VITAMIN D3: THE NATURAL FLU BUSTER

Nature’s design of the human body is no more evident than in the function of Vitamin D. Classically considered a vitamin, it also functions much like a hormone. While chemically similar to a hormone in structure, Vitamin D is not excreted from a gland into the blood. Instead, it is miraculously synthesized in the skin from exposure to the sun. What a beautifully designed system!

Recently, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Soram Khalsa on my Blog Talk radio show (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/search/dr.-howard-liebowitz/). Dr. Khalsa is a wonderful, Integrative Physician who recently published a book on Vitamin D called “The Vitamin D Revolution.” His book offers an eloquent and concise overview of the many benefits of Vitamin D as essential to an optimal health program. I wanted to summarize some of the many health benefits of Vitamin D in this post.

Vitamin D serves a variety of functions in the body. A deficiency can be associated with numerous ailments. Though rarely encountered today, the best known is rickets, a metabolic bone disease. Less well-known problems caused by Vitamin D deficiency include increased risk of heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, osteopenia, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune disease, flu, and depression.

Vitamin D deficiency is more common in higher latitudes especially during winter when there is less sunlight. Curiously, these sun-deprived regions also have statistically higher rates of depression, alcoholism, and even diabetes. In addition, we now have also incurred a greater rate of vitamin D deficiency disorders because of our increasing concern about sun damage skin problems such as skin cancer and aging.

The intense concern that our skin needs protection from the perceived harmful rays of the sun is responsible for contributing to many degenerative health conditions. While this approach to “skin care” serves to diminish the risk of some dermatological problems, it can create a new host of other illnesses—all related to Vitamin D deficiency. Another problem results from our industrialized society that requires us to work more indoors. This leads to people getting less sun exposure even in the lower latitudes.

Vitamin D deficiency is so common that I routinely screen all of my patients for Vitamin D levels and rarely find anyone to be in the optimum range. Studies done on children in Finland, for instance, have found 400 times higher incidences of diabetes than children in Venezuela. In one study, when Finnish children were administered 2000 IU per day of Vitamin D3, they demonstrated an eighty-percent reduction in the onset of juvenile diabetes. When pregnant women have their vitamin D levels restored to optimal levels, the incidence of juvenile diabetes was reduced 50% in their offspring.

As discussed, Vitamin D deficiency is more prevalent in winter months due to less sun exposure. This correlates exactly with the time that flu epidemics break out. Evidence supports the position that normalizing Vitamin D levels in winter will significantly reduce the incidence and number of flu cases. Vitamin D deficiency in winter is also correlated with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), a type of depression.

Adequate Vitamin D is essential for preventing osteoporosis and osteopenia, which are rampant today in Westernized cultures especially after menopause. Women can significantly reduce this problem and their risk of fractures by maintaining adequate Vitamin D levels along with calcium, magnesium, strontium, and Hormone Replacement therapy. Ideal levels are between 50-100 ng/ml. This level can be maintained by simply taking a supplement of Vitamin D3 of usually 2000-5000 IU/day. Alternatively, just twenty-to-thirty minutes per day of sun exposure 
(without sun block) can accomplish the same optimal levels. However, fair skinned persons may require less than dark pigmented people, and people living closer to the equator need less exposure as well.

Vitamin D toxicity is rare due to its wide therapeutic range. Optimal dosing and monitoring is necessary by a physician who understands the importance of this essential nutrient. Further details about the wonders of Vitamin D can be obtained by reading Dr. Khalsa’s informative book.

In summary, Vitamin D is an essential and inexpensive over-the-counter, simple nutrient for preventing many serious and common ailments. Similar benefits can be achieved by regular sun exposure of well-moisturized skin and not using sunscreen.


Disclaimer: This message is not meant nor intended to diagnose, treat, or otherwise mitigate any health related condition.
 
FDA Compliance: The nutritional information included in this e-mail and our website or any of our documents regarding our products has not been reviewed by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration or any other regulatory body, including state departments of health.
 
While to the best of our knowledge we believe the information is accurate and it is intended to be helpful, no warranty is expressed or implied as to the results obtained from the use of the formulations suggested herein, nor any health risks that may arise from using these products.  Our products are not intended to diagnose, cure, treat or prevent any disease.

JUNK FOOD TAX

An article in the August 23, 2009 edition of the LA Times reports about the possibility of a “Sin Tax” on junk food. This would be similar to the one currently imposed on cigarettes. The purpose of such a tax would be to deter the purchase and consumption of junk foods and steer people towards eating healthier food.

The thinking behind such a tax is that by directing people to eat healthier food and avoid sweet, salty junk food, we can have an impact on reducing the incidence of diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and obesity in this country. In principle, this is a great idea. However, statistics from places already imposing this kind of tax reveal another story.

In Maine, for example, a 5.5% snack tax actually coincided with a doubling of the obesity rate from 10% to 20%. In other countries, such a tax apparently drove consumers from sweet foods to high fat and salt-rich foods. The result of such a diet is well known to have an adverse impact on health by increasing the rate of high blood pressure and heart disease. I think it is essential to move people to eat healthier food in general. But, simple nutritional education or the imposition of new taxes by themselves, just don’t seem to do the trick.

I recently saw a brilliant film called Food Inc. This documentary looks at the US food industry. It not only shows in high relief how our food is processed, but also depicts the politics and financial realities that work behind the scenes of US food production. The picture is appalling.

First of all, it is incredible to see example-after-example presented of how unconscious we are of the foods we consume every day. In addition, it is startling to understand the scope and impact that the massive, food corporations have on manipulating our food, often operating with complete impunity and wielding enough power to make the government genuflect. One frightening projection sees that in the next ten years, one out of three young people in this country will have Type II Diabetes. This statistic is terrifying especially in light of the national debate about universal health care coverage. The prospect of millions more diabetics will see medical costs and insurance rates skyrocket in this country. And guess who is going to pay for it? Not the big food companies.

I think that if we are contemplating universal health care reform, we should also be seriously considering some kind of enforcement of healthy, dietary guidelines. If the government is going to foot the bill, then there should be some accountability from the food industry to help improve our diet. It is a basic fact that eating a healthier diet can dramatically reduce most of the illnesses we face today. If the food industry is allowed to be driven solely by profitability and to continue producing whatever sweet, fat, salty garbage they want to sell to the public, then they should be held responsible for the consequences. After all, there is a successful precedent with reform of the tobacco industry.

The government is not going to be able to afford to pay for health care with such a large percentage of the American population suffering from various preventable illnesses. The stated foundation of health insurance is that the premiums of healthy individuals help to defray the cost of treating the sick. This logic will not work when significant proportions of the population are ill and require health care. If we insist on eating unhealthy food and the food industry continues to produce it, then they should be held responsible for footing the bill for the resultant illnesses and disease. It is logical and more importantly, it is in the public interest to let them reap what they sow.

CALORIE RESTRICTED DIETS FOR LONGEVITY

The journal, Science, recently featured a fascinating study that has huge implications for anti-ageing and longevity medicine. The report said that rhesus monkeys who were fed a calorie-restricted diet for 20 years were two-thirds less likely to die of an age-related disease than counterparts fed on a standard diet. The risk of dying from heart disease, cancer or diabetes fell by more than two-thirds in the calorie-restricted group.

The 76 animal subjects ate 30% fewer calories. Researchers noted, “The rates of cardiovascular disease and pre-cancerous cell growth were twice as high in the control group compared with the calorie restricted group.” Furthermore, none of the calorie restricted (CR) animals became diabetic or even pre-diabetic. Brain scans were also significant and showed that the CR animals demonstrated less atrophy.

The researchers also remarked that the CR monkeys “appear to be biologically younger than the normally fed animals.’ This latest study adds to the pool of data that has been accumulating for decades supporting the low-calorie intake theory of nutrition. Going back to the 70’s, Professor Roy Walford, a researcher from UCLA, studied this theory. He was his own best subject as one of the original Biosphere scientists who lived for two years in the man-made, sealed ecological dome in the Arizona desert. Walford followed a significantly calorie-restricted diet for most of his adult life.

I remember meeting Dr. Walford in 1985 when I was working as a staff physician at the Pritikin Longevity Center in Santa Monica. We were teaching the low fat diet at that time. His approach was even more intense. Walford not only limited the percentage of fat in the diet, but the total calorie intake as well. At Pritikin, the diet we taught reflected similar calorie ranges, and was quite successful in promoting weight loss, blood pressure reduction, and reducing the need for diabetic medications. The major criticism of the diet was that it was difficult to stay on for extended periods of time.

The diet program that I teach now is similar in principle to the CR diet and is called “The Paleo Diet”. I encourage people to follow a regime that is similar to what we understand was practiced in Paleolithic times. I believe this approach works best of all for avoiding age-related diseases because we were genetically designed in that bygone era, and our success as a species was dependent on the kind of food that was available at that time.

It is highly unlikely that people during the Paleolithic period ate more than 1200 to 1800 calories per day—which is the equivalent level of the CR diet. Typical Western diets are 3000 calories per day or even more. It seems logical that lowered caloric intake would dramatically reduce the risk of age-related diseases. One of the simplest ways to accomplish this is to just cut out all man-made, dense starchy carbohydrate foods such as bread, pasta, cereal, and grains. The Paleo Diet ends up looking a lot like a CR diet as long as the target food groups are not over consumed.

A comparison of the incidence of obesity that exists today with what might have existed in Paleolithic times provides food for thought. It is safe to say that obesity simply did not exist in ancient times, and by contrast with today’s diets, is a very good indicator of how much we were originally designed to consume. Just imagine the difference between the volume of food available in today’s local supermarket as compared to what was on the Paleolithic menu. The greatest challenge for early humans had nothing to do with choice—it had everything to do with securing enough food for survival.

One of humanity’s greatest accomplishments has been the ability to produce large amounts of food to assure propagation of the species. But, this achievement has a downside and not only has been detrimental to our health and longevity, but to the environment and survival of other species. As we start out to correct our own eating problems, we must first discipline ourselves to avoid the modern tendency to overindulgence, overproduction, and overconsumption. Our well-being as an evolving species and the health of our increasingly fragile planet are both at stake.

(Thanks to Geico for the Cavemen Dining image)

OPRAH AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE

June 8th‘s cover story in Newsweek criticizes Oprah Winfrey for recommending alternative medical treatments. It goes still further lambasting Suzanne Somers and implying that she is a wacko. The article pokes fun at her and cynically describes her health routines as ridiculous.

I have a great deal of respect for Suzanne Somers and Oprah. Both are courageous pioneering type women who use their celebrity in positive ways to help others. If they didn’t disclose alternative styles of medical treatments and technology, who would? Newsweek?

Just opening the front cover of the June 8th issue quickly immediately provides a take on who runs THAT show. Four major advertisements by large pharmaceutical companies leap out at you in this issue alone. Not surprisingly, one of them happens to be Wyeth, the pharma-giant which has been spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to shut down “Mom and Pop” compounding pharmacies. “And why”? you might ask.

Could it have anything to do with the plummeting sales of their notorious products Premarin and Prempro, the drugs shown in the Women’s Health Initiative study to increase the incidence of stroke, heart attack, and breast cancer in users? In fact, this is the only hormone product that has been proven to cause these diseases, yet this is the same company working diligently to have Estriol, the only hormone shown to PROTECT women from breast cancer, removed from the market.

How confusing! Why would a drug company want to remove a drug from the market that helps women, while still promoting and marketing their own product which has been shown in scientific studies to be harmful? Now this would be a really good question to ask the editors of Newsweek magazine. A magazine that accepts large amounts of advertising dollars from Wyeth while publishing articles criticizing women who want to take bioidentical hormones is certainly suspect. Could there be a connection here?

I cancelled my subscription to Newsweek years ago for similar reasons. This is not a news magazine. While news items may infiltrate the periodical, it is a mainstream media platform for advertisers with deep war chests of dollars to express their opinions and influence public sentiment. There is virtually nothing in their cover story about Oprah that I agree with. There is not enough room here on my blog for me to fully express my opinions.

But, I will say this—there has never been any data to prove that bioidentical hormones are harmful, like Prempro, for example. Bioidentical hormones are not “synthesized” as the article contends. I would even question the use of expert references such as Dr. Nanette Santoro, who are cited to support the article. A reproductive endocrinologist, Dr. Santoro specializes in helping women get pregnant. It would certainly be of interest to qualify how many women she sees in her practice specifically for menopause-related conditions. She is quoted as stating that menopause is a hormone deficiency disease is “discredited”. It might follow then, that she thinks menopause is an antidepressant, sleeping pill, and pain medication deficiency disease.

One major point that the writers, Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert, are insistent about is that hormones—especially as described by Suzanne Somers—are used to “restore youth”. This is absolutely not the intention of replacing missing hormones. It is actually to restore health.

It is well known that the incidence of major illnesses like heart disease, cancer, autoimmune disease, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis, and once again—did I say “Cancer”—all increase dramatically after menopause. Young women with super high hormone levels are virtually immune to these diseases. Just the incidence of heart disease rises so dramatically after menopause that the risk to women equals that of men.

My orientation to replacing postmenopausal hormones in women is not to keep them young, but to keep them healthy. Aging does not have to be synonymous with disease. We cannot stop the aging process, but we have more options to preventing disease than ever before. Despite the efforts of Big Pharma and their media mouthpieces like Newsweek magazine, the truth will be told by courageous, intelligent women like Suzanne Somers, Oprah Winfrey, and Robin McGraw. A pioneering, innovative spirit informs the bedrock on which this country is founded and is still alive today. Big advertisers and publishers may have the loudest voice that money can buy right now, but I am confident that the facts will continue to become public knowledge and the search for truth will win out. History shows that it always works out that way.

NEW YORK STEM CELL SUMMIT

Last week, I was in New York City attending a Stem Cell Summit. Also attending were over 50 Stem Cell Company CEO’s from all over the world as well as a number of venture capitalists, investors, researchers, and medical practitioners. The conference, itself, was a fascinating look into what is in store for us in the future from the world of Stem Cell Therapy. In my last post, I wrote about some of the potential for Stem Cells. What is on the horizon is truly mind-boggling.

In particular, there are major developments in the areas of Orthopedics such as regenerating joint cartilage, shortening recovery time for fractures by two-thirds, and options for herniated vertebral disc sufferers. There is a tremendous amount of work also being done for Diabetes, many forms of Cancer, congestive heart failure as well as for heart attack and stroke victims. I even heard from Veterinarians who are already using stem cells for racehorses and pets with great success.

The future potential for many more health benefits is vast. All of the CEO’s present admitted that we are only just beginning to scratch the surface of what stem cells may be able to accomplish. One area I found particularly fascinating was in the regeneration of bone and cartilage in degenerated joints and fractures. Stem cells are already being used to avoid amputations in diabetics with severe peripheral vascular disease. The stem cell procedure actually helps them to grow new blood vessels, which supply blood to extremities threatened by lack of oxygen. All of the presentations focused on the thrilling work of finding cures for conditions that are currently incurable. Still, no one is even talking yet about my interest in the potential of stem cells with respect to prevention, anti-aging and life extension.

I have been working with a company called Neostem, which is a stem cell collection service. We collect stem cells from healthy, relatively young people, and then store them in a cryobank for future use. The beauty of this unique approach is that the stem cells are available on an as-needed basis. Stem cells are generally only given to the person who donated them. This is the other reason that our approach is so powerful. These stem cells are in better shape than the individual recipient because they were collected when the person was younger.

In other words, they are not used like blood donations. So, there is no risk of rejection, and since the individual will only receive his own cells, there is also no risk of transmissible disease. In a way, it is a form of “Bio-Insurance”. You can imagine that the process can provide a great sense of security when an individual knows that his stem cells are safely stored away in a cryobank if needed at some future date.

I should know. I have already put mine away and it makes me feel really good. What we are now discussing is the possibility of re-infusing them back into the donor every year or so, as a way to help maintain the equivalent, youthful age as when the cells were originally collected. I have also spoken to researchers about using them to treat women after menopause. In theory, we would inject them into the ovaries to “wake them up” as a way to start producing female hormones again. No one knows if this is possible. But, can you imagine what kind of breakthrough it represents if the procedure works?!

SUGAR AND HIGH GLYCEMIC FOODS

Sugar is a hidden toxin in foods and as a result, we eat way more sugar than nature ever intended for us. Sugar is actually “rated” in foods according to what is known as the Glycemic Index. In fact, all foods have been scored according to this Index. If you are interested in tracking a particular food, you can look it up on numerous web sites which feature the Glycemic Index.

Foods are ranked according to their sugar content by whether they are low, medium or high glycemic. High glycemic foods should definitely be avoided. As I mentioned in my last posting, humans evolved genetically during Paleolithic times. Foods were very low in sugars during that time. Farming, milling, and baking of wheat didn’t exist. We are, therefore, not genetically designed to eat wheat products.

In addition, they are the highest glycemic foods. The beauty of avoiding bread, cereal, grains, and rice is that—not only do we help ourselves by avoiding foods that are difficult for us to assimilate—but such a regimen also avoids a dense carbohydrate food group that contributes significantly to obesity and diabetes, two of the largest and fastest growing health problems in America.

The closer we can eat to a Paleolithic type diet, the healthier we will be. So, when you are making your food choices, just imagine if it existed in Paleolithic times. If not, best to skip it. We need to be conscious that our diets and environment have changed dramatically over the past several thousand years. The single most important thing we can do to avoid disease is to avoid sugar and high glycemic food.