You're never too old to live healthy. Changes in diet and the addition of exercise into your lifestyle can make significant differences to your health and overall wellness.
In a study published in the Journal of Aging and Health and conducted at the University of South Florida School of Aging, Professor Ross Andel and co-researcher Robert Simons, executive director of the Bonsai Holistic Spa and Wellness Center in Largo, Florida, demonstrated a noticeable increase in body strength, flexibility, balance and agility in study participants. The 64 volunteers, ranging in age from 66 to 96, were divided into a walking group, a resistance training group and a control group that did not exercise. In the training group, warm-ups, stretching and flexibility exercises were followed by workouts on resistance training equipment.
The walking and resistance training groups both benefited from the study, suggesting that physical activity can offset physical declines that come with aging and preserve functionality among seniors. Your doctor of chiropractic can tell you more about the benefits of consistent exercise and help outline a program suitable to your needs.
Simons R, Andel R. The effects of resistance training and walking on functional fitness in advanced old age. Journal of Aging and Health 2006;18(1):91-105.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Processed Foods Cause Prostate Blues
Research has shown that the more fat you consume, the greater your chances of developing prostate cancer. However, fat isn't the only factor. The types of food a person eats, along with the amount and frequency of food, can also contribute to an increased prostate cancer risk.
In this Canadian study, scientists explored the link between diet and prostate cancer in more than 400 men ages 50 to 80, using questionnaires that detailed the men's dietary habits in the previous two years. After reviewing the questionnaires, each of the men fell into one of four dietary patterns: "healthy living" (high intake of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, and poultry); "traditional Western" (red meat, processed meats, sweets, and hard liquor), "processed" (processed meats, red meat, organ meats, refined grains, vegetable oils, and soft drinks), and "beverages" (high intake of tap water, soft drinks, fruit juices, poultry, and potatoes).
Results: Men whose diets fell into the "processed" pattern had a significantly higher risk of developing prostate cancer than men in the other groups. According to the researchers, "the highest tertile of factor score for the Processed Diet pattern ... was associated with a >2.5-fold increased prostate cancer risk." Men with traditional Western diets showed a "slightly increased prostate cancer risk," while men in the other groups either had no risk or less risk of developing prostate cancer.
While prostate cancer is quite common in men, there are simple steps you can take to reduce your chances of getting it. For instance, you can lower your intake of processed foods and red meats, and increase your intake of fruits, vegetables and whole (unrefined) grains. You can also speak with your doctor of chiropractic about setting up a health plan that incorporates all of the features necessary for a balanced diet.
Walker M, Aronson KJ, King W, et al. Dietary patterns and risk of prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Cancer, Sep. 10, 2005;116:592-598.
In this Canadian study, scientists explored the link between diet and prostate cancer in more than 400 men ages 50 to 80, using questionnaires that detailed the men's dietary habits in the previous two years. After reviewing the questionnaires, each of the men fell into one of four dietary patterns: "healthy living" (high intake of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, and poultry); "traditional Western" (red meat, processed meats, sweets, and hard liquor), "processed" (processed meats, red meat, organ meats, refined grains, vegetable oils, and soft drinks), and "beverages" (high intake of tap water, soft drinks, fruit juices, poultry, and potatoes).
Results: Men whose diets fell into the "processed" pattern had a significantly higher risk of developing prostate cancer than men in the other groups. According to the researchers, "the highest tertile of factor score for the Processed Diet pattern ... was associated with a >2.5-fold increased prostate cancer risk." Men with traditional Western diets showed a "slightly increased prostate cancer risk," while men in the other groups either had no risk or less risk of developing prostate cancer.
While prostate cancer is quite common in men, there are simple steps you can take to reduce your chances of getting it. For instance, you can lower your intake of processed foods and red meats, and increase your intake of fruits, vegetables and whole (unrefined) grains. You can also speak with your doctor of chiropractic about setting up a health plan that incorporates all of the features necessary for a balanced diet.
Walker M, Aronson KJ, King W, et al. Dietary patterns and risk of prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Cancer, Sep. 10, 2005;116:592-598.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
You Can Increase Benefits Of Exercise With Protein
A University of Illinois study indicates that exercise is more effective when coupled with a high-protein diet.
A diet higher in carbohydrates based on the USDA food guide pyramid, on the other hand, reduced the effectiveness of exercise.
100 Percent of Weight Lost Was Fat
Forty-eight women, divided into two groups, participated in the four-month study. One group substituted protein-rich foods, like meats, dairy, eggs, and nuts, for carbohydrate-laden foods like as breads, rice, cereal, pasta, and potatoes.
Both groups were required to exercise at various levels of exertion. The protein-rich, high-exercise group lost the most weight, and nearly 100 percent of the weight loss was fat. In the high-carbohydrate, high-exercise group, 25 to 30 percent of the weight lost was muscle.
While this protein-rich diet seems very effective for people who have Metabolic Syndroem (Syndrome X), a combination of high triglyceride levels and excess weight in their midsections.
Leucine Works with Insulin
The protein-rich diet works well because it contains high levels of the amino acid leucine, which works with insulin to helps stimulate protein synthesis in muscle.
The study was funded by the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Beef Board, and Kraft Foods.
Journal of Nutrition August 2005; 135 (8): 1903-1910
Medical News Today August 29, 2005
A diet higher in carbohydrates based on the USDA food guide pyramid, on the other hand, reduced the effectiveness of exercise.
100 Percent of Weight Lost Was Fat
Forty-eight women, divided into two groups, participated in the four-month study. One group substituted protein-rich foods, like meats, dairy, eggs, and nuts, for carbohydrate-laden foods like as breads, rice, cereal, pasta, and potatoes.
Both groups were required to exercise at various levels of exertion. The protein-rich, high-exercise group lost the most weight, and nearly 100 percent of the weight loss was fat. In the high-carbohydrate, high-exercise group, 25 to 30 percent of the weight lost was muscle.
While this protein-rich diet seems very effective for people who have Metabolic Syndroem (Syndrome X), a combination of high triglyceride levels and excess weight in their midsections.
Leucine Works with Insulin
The protein-rich diet works well because it contains high levels of the amino acid leucine, which works with insulin to helps stimulate protein synthesis in muscle.
The study was funded by the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Beef Board, and Kraft Foods.
Journal of Nutrition August 2005; 135 (8): 1903-1910
Medical News Today August 29, 2005
The Power of Positive Feedback and Motivation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published studies have shown that regular exercise can help people who suffer from chronic low back pain (LBP). Unfortunately, however, many LBP sufferers do not follow through and complete their recommended exercise program. Part of the reason, some scientists believe, is that these people do not receive enough motivation from their doctor to complete the program.
In this study, researchers looked at the effect motivation and positive feedback could have on people with chronic low back pain. Ninety-three patients were randomized into two groups and followed at different intervals for 5 years. The first group participated in a series of 10 25-minute training sessions an average of 2.3 times per week, with gradual increases in exercise over time. The second group engaged in the same series of exercises, but also received other interventions, such as counseling, problem-solving strategies, positive feedback from practitioners, and the signing a "contract" in which the patient agreed to stay on the exercise program.
While patients in both groups showed significant improvements in disability scores, "the cumulative effect in the motivational group across all points of assessment was more than twice that in the control group." In addition, only patients who received motivation and positive feedback showed a significant increase in the ability to return to their original level of work activity. The authors concluded that "the combined exercise and motivation program was superior to the standard exercise program" for patients with chronic low back pain.
Exercise is an important tool that can be used to treat low back pain, but it is by no means the only one. Receiving encouragement and support from others, along with a balanced diet, are just as important. Using these therapies together will help relieve your back pain - and make you a happier, healthier person.
Friedrich M, Gittler G, Arendasy M, Friedrich KM. Long-term effect of a combined exercise and motivational program on the level of disability of patients with chronic low back pain. Spine, 2005;30(9):995-1000.
Published studies have shown that regular exercise can help people who suffer from chronic low back pain (LBP). Unfortunately, however, many LBP sufferers do not follow through and complete their recommended exercise program. Part of the reason, some scientists believe, is that these people do not receive enough motivation from their doctor to complete the program.
In this study, researchers looked at the effect motivation and positive feedback could have on people with chronic low back pain. Ninety-three patients were randomized into two groups and followed at different intervals for 5 years. The first group participated in a series of 10 25-minute training sessions an average of 2.3 times per week, with gradual increases in exercise over time. The second group engaged in the same series of exercises, but also received other interventions, such as counseling, problem-solving strategies, positive feedback from practitioners, and the signing a "contract" in which the patient agreed to stay on the exercise program.
While patients in both groups showed significant improvements in disability scores, "the cumulative effect in the motivational group across all points of assessment was more than twice that in the control group." In addition, only patients who received motivation and positive feedback showed a significant increase in the ability to return to their original level of work activity. The authors concluded that "the combined exercise and motivation program was superior to the standard exercise program" for patients with chronic low back pain.
Exercise is an important tool that can be used to treat low back pain, but it is by no means the only one. Receiving encouragement and support from others, along with a balanced diet, are just as important. Using these therapies together will help relieve your back pain - and make you a happier, healthier person.
Friedrich M, Gittler G, Arendasy M, Friedrich KM. Long-term effect of a combined exercise and motivational program on the level of disability of patients with chronic low back pain. Spine, 2005;30(9):995-1000.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Teen Fights for Informed Consent
Abraham Cherrix, 16, has cancer. The first round of chemotherapy almost killed him. After he and his parents conducted independent research into alternative therapies, he told medical doctors at a hospital in Virginia, where he was given the first round of chemotherapy, that he does not want more chemo.
His parents have backed him up. But the medical doctors who gave Abraham the first round of chemo, apparently irate that their orders are being disobeyed, told a state social services agency about his disobedience. Now Abraham's parents have been charged with child "medical neglect," a charge that is often brought against parents who refuse to give their children all of the more than 3 dozen doses of a dozen vaccines the federal government dictates they should have by age six; who refuse to give hyperactive children toxic drugs to control behavior while they are in school; or who refuse to submit children to to other kinds of potentially harmful medical interventions.
A Virginia juvenile court is now deiberating about whether doctors can force Abraham to undergo chemo that could kill him without his voluntary, informed consent or the voluntary, informed consent of his parents.
In an online USA Today poll, in which more than 250,000 Americans weighed in by July 13, 2006 on whether the state should force Abraham to undergo another round of potentially deadly chemotherapy, 85 percent of those Americans voted "NO" to the idea of state-forced medical treatment. Putting themselves in Abraham's shoes and the shoes of his parents, these men and women are voting for the human right to informed consent to any medical intervention which can kill or cripple.
Most Americans don't talk about it much, but when they are asked, a lot of them are tired of being told what to do by M.D./Ph.D. "experts" inside and outside of government who have set themselves up as the judge, jury and police enforcers of what we can and cannot do with our bodies. It is becoming apparent that, as if by the virtue of the letters written after their names and the titles given to them by their colleagues, medical doctors assume they have some God-given right to tell other people what to risk their lives and their children's lives for when making health care decisions.
Reading about Abraham's struggle for the human right to informed consent to medical treatment, I am reminded of what I wrote in the concluding chapter of the book "A Shot in the Dark" which I co-authored with Harris Coulter in 1985:
"We have been taught to trust and believe in our scientists and doctors, to believe they are among the brightest and best in our society. We have willingly given them our respect and accorded them wealth, privilege and power. And we have given them the right to tell us what to do with our children, because we always believed they knew what was best. We have treated them as gods, forgetting they are our fathers and mothers, wives and husbands, sons and daughters. They are us, with all the frailty and ignorance and susceptibility to temptation that is implicit in being human.
"Mothers and fathers in cities and towns across America are entering libraries and reading medical literature on all the vaccines and drugs that doctors prescribe. They are educating themselves about medicine, and in the process they are finding that it is by no means beyong their comprehension. It is becoming clear that their learning may save children's lives. This is an awakening that has been a long time coming, a necessary first step in making medical decisions ar shared responsibility between parents and doctors."
I knew in 1985 and know today that no medical doctor or Ph.D. "bioethicist" inside or outside of government has the moral right to take away someone elses' human right to informed consent to medical interventions which can injure or kill.. The human right to individual inviolability, to self determination in matters of life and death, is at the heart of what it means to be free in a nation that has always stood for freedom.
His parents have backed him up. But the medical doctors who gave Abraham the first round of chemo, apparently irate that their orders are being disobeyed, told a state social services agency about his disobedience. Now Abraham's parents have been charged with child "medical neglect," a charge that is often brought against parents who refuse to give their children all of the more than 3 dozen doses of a dozen vaccines the federal government dictates they should have by age six; who refuse to give hyperactive children toxic drugs to control behavior while they are in school; or who refuse to submit children to to other kinds of potentially harmful medical interventions.
A Virginia juvenile court is now deiberating about whether doctors can force Abraham to undergo chemo that could kill him without his voluntary, informed consent or the voluntary, informed consent of his parents.
In an online USA Today poll, in which more than 250,000 Americans weighed in by July 13, 2006 on whether the state should force Abraham to undergo another round of potentially deadly chemotherapy, 85 percent of those Americans voted "NO" to the idea of state-forced medical treatment. Putting themselves in Abraham's shoes and the shoes of his parents, these men and women are voting for the human right to informed consent to any medical intervention which can kill or cripple.
Most Americans don't talk about it much, but when they are asked, a lot of them are tired of being told what to do by M.D./Ph.D. "experts" inside and outside of government who have set themselves up as the judge, jury and police enforcers of what we can and cannot do with our bodies. It is becoming apparent that, as if by the virtue of the letters written after their names and the titles given to them by their colleagues, medical doctors assume they have some God-given right to tell other people what to risk their lives and their children's lives for when making health care decisions.
Reading about Abraham's struggle for the human right to informed consent to medical treatment, I am reminded of what I wrote in the concluding chapter of the book "A Shot in the Dark" which I co-authored with Harris Coulter in 1985:
"We have been taught to trust and believe in our scientists and doctors, to believe they are among the brightest and best in our society. We have willingly given them our respect and accorded them wealth, privilege and power. And we have given them the right to tell us what to do with our children, because we always believed they knew what was best. We have treated them as gods, forgetting they are our fathers and mothers, wives and husbands, sons and daughters. They are us, with all the frailty and ignorance and susceptibility to temptation that is implicit in being human.
"Mothers and fathers in cities and towns across America are entering libraries and reading medical literature on all the vaccines and drugs that doctors prescribe. They are educating themselves about medicine, and in the process they are finding that it is by no means beyong their comprehension. It is becoming clear that their learning may save children's lives. This is an awakening that has been a long time coming, a necessary first step in making medical decisions ar shared responsibility between parents and doctors."
I knew in 1985 and know today that no medical doctor or Ph.D. "bioethicist" inside or outside of government has the moral right to take away someone elses' human right to informed consent to medical interventions which can injure or kill.. The human right to individual inviolability, to self determination in matters of life and death, is at the heart of what it means to be free in a nation that has always stood for freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
