Electronic Engineers and Dietary Advice

Posted on December 26, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese

Do you remember DiseaseProof’s week-long examination of The Atkins Diet? In it Dr. Fuhrman discusses the risks and misinformation associated with high-protein diets. In case you missed it, here are the five posts:

Now, why do I bring this up again? Well as you can imagine it more than miffed many of the low-carb loonies out there. One in particular was Barry Groves, PhD. Who is he? To quote Dr. Fuhrman, Barry Groves is “an electronic engineer and honorary board member of the Weston Price Foundation.” Mr. Groves was so flustered by Dr. Fuhrman’s opinion of high-protein diets that he actually made a few comments, that later spawned a couple of posts. Here they are:

The last post in particular has proved quite popular. Now even though it’s many months old and buried deep in the archives it’s still good for an occasional comment. But most of the comments are nothing more than lemming-like meat mongering or Fuhrman bashing. Like this:

Why does saturated fat increase cholesterol? Why the addition of a few hydrogen atoms suddenly makes fat more likely to be turned into cholesterol? what ISOLATED, OBJECTIVE, REPEATABLE evidence do you have that saturated fat from healthy sources increases cholesterol? im not either for your argument or against it, its just i have searched the internet for PROOF of the health harming effects of saturated fat and found none.


Epidemiological evidence is nothing like enough! groves has plenty of that in his favour and you seem to have a small amount in yours, but neither is any form of proof. You can correlate sesame seeds with cancer but only because there sprinkled upon most burgers.

You should not post YOUR OPINION as though it is scientific fact, many real scientists disagree, so it seems to me either you PROOVE IT or ZIP IT.

So as you can imagine I just approve comments like this and pay them no mind. But that doesn’t mean the occasional negative comment or dissenting opinion is just automatically ignored. Actually, a well supported counterclaim is always welcome here on DiseaseProof. Check out this one from last week:

Most Importantly we should remember that no randomised controlled Clinical Trial has ever shown any reduction at all in Coronary heart Disease mortality or overall mortality from replacing animal fats with polyunsaturated vegetable fats.


In fact, just the opposite persons randomised to polyunsaturated fat had significant increases in Coronary Heart Disease mortality rates.
Are you familiar with the research Dr. Fuhrman?

There are 18 Clinical Dietary Intervention Trials and 26 prospectiuve Trials to date on the saturated fat/Coronary Heart Disease issue.

Here are all 18 Clinical and you can look them up at a Medical University Library to confirm it everyone.

*Sydney Diet Heart Study
*National Diet heart Study
*Los Angeles Veterans Administration Study
*Ball et al
*Minnesota Survey
*Lyon Diet Heart Study
*Women's Health Initiative
*Bierenbaum et al
*DART
*Anti Coronary Club
*STARS
*Medical Research Council
*Hood et al
*Finnish Mental Hospital Stusy
*Medical research Council
*Rose etal
*Oslo Diet Heart Study

Clearly when you look these up you will see the research does not support the anti-cholesterol/anti-saturated fat paradigm.

Okay, now as I’ve said many times before, I’m not the expert. So when DiseaseProof receives a comment like this, I pass it on to the man. And here’s what Dr. Fuhrman say—it’s thorough to say the least:

I am familiar with the research, but there are lots more than that. I have made an effort to review every study on this subject in the last 20 years and through a comprehensive view of all the literature, the message is clear. I realize that there are people out there that deny the link between a diet rich in animal products and heart disease, diet and cancer and diet and any disease. The internet has become a forum for all different type of individuals to express their alternative beliefs, and the occasional disagreeing comments here serve a good purpose because by addressing them it helps the informed health seeker improve their view of the issues and get a better handle of the complexities of human nutrition. It is only that I am so busy working that makes the length of these responses somewhat limited and that to get the whole view it would help to first read Eat to Live and then review the posts here on this subject that have been already posted before reading this one.


I think if this commenter was already familiar with my body of work and not just commenting on one issue in a vacuum he may have already understood my answer here. Also, obviously, this is a complicated subject, but I have addressed the complexities before on this blog and in my recent newsletter addressing the poor science promoted by the Weston Price crowd and those denying that the amount and the type of animal products in one’s diet does matter when it comes to disease risk. More explanation can’t hurt though and we can review the reasons for the inconsistency in the scientific studies.

Eating less animal products and avoiding trans fat and in their place, utilizing more fruits and vegetables, beans and nuts is a goal of those seeking to reduce their risk of both heart disease and cancer. The evidence regarding these guidelines is overwhelming and I have referenced over 1500 scientific references in Eat to Live. What makes my dietary advice somewhat unique is that I insist that increasing the micronutrient density of food is an important component of a good diet and that foods that are naturally rich in vitamins and minerals are also rich in thousands of phytochemicals that are a critical (but largely ignored and unmeasured) link to good health. Since 90 percent of calories consumed in America is either animal products or processed foods, neither which contain antioxidants and phytochemicals, we suffer the medical tragedies as a result of this nutritional folly. It is the total micronutrient and phytochemical density of the diet which is more important in disease-prevention than moderating fat intake. The standard modern diet is disease-promoting and just decreasing or exchanging the type of fat can’t change its pitiful level of protective nutrients. I repeat, micronutrient density and variety overwhelms saturated fat (lowering) as a disease protector. If interested, as it will help you understand this, check out the library on DrFuhrman.com. There you can view a chart of nutrient per calorie density of selected foods.

I also teach that the saturated fat content of the animal products chosen to include in one’s diet does also make a difference when it comes to health science and promoting optimal health; not just for heart disease, but for cancer reduction too. Animal fats are more risky than vegetable fats, but they both promote disease if eaten in excess and the fact that cheese has much more saturated fat than fish and fowl, makes it a more risky food to include in one’s diet in any substantial amount. That does not mean I advocate eating vegetable oils and consider them health foods. I am not a promoter of processed oils as they dilute the nutrient density of our diet and are a high calorie, low nutrient food. Saturated fat does not become good because trans fat and some processed oils are bad. Polyunsaturated oils are processed foods, consumed in a rancid state, with little or no fiber, micronutrients, antioxidants or phytochemicals. In no way do I agree with Walter Willet and other highly esteemed names in the field of nutritional science who think that substituting polyunsaturated oils in place of saturated fats is the answer for optimal health. Oil is too fattening a food to be promoted has health food and I thinks Willet’s message to put olive oil and other polyunsaturated and monounsaturated oil at the base of a nutrition pyramid is ridiculous and most likely reflects his desire to commercially appeal to America’s food preferences. Instead, I recommend most of our fat intake come in the whole food form from flax seeds, walnuts, sunflower seeds, avocados, sesame seeds and other foods that are not only rich in healthy fats, but also contain antioxidants, lignans, flavonoids and other protective compounds (and I make delicious salad dressings from these whole-food plant fats).

When we consider these complicated issues we must be familiar with hundreds and in some cases thousands of research articles to understand the complexities of human nutrition. One thing that stands out in all this is that it is not one element good or bad that can explain the complicated nutritional component in disease-causation. So I would never encourage the thinking that looking at saturated fat intake alone in a diet and no other critical factors would afford us good health and protection from heart disease and cancer. Comparing one type of low nutrient diet to another does not show much, they are all bad. But I agree with the point made by some of the articles the commenter mentioned; that moderate reductions in saturated fat intake, in an elderly population, while the diet stays relatively low in high-nutrient plant foods is not likely to offer dramatic health benefits. Especially because what we do at a younger age has a more powerful effect to modulate the expression of these later life diseases compared to what we do at a later age. This is especially true with cancer, where we expect to see a 25 to 50 year lag time between cause and effect. So another element that this question and a review of all these studies indicate is that the earlier in life that dietary change is instituted more dramatic protective effects are seen and the later in life, the smaller the benefit, if any. I spend a lot of time discussing this in my book, Disease-Proof Your Child, which explained that dietary factors in childhood are the largest component of adult cancer causation.

More recent studies are accumulating that show eating more high-nutrient plant food is a more powerful intervention to prevent disease, than just reducing saturated fat alone. You can reduce cheese and butter and still be eating a crummy, low nutrient, disease-promoting diet; big deal! But the best protection from disease occurs and the most dramatic amount of disease reversal is accomplished when the diet is both low in saturated fat and high in micronutrients. This is the pattern of the dietary recommendations in Eat to Live and my other works. Eat to Live because it is written for the overweight individual is more restricted in nuts, seeds and avocados (higher fat, higher calorie plant foods) compared to Disease-Proof Your Child, which contains dietary guidelines somewhat higher in the fattier whole foods (healthy fats) geared for a general audience, not for those who are so weight-challenged.

So even though we could point to some older studies that looked at a population with a high animal product intake and then compared it to one that was still high in animal products but somewhat lower in saturated fat and added oils to it, to show an unclear differences in outcome is not surprising. Especially when both studied diets are still rich in processed foods and animal product, and especially when the subjects are older and not followed for enough years to see the differences or when both the size of the study, the amount of dietary change, and the number of years studied make the difference in “relative risk” insignificant. So contrary to the commenter’s assertion most of the studies mentioned show insignificant and inconsistent mortality differences. When you read the whole study, you can usually understand why it found the outcome it did and the better quality studies explain the inconsistencies better. And you have to look at the nutritional quality of the whole diet studied to predict the outcomes not merely one of the many variables that give a diet its disease promoting or health promoting properties.

Let’s look at some of the most recent studies (click “Permalink” or “Continue Reading”) and see what they really say. Oh, and for other readers who want to post references to support their views, like this commenter did, please include the complete reference so others can easily look it up and check the facts.

Of course some people are not interested in science or logic, to them nutrition is based on emotion and what they want to believe and what they want to eat and no matter what I say or the research says won’t change their fixed views.

Don’t forget, click Permalink or Continue Reading to check out those studies Dr. Fuhrman mentioned—there’s a bunch of them!

Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , , ,

Fish Oil for Baby's Hand-Eye Coordination

Posted on December 22, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
Most news outlets push fish oil on us with greater fervor than a Central Park Rastafarian. But whenever I hear fish oil or just plain fish, I immediately think of mercury, chemicals, and pollution. Not to mention I conduct a mini risk-benefit analysis in my head before eating things like sushi or steamed salmon. Sure fish and fish oil is loaded with omega-3, but the level of contamination in seafood always gives me pause, and is the reason why I space out my fish consumption. From Fishing for the Truth, here’s a small refresher on the potential dangers of contaminated fish:
Higher levels of mercury found in mothers who eat more fish have been associated with birth defects, seizures, mental retardation, developmental disabilities, and cerebral palsy.1 This is mostly the result of women having eaten fish when they were pregnant. Scientists believe that fetuses are much more sensitive to mercury exposure than adults, although adults do suffer from varying degrees of brain damage from fish consumption.2 Even the FDA, which normally ignores reports on the dangers of our dangerous food practices, acknowledges that large fish such as shark, swordfish, and yellowfin and bluefin tuna, are potentially dangerous. Researchers are also concerned about other toxins concentrated in fish that can cause brain damage way before the cancers caused by chemical-carrying fish appear.
Dr. Fuhrman takes fish contamination seriously. So seriously, that he actually includes fish in his list of foods mothers should avoid during pregnancy. Take a look. From a previous post entitled Precautions to Take When Pregnant or Nursing:
The real concerns are not microwave ovens, cell phones, and hair dryers. The things we know to be really risky for you and your unborn children are:
  • Caffeine
  • Nicotine, including secondhand smoke
  • Alcohol
  • Medications, both over-the-counter and prescription drugs
  • Herbs and high-dose supplements, vitamin A
  • Fish, mollusks and shellfish, sushi (raw fish)
  • Hot tubs and saunas
  • Radiation
  • Household clear, paint thinners
  • Cat litter (because of an infectious disease called toxoplasmosis caused by a parasite found in cat feces)
  • Raw milk and cheese
  • Soft cheese and blue-veined cheeses such as feta, Roquefort, and Brie
  • Artificial colors, nitrates, and MSG
  • Deli meats, luncheon meats, hot dogs, and undercooked meats
So with all this being said, a new study that touts the benefits of consuming fish oil during pregnancy is enough to make anyone say, “What the—?” Well it’s true. Steven Reinberg of HealthDay News reports Australian researchers have determined toddlers whose mothers took fish oil supplements during pregnancy developed superior hand-eye coordination. Why? Well those omega-3’s of course:
"Omega-3 fatty acids, commonly referred to as 'fish oil,' are essential nutrients for human health," said Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine. He was not involved in the study…


… It will take more research to clarify the optimal dose of omega-3 fatty acids, and the long-term health effects of supplementation during pregnancy, Katz said. "But we know enough already to conclude that fish oil from supplements is generally a good idea, during pregnancy especially. I routinely advise 1 gram, twice daily, of fish oil to my pregnant patients -- and my non-pregnant patients, too."
I don’t think Dr. Fuhrman would agree with Katz’s fish oil recommendation, especially if that particular brand of supplement ran the risk of containing mercury or some other contaminate. So this begs the question, are we stuck with fish? Or are there other sources of omega-3’s that don’t potentially expose mothers or unborn children to harmful chemicals and compounds? Yes. Check out what Dr. Fuhrman recommends in this post, Dr. Fuhrman's Anti-ADHD Plan:
Flax seeds and walnuts are rich sources of beneficial but hard-to-find short-chain omega-3 fats, plus they are rich in lignans, minerals, and vitamins. Until recently, the primary source of DHA dietary supplements was fish oil. However, new products are available that contain DHA from algae, the fish’s original source. Unlike fish oils, the algae-derived DHA, grown in the laboratory, is free of chemical pollutants and toxins that may be present in some fish oil-based brands.
Now I’m no doctor, in fact I’m just a lowly blogger with a Marketing degree, but if I had to pick, I’d go for the contaminate-free option every time. How about you?
Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , , ,

Thursday Health Points: Blogs Only

Posted on December 21, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
So please forgive me if I come into the consulting room with a couple of smudges on my lips, a tighter white coat, overpowering chocolate breath, and giddy with sugar and a sense of well-being.
We compared USDA data for the average "large" US farm - defined as a farm with over $250,000 of income. The USDA says there are 151,000 large farms in the US - this makes up 7% of all the farms, but 59% of all farm production. That means a small number of big farms are growing most of our food.
Sometimes men and women alter their physiques and appearance to please others. Sometimes they change it to spite those who've rejected them. If you don't have enough self-respect to like who you are and how you look, do things to build up your own self-esteem until you get to the point where you like who you are or are motivated to become the person you'd like to be.
High fructose corn syrup (HFCS), an intense sweetener used in a vast and diverse array of food products, has been labeled the Devil’s candy and a sinister invention by the American media. A widely publicized book in the US, Fat Land, by the journalist Greg Critser, along with scientific research, proposes that its consumption is to blame for America’s obesity epidemic, while Juan Zapata, a Republican in the Florida House of Representatives, calls HFCS the crack of sweeteners and wants it banned.
The ancient Romans grew and cooked parsnips to make broths and stews. Throughout the Dark Ages and early Middle Ages, parsnips were the main starchy vegetable for ordinary people. Parsnips were easy to grow and provided a good source of starch during the lean winter months. They were also valued for their sugar content. Sweet parsnip dishes like jam and desserts became part of traditional English cookery, and they were used for making beer and wine. Today parsnip wine is still one of the most popular of the country wines in England.
Angelina Jolie recently returned with her adopted son Maddox to his homeland of Cambodia, and while there she fed him a local delicacy: a plate full of crickets, with their guts intact. Angelina told reporters, "I recently took Mad to Cambodia and it was the first trip there where he really understood it. We took him to a restaurant in the middle of the night and he had his first plate of crickets."
Insulin resistance, abdominal obesity, hypertension, high triglycerides, low HDL (good) cholesterol levels: a cluster of traits typically referred to as Metabolic Syndrome. All are known to be indicators of diabetes and heart disease in adults. What has recently been discovered, however, is that these same traits are also on the rise in adolescents.
I don't understand it. I'm not sure I want to. I just want people to respect the fact that someone having a bigger crisis than them may be in the bed next to them. And I may be needed more over there. I probably won't respond quickly to you if you scream at me to get your pain medicine. I will be busy with the man next door who is passing from this world. His problem supercedes yours. Your pain may last longer - but you'll still be alive at the end of it. He won't.
Tags: , , , , ,

The Captain Obvious Award: Childhood Obesity Number One

Posted on December 21, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
In Disease-Proof Your Child Dr. Fuhrman refers to obesity as the most common nutritional problem among children in the United States. The book was printed over a year ago. But yesterday HealthDay News reported that a new survey fingers obesity as the most important health issue facing children in the United States. “Duh,” seems like an understatement to me. Robert Preidt has more of the shocking findings:
The survey showed that responsibility for helping to address the obesity issue in the United States lies to some or a great extent with parents (98 percent), individuals (96 percent), schools (87 percent), health care providers (84 percent), the food industry (81 percent), and government (67 percent).
So while the rest of the country soaks these in, consider this section from Disease-Proof Your Child:
One in three kinds in America are overweight, and the problem is growing. The number of children who are overweight has more than doubled during the past decade. Social forces, from the demise of home cooking to the rise of fast food, as well as dramatic increases in snack food and soda consumption have led to the most overweight population of children in human history.
What’s next? A phone survey advising us to breathe?
Tags: , ,

The War on Childhood Obesity

Posted on December 18, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
You can’t escape obesity—obesity news that it is. It’s everywhere! Almost everyday obesity-related information bombards the headlines, but imagine being a doctor, imagine being on the frontlines of the epidemic. Reuters reporter Lisa Baertlein tells the tale of one such doctor, and what she is doing to combat the problem:
Los Angeles pediatrician Francine Kaufman is on the front lines of the childhood obesity epidemic, which has flooded her office with diabetes patients and put kids at risk of adult health problems…


… The pediatric endocrine group at Childrens Hospital Los Angeles had 250 to 300 patients when Kaufman started in the late 1970s. The patient roster has since expanded 2,000-plus.
Dr. Kaufman also wrote a book entitled Diabesity in which she encourages parents to realize that avoiding obesity and diabetes is about the whole family becoming health conscious and committed to helping. Sound like someone else we know? Check out this excerpt from Dr. Fuhrman’s Disease-Proof Your Child:
No rules only for children. If the parents are not willing to follow the rules set for the house, they should not be imposed on the children. Don’t argue about what your children should and shouldn’t be eating; discuss this in private. As parents, we must be consistent, but not perfect. Likewise, it is okay for the children to be consistent, but not prefer either. For example, if the parents decide that an unhealthy food or a restaurant meal is acceptable for the children once per week, then that goes for the adults, too. Setting an example supported by both parents is the most important and most effective way for your children to develop a healthy attitude toward food.
Tags: , ,

Health Points: Thursday

Posted on December 14, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
“I don’t think people who count calories eat at McDonald’s,” said Michelle Iadarola of Staten Island. Although she rarely eats at McDonald’s, she was about to order a bacon, egg and cheese biscuit (440 calories) because she was in a hurry. The calorie count made no difference.

The law is considered radical both by people who hold food companies partly responsible for the obesity crisis and by those who see the government’s regulation of food deemed unhealthy as an affront to freedom of choice.
This doesn’t mean that the road is not long and rough. I do feel disappointed when I end up caving to myself and eating food that I shouldn’t. Eating for comfort and stress relief is something that I do have to get a grip on, and will. Sometimes I do get feeling down about my progress, especially when I get into these places where I struggle to get the scale moving. Losing weight is tough, and I want to be as honest about my experience as possible. It’s not all good, but I do try to find the positive. I’m sorry if sometimes this doesn’t come through, I will be more vigilant about it in the future.
Dr. Teri Brentnall, an associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Washington in Seattle, announced the discovery Tuesday during a news briefing in New York, saying the discovery marks one of the biggest advances in pancreatic cancer.

With the gene now in hand, scientists have a marker that can be spotted in blood tests. Brentnall has used such a test in her Seattle studies. By testing for the cancer, she said, doctors can mount an assault on the cancer before it starts.
  • People thought that low-fat snacks were 20-25 percent lower in calories (confusing low-fat with low-calorie - in fact low-fat snacks tend to be about 15% less calories).
  • Normal weight people would eat 30 more calories per session (i.e. when presented with a low-fat snack).
  • Overweight people would eat an average of 90 more calories when presented with a low-fat option.
"We have identified several ingredients that may be associated with the outbreak. These include lettuce, ground beef and cheddar cheese," Dr. Christopher Braden, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a teleconference late Wednesday. "The most likely food vehicle is lettuce. But we are still looking at other food items."
Obesity cannot go unchecked and it is a threat to the health and welfare of children and adults alike, as obesity is linked to greater increased risks for a number of life-threatening diseases like heart disease, diabetes and cancer. But, it is uncomfortable to think that one of the solutions to childhood obesity is a scalpel.
In a study of older women, researchers found that a physically active smoker had a 35 percent lower risk of lung cancer than a sedentary smoker.

Even so, one expert called that reduction trivial because smoking itself is so risky. And Dr. Kathryn Schmitz, the study’s lead author, stressed that exercising does not give women a free pass to smoke.
Tags: , , , , , ,

Treated Wood Poses Cancer Risk

Posted on December 12, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese

Written by Lisa Fuhrman for the March 2003 edition of Healthy Times:

The lovely wooden outdoor play-set you lovingly bought for your children may actually expose them to arsenic—transmitted right from their hands to their mouths! Exposure to arsenic can be deadly. According to Hal Stratton, chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), children can develop a lifetime risk of lung or bladder cancer from using playground equipment that contains arsenic. Arsenic also increases risk of other cancers, such as skin cancer.


Over 90 percent of all outdoor wooden structures in the United States, including the deck and porch on your home, contain arsenic because most wood used in this type of construction has been treated with a preservative and pesticide called chromate copper arsenate (CCA). CCA contains arsenic, chromium, and copper. It protects wood from rotting and other damage from insects and microbial agents. In addition to decks and porches, CCA-treated lumber has been used in outdoor railings, picnic tables, fences, and docks, since the 1930's.The majority of the wood used in residential settings since the 1970's is CCA-treated wood.

Unfortunately, arsenic does not safely dissipate over time. The arsenic levels found on surfaces of treated-wood structures more than twenty years old are similar to those found on treated-wood structures less than a year old. As a result, tests have shown that arsenic levels in soil near or under the treated-wood structures can be many times higher than the cleanup standard at Superfund toxic waste sites!

Wood preservatives containing arsenic have been increasingly targeted as unsafe by many advocacy groups. "Wipe tests" showed that the amount of arsenic coming off the wood in many cases exceeded what levels were allowed in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by at least three times. In some cases, the amount was 250 times the amount allowed in drinking water!

In 1986, the EPA banned most arsenic pesticides but allowed the use of CCA to continue in pressure-treated wood. The agency classified it as a "restricted-use" pesticide to protect factory workers, while manufacturers agreed to voluntarily distribute consumer "fact sheets" about its use. Due to pressure by advocacy groups, the EPA is producing a report on the risks of the pressure-treated wood, which is expected in late 2003.

Fortunately, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is holding a public meeting in March to consider banning the arsenic-based preservative in playground equipment. In 2002, the preservative manufacturers agreed with the EPA to stop using the chemical in new wooden play-sets by December 2003.

It is difficult to distinguish CCAtreated wood from non-CCA-treated wood. A call to the manufacturer might help to determine if your play-set contains CCA or not. If you are not sure whether or not it contains CCA, you should assume it does.

Since children can get arsenic residue from the treated wood on their hands and then put their hands into their mouths, researchers recommend that once a child has finished playing on a play-set, caregivers should wash the child's hands thoroughly with soap and water. They also recommend that children not eat while on the play-set.

Based on limited data, some groups suggest applying certain penetrating coatings, such as oil-based, semi-transparent stains, on a regular basis (once a year or every other year, depending upon wear and weathering). This may reduce the amount of arsenic that comes out of the wood. Unfortunately, research data is too limited to know for sure if this actually helps. If you decide to remove your CCA-treated wood play-set, dispose of the wood properly. The EPA states that CCA-treated wood should never be burned in open fires, stoves, fireplaces, or residential boilers. Contact EPA (www.epa.gov) or your state or local solid waste management offices to receive instructions on how to dispose of it.

The EPA has registered a number of non-arsenic-containing preservatives to pressure-treat wood for consumer use, including copper boron azole (CBA).Wood treated with this preservative is sometimes available at retail outlets and is sold under the name "Wolmanized Natural Select." CBA-treated wood costs more because it contains more copper (which is expensive). While CBA is now common in Japan and Europe, it is still going through some investigation in the U.S.

If you are planning to purchase a play-set, you have a few good options. You can find natural cedar wood and redwood play-sets that are not chemically treated. You also can buy metal swing sets or a combination metal swing set with a redwood deck. There are also play-sets made with PVC (low-maintenance plastic) that do not contain CCA. Bottom line—don't put a treated-wood deck, porch, fence, or other product around your home. If you already have treated wood around your home, give it multiple coats of oil-based paint or get rid of it.
Tags: ,

How Some Kids Eat

Posted on December 7, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
As you know, Dr. Fuhrman’s book Disease-Proof Your Child is devoted to improving children’s diets and educating parents on the benefits of nutritional excellence. But is a book like this needed? Do kids really have poor eating habits? Granted, childhood obesity is on the rise, but surely parents know how to feed their kids, right? No, that doesn’t appear to be the case at all.

This report by Andrea Pyenson of The Boston Globe provides plenty of evidence that many kids aren’t nutritionally sound—and their parents aren’t exactly helping either:
Courtney, a petite 14-year-old (she’s not quite 5 feet, and 98 pounds) who loves to eat, watch TV cooking shows, and cook, admits, ‘‘I just think about what tastes good. I eat whatever my Mom cooks.’’ She doesn’t like green vegetables, and says fruit ‘‘hurts my mouth.’’ Her favorite foods are pizza, french fries, and chicken…


…Michael, 13 (he’s 5-foot-4 and 120 pounds), the most health-conscious of the three, isn’t crazy about food that grows in the ground, unless it’s starchy, like potatoes or corn. ‘‘I eat any fruit, but I’m not into vegetables,’’ he says. Michael is mostly a pizza, tacos, and steak kind of guy. Every day he spends one to two hours at a computer, the same for TV. His day one dinner menu was steak tips, mashed potatoes, corn, and a glass of water; the following night it was roast beef, mashed potatoes, corn, stuffing, and a glass of water.
I’ve got to admit, I don’t understand the “fruit hurts my mouth” comment—maybe she should try peeling the cactus pear before she eats it! But I wasn’t surprised to read that pizza, French fries, and chicken are among kid’s favorite foods. I’m twenty-five and many of peers exist on that stuff.

So, to put it mildly, I do think kids and parents need helping improving their diets. What’s the answer? Check out this section of Disease-Proof Your Child, in it Dr. Fuhrman makes a pretty clear case that healthy eating is a family affair:
Parents are entrusted with the responsibility of securing the selection of healthy foods for the family and preparing the food in a way that makes it desirable. Children are responsible for deciding how much they eat. If they are in an environmental of healthful foods they will have no problem regulating variety and timing. They can choose what they eat, when they eat, and if they will eat. Don’t use food as a reward or punishment. Don’t offer a treat because the child was good or ate well. Offer healthy treats as part of the normal well-balanced diet.


No rules only for children. If the parents are not willing to follow the rules set for the house, they should not be imposed on the children. Don’t argue about what your children should and shouldn’t be eating; discuss this in private. As parents, we must be consistent, but not perfect. Likewise, it is okay for the children to be consistent, but not prefer either. For example, if the parents decide that an unhealthy food or a restaurant meal is acceptable for the children once per week, then that goes for the adults, too. Setting an example supported by both parents is the most important and most effective way for your children to develop a healthy attitude toward food.
This makes sense to me, because after all everything is easier when you have good strong team effort. But in case you need a little more advice, check out Dr. Fuhrman’s podcast Getting Children to Eat Well.
Tags: , ,

Health Points: Thursday

Posted on December 7, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
  • I’m sure most parents would agree, too many kids just sit around the house all day playing video games and futzing with the computer. Who goes outside to play anymore? No wonder why childhood obesity is on the rise. You know what we need? A kiddy gym. Virginie Montet of the AFP reports two sisters thought this was a pretty good idea. Introducing Youth Visions:
Tonya Manago, a former paralegal, and her sister Keitha Howerton opened the gym last April when Manago noticed that her daughter was putting on weight.

Desha, nine, has since managed to lose 12 pounds (5.5 kilos) and now weighs 116 pounds (53 kilos), while her girlfriend Ravin, who is 10 and weighs 257 pounds (117 kilos) has reached star status at the gym by losing 22 pounds (10 kilograms).
  • Now, I’m not a smoker, so a ban on smoking in public places doesn’t really upset me, but I admit, losing the romance of a smoke-filled bar is a little depressing. Well people in Ohio, a tobacco-producing state, are about to see that imagine dissipate. According to The Chicago Tribune Ohio is poised to join the smoking prohibition:
Starting Thursday, forget about smoking in Ohio bars, restaurants, bingo halls and private clubs. Even the last bastions of smoke-filled heaven, bowling alleys, will be off-limits for smokers. Ashtrays have effectively been outlawed.


This is the thrust of one of the toughest anti-smoking laws in the nation, approved by voters last month, making Ohio the first state in the Midwest to go smoke-free and the first tobacco-producing state to enact such a ban.
  • Oh that zany “Diet Detective” Charles Stuart Platkin is at it again. This time the king of calorie-counting is going to help you overcome those pesky “Diet Villains.” Just take his diet quiz and all will be revealed, your troubles will melt away—insert tongue in cheek. From The Seattle Times:
Mostly G's: The health nut. You shop only in health-food stores, buy organic, follow a vegetarian diet, take loads of vitamins and preach about the virtues of eating "healthy." Nevertheless, you're overweight.


The fix: Don't confuse the concept of eating foods that have health benefits with eating to lose weight. Even if foods are healthy, calories still count.
Beta carotene, an antioxidant found in such foods as squash and carrots, was -- and still is, in some circles -- considered a powerful cancer fighter and a combatant against free-radical damage. While the evidence regarding the latter still, at least ostensibly, holds true, some new research suggests that beta-carotene is completely ineffective as a cancer fighter (of course, it can be argued that by helping to fight against free-radical damage, beta carotene is also battling against the increased risk of developing cancer).
According to a study led by Dr. Evelyn Cohen Reis, of Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, parents of youngsters who are obese and have high blood pressure or elevated triglycerides are likely to have the same issues.


"What we took from that was, 'Gosh, you could look at the children's health and help predict whether the parents are at increased risk of heart disease,' " Dr. Reis said.
  • Are you a cell phone addict? Do you know one? Personally, I’m not into cell phones—the obsession with texting and ring tones is a mystery to me. But hey! At least we now know that they don’t cause cancer. A new study involving 420,000 Danish cell phone users determined cellular phones don’t trigger cancer. More from the Associated Press:
Cell phones beam radiofrequency energy that can penetrate the brain’s outer edge, raising questions about cancers of the head and neck, brain tumors or leukemia. Most research has found no risk, but a few studies have raised questions. And while U.S. health officials insist the evidence shows no real reason for concern, they don’t give the phones a definitive clean bill of health, either, pending long-term data on slow-growing cancers.
Tags: , , , , ,

Asthma: The Bronx Bomber

Posted on December 1, 2006 by Gerald Pugliese
I’ve never known that many asthmatics, so my familiarity with the condition is minimal. But until I read Disease-Proof Your Child I didn’t realize that asthma is another condition that can be treated with superior nutrition. Like many Americans I thought it was just one of those things you’re born with and can’t really do much about. Not so according to Dr. Fuhrman:
Allergies and asthma are often a reaction to inhaling substances such as pollen, house dust, and cat hair, or the hyperactivity of the airways may be triggered by infections, chemical irritants, exercise, and even emotions. In virtually every case, there is an underlying abnormality—an excessive irritability of the airways that leads to inflammation and narrowing of the airways.


It is always prudent to avoid and remove things that are known to trigger a reaction in a sensitive child, but what is most important, but rarely even considered, is why an individual is so hypersensitive or allergic to begin with. Learning why a person has allergies or asthma makes it possible to take steps to improve and reverse this common chronic condition.
So, why do I bring this up? Well a couple days ago The New York Daily News ran a rather startling article. Apparently the Bronx is a hotbed of childhood asthma attacks, despite the overall decline in the number of kids being hospitalized for asthma citywide. Lisa L. Colangelo has more:
The overall hospitalization rate for the city decreased last year from 6.5 per 1,000 children to 5.4 per 1,000, according to a recent Health Department study. But the Bronx rate was 8.9 per 1,000, and the numbers in three Bronx neighborhoods were higher still…


…Similar high numbers were found in low-income neighborhoods around the city.
Now, I’m no detective, but maybe these low-income neighborhoods have something to do with it. This excerpt from Disease-Proof Your Child might leave you feeling the same way:
The occurrence of asthma and allergies is also related to lifestyle factors and dietary patterns. Genetics play a role, but not the major role. Children’s growing bodies and dividing cells make them more susceptible to damage, but there is an up side, too. Their growing bodies are also more malleable and can make dramatic recoveries from serious diseases such as asthma easier than an adult’s can, when a program of superior nutrition is adopted.


Certainly, living in an urban area around pollution is an important contributor. Non-dietary risk factors include exposure to day care before four months of age, and exposure to wood smoke, oil smoke, or exhaust anytime from birth to age five all increase asthma risk by 50 percent.1 But nutritional influences are also powerfully linked and appear again and again in multiple scientific studies. One important risk for the development of allergies and asthma is lack of breast-feeding and high dietary ration of omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3 fatty acids.2 Animal products (except for fish) are deficient in omega-3 fatty acids, while flax seeds and walnuts are rich plant sources of omega-3 fats. This same inadequate dietary fatty acid pattern in mother’s diet during pregnancy has also been shown in scientific trial to beget a higher number of allergic and asthmatic children.3
This report reminded me of January's New York Times investigation of diabetes in Manhattan . Check it out and let me know if you see some similarities too.
Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , , , ,