Finding information you can trust

To make a good health-related decision nowadays one needs thorough and extensive research. But with modern unprecedented access to information the issue of its reliability becomes critical. Plainly speaking it is not easy to find information you can really trust.

Traditional criteria, like 'provided by reputable government agency or academic institution' do not guarantee you an honest answer to your question.

As it was already mentioned regarding sun block, some government agencies prefer to vocalize 'legally safe' opinions - i.e., the most conservative and mainstream-science-approved. These opinions may be ineffective or simply wrong - it doesn't matter. What matters is that no one can accuse an organization or individual for promoting them. 

In couple of years these highly regarded agencies and institutions might change their recommendations, but we must keep in mind that nobody ever said 'O-ops, sorry!' to people who already took another controversial pill.  

The referrals to a 'scientific study' also do not guarantee you truth, because depending on financial backing of the study, its interpretations may be more favorable to a certain drug producer.

And then there are honest mistakes, simplistic approaches and unwarranted conclusions...  

We also tend to trust general statements like 'scientifically proven' or 'FDA approved'. Unfortunately, the first can be groundless while the second - only relevant to immediate side-effects.

And one must always be very careful with a statement made by people intending to sell you something.  

I usually do my research in circles, refining key words in the process and providing comparative analysis to selected pieces of information. I also try to evaluate possible motives of their authors. Eventually this helps me to formulate the working assumption, and then I am looking for evidence proving or refuting it.  

My professional skills and knowledge in the areas of patent analysis and Anticipatory Failure Determination [1] come handy here by providing variety of tools for the purpose of revealing underlying root-causes and motives. But for those who are not familiar with any of these I would rather recommend listening to their gut feeling and common sense than mindlessly following any 'professional' advice.

In this free, abundant and challenging modern world no stranger is responsible for our well-being and pursuit of happiness.  

---

[1] Anticipatory Failure Determination approach (AFD) – the methodology of revealing root-causes and predicting potential negative events. AFD is the part of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ). 

My Anti-Bucket List

For  the last several years I have been collecting information on foods with reported anti-cancer properties, especially those that are recommended against breast cancer - i.e., my personal anti-bucket list.

To have this information at hand when needed, I printed the list out and pinned it by my working desk. From time to time I browse it through to refresh my memory and to see if some of the items are lacking in my diet. When additional useful information arrives I add it to the list and reprint it.

I do realize that anti-cancer properties of certain foods can be overestimated or simply not true. Still, they may as well work and definitely will not harm anyone.

Therefore, I am sharing this list below:

1. Brassica vegetables (regulate cell growth rates, and help to change a strong and inflammatory form of estrogen (estradiol) into a safer, less aggressive form (estrone); also an antioxidant),  including:
1. Broccoli sprouts
2. Broccoli
3. Radish
4. Cabbage
5. Brussels sprouts
6. Kale,
7. Mustard greens
8. Tofu 
2. Turmeric, ginger (suppress inflammation) - 1tsp dried spice daily
3. 1%-2% organic hormone free milk (not fat-free!)
4. Kefir and other fermented milk products
5. Omega 3 fatty acids in:
1. Fatty fish –

                       i.      Salmon

                       ii.      Tuna

                       iii.      Whitefish

                       iv.      Anchovies

                       v.      Mackerel  

2. Sea vegetables
3. Walnuts  
4. Eggs
5. Olive oil
5. Lentils and other legumes   (contains Folic acid - 600 mcg or more of folic acid a day)
6. Maitake mushrooms
7. Tomatoes (Licopene)
8. Flaxseeds
9. Antioxidant and detox properties in:
1. Green and white tea (Caffeinated brands have twice as much potency as decaffeinated)
2. Garlic
3. Onions 
4. Dark chocolate
5. Citrus, peel and white membrane of oranges
6. Cranberries
7. Apples
8. Grapes (Concord)
9. Dark cherries
10. Blueberries  
10. Coffee – for Women with BRCA1 gene mutations

Eventually as you can see, the list became quite long.

It made me think that I can live entirely on these foods feeling deprived of nothing. Besides, practically every item on this list is not just a single-benefit provider, but rather a multitasker targeting also other types of cancer, arthritis, digestive problems, immune deficiency and such.

This ability of a single common produce to tackle several scary conditions is still not rivaled by modern medicine.

My doctors once assured me that drug Tamoxifen was very good because it could reduce the risk of breast cancer up to 40%. 

Meanwhile  the research from Michigan State University in East Lansing found that those who ate raw or lightly cooked cabbage and sauerkraut more than three times a week were 72 percent less likely to develop breast cancer than those who had 1.5 or fewer servings. Now, add to the plate some salmon with beans and onions on the side...As for dessert, chocolate, anyone? 

A dinner like that can beat Tamoxifen down any day.

And NO SIDE EFFECTS, mind you!

Protector or…Perpetrator?

... Or, as my friend put it:

"To sunscreen, or not to sunscreen....that is the question."

While persuasions on using sunscreen are getting more persistent than ever, there is a new (though not surprising) evidence that one of the possible culprits in skin cancers can be the sunscreen itself.

Numerous recent epidemiological studies indicate an increased risk of malignant melanoma for the sunscreen users. For example:

Worldwide, the countries where chemical sunscreens have been recommended and adopted have experienced the greatest rise in cutaneous malignant melanoma, with a contemporaneous rise in death rates.

In the United States, Canada, Australia, and the Scandinavian countries, melanoma rates have risen steeply in recent decades, with the greatest increase occurring after the introduction of sunscreens. Death rates in the United States from melanoma doubled in women and tripled in men between the 1950s and the 1990s.

The rise in melanoma has been unusually steep in Queensland, Australia, where sunscreens were earliest and most strongly promoted by the medical community. Queensland now has the highest incidence rate of melanoma in the world. In contrast, the rise in melanoma rates was notably delayed elsewhere in Australia, where sunscreens were not promoted until more recently.

'Could sunscreens increase melanoma risk?' by Garland C, Garland F, Gorham E (04/01/1992).. Am J Public Health 82 (4): 614–5.

Look, what I've found:
nail sunscreen!

In a new population-based, matched, case-control study from southern Sweden (of all places! How much sun do they have really?) of 571 patients with a first diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma, between 1995 and 1997, and 913 healthy controls aged 16 to 80 years, the association between sunscreen use and malignant melanoma was evaluated as follows:

The median sun protection factor (SPF) used by both cases and controls was 6, range 2 to 25. Sunscreen users reported greater sun exposure than non-users. Persons who used sunscreens did not have a decreased risk of malignant melanoma. Instead, a significantly elevated odds ratio (OR) for developing malignant melanoma after regular sunscreen use was found, adjusted for history of sunburns, hair color, frequency of sunbathing during the summer, and duration of each sunbathing occasion [OR = 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.9].

'Sunscreen use and malignant melanoma', by Westerdahl J; Ingvar C; Masback A; Olsson H (2000). International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer 87: 145–50.

There are even stronger opinions regarding sunscreen impact on our health:

The scientific evidence… shows quite clearly that sunscreen actually promotes cancer by blocking the body's absorption of ultraviolet radiation, which produces vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D, as recent studies have shown, prevents up to 77 of ALL cancers in women (breast cancer, colon cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer, brain tumors, multiple myeloma... you name it). Meanwhile, the toxic chemical ingredients used in most sunscreen products are actually carcinogenic and have never been safety tested or safety approved by the FDA. They get absorbed right through the skin (a porous organ that absorbs most substances it comes into contact with) and enter the bloodstream.

Proponents say sunscreen prevents sunburn, but in fact, the real cause of sunburn is not merely UV exposure: It is a lack of antioxidant nutrition. Start eating lots of berries and microalgae (spirulina, astaxanthin, blue-green algae, etc.), and you'll build up an internal sunscreen that will protect your skin from sunburn from the inside out. Sunburn is actually caused by nutritional deficiencies that leave the skin vulnerable to DNA mutations from radiation, but if you boost your nutrition and protect your nervous system with plant-based nutrients, you'll be naturally resistant to sunburn.

'The sunscreen myth: How sunscreen products actually promote cancer', by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews

http://www.naturalnews.com/021903.html

While this discussion is only starting, the majority of people  are following the recommendations of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (see 'Under the Sun') without questioning.

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends now broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreens with an SPF of at least 30. Doctors stress the importance of using plenty of sunscreen -- a golf ball-sized full ounce of sunscreen for a normal size adult body, reapplied every two hours.

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/news/20110614/new-sunscreen-rules-from-fda?page=2

However, we put on our bodies not only sunscreen. Every year more and more cosmetic products are used. A single jar of face cream is no longer enough: we apply one cream at night, another – at daytime (with sunscreen in it!); special cream - for the eye area; also serum and cleanser.

Only two decades ago, my mom’s beauty regiment was very different. It included water, soap and … nothing much else. Every now and then she would buy a new face cream, something honey-based, according to the label. After the first enthusiastic application she would place the jar into the fridge following a girlfriend’s advice and… forget it there.

In three months the cream usually became either rancid, or dried up. And after my complaints on its unsightly view, it ended up on my mothers’ shoes, of which she took a really great care.

By the way, till her last days my mother had beautiful clean skin with natural glow and not so many wrinkles. 

Today women start following beauty tips early in life, when we all try to look like girls on glossy pages. At this age cancers seem distant and irrelevant. Eventually we end up with all this ‘stuff’…

How many harmful chemicals do we absorb during our lifetime?

I stopped using sunscreens years ago, with no scientific data available to back my decision. As on several other issues I refused to follow the superficial trend, implying that the major source of life on earth is our enemy. I also relied on experience of past generations when sunburns were totally common, but skin cancer - unheard of. Those people, of course, led cleaner and simpler lives, while we ‘cannot afford it’ anymore.

But the choice is always with us: to continue our affordable chemicals-saturated existence and eventually become at war with sun, water, air, blooming plants, and food, or to clean our act and start living in harmony with nature, as it was intended.

As to the protection against excessive sun exposure, the research from Dr. Ronald Watson at the University of Arizona confirms that the antioxidants in red, yellow and orange foods build up under the skin creating extra UV protection.

"The effect is so strong that eating six portions a day for about two months will build a natural barrier equivalent to a factor four sunscreen".

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=yourlife--10-foods-you-must-eat-to-fight-wrinkles-&method=full&objectid=17923641&siteid=115875-name_page.html#ixzz10Y86F3EF

From my own humble experience, since I started eating more fruits and vegetables and by increasing summer sun exposure gradually, my skin tans visibly easier and never burns.

Gains and Losses

In my mother’s last weeks with cancer my sister and I once met the lady manager of our apartment building. She enquired us about our mom and then said:

‘Your mother is blessed to have both daughters beside her!’

At that moment I was mostly impressed by the American way of finding good sides to any situation (Russian compassion would be typically expressed in graver terms).   

Later, however, the direct meaning of the remark caught my attention: indeed, those of us, who in the end are surrounded by the loving family, are lucky. Even if you have it to the last day, your siblings may be far away and head-over-heels busy.

But there is more to this picture than reassuring smiles and kind words. This is from the book I am currently reading:

 ‘…She took down extra pillow and quilts from the shelves, shoved the bed up to the window, and propped Eva where she could see the doings in the yard. She went back, put one syringe in the water, finished up the pies and put them in the oven, then brought a little tepid water in a cup for Eva to drink. She did drink, which was good, and her color was up. Her eyes brighter.’

‘The Master Butcher Singing Club’, by Luise Erdrich

Eva is a German immigrant, a butcher’s wife in the Prohibition era, who is dying of cancer.  ‘She’ – is her friend and neighbor, a younger woman without a profession, a high school dropout and daughter of a small town drunkard.  The woman earns her living by helping in the butcher shop. She also nurses Eva out of love and respect.

What is important, both these women are, in modern terms, ‘uneducated’. All their skills are limited to meeting household needs and taking care of others.

Frontier woman

The female characters in the book (as well as some women of the older generation, we know) are remarkable experts in what they do, but on the modern social scale their skills are evaluated very humble.  A woman today that stays at home and has no career aspirations is often considered not very bright, or lazy. She is almost expected to explain herself, and I know a few who feel inferior even for a temporary break in corporate career.   

On the other hand, the prestige of many professions, as well as their financial worth, notably devalues just because too many women are now pursuing them. 

Another sad social paradox. 

But there is a third side to the situation that bothers me most: what we have lost by persistently disengaging women with humble family matters.

…Those bright and creative, who a century ago channeled their natural observance and smarts into making life around them comfortable and dignified…

…Those strong and daring, who kept their loved ones safe and, by their own everyday example, taught children to face life challenges and to persevere…

Now, when we need a fraction of their domestic expertise we go to specialists.

Well, to do what an uneducated neighbor in the extract above did for Eva, we would need the services of:

A certified nurse (preferably, 24-7)

A personal chef (specifically instructed to make everything from scratch)

A skillful housekeeper - to maintain things that poor Eva could not do anymore for her family of five

But even if one has money to pay for all the above, a certain ingredient would still be missing – that is, the whole-hearted care.

It just cannot be bought!

This is not so, because there are good and bad nurses, or good and bad housekeepers, but because development of ‘thick skin’ is an unavoidable stage of professional maturity. You either suffer with every client of yours, destroying your mental and physical health, or you figure out the ways of protecting yourself during your job and - of getting over it, as soon as the job is done. 

This genuine care is not even a component, but rather the binding agent that turns detached impersonal services with all their ‘9-to-5’ limitations, lack of ‘current knowledge’  and ‘honest human mistakes’ into the adjusted to a tee, living and breathing supporting system.

It makes mother a better doctor than a member of the medical academy and - a better cook than French chef.       

Quietly women did it for centuries turning wilderness into civilization and chaos – into live. But the appreciation of society was elsewhere, and in search for this appreciation many started seeking more respected roles, leaving traditional occupations behind or delegating them to machines and services.

Now we take a pill for every ailment and battle child obesity.

Besides other, more material reasons, this is also the price we pay for the deeply rooted in modern culture look down on clothes mending, floor scrubbing and lullaby singing. 

Statins and More

For quite a while I hesitated sharing my cholesterol doubts, thinking it could be perceived as yet another sample of my unconventional and anti-doctors views.

But then, and after the last posting had already been done, I came across an article ‘The Other Drug Problem’ by Pamela Weintraub. It was not only about cholesterol medications but also regarding high blood pressure treatments, anti-acids and more. This article changed my feelings completely:  

First of all, I realized that there is nothing original in my concerns – they are shared by many and are well grounded. According to Weintraub the issue is actually way deeper and is explored there in detail.

For a moment I even regretted my previous posting’s amateur reasoning, I wished, I could’ve simply put a string to this article instead. The problem was, I read it too late, and also – there was no electronic address underneath it in the Experience Life magazine.

Here I must say a few words about this magazine. And I am not encouraged in any way to do so. It is simply good. I paid little attention to it at first, because it started coming for free when we became Lifetime Fitness club members (I even threw several issues into recycling without opening).

But being quite skeptical at the beginning about this ‘auxiliary fitness promoter’ I was pleasantly surprised by sensitive and unbias health-related information I found there.

In this respect the Experience Life is in perfect contrast with the Whole Living - the magazine I‘ve been subscribing for several years. It started out as Organic Living with high standards on the ideas they promoted and products they recommended. But after it was bought by Martha Steward it became just another unscrupulous advertising engine.  

Feeling determined to share the information of the article by Pamela Weintraub I encircled several extracts in it and then surmised to go to the magazine's website. Isn’t it nice that every regular publication has a website nowadays?

I found the article right there!

I decided to copy the encircled extracts anyway, so that my effort and enthusiasm was not wasted. And then if someone is interested, the string to more information is below.

About the side-effects of statins and other drugs:

‘The Statin Study Group, directed by University of California at San Diego (UCSD) physician and scientist Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, who says:

Three common classes of prescription drugs in the United States — statins for reducing cholesterol, angiotensin II antagonists for lowering blood pressure, and proton pump inhibitors for reducing stomach acid — can all cause side effects worse than the problems they aim to treat. And the symptoms caused by one drug may necessitate the use of the others.’

Regarding the so-called 'minor side-effects' of statins (and other drugs) that were never paid much attention to:

‘…reduced energy and a lack of interest in activity, increased fatigue after exercise, erectile dysfunction…’

“In these studies, the decrease in death from heart disease was fully offset by increases in violent death from suicide, homicide and accident,” (Golomb)

‘A 2010 study published in The Lancet Oncology, for instance, reported an increase in cancer diagnoses among ARB users. Other side effects include headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, nasal congestion, back and leg pain, and diarrhea. And, while rare, side effects such as kidney failure, liver failure, allergic reaction, a drop in white blood cells and localized swelling of tissues (angioedema) can all be fatal.’

On the biasness of medical studies financed by the pharmaceutical industry:

‘As Golomb notes, clinical studies designed to prove the efficacy of a certain drug have inherent limitations, particularly as it relates to examining safety.’
‘Underlying their marketing strategy is a host of scientific studies that “exaggerate positive results and bury negative ones,” says Shannon Brownlee, author of Overrated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer (Bloomsbury USA, 2007).’

On high blood pressure:

‘…while doctors routinely treat patients with mild to moderate systolic pressure of 140 to 160, it is only for those with moderate to severe hypertension — people with blood pressure over 160, the top 5 percent of the curve — that “we get a modest bang for our buck. Between 140 and 160 there is no good evidence that the benefits outweigh the harm,” James M. Wright, says.’

On the concept of medical prevention by giving drugs to healthy people:

‘According to internist and clinical pharmacologist James M. Wright, MD, PhD, professor at the University of British Columbia, statins have no proven net health benefit as a preventive.’

The Other Drug Problem

By Pamela Weintraub / April 2011

http://www.experiencelife.com/issues/april-2011/wellness/the-other-drug-problem.php

With the last and so popular concept I had a personal encounter (see Health Advocate Wanted).  Still I think, there is much more to discuss about it. 

Should I Lower my Cholesterol?

A slim and perfectly athletic young woman once told me that she was worried about her high cholesterol numbers in the last test. I laughed the issue off.

‘Labs make mistakes’ – I said – ‘Do you feel well? If yes, forget about it’.

Another 27-year-old ballerina-type was recommended by a doctor to cut down on… egg yolks.

We both found it funny.

But then my doctor called me just to say:
- Your current cholesterol level is not acceptable. You must be put on medications.

I did not feel like laughing. The fact that he did not even consider a non-medical alternative somehow felt especially upsetting.

I received it as the message to stop my 'natural, drug-free' nonsense and become like everyone else – passive and submissive to whatever doctor orders me to do.

When things like this happen, I first panic and think ‘Maybe it is time to change my ways. He (she) sounds so confident, and who am I to dispute a professional?’

But then I eventually calm down and start thinking straight. I ask myself:

-     Is there anything wrong with me (dizziness, fatigue, or pain)? Maybe I   feel weaker than in my 40s or 30s?

-     No; and actually, since yoga, - even better and stronger.

-     But can I trust my body? Every day people are urged to trust nothing but medical tests.  You hear countless stories about perfectly healthy individuals suddenly dropped dead with massive stroke or cardiac arrest.

-     Well, I doubt these stories are accurate.

-     Then why should I be scared of heart attack?

Currently doctors push young and old to lower blood cholesterol though its nature is not exactly clear (some say it depends on the amount of fat you eat; others – that consuming fat is irrelevant). These recommendations are based on the opinion that elevated level of LDL (bad) cholesterol is  one of the factors (family history, obesity, etc.) that in combination might be strong indicators of heart vulnerability. Yet again, many doctors advise to be ‘on the safe side’ and to lower it even if you have no relevant history or weight issues.

Being confused by all this controversy I felt like additionally researching the subject. Having high levels throughout my life and no heart problems ever, I grew a strong suspicion that the role of cholesterol in heart conditions is somewhat overrated. Thus I was looking specifically for the relevant studies that would prove or refute this hypothesis.

As usual, the first round was totally fruitless, though quite educational as I had been flooded with indisputable recommendations to lower cholesterol regardless of anything else.

I changed the inquiry to “cholesterol, study, controversial” and this is what I found:

1 – The clinical study led to a scandal in the medical world had found that an expensive anti-cholesterol drag and a much cheaper one (that included only one of the counterpart’s many components) perform the same. In fact the data for the cheaper one shows even slightly more benefits.

2 – The basic ingredient - statin reliably lowers cholesterol and was proven to bring benefits against heart conditions.  However it is not clear yet if the benefits observed were provided by lowering cholesterol or due to other healing mechanisms.

3 – The recommendations regarding cholesterol by everyone familiar with the results of this and similar studies are extremely cautious.

(The ENHANCE Trial and What It Means, By Richard N. Fogoros, M.D., http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/cholesterol/a/statins.htm;

CLEARING UP THE CHOLESTEROL CONFUSION! by Dr. Robert Preston, N.D.,  http://www.vitality-corp.com/)

  

I am thinking about changing the doctor.

Who is Afraid of Suzanne Somers

Before we discontinued cable TV I saw her quite often, mostly on QVC or some other shopping network.  Then she was on Oprah show describing her anti-aging regimen.  The camera had shown a battery of plastic cups filled with pills that she took regularly and sworn by.  It looked slightly odd but I deeply sympathize with a cancer survivor on her journey to sustaining health. 

Suzanne Somers on the Oprah show

Lately I saw Somers again in “60 minutes” that was dedicated to her book ‘Knockout’ about doctors providing alternative cancer cures. Though being not a fan or follower, I was still struck by the attermost rejection of it by conventional medicine.

Our praised political correctness was nowhere in sight.

The representatives of the mainstream medical science interviewed in the episode explained that no success story can prove effectiveness of the treatment or approach, because all these successes are subjective, and could’ve been resulted from other factors (misdiagnosis, other treatments taken in parallel, etc.) Personal success stories are usually called anecdotes and are not admitted as scientific evidence. Only clinical studies can be admitted as such.

Not trusting my amateur understanding I checked the term in several dictionaries and on relevant Internet sites. According to them a clinical study (trial or protocol) is a thoroughly documented testing provided on a group of volunteers. The results are obtained via monitoring certain measurable parameters and comparing them to similar parameters in the group taking placebo.

It looks like such an approach excludes subjective judgment and coincidental reactions. But does it really?

Is the possibility of misdiagnosis not applicable to participants in a clinical study, or a possibility of alternative (or other) treatment taken in parallel clandestinely or unconsciously?

 We know that emotional support can be a powerful weapon against despair and thus, - a contributor to successful healing. But is it possible to make all the participants in a trial getting such support in equal (measurable) portions?  How about different lifestyles and medical history that are also difficult to reliably measure? Besides, there are multiple evidences of placebo being as effective as the tested drug.

And to make things worse we hear all too often of drugs thoroughly tested and FDA approved yet shown in years of application no sizable benefits (though caused dangerous side-effects.)

All these weaknesses of even the most unbiased medical trials are well known, still the representatives of mainstream science  demonstrate unshakable superiority. They are science. Others are charlatans.  

...The actress who usually projects a rather gregarious and flamboyant personality this time was uncommonly reserved. In response to accusations in incompetency she did not mention any of the issues above, just asked:

‘Why then so little success is gained against cancer in almost a century of research?’ 

Somers’ opponents were not intimidated by the question. They looked confident and comfortable replying that some progress had been made, in particular, not all (?!) the drugs of the 70s are still in use today. 

Indeed with no goals or timelines ever been set and no real competition to mind such a progress may qualify as totally fine.

And feeling so, the major scholarly concern is not about lack of their achievements but rather with the possibility of people being misguided by the books like Somers’. They worry that some of her readers might decide against conventional treatment and that would be detrimental to their health. 

Here I would like some help to check the logic. Please, tell me where I make a mistake:

      Cancer is one of the deadliest diseases in our part of the world.

      Success of modern science against it is still modest, which means that MANY PATIENTS DIE AFTER CONVENTIONAL TREATMENTS.

 Why then the decision to do something else is considered fatal?

Mrs. Somers did what all of us do when we straggled for a solution (medical, or other) for a long time, and finally found it – we rush to share the good news with our family and friends. By doing so we expect no other rewards than seeing someone else benefited from it. Today with the advantages of the Internet we can share our little victories with virtually the entire world.

There must be something good in this!

Of course, no health-related information should be trusted without questioning. And Somers’ book is no exception from this rule.  But nowadays we all need to learn processing information and taking the responsibility for our decisions.

Because, frankly, no one else would.

So here is the link to another information  regarding healing cancer naturally:

http://greensmoothiesblog.com/cancer/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreenSmoothiesBlog+%28Green+Smoothies+Blog+by+Victoria+Boutenko%29

It is from the blog that I follow. Check it if you know someone who may need it.

Multivitamins Then and Now

It was a decade ago when I was still in my 40s.

We actually were at a party talking about usual things – weather, kids and diets, when a friend’s wife asked me what vitamins or supplements I was taking. 

-      None - I said innocently, - Why should I?

-      Everyone must, because we do not consume enough nutrients with food.

I made an attempt to explain that for that reason I tried to eat better.

She was not convinced,

-      Oh, you are just too young to understand it, but wait until you hit 50! Believe me, you won't feel good unless supported by vitamins.

This I could not argue.  At that time 50s seemed to me like a still distant milestone and I was not sure if after it people do not fall apart.

Being obviously considered eccentric I had suddenly felt uncomfortable and tried to change the subject... 

Now I see a lot of information supporting my point of view. In fact, this posting is directly inspired by the article by Sarah Mahoney "Should you kick the Multivitamin habit?" (http://health.msn.com/medications/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100265403&gt1=31053) that I recommend to everyone. It confirms the point 100% and explains its aspects much better than I ever could.

What puzzles me is the fact that I knew it then (for additional proof see “The Compulsive Liar”).

In all honesty I cannot remember what made me so settled on the issue when practically everyone around thought differently:

It could be that the concept of eating chemical-laden food and compensating for it by consuming more chemicals seemed double flawed to me.

Or maybe, I was afraid that constant artificial boost would distort my bodily warning signals. So, I would feel OK when I  actually wasn't!

And being unable to trust my body I would become the doctors' dream patient - the one who has no other choice but to completelly rely on their judgment and obediently follow their recommendations.

To this I could never agree.

Back then at the party I was too shy to share my concerns.  Now these very concerns have become pretty much common place.

Or, have they?

Reaching for the Unreachable

An Indian-born yoga instructor once said “Yoga was our medicine when we had no medicine”.

So, many centuries ago yogi had developed hundreds of special positions or asana(s) helpful against various conditions. Some of the asanas provide gentle massage of internal organs that otherwise are never physically treated. That is why these poses look so weird – they intend to reach the unreachable.

This position helps against colds and tonsillitis, very calming too

When I tried to stretch a leg in a “gymnastic way” - by pulsing it, my instructor gently stopped me and suggested to relax the muscles and breathe instead. Frankly, I was very skeptical about the approach and the possibility of relaxation at the moment seemed quite unrealistic.

I was still cherishing my doubts when my leg, supposedly at its limits, stretched further, and two breaths later – even a bit more.  Not only this technique appeared to be incredibly effective, it was also comfortable and safe.

I wish I knew it when I was a young athlete. There was not a single person on our college team without some sort of injury. We thought of them as mundane attributes of intense training and managed as well as we could.

Now I think that many of those injuries could’ve been avoided or better healed. 

I was also surprised to discover that intensity of yoga practice can vary significantly. It may be spa-like gentle or extremely strenuous. The beginner who had formed his idea of yoga based on Hollywood images can be really discouraged: instead of an hour of relaxation he might find himself shaking in stress.

Intense static load on the muscles in asana requires unobstructed blood circulation, therefore the room for practice should be warm and transitions from one position to another should be executed mindfully and slowly.

In fact, most of the injuries in yoga happen when someone becomes overly confidant and moves to the next asana without caution.  

A single asana never works a particular muscle like a training machine, but rather engages a group of muscles, large and small. Different positions impact muscles at different angles in every changing combination.

And judging by the fact that every new type of class, or even another instructor always made me sore next morning, many of the these muscles are rarely given a chance to rejuvenate outside  the yoga class.

This is why I like trying various classes with different instructors; they work the body in new ways.

During an especially intense position I console myself that one day I might need all the strength I am now trying to obtain.  I once heard from the yoga practitioner the following wisdom:

“We prepare ourselves for life challenges. We do not know what to expect, but prepare anyway”.

I think this is very true.

According to the recent Harvard Health Publications yoga may have positive effects on stress and can be used as a treatment for anxiety and depression:

By reducing perceived stress and anxiety, yoga appears to modulate stress response systems. This, in turn, decreases physiological arousal—for example, reducing the heart rate, lowering blood pressure, and easing respiration. There is also evidence that yoga practices help increase heart rate variability, an indicator of the body's ability to respond to stress more flexibly.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/depression/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100237603&page=1

The same source refers to the current studies exploring yoga ability to help patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD):

In 2008, researchers at the University of Utah presented preliminary results from a study of varied participants' responses to pain. They note that people who have a poorly regulated response to stress are also more sensitive to pain. Their subjects were 12 experienced yoga practitioners, 14 people with fibromyalgia (a condition many researchers consider a stress-related illness that is characterized by hypersensitivity to pain), and 16 healthy volunteers.

When the three groups were subjected to more or less painful thumbnail pressure, the participants with fibromyalgia—as expected—perceived pain at lower pressure levels compared with the other subjects. Functional MRIs showed they also had the greatest activity in areas of the brain associated with the pain response. In contrast, the yoga practitioners had the highest pain tolerance and lowest pain-related brain activity during the MRI.

From time to time I hear on the news tragic but very similar  stories about a person on antidepressant medication who for some reasons had stopped taking them and in uncontrollable rage pushed someone under a subway train or stabbed to death.

Maybe with yoga as an alternative treatment, innocent lives could’ve been saved? 

I also think that yoga is very democratic.

One needs nothing but a very small space and some time to spend. No equipment or facilities are necessary - yoga mat is more than enough. My husband and I always bring our mats on business trips. Folded they easily fit in handbags and no matter how busy we are, a 30 min. break for standing positions may always be found.