 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
Kurzweil Archives >
The 10% Solution For A Healthy Life: Acknowledgments, Introduction, A Brief Medical History and Foreword
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0442.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
The 10% Solution For A Healthy Life: Acknowledgments, Introduction, A Brief Medical History and Foreword
"This exceptional book tells it like it is-fat can be fatal. Watching your diet today the Kurzweil way can save you and your family a lot of grief tomorrow-and it's easier and more enjoyable than you may think."
Mitchell T. Rabkin, M.D., President, Boston's Beth Israel Hospital, and Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School
"An excellent and informative book that clearly advocates the power of personal determination and diet in preventing diseases of abundance. The recipes are an added treat; they are simple to follow and tasty to eat."
George L. King, M.D., Senior Investigator, Joslin Diabetes Center, and Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School
"Raymond Kurzweil's fascinating and useful account of the connection between what we eat and our total well-being will serve equally well those readers who are experiencing their first glimmer of awareness and those who already know they have good reason to be concerned. For those of us who share an interest in the pleasures of the kitchen and the table, our response to the challenge and its dietary parameters means making use of the best herbs, spices, and seasonings, the freshest and most flavorful ingredients-more complex carbohydrates, more judicious choice of proteins, fewer fats and sugars-and to continue to enjoy everything we eat!"
Warren Picower, Managing Editor, Food and Wine magazine
"In his powerful and arresting new book, Raymond Kurzweil, one of America's leading scientists, has turned his formidable mind to the critical issues of life and death in health and diet. Using an ingenious interrogatory style, he introduces the reader to the latest findings of science on the links between diet, life-style, and longevity. In prose as readable as detective fiction and in arguments as gripping as a physician's diagnosis of your own life-threatening disease, he finds that Americans are needlessly poisoning themselves at the table."
George Gilder, author, of Wealth and Poverty, The Spirit of Enterprise, and Microcosm
To my doctor Steven Flier, and our mutual explorations of health and well-being AcknowledgmentsI would like to express my gratitude to many people, among them:
·My wife, Sonya, for having lovingly explored a new way of life with me, not to mention having participated in many enjoyable collaborations on the recipes in this book
·My son, Ethan, and my daughter, Amy, for their patience through hundreds of dinnertime conversations on nutrition and for putting up with some of the less-than-successful culinary experiments
·My mother, Hannah, and my sister, Enid, for, many pleasurable conversations on nutrition and life-style
·Alison Roberts for her wonderfully proficient and exhaustive research and irreplaceable assistance with many aspects of this project
·My medical advisory team-Steven Flier, Robert Bauer, and Peter Kurzweil-for generously contributing their time and expertise, discussing extensively relevant issues, and supplying highly detailed commentaries to review the medical and scientific accuracy of this work
·My editor, Erica Marcus, and the team at Crown: Kim Hertlein, June Bennett-Tantillo, Bill Peabody, Etya Pinker,and Ken Sansone
·Nancy Mulford for her expert assistance with the research, glossary, and food charts
·Warren Stewart for his culinary insights and enhancement of the recipes with flavorful spices and herbs
·Jill Jacobs for her valuable administrative support and ideas
·Don Gonson for his ideas, support, and encouragement
·Aaron Kleiner for hundreds of discussions on nutrition and health
·My readers-Loretta Barrett, Harry George, George Gilder, Don Gonson, Jill Jacobs, George King, M.D., Aaron Kleiner, Ethan Kurzweil, Hannah Kurzweil, Sonya Kurzweil, Erica Marcus, Nancy Mulford, Steve Rabinowitz, Mitch Rabkin, M.D., Alison Roberts, Martin Schneider, Enid Kurzweil Sterling, Warren Stewart, and Laura Viola-for their many valuable comments and criticisms
·And, finally, all of my friends and associates and the many engaging discussions we have had that have helped to shape my perspective on health and well-being versus the "civilized" diet Author's NoteMedical research has shown that the nutrition, exercise, and other life-style principles described in this book can help control weight and diseases, including heart disease, stroke, cancer, hypertension, and type II diabetes, and reduce the risk factors associated with these diseases.
However, neither the author nor the medical advisers for this book make any representation or warranty of any kind whatsoever regarding the effectiveness or appropriateness of this program, principles, or information for any individual.
· No person should engage in this or any other dietary, exercise, or health program without advice from his or her physician.
· In particular, persons who have or believe they may have a disease, including but not limited to heart disease, cardiovascular disease (such as stroke), hypertension, diabetes, or cancer, or who are taking medication for such conditions, should take particular care to be monitored by a doctor when undertaking this or any other nutritional, life-style, or health program. IntroductionShortly after World War II, the idea that cigarette usage may be damaging to one's health was controversial. Yet when my father's doctor suggested that there may be some benefit to cutting down on smoking, my father stopped immediately and never thought about it again. In 1961, he had his first heart attack. It was suggested that he cut down on salt to reduce the strain on his heart, so he simply cut out salt from his diet. In 1970, at the age of 58, he died of heart disease. I was 22, ten years older than my father was when his father died of the same cause.
I carried two feelings that stemmed from my father's experience. One was the sense of a cloud in my future. The trend, indicated by the only two data points I had, suggested that I might only live to see my own son reach the age of 32. On the other hand, I also had a vague sense of confidence that somehow I would figure out a way to overcome this problem. That latter feeling was typical of my optimistic orientation, but it was nonetheless a strongly held conviction. As it turned out, I had some help along the way.
Thus began my interest in heart disease. I am not a doctor, although I do consider myself to be a scientist and consequently I began to approach this issue from the perspective of the available scientific literature. I tried to engage my doctor in a discussion of the issues, with only limited success. While he talked to me about it to some extent, he clearly had only limited interest in doing so, and, admittedly, I was unusually demanding. Finally, exasperated with my persistent questions, he said, "Look, I just don't have time for this, I have patients who are dying that I have to attend to." Not one to be easily put off by attempts to appeal to my sense of guilt, I couldn't help but wonder whether any of these patients now dying might possibly have benefited from earlier explorations of ways to prevent disease. I decided to change doctors and find one who had an interest in preventive medicine. It also wouldn't hurt if he had sometime on his hands.
As it turns out, I heard about a new doctor who was just setting up a practice. He had a reputation for a brilliant mind, an engaging curiosity in new medical frontiers, and, most important the willingness to struggle with issues of prevention with his patients. I became Steven Flier's patient in 1982. It turned out to be a good decision. Just recently, Boston Magazine recognized him as one of the leading physicians in the city.
Most significant, he had the time and the patience to engage in my extensive interrogations on medical issues. One of his early discoveries was that I had a glucose intolerance, an early form of type II diabetes (a major risk factor for heart disease). This only intensified my interest in understanding what was known about heart disease and its prevention.
We decided I should lose about 25 to 40 pounds, so there followed a number of years of largely futile efforts in this direction. I tried numerous diets of various kinds (low-calorie, low-carbohydrate, and others) and while some worked temporarily, I kept gravitating back to the same weight. I began to despair that I didn't have the willpower to take this vital first step.
In late 1987, on Dr. Flier's advice, I decided to adopt the recommendations of the American Heart Association and reduce fat intake to 30 percent of calories and cholesterol intake to no more than 300 milligrams per day. This had a modest positive effect. My cholesterol went down from 234 to 193. According to the Framingham Study-a massive longitudinal (long-term) study of more than 5,000 Americans with a view toward understanding the factors underlying heart disease-one can obtain an estimate of one's risk of heart disease by considering the ratio of total serum (blood) cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, the so-called good cholesterol. The lower the ratio, the lower one's risk. My ratio fell from 8.7 to 6.9, which, according to the Framingham Study, means that my risk fell from 175 percent of "normal" risk to 143 percent of "normal."1 That's a shift in the right direction, but not entirely comforting when you consider that "normal" (i.e., average) risk for Americans is a 75 percent chance of a heart attack in one's lifetime!2
In 1988, I ran across the writings of Nathan Pritikin I had heard of his approach before but had always dismissed it as too radical and too Spartan. Pritikin maintained that by adopting a diet that was very low in fat and cholesterol (specifically 10 percent of calories from fat and 100 milligrams of cholesterol per day), one can obtain dramatic reductions in the risk of heart disease and other diseases. With my heightened interest in preventing heart disease, I decided to take a closer look.
Nathan Pritikin's own story is interesting.3 In 1957, at the age of 40, he was diagnosed as having coronary insufficiency caused by advanced atherosclerosis. He was prescribed a variety of drugs and told to restrict his mobility. Distressed with these recommendations, he decided instead to examine the scientific literature and discovered extensive evidence that atherosclerosis could be reversed in animals if they were given diets very low in fat and cholesterol. With this and other clues, Pritikin went on to pioneer an approach to treating heart disease using diet and exercise. Using himself as his first test subject, all of his symptoms of heart disease disappeared.
Paradoxically, Pritikin also made a profound mistake in 1957. His doctor had prescribed a series of X-ray treatments to destroy a fungus infection that was causing anal itching. Pritikin was very concerned that the X rays would hit parts of his body that would be damaged by this radiation, but his doctor assured him that it was a safe procedure. Today, we would recognize the procedure as irresponsible, but Pritikin reluctantly went along with the recommendation and underwent the treatment, which involved receiving 220 rads of unfiltered X rays. Two days later, a blood test revealed a seriously elevated white blood cell count, which was subsequently diagnosed as monoclonal macroglobulinemia, a blood disorder caused by excessive radiation and an early stage of leukemia. Twenty-eight years later, Nathan Pritikin died of leukemia. An autopsy revealed that he had the heart and arteries of a young man, completely clear of any signs of heart disease or atherosclerosis.4
I examined Pritikin's evidence and became impressed with the extensive documentation establishing a link between nutrition and disease. Despite the medical profession's early resistance to Pritikin's advocacy of nutrition and other life-style modifications as a treatment for heart disease, there has been increasing interest in this approach in the medical community since Pritikin's death. Some of the best evidence has been fairly recent, including the first concrete evidence of atherosclerotic reversal in humans brought about entirely by life-style modification.
I discussed what I had read with Dr. Flier and he thought that it made sense. I was still concerned about my ability to undergo such an apparently radical change in my eating habits, given my rather dismal efforts through more than five years of attempted weight loss. Nonetheless, in October of 1988, I decided to give it a try. Since I had found much more moderate changes to be difficult to sustain, I braced myself for a significant discipline. The results were rather surprising.
It turned out to be a lot easier than I had expected. In fact it felt rather natural. I discovered a new world of foods that were very tasty, diverse, and satisfying. I never felt deprived and, unlike my experiences with other "diets" I had been on, I never felt hungry. Gradually my tastes and orientation to food changed and my desire for the higher-fat foods I had been used to went away.
Within 3 months, I had lost 25 pounds. More surprising were the results of my cholesterol test. "I'm stunned" was Dr. Flier's response, to which he added that he was going to start the diet himself the next day. My total serum cholesterol was now 110. My HDL had also gone up (primarily from increased exercise), so my ratio (of total cholesterol to HDL) was now 2.5. According to the Framingham Study statistics, my risk of heart disease was now only 5 percent of normal (down from an original 175 percent of normal). Altogether, that represented a 97 percent reduction in my risk. Extensive testing also indicated that my glucose intolerance had vanished as well. I went on to lose another 15 pounds to put me at my ideal weight. I felt that the cloud had disappeared.
A BRIEF MEDICAL HISTORY
| JUNE 1987 | OCTOBER 1988 | JANUARY 1989 |
| Diet: percent of calories from fat | 40 | 30 | 10 |
| Exercise (in calories per week) | 800 | 1,200 | 2,000* |
| Weight | 185 | 185 | 160 |
| Serum cholesterol (total) | 234 | 193 | 110 |
| LDL ("bad" cholesterol) | Not computed | 94 | 57 |
| HDL ("good" cholesterol) | 27 | 28 | 44 |
| Triglycerides | 616 | 354 | 43 |
| Ratio (of total cholesterol to HDL) | 8.7 | 6.9 | 2.5 |
| Percentage of normal risk (from Framingham Study) | 175 | 143 | 5 |
| Glucose intolerance | yes | yes | no |
| *Walking approximately 20 miles per week. |
Further extensive research of the literature during this period revealed a rich tapestry of scientific and medical evidence, including extensive animal studies and human intervention and population studies, that revealed nutrition and other life-style factors as much more significant influences on health than I had previously realized. The common wisdom was that "taking care of yourself" (i.e., moderating fat and cholesterol intake, exercise, etc.) was worth doing, but that your genetic heritage was a bigger factor. The respective influences of these two factors were often estimated at a ratio of 70 to 30 in favor of genetics over life-style. It became clear to me, however, that this was only true if one restricted oneself to the compromised nutritional recommendations that still comprise the official position of American health agencies.
Indeed, my own experience bore this out. By following the recommendations of the American Heart Association, I had reduced my heart risk by about 20 percent. But by going down further, to the level of fat and cholesterol characteristic of societies in which heart disease is virtually unheard of. I reduced my risk by 97 percent. Extensive human population studies show the same pattern. Those societies that eat 30 percent of calories from fat have heart disease rates about 30 percent lower than those that eat 40 percent of calories from fat. But societies that eat diets characterized by whole grains, vegetables, and fruits with, about 10 percent of calories come from fat, have heart disease rates that are at least 90 percent lower than the societies that eat about 40 percent calories from fat. The primary reason put forth by the medical community for putting out the highly compromised recommendation of 30 percent calories from fat is that people will resist bigger changes, that these are too difficult for an American palate wedded to a high-fat diet. Ironically, the more complete change is, I believe, easier to make and maintain. For a variety of reasons that I detail in the rest of the book, following the nutritional recommendations that I call the 10% solution eliminates food urges and is self-sustaining in ways that other, more limited, approaches are not.
There were a number of bonuses that I had not expected. The pattern that exists for heart disease exists also for the most common cancers. Cancer of the breast, ovaries, colon, prostate, and even of the lung are very rare in societies that eat very little fat. Also, if you follow a low-salt dietary plan, you can virtually eliminate hypertension and stroke. We can greatly ameliorate many other conditions, including osteoporosis and most forms of arthritis. Indeed, there are a wide range of these "diseases of affluence" that are caused by our "civilized" diet (in particular, the Western civilized diet). But perhaps of greater significance was the way I felt in terms of increased energy, improved ability to sleep and relax, and a deeper sense of well-being.
I then encountered two unexpected conflicts. If you see someone standing precariously on a ledge oblivious to the fact that they are in danger of a great fall, you feel a sense of obligation to inform them of their unrealized plight. If the person is someone you care about then the urgency is even greater. I did not have to look very far to find others that were desperately in need of this knowledge I had gained. Typical were adult male friends with elevated cholesterol, strong family histories of heart disease, and perhaps a few extra inches around the middle. Others included adult female friends with family histories of breast cancer. There were many variations of concern.
So invariably I got drawn into extended conversations on the topic of preserving health and well-being through nutrition and life-style These turned out to be longer conversations than I had expected. To make the case, I felt compelled to go through a lot of the evidence. Then there were more subtle issues. Why aren't the American Heart Association recommendations good enough? This is mostly genetics anyway, isn't it? What happened to moderation?
If I made it through these issues, there was always the big one of palatability. Sure, you'll live a long time, but who wants to live that way? If you eat this way, maybe it just seems like a long time! That this could be an enjoyable, even liberating way to eat and live took a bit of explanation.
Then if someone was still interested, there was the core issue of the recommendations of the 10% solution. And scores of follow-up questions: How do I shop? Can I convert my recipes? Is walking better than jogging? What about restaurants? How about parties, functions, airplanes, traveling?
Things were getting out of hand. I had developed a reputation for having accumulated knowledge on this subject, so I was getting calls from many friends and colleagues. I needed a more efficient way to share this knowledge. None of the books available on the subject was quite right. Nathan Pritikin's books, while having made a major contribution in their time, did not include enough of the scientific evidence to make an optimally persuasive case for the audience I had in mind. Besides, some of the best evidence had become available since his death. Other books, such as The Eight-Day Cholesterol Cure, put too much evidence on such over-the-counter drugs as niacin and did not represent an optimal diet. Many others stuck to the compromised 30-percent-calories-from-fat recommendation and were definitely not satisfactory.
I decided to write my own essay and put down my thoughts, accumulated research, evidence, and experience so that I could share this material in an effective way with what was apparently a growing audience. The essay also got out of hand and turned into a book. In this, I again had the guidance of Dr. Flier and several other devoted and insightful physicians.
The second conflict had to do with proselytizing. Being a scientist and a trained skeptic, I was always turned off by people with strong singular agendas. People out to save my soul or even just my health and well-being were strongly suspect. I felt very uncomfortable, therefore, in this role myself, telling other people how they should eat or live. Recognizing my own resistance to these types of messages, I also realized what I was up against in terms of getting people to take ideas such as these seriously.
After some lively internal debate, I finally decided that I had a responsibility to share my knowledge on this issue, but that I should strive for a certain loving detachment when it came to people choosing their own eating and living styles. This is not an easy balance to achieve. It is hard not to feel some pride if someone accepts my ideas and then shares with me their excitement at 30 lost pounds or 50 lost cholesterol points. If nothing else, such experiences demonstrate that I was successful in communicating my thoughts.
I have come to consider my responsibility to be that of effectively communicating a set of messages-empowering people to set their own priorities and to make their own compromises. That is what I object to in the public-health recommendations. They come precompromised, as if the American people were incapable of making their own decisions on these matters.
Having written a book on the subject makes this objective of objectivity easier for me to achieve. I can deliver someone a complete message, and people can consider it on their own terms and on their own time. Any follow-up is up to the reader.
Even this limited goal of effective communication is a challenging one. If you wanted to deliver a message to a king, it would probably not be fully effective to scribble down a note on a piece of paper and throw it onto the royal lawn. Any self-respecting king will have many layers of obstacles to prevent stray messages from penetrating the royal solitude. Similarly, we have all erected formidable barriers to messages. We have little choice. We could hardly survive if we allowed all of the thousands of messages that bombard us daily to get through. Penetrating the subtle, yet common, misconceptions, fears, and folklore that underlie public understanding of nutrition is particularly difficult. Eating is an activity to which people devote a large portion of their time and effort. Food and its images are deeply interwoven in our myths, our rituals, our fantasies, and our relationships. While most people profess ignorance of nutrition, virtually everyone nonetheless maintains strongly held views on the subject and its relationship to the rest of our lives. Getting people's attention, let alone truly broadening someone's perspective, is not an easy task. But that is the challenge of any writer.
I have now influenced hundreds of people to adopt this approach to health. Consistently, people report back to me that once they made a commitment to it they found that adopting it was "no big deal." People will say that they anticipated having to employ significant discipline, that it would be a formidable undertaking, only to discover that it was surprisingly easy. Sure, they cut out butter, mayonnaise, and other fats, cut down significantly on meat and so on, but they also discovered that when they were done cutting things out, there was a great deal left that they enjoyed, and many substitutions that made the process much easier today than ever before. The physical and medical results that my friends, relatives, associates, and many others have achieved have been very gratifying for me. People have expressed gratitude for enormous improvements in cholesterol levels, weight, blood pressure, and their general sense of well-being. Many have thanked me for saving their lives.
As for myself, I have happily kept up the "diet" and the benefits. I really will have to find a better word here, because "diet" is associated with being onerous and temporary and my new eating habits are neither.
It is too bad that I cannot go back and share this knowledge with my father. Unlike many people, he accepted health and nutritional advice readily and easily. Six simple words-eat 10 percent calories from fat-could have saved his life. He could be alive today. ForewordA doctor's activities center on diagnosis (finding and defining conditions or problems that exist), prognosis (what one can expect for the future), and treatment of those that are treatable. These were the steps I went through when I first met Ray Kurzweil many years ago. I am his doctor. I practice internal medicine in Boston, and I am an instructor at the Harvard Medical School.
Making the diagnosis was easy: a simple blood test, a routine examination. And the diagnosis was clear-high cholesterol and a glucose intolerance, an early stage of adult-onset (type II diabetes). A cholesterol level in the mid-200s, a triglyceride level of more than 600, and an abnormal glucose tolerance test were readily defined by routine laboratory tests. The prognosis was also easy. These were chronic conditions-not amenable to cure, only to management, the term doctors often use to describe the regular testing and follow-up of medical conditions. We manage diabetes with insulin or oral medications, we treat high cholesterol with diets and medications, but we never cure them. Ray would be a "patient" for life-always on some sort of therapy for these conditions. Of this I was sure.
I reviewed his family history: Ray's father died of coronary artery disease at the age of 58. I went through the list of other risk factors, and Ray had a host of them, including excess weight, high levels of stress, and only occasional exercise. Thank goodness he wasn't a smoker. When added to his high cholesterol and diabetes, these risk factors placed his likelihood of future coronary artery disease at a very high level. Even at high levels of risk, however, prognostication is imprecise. Would he have a myocardial infarction (heart attack), and if so, when? Anything less than 100 percent is not certainty. Most of us feel uncomfortable with uncertainty. It is especially difficult for doctor and patient. Our inability to predict who among those at risk will, in fact, develop specific diseases-which smoker gets lung cancer, for instance-is frustrating. It also enables some people to continue with unhealthy behaviors. People often believe that a serious disease won't happen to them, and they take some comfort in the fact that they might be right. How silly to have wasted all that energy on diet, or exercise, or medications for that matter, when it might not be needed after all. For greater certainty about disease we turn to published studies. The medical literature contains case reports, reviews, and controlled clinical trials designed to help define the natural history of disease. Unfortunately, the complexities of individual cases (specifics of their history) often differ from published reports of combined data. It is hard to infer one specific individual's risk from combined population studies. But despite these impressions, weighing all the known factors, it was clear that Ray had a higher than normal risk of future coronary artery disease, which would most likely strike him at an early age.
Next was the issue of treatment. There are uncertainties with medication, too. Risk benefit ratio is the term we apply to the quantification of these questions: How likely is a good therapeutic benefit compared to the likelihood of a side effect or a complication? With these questions (as with prognosis) we turn to published studies. As physicians and as scientists, we are taught that controlled studies, those where test conditions are carefully designed to eliminate the effects of chance, placebo, and bias, are the only ones to value. Testimonials and anecdotal reports are of limited interest, since their scientific validity is doubtful. It is impossible to infer cause and effect from what could be chance occurrences. Faith healers and charlatans throughout history have pointed to cases where they claim success. The trouble is that the ideal medical investigation-a randomized, controlled clinical trial-is costly; time consuming, and difficult to do, and often misses the exact circumstances of a particular patient problem. Nevertheless, decisions need to be made and treatments prescribed. With Rays conditions, two types of treatments were available: life-style changes in diet, exercise, and weight; and medications, such as insulin, oral antidiabetic medications, and cholesterol lowering medications. It was not necessarily an either-or decision. Both could be tried.
The sad truth is that most doctors are terrible at teaching people about changing their life-styles, mostly because it takes time and it is frustrating. A prescription can be written out in seconds, but teaching and explaining require time, often more than a busy doctor can spare. The frustration comes from repeated failure. Despite the best advice, people rarely change. Of every twenty smokers intensively counseled by their doctor on how to quit and why, nineteen of them will still be smokers a year later. From a doctor's point of view, this is a major failure. It feels as though the benefit is not worth the effort. It is hard for doctors to acquire the skills needed to help their patients. Medical schools have no courses in behavior modification or patient education. Nutrition is a largely ignored subject. Therefore, most often, doctors relegate education and motivation for life-style change to others-dietitians, commercial weight-loss programs, smoke cessation programs, and psychotherapists, But even here, it is usually a piecemeal effort, without the full force and impact of a well-defined and clearly thought-out program. It is also hard to find the facts, since scientifically sound studies centered on life-style modification have been few and far between. Last, doctors have the same failings as their patients. They, too, can be seduced into the seemingly easy path of high-fat diets, high-stress lives, and inadequate exercise and the quick fixes of fad diets and fast acting medications.
I am grateful that these failings did not deter Raymond Kurzweil. He forced me, through the power of his intellect and his dogged enthusiasm for life and knowledge, to reach deeper than I had before. I, too, was overweight. I, too, had little time or inclination for exercise. My cholesterol, though not as high as Ray's, was more than 200. I, too, had been doing nothing about it. Ray asked questions that I could not answer, and he proposed alternatives that I had not considered. Ray took the approach of an engineer and a scientist, the approach of a problem solver and a creator. He looked deep into the medical literature. He amassed scientific, medical, demographic, sociological, anthropological, and historical data and synthesized a coherent plan for changing his life. The scientific foundations were there, and to Ray the uncertainties were not sufficient to deter him from change. He did change. In doing so he proved to himself and to me the profound physical and emotional benefits of gaining control over one's life. I saw his cholesterol plummet, his weight melt, and his glucose intolerance disappear. Though his case was not a randomized, controlled clinical trial, it proved to me what can be done by a motivated and intelligent person who values life and health. It proved to me that compromises based upon ease and convenience are not adequate, and that knowledge is power for patients and physicians.
I began to incorporate the changes of a low-fat near-vegetarian diet into my life. I began to exercise on a daily basis, and I saw my weight fall from 244 pounds to its current level of 185. I saw my cholesterol fall from 210 to 150. I experienced the thrill of self-discovery and self-control, the improvement in my sense of well-being and level of energy, and I found this in a context not of self-deprivation or restriction, but rather of expansion and self-awareness. I found that my changes were inspirational and motivational for my patients as well. Seeing me change my ways proved to them that they could change their ways and experience the same benefits.
I am happy to report that my prognostications for Ray were wrong. Despite my certainty that Ray would be a "patient" for life, he is not. He is no longer diabetic, he is no longer overweight, and he is no longer at risk for coronary artery disease. He has gone from being a patient whose illness is "managed" to being a person with mastery over his fate. He has also become a colleague and a teacher, instructing me in the value of curiosity, an open mind, and intellectual honesty. Ray and his family have already benefited from the synthesis of these issues you are about to read-so have I and so have scores of my patients. My hope is that the millions of Americans who need this information learn from it, too.
Steven R. Flier, M.D., Associate in Medicine, Boston's Beth Israel Hospital; Clinical Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X! | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
PRITIKIN
|
|
 |
|
The fact is, Pritikin committed suicide because he had leukemia some say, but also some say low cholesterol sometimes causes people to commit suicide. You claim to be a scientist, really, then you surely missed the suicide of Pritikin and claimed it was something to do with X-rays or radiation that led to his leukemia. Nobody is denying that doctors make mistakes, it's done everyday, but to state unequivocally that the only thing wrong with Nathan Pritikin was that a doctor screwed up is irresponsible. Low fat diets don't work. Could a Marathon runner do his thing on 10% fat? Could an Eskimo survice the Artic on 10% fat? Could those traders who trekked across the country in frigid weather in search of animal pelts survived those long hikes on 10% fat. Mary Enig is a scientist, Sally Fallon is brilliant, Joseph Mercola is a doctor from Chicago, Paul Chek is one of the country's top physical trainer, and so forth, and all state clearly your idea is dead wrong and that's what anyone who does what you suggest will be if they follow your advice. Pritikin and many of those who follow your low fat recommendations, develop terrible health problems, they simply can't sustain themselves on such low fat. If one is overweight, if one eats grains, sugars, fruit juices, fast food, smokes, exercises only occasionally, etc., they aren't going to be in good shape, so, if one eats less, exercises more, stops the junk food thing, quits smoking, limits grain intake and cuts out sodas and pasteurized fruit juices, but gets plenty of organically raised fruits, vegetables, though low, very low on fruits if one is diabetic, they will do better. Read Dr. Bernstein's Diabetic Solutions, and note he recommends saturated fats, heavy exercise, and at forty some years he donned running cloths and ran with fellow MD's and one by one they dropped out, and after the last one did, he ran five more miles and back non-stop even though he wasn't a runner. What you've done is made claims that are not only erroneous, but dangerous if you're to be believed.
You said, quote, "oils, butter, margarine, mayonnaise, whole-milk and cream-based sauces and dressings, and so on," to eliminate such things. Let me explain something to you: Whole milk is pasteurized milk, that's almost a sure thing, and such milk is a dead food, the enzymes have been destroyed from heat. Mayonanainse is a horrible food commercially processed, but one can use coconut oil, some olive oil, and some sesame oil to make a better oil, but that's if one likes the stuff, one really doesn't need it. Butter, too, is from pasteurized cream, but you can get a better benefit from cultured cream even though it's pasteurized. Cream-based sauses and often made with oils, and vegetable oils are notorious for being heart damaging. As far as margarine goes, where have you been, margarine's been a no-no for years, except those who buy the vegetable oil concept. Insofar as grains go, how do you think we got here? We ate fats, organically connected gatherings, but a very big thing was fermented foods, have you ever eaten the curds from raw milk? Buy a quart of the stuff and let it sit on the counter, it will turn to curds and whey, delicious, but try that with pasteurized milk, it sits and rots. The vegetable oil thing, too is a farce big business latched on to and look at the owner of Kraft Foods, Phillip Morris now known as Altria, and sometimes one wonders which is worse, cigarettes or the foods Kraft peddles. You really need to study the very thing that keeps us alive, food, you are looking at it from a medical standpoint and not from how we got from our early beginnings to where we are now. In 1900 we ate 5 pounds of sugar a year average, many person ate none, today we eat over 175 pounds of the poisonous stuff. We take pills for pain and then don't solve the reason for the pain in the first place. We buy meat that has been treated with antibiotics, hormones, and often cancers are cut out and the rest is sold. We pour pasteurized milk on our highly glycemic cereal sold by commercial interests that could care less if we live or die. There are so few foods in ordinary supermarkets that are healthful it's nearly criminal. I worked 6.5 days a week, traveled 400 miles per day, and lifted and carried products into stores (My own business), and to maintain this pace I gravitated toward, guess what? Butter, at least a cube a day, plus sour cream. I could never have done that eating a 10% solution, what are you, Sherlock Holmes tongue in cheek comedian? You know nothing about diet, you asked the wrong questions, think what humans had to eat when they were hunter gatherers? The ate rotting meat, and it's not that bad, leave a beef triangle in the cooler for a period of time and mold collects and then cut off the mold, it's delicious. Raw liver isn't bad, tartare if previously frozen is safe, that's of course raw hamburger, raw egg yolks in raw whole mile, all the enzymes one needs, for we have bank of enzymes and if we keep using up what's in the bank we become exhausted, but eating high enzyme foods, especially fermented foods like kefir, yogurt, low alcohol red wines, fermented fruits, vegetables, grains, sprouted grains, etc., and butter made from the fat of grass-fed Jersey cows is wonderful, add some high vitamin butter and cod liver oil mixed and one thrives.
You obviously gravitate toward the intellectual life, but how's your phycial activities? I bet you had nearly none to speak of when you began to become overweight, and borderline diabetic? If one sits, they don't need high fat, if one is crossing the Klondike, one can't survive without it. You're a metabolic type, do you know which one? Go to Mercola.com to find out. Paul Chek is the greatest trainer in this country, and he can get people doing physical things they never imagined they could do in less than a year, but he isn't a crash course advocate, easy does it, and one realizes condition is a lifetime thing.
This is a brief diatribe, I could write a hundred pages but politicians are morons to start with, where do those guys come from, and the truth isn't something they want to hear, they want to hear what will justify their jobs, and not doing a good job is too much for them.
I expect more from our intellectuals than a brief interlude into the wonders of a fad diet, why even Dr. Phil wrote a book on diet. Peruse Mary Enig's & Sally Fallon's Eat Fat, Lose Fat, and Nourishing Traditions, both similar, and Paul Chek's How to Eat, Move and Be Healthy. The guy's a specimen, he's what he does and eats and thinks. For a website, try Mercola.com, Joseph Mercola's a physician from Chicago, and none of these people are techniological based, they live in an organically connected world and realize intellectual combat is fine if one has time and the inclination, but they prefer to study and then carefully write their findings.
Madness can keep one going sometimes, so try this one: Global warming creates water loss and heat sucks the moisture out of the earth and those who inhabit the earth, meanwhile those bozos in DC claim global warming isn't humans' fault, it's just weather changes, etc. When it's summer in Phoenix, those who claim they love the sun, stay indoors in air-conditioned, the point being as long as we artificially cool ourselves we don't live in the real world and get motivated to demand change.
Good luck, but don't try crossing the alps in the winter on a 10% solution.
Robert Kindelan
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: The 10% Solution For A Healthy Life: Acknowledgments, Introduction, A Brief Medical History and Foreword
|
|
|
|
TO ALL:
As for walking fast--- nope!, not necessary.
Just walk, but walk in combination with stretching/yoga, in combination with strengthening the center and other muscles in combination with standing more than sitting, in combination with combinations of foods that are good for you--- olive oil (yes), flax oil (yes) and other healthy oils (omgega 3's and 6's) ---brown rice, whole grains or maybe NO grains other than brown rice like me most of the time---raw vegetables and fruits when possible OR minimum steaming with minimum additives--- learn the taste of the food, not the taste of the condiments--- fish, lean cuts of non-red meats.
Seems stoic, maybe, but not really. Eat to live. Eat for nourishment, not for taste or emotional support or filling the void of discontent created by a total out-of-wac modern way of exisitng in projectile transportation to the exclusion of muscle motion, compartmentalization to the exclusion of exposure to green grass/trees/sky/qulaity outside air/ time/space intervals that match the body's true needs.
Health is NO ONE THING--- it is complex, because civilization has complexly fragmented us from its achievement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The 10% Solution For A Healthy Life: Acknowledgments, Introduction, A Brief Medical History and Foreword
|
|
|
|
************************************************** **********
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1238
Let's put aspartame toxicity facts on the table in public debate in The New
Mexican: Paul R. Block, CEO, Merisant Co.: Uleha: Murray 2005.10.26
October 26, 2005 Dear Editor, The Santa Fe New Mexican:
The response yesterday re aspartame toxicity by Paul R. Block, CEO,
Merisant Co., Chicago is from the dusty can of standard PR spin
disinformation, technically true, but entirely bypassing the urgent
feedback from informed experts and concerned citizens, as well as
numerous recent highly disturbing findings by many diverse mainstream
researchers, almost needless to say, not funded by the industry --
the issue is the 11% methanol part of aspartame converts in humans
right into formaldehyde and formic acid:
M. Bouchard et al, 2001: "Exposure to methanol also results from the
consumption of certain foodstuffs (fruits, fruit juices, certain vegetables,
aspartame sweetener, roasted coffee, honey) and alcoholic beverages (Health
Effects Institute, 1987; Jacobsen et al., 1988)."
"Systemic methanol is extensively metabolized by liver alcohol dehydrogenase
and catalase-peroxidase enzymes to formaldehyde, which is in turn rapidly
oxidized to formic acid by formaldehyde dehydrogenase enzymes (Goodman
and Tephly, 1968; Heck et al., 1983; R'e, 1982; Tephly and McMartin, 1984)."
"These findings are corroborated by the data of Heck et al. (1983) showing
that 40% of a 14C-formaldehyde inhalation dose remained in the body 70 h
postexposure."
The USA National Institutes of Health National Toxicology Program aided the
eminent Ramazzini Foundation, Bologna, Italy, in their 2005 two-year study,
proving four kinds of cancer in rats from lifetime low levels of aspartame,
agreeing with their 2002 results for methanol and formaldehyde.
I suggest The New Mexican publish a few pages of back and forth debate by
informed experts on both sides of this critical safety issue.
Let's put aspartame toxicity facts on the table, folks.
In mutual service, Rich Murray Santa Fe rmforall@comcast.net
************************************************** **********
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "Pat West-Barker"
To: Karen Uleha
Subject: Re: Response to Chicago, Illinois letter in today's SF New Mexican
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:28:12 +0000
Ms. Ulehla:
Thank you for your letter to the editor. Unfortunately, The New Mexican can
only print letters to the editor from people living in the Santa Fe area and
points north. (We made an exception for the Merisant Company because
stories and letters to the editor in our pages referred to their product.)
However, we welcome all letters on our Web site. Just paste your text into
the "Comment" Form" at this address:
www.freenewmexican.com/lettersoutside .
You will need to fill out our online registration form. Our Web editors
review all submissions to make sure they meet our general standards (no
obscenity or libel, details available online), and your name will appear
above the letter when it is approved. Approval time varies from a few minutes
to a few hours, depending on the time of day and day of week. If you do not
want your address or phone number published on the Web, do not include them
in your letter.
On 10/24/05 10:28 PM, Karen Ulehla wrote:
Considering the vested interest of Merisant Company [Chicago, Illinois], the
comments of the CEO published in today,s Santa Fe New Mexican are
predictable. With nearly 20 brands and 25 offices worldwide, Merisant
Worldwide aspartame-based products are sold in more than 100 countries.
The New Mexico EIB has wisely decided to hold hearings on aspartame. The
existence of the EIB's authority was clearly supported by legal experts.
As a medical librarian trained in toxicological research at the
National Library of Medicine, it is my opinion that the determination of the
toxicity of aspartame has been established by recent research that meets
national and international standards.
"Based upon the standards set forth by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health
Organization and the USEPA, that recognize the results of long-term
bioassays conducted on rodents (rats and mice) as being highly predictive of
carcinogenic risk for humans", and the current research that demonstrates
aspartame's toxicity and carcinogenic risk to humans, it appears that the
legal authority of the EIB may require a rule change.
The recent European Journal of Oncology article, "Aspartame induces
lymphomas and leukemias in rats" conclusively demonstrates that aspartame
is a carcinogenic agent and the study further validates the toxicity of
aspartame established by Trocho, C et al., in 1998 Life Sciences,
"Formaldehyde Derived From Dietary Aspartame Binds to Tissue
Components in vivo", by proving that aspartame's
extremely high levels of formaldehyde adducts
(carcinogenic substances responsible for chronic deleterious effects)
accumulate within the cell, reacting with cellular proteins (mostly enzymes)
and DNA (both mitochondrial and nuclear).
The 2005 peer-reviewed European study will also be published in an
upcoming issue of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Embryos, fetuses, infants and children are the most vulnerable to chemical
toxins in our environment. In view of this current research, nursing and
pregnant mothers who use aspartame-laden diet drinks and products as low
calorie food choices on a daily basis may want to reconsider their intake of
aspartame.
With rising rates of childhood leukemia, brain cancer and non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma, known carcinogenic agents should be removed from the diets of
children if possible.
Who is going to protect the most vulnerable among us, the FDA or the
aspartame industry? The New Mexico EIB hearing in July 2006 will provide
ample time for both sides to present the facts.
Sincerely, Karen Ulehla, MSLS
Patricia West-Barker
The Santa Fe New Mexican 202 East Marcy Street
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (505) 995-3804
------- End of Forwarded Message -------
************************************************** **********
Aspartame safe, letter in Santa Fe New Mexican, October 24, 2005
As the recent article in your paper makes clear,("Board pushes forward with
sweetener," Oct. 5) there are some obivous legal questions surrounding
petitioner Stephen Fox's bid to ban aspartame, chief among those there are
whether the state's Environmental Improvement Board even has the authority
to consider this proposal, given that aspartame has had the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration's stamp of approval for 24 years.
These are important constitutional issues of jurisdiction that lawyers will
sort out.
More importantly, there is simply no question that apsartame is safe.
Indeed, aspartame's safety has been borne out in more than 200 toxicological
and clinical studies of the product over the past 30 years.
When it approved aspartame in 1981, the FDA said, "Few compounds have
withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny, and the process
through which aspartame has gone should provide the public with addition
confidence of its safety."
What's more, the FDA has reaffirmed the safety of aspartme 26 times since
the initial product approval was granted.
Paul R. Block Chief Executive Officer Merisant Company Chicago, Illinois
************************************************** **********
Wednesday, October 26 2005
Any unsuspected source of methanol, which the body always quickly and
largely turns into formaldehyde and then formic acid, must be monitored,
especially for high responsibility occupations, often with night shifts,
such as pilots and nuclear reactor operators.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1237
ubiquitous potent uncontrolled co-factors in nutrition research are
formaldehyde from wood and tobacco smoke and many sources, including
from methanol in dark wines and liquors, in pectins in fruits and
vegetables, and in aspartame: Murray 2005.10.26
As a medical layman, I suggest that evidence mandates immediate exploration
of the role of these ubiquitious, potent formaldehyde sources as co-factors
in epidemiology, research, diagnosis, and treatment in a wide variety of
disorders.
Folic acid, from fruits and vegetables, plays a role by powerfully
protecting against methanol (formaldehyde) toxicity.
Many common drugs, such as aspirin, interfere with folic acid,
as do some mutations in relevant enzymes.
The majority of aspartame reactors are female.
In mutual service, Rich Murray
************************************************** **********
Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net
505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 146 members, 1,238 posts in a public, searchable
archive http://RoomForAll.blogspot.com
http://AspartameNM.blogspot.com
Dark wines and liquors, as well as aspartame, provide
similar levels of methanol, above 100 mg daily, for
long-term heavy users, 2 L daily, about 6 cans.
Methanol is inevitably largely turned into formaldehyde,
and thence largely into formic acid.
It is the major cause of the dreaded symptoms of "next
morning" hangover.
Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol -- 1,120 mg aspartame
in 2 L diet soda, almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg
methanol (wood alcohol). If 30% of the methanol is turned
into formaldehyde, the amount of formaldehyde, 37 mg,
is 18.5 times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in
drinking water, 2.0 mg in 2 L average daily drinking water,
185 times the New Jersey limit,
615 times the California and Maine limits,
1850 times the Maryland limit.
The 1999 July EPA 468-page formaldehyde profile admits that
four states substantially exceed the federal EPA limit:
Environmental Protection Agency 2.00 mg in 2 L daily
drinking water
California and Maine------------ 0.06 mg
Maryland---------------------- 0.02 mg
New Jersey-------------------- 0.20 mg
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1108
faults in 1999 July EPA 468-page formaldehyde profile:
Elzbieta Skrzydlewska PhD, Assc. Prof., Medical U. of
Bialystok, Poland, abstracts -- ethanol, methanol,
formaldehyde, formic acid, acetaldehyde, lipid peroxidation,
green tea, aging: Murray 2004.08.08 2005.07.11
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 835
ATSDR: EPA limit 1 ppm formaldehyde in drinking water July
1999: Murray 2002.05.30 rmforall
Aspartame is made of phenylalanine (50% by weight) and
aspartic acid (39%), both ordinary amino acids, bound
loosely together by methanol (wood alcohol, 11%).
The readily released methanol from aspartame is within hours
turned by the liver into formaldehyde and then formic acid,
both potent, cumulative toxins.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1106
hangover research relevant to toxicity of 11% methanol in
aspartame (formaldehyde, formic acid): Calder I (full text):
Jones AW: Murray 2004.08.05 2005.09.28
Since no adaquate data has ever been published on the exact
disposition of toxic metabolites in specific tissues in
humans of the 11% methanol component of aspartame, the many
studies on morning-after hangover from the methanol impurity
in alcohol drinks are the main available resource to date.
Jones AW (1987) found next-morning hangover from red wine
with 100 to 150 mg methanol (9.5% w/v ethanol, 100 mg/L
methanol, 0.01%, one part in ten thousand).
Since no adaquate data has ever been published on the exact
disposition of toxic metabolites in specific tissues in
humans of the 11% methanol component of aspartame, the many
studies on morning-after hangover from the methanol impurity
in alcohol drinks are the main available resource to date.
Jones AW (1987) found next-morning hangover from red wine
with 100 to 150 mg methanol (9.5% w/v ethanol, 100 mg/L
methanol, 0.01%, one part in ten thousand).
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1182
Joining together: short review: research on aspartame
methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray
2005.07.08 rmforall
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1071
research on aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid)
toxicity: Murray2004.04.29 rmforall
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1189
Michael F Jacobson of CSPI now and in 1985 re aspartame
toxicity, letter to FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford;
California OEHHA aspartame critique 2004.03.12; Center for
Consumer Freedom denounces CSPI: Murray 2005.07.27
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1143
methanol (formaldehyde, formic acid) disposition: Bouchard M
et al, full plain text, 2001: substantial sources are
degradation of fruit pectins, liquors, aspartame, smoke:
Murray 2005.04.02 rmforall
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1141
Nurses Health Study can quickly reveal the extent of aspartame (methanol,
formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray 2004.11.21 rmforall
[ Any scientist can get access to this data for free by submitting a proper
research proposal. No one has admitted mining the extensive data on diet
soda use and many symptoms for decades for about 100,000 nurses. ]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1213
aspartame (methanol, phenylalanine, aspartic acid) effects, detailed expert
studies in 2005 Aug and 1998 July, Tsakiris S, Schulpis KH, Karikas GA,
Kokotos G, Reclos RJ, et al, Aghia Sophia Children's Hospital, Athens,
Greece: Murray 2005.09.09
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 939
aspartame (aspartic acid, phenylalanine) binding to DNA:
Karikas July 1998: Murray 2003.01.05 rmforall
Karikas GA, Schulpis KH, Reclos GJ, Kokotos G
Measurement of molecular interaction of aspartame and
its metabolites with DNA. Clin Biochem 1998 Jul; 31(5): 405-7.
Dept. of Chemistry, University of Athens, Greece
http://www.chem.uoa.gr gkokotos@atlas.uoa.gr
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1088
Murray, full plain text & critique: chronic aspartame in rats affects
memory, brain cholinergic receptors, and brain chemistry, Christian B,
McConnaughey M et al, 2004 May: 2004.06.05 rmforall
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1067
eyelid contact dermatitis by formaldehyde from aspartame, AM Hill & DV
Belsito, Nov 2003: Murray 2004.03.30 rmforall
Thrasher (2001): "The major difference is that the Japanese demonstrated
the incorporation of FA and its metabolites into the placenta and fetus.
The quantity of radioactivity remaining in maternal and fetal tissues
at 48 hours was 26.9% of the administered dose." [ Ref. 14-16 ]
Arch Environ Health 2001 Jul-Aug; 56(4): 300-11.
Embryo toxicity and teratogenicity of formaldehyde. [100 references]
Thrasher JD, Kilburn KH.
Sam-1 Trust, Alto, New Mexico, USA.
http://www.drthrasher.org/formaldehyde_embryo_toxi city.html full text
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1052
DMDC: Dimethyl dicarbonate 200mg/L in drinks adds methanol 98 mg/L
[ becomes formaldehyde in body ]: EU Scientific Committee on Foods
2001.07.12: Murray 2004.01.22 rmforall
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 925
aspartame puts formaldehyde adducts into tissues, Part 1/2
full text Trocho & Alemany 1998.06.26: Murray 2002.12.22
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1223
complete info on NM EIB aspartame ban meeting, Oct. 4, Santa
Fe, Leland Lehrman, www.MotherMedia.org: Murray 2005.09.30
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1224
Aspartame disease: an FDA-approved epidemic, H. J. Roberts,
MD 2004: Murray 2005.09.30
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1233
Aspartame -- the shocking story, The Ecologist, 2005 Sept.,
p. 35-51, full text: Murray 2005.09.30: the correct author, Pat Thomas,
What Doctors Don't Tell You www.wddty.co.uk : 2005.10.11
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1226
USA National Institutes of Health National Toxicology
Program aids eminent Ramazzini Foundation, Bologna, Italy,
in more results on cancers in rats from lifetime low levels
of aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde), Felicity Lawrence,
www.guardian.co.uk: Murray 2005.09.30
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1131
genotoxicity of aspartame in human lymphocytes 2004.07.29 full plain text,
Rencuzogullari E et al, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey
2004 Aug: Murray 2004.11.06 rmforall
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1227
New Mexico EIB should use its authority to ban aspartame,
a methanol (formaldehyde) source, Gail Chasey Beam, NM CPAC:
California, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey set stronger limits
than the EPA, 468-page 1999 EPA formaldehyde profile,
Murray 2005.10.02
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1228
NM EIB votes 4-2 for 5-day aspartame toxicity hearing July,
2006, requesting a Hearing Officer and a medical expert from
Environmental Dept. and legal advice from NM Attorney
General: Murray 2005.10.04
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1229
(New Mexico) State plans sweetener (aspartame) hearings;
critics -- aspartame linked to cancers, Jackie Jadrnak,
Albuquerque Journal, Santa Fe North: Murray 2005.10.05
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1231
New Mexico's aspartame hearings, Albuquerque Journal
editorial, Steve Mills, Editor: comments by Steve Trinward
www.freemarketnews.com : Murray 2005.10.08
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1232
great problems are opportunities for service -- aspartame (methanol,
formaldehyde) toxicity: Rawlings: Murray 2005.10.10
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1234
Not so sweet (aspartame): Jerry Ortiz y Pino, NM State Senator,
D-Albuquerque: Fox: Murray 2005.10.14
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1236
Banning aspartame in New Mexico children's medications and vitamins,
petition to Board of Pharmacy on Nov 14-15:
Fox: Stoller: Murray 2005.10.16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/ 1237
ubiquitous potent uncontrolled co-factors in nutrition research are
formaldehyde from wood and tobacco smoke and many sources, including
from methanol in dark wines and liquors, in pectins in fruits and
vegetables, and in aspartame: Murray 2005.10.26
************************************************** *********
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The 10% Solution For A Healthy Life: Acknowledgments, Introduction, A Brief Medical History and Foreword
|
|
|
|
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag_all.html
This magazine fairly well details the way the FDA is screwing us all. -But you really have to be a libertarian to "get it". Government is a monopoly on force -as such, it is a poor solution for most problems in life. Force in medicine? -It is a nightmare.
Some of the things the FDA has done:
1) Banned beta blockers like propranolol for 10 years, killing (by their own estimate) 10,000+ US citizens for every year it was banned.
2) Banned foods that contain stevia, labeled as a "sugar substitute" or "sweetener". Stevia may only be included as a dietary supplement. Telling the truth about it is illegal -our first amendment rights be damned. -This injures thousands of diabetics who are unaware of Stevia's beneficial nature as a healthy way to avoid sugar -the result - more sickness and unhappiness.
3) The FDA is disallowing cherry farmers to print peer-reviewed studies on the labeling of their fruit that indicates that cherries contain heart-healthy flavonoids. See: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag_all.html
4) Drugs like the anti-HIV CRS-54 take years longer to get to market because they are bogged down in the "approval process" -the FDA basically telling these people to DIE while they wait. The message they're sending? Terminally ill patients don;t own thier own bodies, the US Government does. "We'll decide what risks are acceptable for YOU."
5) Thousands of treatments are backlogged waiting for "approval" from the FDA. Many are life-savers, since information and research moves WAAAAAAAAY faster than the FDA does. How many people die every day because of these drugs? We may never know --the only thing we know is that the FDA will tell us what substances we can ingest, and what substances we can talk about, and which substances are OK to use for recreation (actually they leave those decisions mostly to their equally unscientific pals at the DEA and ONDCP).
6) Alcor foundation just published a great article from http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag_all.html (free to alcor subscribers http://www.alcor.org) that details how a faulty study proclaimed that there was no health benefit to the proven anti-arthiritis treatment glucosamine-chondroitin. The study was performed by doctors at the New England Journal of Medicine, doctors who receive money from Pfizer(a protectionist quasi-governmental company recently in headlines for attempting to use the power of government to have citizens' houses in the town of New London CT stolen by "eminent domain" -and donated to the company at a cheap rate --for those of you too dumb to understand free trade = the rate had to be less than what the buyers were willing to pay, because otherwise Pfizer would have just bought the houses...) and Merck. -Your tax dollars paid for the FDA's endorsement of the study.
7) There are a few thousand people in the USA who have a rare sleeping disorder (leg spasms) that wakes them up when they fall asleep. These people die unless they are medically treated. Most of the patients who are not allergic were taking rohypnol. Then, with a new law, the FDA made rohypnol (the drug that keeps them alive) illegal. You see, it's supposedly a "date rape drug" (I guess like alcohol is... but the god-fearing brain-damaged christians like to drink that swill).
-The criminal use of the drug isn't the problem, according to the FDA (and now the DEA and ONDCP shutz-staffel) ---it's supposedly the drug itself thats the problem... What philosophical sloppiness! Let's not blame the problem on a lack of responsibility, or on criminal actions, let's blame it on inanimate drugs that have a positive use as well.
The woman who testified on 60 minutes that she needed rohypnol to stay alive was illegally keeping herself alive with black market versions of it, when the show ran.
So, what's it gonna be America? (Sorry, I know I shouldn't call it America anymore, it's a real dishonor to Sam Adams et al...) Are you OK with killing this poor woman?
8) The FDA forced blindness researcher William Dobelle (featured on the cover of WIRED magazine with a patient in whom he had partially cured blindness --by connecting a videocamera and computer to his brain) out of the country. He set up a lab in Portugal where there was no similar communist-style freedom crushing medical regulatory agency. Americans had to leave America for a freer country if they wanted to try to cure thier own blindness!
Oh, yeah, but I forgot! We're proud to be a free country! So proud we whimper like little girls, afraid of terrorists around every corner! We're too spineless to carry guns ourselves, and take responsibility for our own defense --we'll leave it to poor kids who didn't want to go to college to shoulder the burden. "Ooooh! Look, thank goodness they're fighting those terrorists over there!" (Nevermind that the Constitution forbids the war and occupation, as well as the corresponding tax bailout of Iraq's miserable Stalinist theocracy, nevermind that Iraq wasn't a significant threat -then- that any single voter would have paid money to invade --if they weren't forced to...)
But go ahead and vote for the Middle-East war without end! You also get the FDA, to tell you that you're too stupid to do research on line and determine what's best for your own health! Put those mom & pop Healthfood stores out of business! Or are you tired of voting for other people's misery?
What would you tell the man whose wife was denied a treatment for cancer by the FDA? She died... And I met him outside of a gunshow in Arizona, where he was buying .308 rifle rounds. When he said he wouldn't register to vote as libertarian (so we could beg a place on the rigged ballot), I asked him if he'd ever read the book "Unintended Consequences".
He said he was living it, and he told me his story. He said he wasn't going to register with me, because he knows how stupid the average US citizen is, and he didn't want to sign any papers that would let them know who finally had the balls to retaliate.
If he wasn't lying or talking big, he's the only one I've ever met that wasn't.
God speed, by nameless friend. The idiot leftists (Democrats and Republicans alike) on this board and in the polls every 2 years don't care how many people they murder with their vote. They really don't.
Until it's themselves. Then they care. Don't worry about the innocent bystanders my friend, your chances of hitting one of those is 40,000/3,000,000. The membership of the Libertarian Party minus a full nation of eligible voters too lazy to assert the fact that they own their own bodies.
I wonder if Hugo deGaris's artilects will think we're worthy of mercy when this is how we treat each other? We take the gift of a country that protects individual rights, and we turn it into another third-rate socialist nation, where the parasites are all climbing all over each other to beat each other on the head with government force, and then steal whatever chump-change in worthless paper money is left lying on the ground. Ha ha!
Don't want politics on the MIND-X forum? OK, Neither do I. I wish it was only pristine, pure science ---then I wouldn't ever have opened my mouth, just sat back and listened and learned (and maybe made fun of RAMONA a bit). unfortunately, the bigest obstacle to longevity, by FAR, FAR, FAR and AWAY is the American vote for Republicrat big government.
Without the FDA, we'd already likely have excellent mind extension hardware, from innovators like William Dobelle. Maybe him being forced out of the USA into Portugal wasted so much of his time that he couldn't get his biggest ideas to market...
He was on par with Kevin Warwick, and now he's dead. What if he was the one that would have encouraged the next-best grad student to go all the way, and amplify human intelligence with a nanotube array?
What if that would have meant that there was a human-sympathetic artilect before a totally-synthetic artilect?
Maybe our laziness and bigotry has already killed us.
Or maybe we're just itching to elect our own Hitler, with each slovenly pandering buffoon we put in the whitehouse a more accurate replica of our own vacant stare. With every election, we move our paper dollars further away from the gold and silver our Constitution authorized the government to mint.
We're ripping ourselves off, and tlling ourselves what to do, and every election "we the people" vote against two or three freedom fighters (libertarians), thinking we're getting away with murder.
Well, to that I must point out that hindsight's 20-20 and not many people get away with murder these days. Not even when they're assassinating something as misunderstood as individual liberty.
-Jake Witmer
http://www.givemeliberty.org |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The 10% Solution For A Healthy Life: Acknowledgments, Introduction, A Brief Medical History and Foreword
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah. The 10% book, I haven't read, because Fantastic Voyage helped me get in shape and get off the sugar roller-coaster. I've been doin' great ever since. I eat a lot of avocadoes, salmon, and EV Olive Oil for fats, and don't have any problems. I dropped an inch of fat around my gut, and study longer every day... Starting to get back into math (although I've always been a math idiot).
Looking to follow some of the more difficult health advice as soon as I can afford to.
If you're gonna spend money on any health book make it FV. You won't regret it.
For the first time in my life I can do 300 push-ups/day. The whey protein and vitamins are a huge benefit, as was finding Stevia rebaudiana (I just got my first order of Lo Han Guo --Siraitia grosvenori /mogroside-5 last night, and am looking to try that as well...).
Sorry to criticize anyone who's part-o-the-problem like that, but this board isn't for lies. It's a real no-spin zone, not like that charlatan O'reilly. (And unlike his show, I can't just bluster and blabber and drown you out... If you want to defend the FDA, you've got all the hot air you want, so go right ahead, and I'll shoot down every argument you have... Go ahead, I want to cover the dead and beaten territory of 'thalidomide babies' again...)
Cheers,
-Jake |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
