Nutritional and Physical Degeneration is one of the most ground-breaking books ever written on the link between nutrition and health. Dr. Weston A. Price, a dentist from Cleveland, became very disturbed by what he saw in his patients. He started to see a link between the decay he found in the mouths of his patients and pathologies found elsewhere in the body like diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, gastrointestinal complaints, and more. Dr. Price also found that crowded, crooked teeth were becoming more and more common, along with facial deformities like overbites, narrow faces, lack of well defined cheek bones, and underdevelopment of the nose. Dr. Price did not believe these problems to be in any way normal; He believed they were the result of poor nutrition. The worse a person’s diet was the more decay he found in their mouth. The more decay a person had in their mouth, the higher the rate of pathologies in other areas of the body.

More than 70 years ago Dr. Price decided to search the world for primitive people who lived entirely on indigenous foods. His travels took him from islands in the South Seas to Alaska to Africa and many places in between. He visited Australian Aborigines, Swiss villages, Eskimos, traditional American Indians, Amoazonian Indians, African tribes, and more. Dr. Price and his wife Florence traveled for ten years during the 1920’s and 30’s when groups of people completely isolated from civilization could be found.

Throughout his travels, Dr. Price kept a record of his findings with pictures and detailed assessments. What he found, to be called astounding, is an understatement. Dr, Price discovered that primitive people untouched by civilization, who subsided on a diet of indigenous food, had outstanding physical development with little to no dental problems, heart disease, diabetes, or any other diseases we know believe to be a normal consequence of life.

Dr. Price’s findings were not surprising to other investigators and explorers. However, the excepted explanation at the time was that primitive people were “racially pure” and that the maladies we see in civilization were due to “race mixing”. This theory was untenable to Dr. Price who found that the individuals in groups he studied who abandoned their traditional diets for foods provided by traders or missionaries, or who moved to a more civilized area were found to develop tooth decay and degenerative conditions.

The diets of these primitive groups of people were vastly different. Some were mostly cooked food while in others most of the food was consumed raw including animal sources. Some diets were based on sea food, others on domestic animals and others on wild game. Some diets were based on dairy while others consumed a variety of fruits and vegetables and grains.

The common thread between all the groups Dr. Price investigated was none of them contained any refined devitalized foods like white sugar, flour, pasteurized or skim milk, and refined or hydrogenated vegetable oils. All the diets contained animal foods of some type and some salt. Dr. Price analyzed the primitive diets and found they all contained four times the amount of water soluble vitamins and minerals, and ten times the amount of fat soluble vitamins compared to the modern American diet.

Unfortunately, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, the permanent record of his travels, is nonexistent to today’s modern medical community. This book is more important to our health and welfare today than it was 60 years ago. Our food supply, if it could be classified as food, is devoid of almost all nutritive value. We need to incorporate the fundamentals of primitive nutrition and return to nutrient dense whole food. We need to get back to local farming and turn away from manmade supermarket garbage that is destroying our health.

Anyone interested in becoming truly healthy needs to read Nutrition and physical degeneration

When most think of carbohydrate loading, the classic method of low carb consumption coupled with bouts high intensity exercise followed by a high intake of carbs a few days before competition comes to mind. The result, according to the theory, is super-compensation of glycogen storage in the muscle cells and liver. The theory holds that one must deplete their glycogen stores prior to consuming or loading carbs in order to facilitate super-compensation.

The average person’s total amount of muscle glycogen is approximately 300 – 500g depending on their gender, size, and level of training. The liver stores between 60 and 120g. A linear relationship exists between the depletion of muscle glycogen and fatigue during exercise. With less glycogen to produce glucose, hypoglycemia begins to affect the athlete. Typically, a person with a blood glucose level below 70 will start to feel light headed, lethargy, and have cold clammy skin. A highly trained athlete, on the other hand, can train at much lower levels than 70 for long periods of time.

As with all training topics there is conflicting evidence on what is the best method to achieve super-compensation of glycogen stores. studies are reporting similar results to the classic method, which so many athletes swear by, without carb depletion, while tapering their training (1,2,3). One thing is for sure, carbohydrate levels play a key role in training and competition success.

In order to figure out what works best for you, try different methods and keep a detailed journal. We all process carbs the same way, but we metabolize them at different rates. Keep mind, studies on training are by no means the end all be all. There are too many variables in most training studies to be reliable. Athletes, especially endurance athletes are over-trained. It is my opinion that athletes who are achieving super-compensation without depletion coupled with bouts of intense training, are doing so because they are over-trained and under-fed before starting the process.

The body is constantly working to stay in homeostasis. Physiology shows us glycogen storage is finite; the body needs a reason to super-compensate. Achieving a glycogen depleted state over a period of time produces an insulin sensitive environment, which is essential for more than normal levels of glycogen storage.

1. Eur J Appl Physiol 2002;87:290-295
2. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2003;285:E1304-E1311
3. Int J Sports Med 1981;2:114-118

Today in the United States one person will die from CVD every 37 seconds. This year in the U.S. over 1.2 million people will have a heart attack and just short of half will die. Approximately 80,000,000 people or roughly 25% of The U.S. has cardiovascular disease(CVD). It became our number one killer in the 1950’s and has not slowed down.(1)

Do you believe consuming saturated fat and cholesterol cause CVD? Do you believe eating polyunsaturated oils like canola and corn oil are not only good for you but lower your risk of CVD. If you answered yes to both of these questions, you are among the 10’s of millions who need to be enlightened by reading my article “Fats, Cholesterol and the Lipd Hypothesis”.

The truth is, saturated fat and cholesterol have nothing to do with your risk of cardiovascular disease. As a matter of fact there are many studies that show that people who have heart attacks do not eat anymore saturated fat than people who don’t have heart attacks. More-over the degree of atherosclerosis at autopsy, in heart attack victims, is unrelated to diet. It is also interesting to note that half of all heart attack victims do not have “clogged” arteries.

I have personally witnessed and cared for many patients who were experiencing (the big one) massive heart attacks in the emergency room. The degree of blockage had a wide range with the most common seemingly being between 80, 90 percent. But the interesting thing was, some people literally had no plaque what-so-ever according to cath lab reports. It was during my time working in emergency department, because of so many discrepancies, that I became very curious about what actually caused CVD.

As a follow-up to a previous article “Everything in moderation, right?“, I decided to educate my readers on substances so vital to there health daily consumption is essential. Below is a portion of “Daily Consumption“.

Coconut oil

Taken from the fruit portion of the seed off the coconut palm tree, coconut oil is one the most beneficial foods you can consume. In tropical regions where coconut oil or fat is a large portion of their caloric intake, people are much healthier and experience a much lower incidence of the modern diseases we do in the U.S. [17, 18]

There is an array of positive research published in the last few years showing the significance of coconut oil. [19] Coconut oil is classified as a “functional food” because of its health benefits that go far beyond its nutritional content. In fact, the coconut palm is so highly valued by Pacific Islanders as a source of food and medicine that it is called “The Tree of Life.” [20]

Coconut oil is the most saturated of all fats. Saturated fat has three subcategories: short chain, medium chain and long chain. Coconut oil contains approximately 65% medium chain fatty acids (MCFA). Although recognized for its health benefits many centuries ago, it wasn’t until 40 years ago that modern medicine found the source to be MCFA. Remarkably, mother’s milk contains the same healing powers of coconut oil. [21]

The saturated medium chain lipid lauric acid, which comprises more than 50 percent of coconut oil, is the anti-bacterial, anti-viral fatty acid found in mother’s milk. [22] The body converts lauric acid into the fatty acid derivative monolaurin, which is the substance that protects adults as well as infants from viral, bacterial or protozoal infections. This was recognized and reported as early as 1966. [23]

Sources located here

HFCS has been marketed as a “natural sugar” being just like the sugar found in fruit. Well nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is it molecularly unlike leveulose, fruit sugar, it is also metabolized and absorbed differently. HFCS is very cheap and has made its way into literally tens of thousands of products from bread to beer. And unfortunately it’s even used in health foods from protein bars to powders. Read about why this heavily marketed product should be avoided completely here.

Looking for a snack to kill that between meal hunger? Try almonds. 28g, aproximatey 20 – 25 alomonds provides 5.9g of protein, 13.8g of fat, and 6.1g of carbohydrates. Don’t be alarmed by the fat content. The fat is what will suppress your appetite, and 62% of the fat found in almonds is oleic acid. In comparison, olive oil contains 71% oleic acid. This fatty acid has strong anti-inflammatory properties and is what gives olive oil it’s outstanding reputation. 7% of the fat content is palmitic acid and 2 percent is stearic acid. Both of these saturated fatty acids are the preferred energy source of the heart, which is why the fat surrounding the heart is highly saturated.

Unfortunately, up to 30% of the fat found in almonds is the polyunsaturated fat linoleic acid. This is a double unsaturated omega 6 fatty acid that has been shown to be pro-inflammatory, immuno-suppressive, and shown to cause weight gain. Thankfully, almonds have enough of the good fats to compensate for the bad polyunsaturated fats.

A good source of fiber 20 -25 almonds contain 3.4g. Also Rich in minerals, almonds contain good amounts of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and zinc. So if your feeling hungry and you need something to munch on to hold you till the next meal, give almonds a try.

Nutritionaldata.com
Westonaprice.com
Enig,Mary. Know Your Fats. Silver Spring: Bethesda Press, 2000

Bromides are a common endocrine disruptor. It is found in commercial bread products and some flours as potassium bromate. In the 1960’s it replaced postassium iodate as a dough conditioner, which has been major contributor to hypothyroid.

Bromide is a halide and competes for the same receptors as iodine in the thyroid gland. This is why bromide will inhibit thyroid hormone production resulting in a hypothyroid state. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, it appears that the only method for removal of this halide from these receptors is in supplying iodine in forms such as Lugol’s liquid or Iodoral.

Where can you find bromide?

*Pesticides (specifically methyl bromide, used mainly on strawberries, predominantly in California)

*Plastics, like those used to make computers

*Bakery goods and some flours often contain a “dough conditioner” called potassium bromate

*Soft drinks (including Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Sun Drop, Squirt, Fresca and other citrus-flavored sodas), in the form of brominated vegetable oils (BVOs)

*Medications such as Atrovent Inhaler, Atrovent Nasal Spray, Pro-Banthine (for ulcers), and anesthesia agents

*Fire retardants (common one is polybromo diphenyl ethers or PBDEs) used in fabrics, carpets, upholstery, and mattresses

*Bromine-based hot tub and swimming pool treatments

(Mercola.com)

An analysis of the Prospect – EPIC cohort, which consisted of 16057 post menopausal women between the ages of 49 – 70, found vitamin K reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). None of the participants had CVD at the start of the study. Those who got their vitamin K by eating leafy green vegetables had the same risk of CVD as the general population. Those who obtained their vitamin K by eating whole eggs, cheese, goose liver, and animal fats had a substantially reduced incidence of CVD when compared to the general population. (Wise Traditions 2009;10(2):11)

Are taking multivitamins necessary? do they work? How does a vegan get leaner? Should they be eating soy? Are testosterone boosters safe and effective? Which ones should I take and what’s the best way to take them?

Below is a sample of the recent Q&A column on www.bullz-eye.com.

Q:Mike, I’m currently taking a multivitamin because I’m trying to change my health for the better. Is this a good choice? Should I be taking other supplements?

A:Sergio, Short answer No. Multi vitamins are a waste because the absorption is so poor. Some vitamins and minerals compete with one another making absorption even worse.

What I take: Vitamin D (most important) 10,000iu per day, Vitamin A once per week 5000iu, CoQ10 100mg/day, Omega 3 fish oil, CLA, and cook with coconut and olive oils.

I recommend reading my article “Daily consumption for optimum health”, and below are a few other websites to consult.

vitamindcouncil.org
westonaprice.org
vitamin-d-max.com (this is where I purchase vitamin D)
vitacost.com (this is where I get omega 3, CLA and CoQ10.)
therabiotics.net (this is where I get my probiotics)

Did you know if you want to reduce your risk of cancer, you should join a study. Promoters of vegetarianism have been singing the praises of a report on two studies in the British Journal of Cancer. The report notes two prospective studies, the Epic-Oxford cohort and the Oxford Vegetarian study, examining cancer incidence among vegetarians. The report studied 61566 British men and women, comprising 32403 meat eaters, 8562 non-meat eaters who ate fish and 20601 vegetarians. The average follow-up was 12.2 years. Vegetarians had less bladder, stomach and blood cancer than meat and fish eaters. However vegetarians had higher rates of colon, rectal and cervical cancers. These numbers as with many studies are deceiving.

According to this report the chance of a meat eater developing bladder cancer is 1 in 518; for vegetarians it was 1 in 1677; for fish eaters it was 1 in 1400. Even though the report shows meat eaters are over three times more likely to develop bladder cancer, it’s still only a .19% chance. Your chance of developing cervical cancer if you’re a meat eater was 1 in 1982; for fish eaters it’s 1 in 890; for vegetarians it’s 1 in 948. Judging by this report, a vegetarian female is twice as likely to develop cervical cancer compared to her meat eating amigo, but still only a .10% chance. The play on numbers in this report is inexcusable but all too common.

The differences in the various cancer rates between the 3 groups overall were insignificant; however the fish eaters were found to have the largest reduced cancer risk. Curiously, which you don’t see reported in mainstream sources, there was no difference found in all cause mortality between the diet groups. However, all the diet groups had a 50% less reduced risk of all cause mortality compared to the general population. Hmmmm.

In another analysis of two studies, the Oxford Vegetarian Study and the Health Food Shoppers Study, researchers compared the mortality of vegetarians and non-vegetarians. Mortality rates were 52% and 59% of the general population respectively. However, strangely unreported by vegetarians, there was no difference in mortality rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in either study. Researchers concluded that the benefits found in the subjects of both studies compared to the general population may be attributed to non-dietary factors.