially fascinated with the concept. But after reviewing it with some of my mentors in energy medicine there was a concern that Earthing may actually increase your exposure to so-called “electromagnetic pollution” or “dirty electricity.”

However, more careful analysis revealed that Earthing actually decreases your exposure to these potentially disruptive fields. To understand why this is so, it is crucial to look at the basic biophysics of electricity and magnetism.

Most of the confusion about this topic is due in part to the fact that research on Earthing the human body is opening up new perspectives, and requires a fresh examination of the basics of electricity and magnetism as applied to physiology and medicine. Another source of confusion arises from a belief that the unnatural frequencies referred to as “electromagnetic pollution” and “dirty electricity” flow through the wiring of homes and can be removed with filters. The reality is that these signals are present virtually everywhere in our environment as electromagnetic radiations, and cannot be completely removed with filters in the wiring.

Earthing actually decreases your exposure to these potentially disruptive electromagnetic fields, but we again emphasize that this is not the most important effect of Earthing

Grounding May Be the Missing Link to Getting Healthy

Earthing may be one of the most important overlooked factors in public health. When grounding is restored, many people report significant improvement in a wide range of ailments, including chronic fatigue.

These changes are rapid and often occur within 30 minutes.

To date all of the individuals who reported that they had inflammatory issues have benefited from Earthing. This includes people with various severe autoimmune diseases. Note that we do not assert that Earthing is a “treatment” or a “cure” for any disease or disorder. Instead, it can be said without any equivocation that the human body evolved in contact with the Earth and needs to maintain this natural contact in order to function properly.

When you provide your body a constant source of free electrons, through diet or grounding you help to radically reduce inflammation which is widely acknowledged as one of the primary factors contributing to premature aging and chronic disease.

Myth #2 – Medical doctors don’t like chiropractors.   Leave a comment

The American Medical Association’s opposition to chiropractic was at its strongest in the 1940s under the leadership of Morris Fishbein. Fishbein called chiropractors “rabid dogs” and referred to them as “playful and cute, but killers” He tried to portray chiropractors as members of an unscientific cult who cared about nothing but taking their patients’ money. Up to the late 1970s and early 1980s, the medical establishment purposely conspired to try to destroy the profession of chiropractic. In fact, a landmark lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Illinois in the 1980s found that the American Medical Association was guilty of conspiracy and was ordered to pay restitution to the chiropractic profession.

In the 20 years since, the opinion of most medical doctors has changed: several major studies have shown the superiority of chiropractic in helping people with a host of conditions, and medical doctors developed a better understanding as to what chiropractors actually do. Many people have returned to their medical doctors and told them about the great results they experienced at their chiropractors office. Hospitals across the country now have chiropractors on staff, and many chiropractic offices have medical doctors on staff. Chiropractors and medical doctors are now much more comfortable working together in cases where medical care is necessary as an adjunct to chiropractic care.