The Bitter Swiss

By Mark Sisson

4 Comments

SMART FUEL

Swiss Chard

Don’t let the spinach scare stop you from getting copious greens in your diet. I recommend trying out chard in replacement of spinach, regardless of the current health scare.

Chard is actually a member of the spinach family, but it is more substantial and greater in nutritional value than regular spinach. I’m always amazed at how inexpensive chard is, too – even the organic variety. For recipes, you’ll find chard’s texture is better than spinach, too – it doesn’t get stringy or mushy.

Chard packs a lot of nutritional density for bone health, so it’s appropriate given our osteoporosis discussion. Chop it up, throw it in any sauces, risottos or stir fries, and enjoy high levels of vitamin K, A, C, iron, calcium, potassium, manganese and magnesium. Chard is also the most fibrous leaf you can eat. Try it out this weekend.

[tags] manganese, magnesium, potassium, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin K, sources of vitamins and minerals, plant sources of iron, swiss chard, fiber, green vegetables [/tags]

Ladies: We Can Stop With the Calcium Chews, Already

By Sara

14 Comments

Sara here. Osteoporosis has been in the news again, and I want to share some important missing information with you. (If you want the nitty-gritty osseous-related research, please shoot me a line on the Forum.) In brief, though, here’s what every woman, and especially all the moms out there, must know: Osteoporosis is not going to be prevented, treated or cured with three glasses of milk a day or yogurt every morning. Never was, never will be. A few things the dairy people don’t want you to think about: 1) Dairy is not a common food in much of the world, 2) Osteoporosis is not a common disease – often, it’s not even heard of – in much of the world. However, osteoporosis is most common in Europe and in the United States, where dairy intake is exceptionally high. Strange? Sure, because there are other factors you need to know about. Osteoporosis is not simply a matter of calcium depletion. Osteoporosis is caused by many factors, but here are the four key ones: 1) Vitamin and mineral deficiency. Although the western world has incredible abundance and access, centralized mass production of food leaves a lot to be desired in the nutritional department. And our calcium emphasis is skewed. Though calcium is important, magnesium, potassium, phosphorous, vitamin D, and countless other vitamins and minerals are crucial to bone health. In fact, recent studies show that magnesium may actually be more important to bone health than calcium is. Not saying calcium isn’t important. It is. It’s vital. It’s just not the only thing you need. I hate to beat a dead llama, but take a multi-vitamin, ladies! 2) Soda consumption. (Even diet soda.) The worst, and I mean worst thing you can do to your bones is to drink death-by-can. There are lots of studies that prove this, but a recent long-term study published in the much-respected American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that women who consume just one soda daily have 5 to 7 percent less bone material than women who limit fizzy stuff to just once a month. 3) Lack of fruits and vegetables. Most Americans eat only 1-3 servings of produce daily. Blech! No wonder we’re all so chunkity chunk. A recent study from the British Journal of Nutrition found that postmenopausal women who ate adequate vegetable matter (at least 5 servings) in their daily diets were between 200 and 400% better in terms of bone mineral density loss. (Now, here’s a handy time to talk about studies and statistics. This doesn’t mean that these bone-hardy women have bones that weigh 2 to 4 times as much as other women. What it means is relative loss compared to veggie-avoiding women. So, that might mean a few ounces on up to a few pounds – scientists generally break things up into quartiles so they can examine a range of factors. Fascinating, I know!) In other words, vegetables will not make you gain 300 pounds, and they will also not give … Continue reading “Ladies: We Can Stop With the Calcium Chews, Already”

Paging Dr. Luddite

By Mark Sisson

4 Comments

MY 12-YEAR-OLD MANAGES TO DO IT, AND HE’S PROBABLY TAUGHT THE DOG

A recent piece in the Los Angeles Times just goes to show how much room for improvement there is in the medical business…that is, the medical establishment. (Sometimes I have to remind myself.) The gist of the article is that doctors are among the most resistant to using email. Teachers, professors, lawyers – even car mechanics are more likely to use email as a way to improve and increase communication with their students, clients and customers. Yet when it comes to giving patients a helping hand by opening up the lines of communication, the medical establishment is exceptionally hesitant. Evidently, this “new” email technology is so advanced, you’ll just have to be (pun alert)…patient.

One of the Bees put it bluntly: “What is it with the medical industry’s refusal to join the world we all actually live in?”

Now, I understand that hospitals might be worried about their practitioners being inundated or wasting precious time. Like teachers, cops and nurses, docs have plenty of paperwork to do already. Here’s the obvious challenge: doesn’t that signify a need for innovation, not resistance?

Frankly, I was surprised when my G.P. volunteered his personal email address. (He’s one of the scant 25% of doctors who use email with patients.) I’ve challenged him on some things, sent him some studies, and he’s gained insights. Likewise, I’ve learned really valuable “insider” information about drugs, medical history, and what doctors really think about their patients.

Hospital and HMO executives say that the “danger” of email is that it could become very time-intensive and run the risk of burdening doctors with administrative questions instead of health questions. There’s also the issue of liability. And of being a grown-up.

But the Times article found that, generally at least, doctors are open to email. Here’s the real deal: It’s not the doctors who have a problem with it – it’s the executives. These are big boys and girls, and when they cop to pathetic excuses like “these things are just very new” – I’m actually embarrassed for them. Very new? Yes, just like cell phones and CDs.

Wouldn’t email be a great way to make the patient and doctor invest more in each other? I’m sure some whiz 20-year-old out there could even come up with some cool community interface not unlike what we’re doing here.

Of course, that would require taking some responsibility.

[tags] Mark Sisson, Los Angeles Times, medical establishment, doctors, email, HMO, technology, medical industry, hospitals, innovation, healthcare [/tags]

Eggs Are Good for More Than Silly Cliches

By Sara

8 Comments

SMART FUEL

People like to use eggs in words like eggscellent, eggxactly and eggstatic.

Poor eggs. I recommend using them in your meals instead – and think beyond breakfast on occasion. Eggs are slowly regaining favor after their Humpty-Dumpty fall during the whole cholesterol paranoia of the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

We know that they contain valuable protein, vitamins and minerals: stress-busting selenium, antioxidant E, and eye-healthy lutein among them.

Because I am an egghead (sorry), I’m proud to bring you the latest findings from a study Mark pointed out to the Bees in the Journal of Nutrition. In a study that was randomized (good), controlled (great), and cross-sectional (nice), scientists found that a daily egg gave people’s eyes a boost with lutein and zeaxanthin (an antioxidant from the carotenoid family) and didn’t raise their serum cholesterol. Not that we worry too much about cholesterol anyway. That’s right – we don’t lose sleep over cholesterol! Just one of the many MDA ongoing health debates you might want to check out in the forum.

Matt Bonnington Photo

So scramble, Apples!

[tags] lutein, zeaxanthin, carotenoids, antioxidant, cholesterol, egg, protein, selenium, vitamin E, Journal of Nutrition, nutrition study [/tags]

Uncle Sam – Definitely Not a Pisces

By Mark Sisson

7 Comments

Something I read in the New York Times the other day got me steamed faster than fresh spinach. Apparently, fish oil prescriptions are not only standard practice in Europe – they’re handed out like candy corn on Halloween – but heart patients who don’t get a prescription can actually sue for malpractice.

Pure fish oil is so clearly supported by the international body of science that European doctors who don’t prescribe the stuff to anyone worried about their cardiovascular health are considered grossly incompetent.

Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies support fish oil for great health. Some of the healthiest peoples in the world – from Japan to the Mediterranean – rely heavily on fish fats for great health. Fish oil = better body is not some radical new idea, but try telling that to the American health business. Er…health establishment.

Now, this doesn’t really surprise me; after all, the safest, longest-lasting, most effective, non-drug form of birth control favored in Europe and tested safe for decades is also basically nonexistent here in the Fabulous 50. America may have the best life-saving surgery techniques in the world, but when it comes to basic illness recovery or health maintenance, one would think fish oil must be some risky, mind-altering substance right up there with caffeine and alcohol. The difference being those are both substances prescribed by doctors.

I’m not asking a lot of our federal government. I know they have lobbyists to cuddle. But would it kill anyone over at the FDA or the N.E. Journal of Medicineyness to admit that fish oil has excellent therapeutic properties for people in general and heart patients in particular, and – gasp – recommend prescribing the stuff? They accept the data. Why not recommend?

Here’s the part of the article that really burned my mocha:

“For example, on Solvay Pharmaceutical’s Web site for Omacor (a Euro fish oil supplement), the first question a user sees is ‘Are you a U.S. citizen?’

If the answer is yes, the user is sent to a page where heart attacks are not mentioned.”

I’m so thrilled with our government for censoring accurate scientific information about cardiovascular health on a European company’s website so we citizens can remain both ignorant and unhealthy. Fish fat in its pure form is vital to cardiovascular health, brain health, and the strengthening of the linings of cells. Considering the damage that free radicals and inflammation whack cells with every day, and the difficulty in getting low-mercury fish filets at the local market, wouldn’t recommending and even prescribing fish oil be a prudent thing for the medical “establishment” to do?

Thanks to Elisabeth Rosenthal at the Gray Lady (the Times) for this piece. To the rest of you, get thee to a fish oil supplement, stat!

Click here for my favorite one.

[tags] Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Omacor, fish oil, omega-3, Europe, New England Journal of Medicine, FDA, NEJM, supplements, New York Times [/tags]