Brain Enhancing Healthy Foods

More bad news for junk food, as a recent study published in the journal Neurology shows that elderly people having higher levels of certain vitamins and omega 3 fatty acids in their blood score better on mental acuity tests than those who eat the junk.  Further, researchers found that eating better might even reduce the brain shrinkage associated with with Alzheimer's disease. Booyah!

The study, conducted at Oregon State University, and one of the first of its kind, looked at 104 people at an average age of 87, and specifically measured a wide range of blood nutrient levels (instead of basing results on food questionnaires, which are less precise and less reliable).

"The vitamins and nutrients you get from eating a wide range of fruits, vegetables and fish can be measured in blood biomarkers," said Traber Maret Traber, a principal investigator at the Linus Pauling Institute and study co-author. "I'm a firm believer these nutrients have strong potential to protect your brain and make it work better."

Yes, so am I! I've been preaching for years. Always happy to see the science back up a universal truth--whole, natural foods are healing and health enhancing. We've gone through millions of years of evolution feeding ourselves the foods of the earth--can't think of any Doritos shortages that challenged mankind, can you?

The principle vitamins they found to help neurological health are some of my personal favs--vitamins B, C, D and E, as well as the omega 3 fatty acids--which increased mental quickness and brain size.

Elderly people that had diets high in unnatural and unhealthy foods, like those laden with trans-fats, fared worse on cognitive tests. Although the researchers found that age and education had major effects on cognitive function and brain size, nutrient status accounted for 17% of the variation in scores, and 37% of the differences in brain volume.

Well, what can I say other than...been tellin' ya. Eat well--it'll take you far. This study looked at people with typical American diets--some good, some...well, not so much. But it's not too late to make the switch--in fact, perfect time for the new year. 

I'll leave it to study co-author Gene Bowman of the Oregon Health and Science University to conclude with, "It is very exciting to think that people could potentially stop their brains from shrinking and keep them sharp by adjusting their diet." Indeed.

Obesity: Primarily a Food Choice Issue

I've gotten to experience something very interesting over the last couple of weeks.  Resulting from my posts on childhood statin recommendations and parental responsibility for childhood obesity, I've gotten numerous replies, comments and tweets that have both commended and criticized my views.  Being all for intelligent discussion, I've welcomed the responses; but something has become very clear to me: People who are attached to a particular point-of-view will fill any holes with their own interpretations and opinions,quite apart from anything that has ever been said or implied.  It's an interesting phenomenon.  So as promised, I will continue presenting my viewpoint on obesity in general, and specifically, childhood obesity, so I can fill those holes myself, and keep my thoughts from being assumed by others.

Let me begin with the obvious: What is obesity?  From Wikipedia:

Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems.  Body mass index (BMI), a measurement which compares weight and height, defines people as overweight (pre-obese) if their BMI is between 25 and 30 kg/m, and obese when it is greater than 30 kg/m

Wikipedia is not necessarily the end all be all as a reference source...but, in this case...well, it's right.  Weight gain, which can lead to obesity, is caused by taking in more calories than you burn, period.  It doesn't happen from eating one tootsie roll, despite a tootsie roll being an unhealthy food-like item, or from eating one French fry, or even thirty on a Saturday night for that matter; nor does it come from eating a Twinkie, or a bag of chips, or drinking a soda.  No, gaining excessive weight, and developing obesity, comes from eating lots of crap over and over again.

It is what one does repeatedly that matters, so, in that regard, obesity is a calorie issue.  But yes, there is more to it, although I would argue very strongly that the most important factor is overeating.  As a rule, Americans eat too much.  Listen, I am an American.  I eat at restaurants.  My observation is that the portions served in most restaurants are more than most people need under most circumstances.  I also observe how others eat, and can say quite confidently that most people aren't leaving their plates half-full.  No, most people put it away--all of it--plain and simple.  And this (as a habit) leads to excessive weight gain.

Here's some basic nutritional physiology: Take in more calories than you expend, you gain weight.  Expend more calories than you take in, you lose weight.  When intake and output (over time) are relatively equal...you maintain weight, no gain, no loss.  Duh.  It blows me away that some people actually try to argue against this simple fact.  Why not, then, argue against the Pythagorean Theorem while you're at it?

Listen, it doesn't make sense to try to disprove what we already know about any science.  If it's an established principle, why try to reinvent the wheel?  Oh no, the Law of Gravity is wrong, and that's why we can't unify all theories on physical forces.  No serious thinker would go that route.  Instead they would take what is already known and try to formulate a theory around that.  Freakin' duh!   So why do some self-proclaimed experts attempt it with nutritional physiology?

There is no doubt that food types matter when it comes to weight gain and obesity.  It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that French fries are a worse food choice than broccoli.  And it doesn't take a theoretical physicist to understand that eating wholesome foods, as a habit, is better than simply cutting your French fry intake in half.  Freakin' duh!


What amazes me is that some people think that somehow my previous posts suggested that I advocate a low calorie diet.  When have I ever said that?  Let me be perfectly clear: I've never said anything about a diet of any sort.  When I speak of "diet," I speak in terms of how one eats, the types of foods one eats, and NOT a freakin' fad diet (and that includes Atkins, or rehashed Atkin's-like theories).  I simply cannot be any clearer.  The types of foods you eat matters, and how much of them you eat matters too, and how much you burn with physical activity also matters a whole hell of a lot more than your mutated skinny genes (and you thought those were just clothing trends).

Interestingly, the notion that calories in vs. calories out and food type both contribute to obesity presents somewhat of a conundrum to people battling weight.  Some will say, "I don't eat junk food, and I just cannot seem to lose weight."  Then you eat too much, is my answer.  No, I don't eat too much.  Then the types of foods you are eating are poor choices.  No, that's not it either.  Okay, then what is it?  It's genetics.  Oh, you mean fatness runs in your family.  Well, no...I have a gene.  But nobody else in your family is fat?  Well yes...both my parents.  Listen that's called nurture--what you were exposed growing up, your learned behaviors--not necessarily genetics, or nature.  All you are doing when you blame it on your genetics is pulling yourself out of the equation, and I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.  Genetics, hormones, lack of sleep, blah, blah, blah...yes, okay, they contribute...but not more than your food choices do, both in quantity and quality.

I'm going to discuss hormonal factors in weight gain in the next post on the subject, as well as list some factors that are primary in the development and maintenance of obesity.  Just remember that food choices matter--the types of foods you eat (whole, natural foods that you prepare yourself are best), as well as how much you eat.  Denying basic physiological principles isn't going to make one dent in the obesity epidemic, so the fools doing just that are merely perpetuating the problem.

Superfood? Superhype

Beware labels that market some foods as healthier than others.  That's my advice regarding superfoods, a term used to ascribe nutritional potency to certain foods in the same way the term 'natural' is used to sell anything from chickens to cereal.

A few of the foods touted as 'super' include blueberries and green tea, but the latest to make the grade is maple syrup.  According to recent research, funded by the Federation of Quebec Maple Syrup Producers and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (hello!), chemists have identified 54 beneficial compounds in maple syrup that "possess anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, which have been shown to fight cancer, diabetes and bacterial illnesses."

Initial studies also suggest that polyphenols in the syrup may help keep blood sugar levels in check, important for diabetics, by inhibiting enzymes that are involved in the conversion of carbohydrates to sugar.

Now that's nice, as are the findings on the phytochemical makeup of maple syrup.  But what we do with that information is also important.  For instance, creating a label such as superfood denotes a connotation that somehow it is at the top of a nutritional pyramid.  At the very least, it tells unsuspecting consumers that they'll be healthier if they eat this food.  But healthier than what?

I appreciate this news, however, because I think we can gain a few insights from it.  First, I love maple syrup; so, naturally, I embrace the information because I know that unprocessed natural sugar is better than processed white sugar.  And corn syrup?  Forget about it--I encourage everybody to throw theirs away.  Nothing, in my opinion, is worse for the health than high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).  Not lost on me is the significance of its advent into the western diet and the increases in obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  Am I calling HFCS a direct cause?  Nooooo....just noting the coincidental timing.  If I have pancakes, it's nothing other than maple syrup for me, no exceptions.

But this is the only practical application I would extract from these latest findings.  OK, okay...if you want to put maple syrup in your green tea, or use it as a sugar substitute--fine!  Just don't think that now syrup shots are going to be some great health practice (I know, but you'd be surprised).

Without a doubt, marketers will use these findings to their advantage; but my role is to act as a 'snap-out-of-it' eye opener for zombie-like behavior some people exhibit when it comes to health.  Just because a company uses the term 'natural' to sell their over-priced product, doesn't mean its any healthier for you.  If it makes you somehow feel better to buy it anyhow, then be my guest: I'm just pointing out some realities, that's all.

Now the term organic is a different story.  Organic denotes a way of growing produce (sorry people, not chicken), and it is tightly regulated.  A company using the term organic is subjected to fines and closure for using the term inappropriately (check this video post on just this happening in Los Angeles Farmers Markets).  But natural or superfoods?  Puh-leeze...buyer beware.*

Second principle: There ain't no food more important than any other.  Despite what some snake-oil salesmen may push on you promising super-health, you must eat a variety of foods to get all the nutrients necessary for good health.  No yet-to-be-discovered food, juice or herb will give you better nutrition than a variety of whole natural foods.  No recently or yet-to-be-discovered tropical fruit will ever be the solitary answer to cancer, gout or skunk-gum since these diseases are mutifactorial (okay, maybe not skunk-gum).  Although I will admit that blueberries will probably give you more anti-oxidants than blackberries, raspberries or strawberries, they won't give you that much more.

So again, take these findings on maple syrup with a grain of salt: It may be rich in phytonutrients--thus prompting its hailing as a superfood--but it doesn't mean you now need to go out and purchase the latest drinks, juices and supplements that will surely follow.

*Since 1 July 2007, the marketing of products as "superfoods" is prohibited in the European Union unless accompanied by a specific medical claim supported by credible scientific research. ~ Wikipedia

Cap'n Crunch Sabathia No More: His Surefire Weight-Loss Plan

New York Yankees pitcher CC Sabathia is reporting to spring training 25 lbs lighter.  The secret: He kicked the Cap'n Crunch.  Aw yeh, the former fat-boy is weighing in at a svelte 290, not bad for a 6'7" frame.  And to think he did it all with one simple change.  Just think of what that might mean for you or your kids!

Sabathia, the Yankees ace, weighed in at a whopping 315 lbs last season, when he was knocking down a full box of Cap'n Crunch every day!  Each box of Cap'n Crunch has 12.59 servings, each serving has 12 grams of sugar, making a box of the sugary cereal contain a total of 151 grams of sugar.  Further, the nutritional info on the box lists the number of calories at 217 per double serving.  Therefore, a full box of Cap'n Crunch contains 1,366 calories.  Dang!

To put this into perspective, a soda (Coke, let's say) contains 40 grams of sugar and 150 calories per 12 oz. can.  More perspective: one teaspoon of sugar equals about six grams; therefore, a can of soda has about seven teaspoons of sugar (see video below**).  Even more perspective: Most sugar packets found in the U.S. have approximately 4 grams of sugar, thus a can of soda contains ten packets of sugar (U.S.).

Now back to Sabathia.  His one full box of Cap'n Crunch a day gave him a sugar equivalent of drinking 4 sodas, 25 teaspoons of sugar, or 38 sugar packets.  Nice, CC...nice.

*A report released in 2009 by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale gave Cap'n Crunch's Crunch Berries the worst nutritional score of any cereal marketed to children and families. ~ from Wikipedia

How about your kids?  Do they eat Cap'n Crunch?  Fruit Loops?  Frosted Flakes?  Do they drink soda?  These cereals and soft drinks have been staples in the American diet for the last fifty years, and it's not because people aren't consuming them.  It's not just 6'7" professional athletes eating this junk, either.  It's little Timmy, and little Rainflower, and maybe even you.

Listen, next time you're thinking about feeding Junior the Cap'n Crunch, why not just give him a Snickers bar?  Same amount of sugar as in a two-serving bowl of the Crunch.  And is it any wonder we are in the midst of an obesity (and diabetes) epidemic?

**Please watch the video below to get great perspective on the amount of sugar contained in a soda:

ADD: Pieces to a Puzzle

One of the biggest messages I try to put forth in this blog is that human beings are amazing self-healing, self-regulating life forms.  We operate under the laws of the universe, and as such, by obeying some very fundamental principles regarding life, our ability to experience great physical health and well-being is magnified.  It doesn't matter whether you have any particular genetic, anatomic or physiologic disposition--you can experience great health, as well as a fulfilling life, by observing basic principles.

This is as true for the "normal" individual as it is for the ADD-labeled person.  Whenever somebody comes to me with this or that problem, my first investigation as a doctor is to find out if they are observing the basics.  So that's what I want to finish off with regarding ADD.  It's of mega-importance that your ADD-labeled child is practicing the healthiest lifestyle possible.  But take note, and do not mistake this very crucial point: What I discuss here is NOT a treatment regimen for ADD.  I do NOT believe that an attention deficit is a disorder, therefore nothing needs treating, especially as we would think in a mechanistic sense.  Instead, what I put forth here will allow any child to thrive physically and mentally, because these are fundamental health principles.

There are no absolutes when it comes to health.  No one practice is more important than another--let's just get that straight right from the beginning.  Instead, health is like a puzzle, and each practice is a piece to that puzzle.  I will for brevity's sake only touch upon each puzzle piece.  If you want more, then I highly recommend reading my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health.  In it you will find most of these points discussed in full detail, along with tips on how to best implement and maximize each practice.

First and foremost is diet and nutrition.  It should go without saying that good nutrition is paramount to a healthy functioning body, but I wonder sometimes.  Too many parents feed their children foods that are, well...suspect.  Here is a basic: foods should be whole and natural.  I'm not saying organic or hormone free or anything like that.  If that's what you prefer, awesome!  But what I mean is "not processed".  Lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh meats and dairy, wholesome grains, minimal sugar, minimal fast food (or none at all, like my kids), and definitely, with no exception: NO SODA!

Soda consumption should be the biggest no-no for an ADD-labeled child.  No, I don't think soda causes ADD.  Soda is garbage for anybody, and that much sugar consistently cannot be conducive to mental sharpness.  Sad fact is that many parents will have to kick their own liquid garbage habit, too, if they want to keep their kids off it.

Next is exercise*.  Kids need to spend time playing and moving!  Period.  It is a standard recommendation for ADD-labeled kids to exercise often, and I couldn't agree more.  Get your kids moving everyday--that's what our bodies (and all life forms) are meant to do.  Don't try operating outside of universal laws and then also expect good health. *Check out this interesting article on children, exercise balls, and focus.

Next, bodywork.  If you haven't taken your ADD-labeled child to see a chiropractor, then you are doing them a great disservice.  Subluxations (misaligned and stuck vertebrae) are extremely disruptive to the nervous system and the mind.  I have seen hundreds of children go into a state of ease and calm following a chiropractic adjustment.  Time to learn more about chiropractic and give it a try if your knowledge and experience of it is limited.

**Throughout these posts, a regular reader and friend, has been kind enough to share her understanding and insight of primitive movement patterns and neurological development.  I am so fascinated and intrigued by this field of study that I intend to investigate it further.  She swears by its benefits, and I respect her knowledge and judgment.  I will keep you informed as I learn more.  Thank you K.O. 

Sleep is next.  But we could just as well call this rest and recuperation.  If your child is not sleeping properly, then they are aging faster and breaking down more quickly.  Sleep is essential to life.  Many metabolic and regenerative processes occur while we sleep.

And don't discount dreaming.  Although we still understand little about this ubiquitous function, I believe it has an important role in our mental brain states (no, I do not think dreams are symbolic).

If your ADD-labeled child is on Ritalin, then I would expect his or her sleep to be disrupted, particularly deep and REM sleep.  Think about that--it's just another way that these dangerous drugs can hurt your child.  If they are also hopped-up on soda...(sigh) heaven help them.

Next is minimizing toxins.  Lot's of things are toxins, but the ones I find most prevalent and damaging are...drum roll please...prescription and over-the-counter drugs.  Nothing wrong these meds periodically when needed, but as a society, Americans are way too over-medicated.  Just look at the Ritalin numbers: 90% consumed in the U.S.  Sad.

Finally is the mental health.  When it comes to your ADD-labeled child, they want what every child (and every person, for that matter) wants--love and acceptance for who they are.  So, again, help them find what they love--they know what it is, because they do it all the time.

Be it sports, be it music, be it socializing, be it fashion--find it, nurture it, and help them be inspired by it.  Pressuring your kid--directly or passively--is not going to help.  When a child senses that you are worried, frustrated, or disappointed, they know it; and trust me this only will add to their stress and inability to perform.  Let them know you love, honor and support them in whatever they love doing, and they will reward you by excelling.  No, they may never excel in school, but plenty of people live amazing lives that were not the result of traditional schooling.

There you have it--like pieces to a puzzle.  Each one important, but neither more-so than any of the others.  In fact, they work synergistically, but I'll leave that topic for you to read in my book.

Once again, I sincerely hope I've helped people facing some tough decisions regarding their own ADD-labeled child.  If I can have helped you see your beautifully unique and gifted genius in a new light, then I am pleased.  If I've influenced you to reject the dangerous chemical poisons that the ADD establishment wants to numb your child on, then I am honored.  If I've given you some ideas on how to inspire your child to be all that they can be, then I am utterly grateful that I could contribute.

Thank you for reading.

My Daughter Takes Kids Vitamins

Most everybody knows that I place a high importance of supplementing with vitamins. I think it's pretty impossible for the average person to get the full amount of nutrients they need from food alone. It's possible but unlikely.

So if I think adults need to take vitamins, do you think I feel it's necessary for children, too? You bet I do; so I make sure my children take their daily vitamins as a supplement to their healthy diets. I like Jarrow Kids Multi because they taste good, and Jarrow products have exactly what their label says they do. They've been tested by a third party organization, so I know I'm giving my children the best.

If you want to make sure your children are getting the best nutrition possible, consider supplementing their healthy diets with vitamins. You'll get to see them grow vibrantly into healthy and energetic little beings. That's the greatest gift any parent can ask for.

RIF, So Set the Environment

When it comes to children's reading skills, nurture trumps nature. As it turns out, with proper instruction, children can improve dramatically in their reading development. So says a recent study out of Ohio State University.

The study looked 135 identical twins and 179 same-sex fraternal twins who were enrolled in kindergarten or 1st grade, and reading skills were assessed for two years. The researchers compared how the twins scored on reading tests and then used a statistical analysis to determine how much genetics and environment influenced their progress. Environmental factors included instruction in school, nutrition, how much the children were read to, and how they were cared for by their parents.

Although genetics were found to be more important in reading speed, skills like learning letters and vocabulary, as well as awareness of sounds were all vastly dependent on the learning environment. The importance of this study is it shows that regardless of the level of reading a child enters school with, they can learn to read effectively with the proper instruction.

Uh oh, teachers--the onus is on you. No excuses. The practice of having separate tables for "smart," "average," and "slow" kids, I hope, is a thing of the past (that's how my childhood classrooms were set up). If the practice is still alive, kill it now. Most level-headed people understand that all children are teachable. They may have different processing pathways, which require different strategies, but ultimately the instructors have to find what works. Period.

And parents are responsible, too. Time for my high-horse again: If you are feeding your child soft drinks, sugary cereals, pop tarts, cookies, chips, candy...on a regular basis. Wake up! You are poisoning the poor kids.

And parents who don't read breed children that don't read. If you are watching oodles of T.V., guess who else is doing the same? Duh!

Finally, spending time and giving attention to your kids matters. Just being in the room with them while watching Oprah is not enough, you've actually got to interact with the buggers. Pick up a crayon, sing a song, bounce around...jump up, jump up and get down. And read a freakin' book to them why don't cha...give 'em a chance; otherwise, you leave it in teachers' hands.

We Need MORE Statins!

More, more, more. We need more statins. What's the delay: MORE STATINS! Is anybody listening?

Somebody must be, because statin use jumped 156% from 2000 to 2005. Woowee! Anybody, get the implications of this? Let me explain it this way. Either Americans are ignoring conventional wisdom and wolfing down cholesterol causing fatty foods like there's no tomorrow--foods that we all know we should be avoiding (Don't our doctors, and television commercials, and magazine articles, and New York City government, and Hollywood movies, and our neighbors, and the newspapers and radio stations all tell us endlessly that we should avoid fatty foods and trans fats and all the other cholesterol increasing substances, I mean, don't we all know that?), yet cholesterol levels are spiraling out of control, and millions of us are on the verge of a heart attack or worse! right now--orrrr,  we are being duped like never before? Hmmm, let me think about this.

In 2000 15.9 million people were taking statins; in 2005, 29.7 million. That's 10% of the entire population. Ten percent of the entire country has dangerously high cholesterol levels and needs to be on statins? Yeah. B.S.

OK, OK, let's look at it this way instead: In 2000 Americans spent about $484 a year on statins for a total cost of $7.7 billion. In 2005, we spent $661 per year for a total of $19.7 billion.

So, let's see, what makes more sense to you? Are the numbers of statin prescriptions going up because we are all so pathetically ignorant and weak-willed that we just can't possibly stop our indulgences, despite pervasive dietary and nutritional information being pumped at us from all directions OR is somebody making a shipload of money from this crock of cow dung?

You decide.

Good Nutrition Leads to Bigger Bucks

There's a popular belief that earning power leads to better nutrition. Seems like a simple cause and effect. I personally don't buy it, as I know that fast-food restaurants do quite well in poorer neighborhoods; and fast-food isn't cheap. Nutritious foods can be purchased for the same amount of money--or less!

But now we know for sure that the reverse is true; that better nutrition, especially in early childhood, can lead to greater earning power later in life. So says a long-term study conducted in Guatemala, which researchers point out could lead to less poverty through childhood feeding programs. Hallelujah! Now that's science that makes sense. Finally a study that doesn't try to squeeze the data to fit a particular (and often political when it comes to poverty) viewpoint. Just plain ol' data collection, analysis and final conclusions. Crazy thing that science.

The study looked at 1,500 people that had been involved in a nutrition study between 1969 and 1977 with some receiving a nutrient-rich protein porridge-like drink and others receiving a less nutritious placebo. They found that men who had received the nutritious porridge before the age of three earned 46% more per hour than those who did not. Children over three years old receiving the nutritious porridge showed no increase in earning power. These results show that early childhood nutrition through feeding is crucial, especially since many well-known programs--like the United Nation's World Food Program--focus on early childhood nutrition through supplementation and save the feeding programs for older kids.

I always say that there is no substitute for real food--regardless of age. Supplements are good to supplement real food, not substitute for them. And real food should be the focus for all children, especially at the early age. So much development happens in the first few years of life, and young children need basic building blocks for proper growth and tissue formation; and this can only be gotten from real food. Bravo to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for conducting this study--it should help developing nations, and it should help us here at home.

A Welcomed--If Not Temporary--Victory

Yay! A judges ruling last week has allowed New York's fast food restaurants to ignore posting calorie and fat counts on their menus. Basically, a pre-existing federal law takes restaurants that voluntarily provide this information off the hook. As long as they provide nutritional information somewhere--on tray papers or Web sites, for instance--they cannot be restricted in how they comply with city law.

Thank goodness. As I've said in earlier posts (here, and here), nothing is dumber than the government stepping in where individual discretion is warranted. Do we really need the government to tell us what's junk and what's real food? Please. All that would do is hurt businesses that provide a product the public wants--junk food. And it takes the responsibility away from the individual. We'll never see an increase in national health until people become responsible for theirs, plain and simple.

Interestingly, this is being proved by yet another recent study. Researchers have found that people consistently underestimate the calorie content of foods served at restaurants they consider healthier, like Subway, for example. In the study, researchers asked people who had just finished eating at Subway or McDonalds to estimate how many calories they had just consumed. On average, Subway diners underestimated their calorie intake by 151 calories--that is, they mistakenly believed they were eating less calories by eating a 12-inch turkey sandwich than by eating a Big Mac, although both have exactly the same amount of calories. What this then led to was the Subway diners ordering more sodas and cookies than the McDonalds diners, giving them actually more calories overall. This meant that, on average, Subway diners wound up consuming 1,011 calories, compared to 648 calories for the people eating McDonalds. Whoa. Get it? People make assumptions about food, and these assumptions lead to poor food decisions.

But wait, if calorie and fat content is posted won't it lead to people making better decisions? Not necessarily, because only fast food restaurants would be required to post such information (more on this concept here). So, in my opinion, people will go to the local Whole Foods and pig out because they assume it's healthier. Should Whole Foods then post calorie content? How about Spago? I've got a better idea: How about understanding two basic principles instead:

1. Fast food is junk that should only be eaten periodically
2. How much one eats is as important as what one eats

Got it? Eating too many carrots, falafel, or soy veggie burgers is just as detrimental to the health as an occasional Big Mac. True, carrots have a greater vitamin and nutrient content, but people aren't using this as their criteria yet.

I just don't see calorie reporting at fast food restaurants as being the answer, and worse, I think it will lead people down the wrong road. Just understand the basics about food, and practice prudent principles. Don't know what they are? Get yourself a copy of The Six Keys to Optimal Health--it's all in there--and you'll be sure to make the right decisions.

Oh the Irony...

The American Medical Association has said it wants fast-food restaurants to post nutritional facts on their menus as a means to combat obesity. These facts should include calories, grams of fat, grams of saturated fat, and grams of trans fat in each fast food item.

You probably already know how I feel about this notion if you've read my June 18th post, Barking up the Wrong Tree. Not only do I think it's ludicrous to penalize fast-food chains (what about pizza parlors, ice cream shops, candy stores, Chinese restaurants and burger stands, like Fat Burger and every other junk food supplier?), it ain't gonna do diddly if people don't value there health to begin with.

"No, you're wrong Campos. People will make better choices if they can see how many calories they're consuming." Poppycock! This information has been on food packaging for years at our country's biggest supplier of junk food - the good ol' fashioned grocery chain. That's right, the American institution known as the grocery store is the largest pusher of junk food in the world, and they've been advertising calories and fat counts for ever. It hasn't stopped people yet from stuffing their faces full of Dinty Moore Beef Stew. And neither will it help people choose between the Double Quarter Pounder and the MacSoy Melt.

I find it especially hysterical that the AMA is promoting this idea. Wait. I've got a better idea. Why don't fast-food restaurants include this information on the back of their receipts in technical language and with the smallest print the human eye can distinguish - just like they do with prescription medications? That'll at least put them up to par with the medical/pharmaceutical industries as responsible informers.

And here's another good idea: why not have medical offices post the number of deaths associated with adverse drug reactions (also see here) and unnecessary surgeries (and here, and here) in their waiting rooms so that people know just what they're in for. Think the AMA will push for that kind of responsible advertising anytime soon?

More links on unnecessary surgeries:
Life Extensions Magazine,
Dr. Joeseph Mercola
New York Times

Google unnecessary surgeries or adverse drug reactions and get blown away.

Obesity and Malnutrition

Some people mistakenly believe that malnutrition is a condition restricted to the underfed and starving. The truth is that anyone can be malnourished regardless of body shape and size. Malnourishment means simply--lack of adequate nutrition. Case in point: Experts in Britain have disclosed that 2 million obese people in that country are also malnourished.

Total calories is not the definitive factor in the amount of nourishment - energy, nutrients and sustenance - a body receives. To be healthy, and to function adequately, the human body needs calories (for energy), vitamins and minerals (for metabolic processes), and enzymes and antioxidants. If one takes in a large amount of nutrient poor foods - like most processed fast foods - then malnutrition, and obesity, will result.

As I point out in my upcoming book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, obesity can actually be countered by adopting a diet high in nutrient rich foods. By making sure the body is getting adequate nutrients, one can actually stave off the hunger response, which, along with other things, can then lead to a decrease in weight.

WARNING: OVERUSE OF SPORTS CREAMS CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH

On another note, many chiropractors, including me, use sports muscle cream to massage sore, stiff and spasmed muscles before administering a chiropractic adjustment. They are very useful in working out those tense, tight areas and they feel good, giving the client a warm soothing feeling for about a half an hour following treatment.

A story has just broke of 17-year-old girl in New York who has died following the overuse of such creams. It seems that the girl, a cross country runner, was using the creams "to excess" according to the medical examiner, which included spreading the cream on her legs, wearing adhesive pads, and also using an unspecified third product. These products contain methyl-salicylate, an anti-inflammatory and pain reliever (or analgesic).

As this story gets more attention, please don't be afraid to have this product used occasionally. As with any medication, it's overuse that causes problems - addictions, toxicity, death - and not moderate use. Having this lotion used as an adjunct to massage is totally safe, as was pointed out by the medical examiner in the case, this was "the first time that her office had reported a death from using a sports cream". And another important aspect to the story is just because a medication, spray, salve or ointment is sold over the counter doesn't mean it is safe to be used indiscriminately. Read labels and use medical products MODERATELY. Nuff said.