essentia nutrition

Herbal Tea Recipes To Relieve A Cold

2012-01-15T17:26:00.001Z

Some of nature's best natural remedies to keep the winter bugs at bay
are herbal teas that are made from common herbs that you may use in
cooking every day. Sage, thyme, oregano, and rosemary are herbs that
have all been used traditionally by herbalists in herbal tea recipes to
treat the symptoms of colds & flu.

These herbs contain strong essential oils that can potentially fight
against colds and flu. They are powerful antioxidants as well. So
instead of rushing out to buy expensive over the counter cold remedies
look in your garden or kitchen cupboard for the herbal cold cures.

Here are some herbal tea recipes:

Sage

Sage, whose Latin name salvia means to heal, was considered to be one of
four sacred plants by Native Americans . For irritations or inflammation
of the throat try gargling with a mixture of sage and apple cider
vinegar sweetened, if you must, with a little good quality honey or sip
a soothing hot infusion.

Recipe for a herbal tea infusion:

Pour a pint of boiling water onto 1oz of dried sage leaves or 1 tbsp of
fresh and leave for 5 - 10 minutes. Drink a small glassful of the
strained tea throughout the day. Sage can help to restore appetite as well.

Thyme

There are many varieties of thyme but common garden thyme will be
effective for helping you fight off sore throats and colds. Try it when
you have a cough or to clear mucus from your chest. It was once used on
bandages to prevent infection and is even reputed to be a hangover cure
and can lift your spirits.

Thymol the active ingredient in thyme is one of the strongest
antiseptics known. It has also been used to treat fungal problems such
as athletes' foot and is reputed to be a hangover cure.

Thyme herbal tea recipe:

Use 1 tsp of dried leaves or a couple of sprigs of fresh leaves for each
cup of boiling water. The time you leave it to infuse is a matter of
personal taste and can be from 5 - 15 minutes. Strain and slowly sip 3
cups a day inhaling the vapors until your symptoms improve. You can also
crush some fresh leaves gently in your hands and inhale the vapors.

Oregano

Oregano also known as pot marjoram has a high thymol content too. It is
one of Nature's most powerful natural health remedies against bacteria,
viruses, yeast and fungi and has been used as a natural herbal remedy
since ancient times. It can be used to treat sore throat, coughs and
colds as as well as loosening phlegm in the bronchial tubes.

Oregano is used extensively in cooking throughout the Mediterranean
especially as an ingredient of pizza and combines well with thyme and
rosemary.

Oregano herbal tea recipe:

Infuse 1 tsp dried oregano or 3 tbsp fresh leaves in 8 oz boiling water
for 10 minutes, strain and sweeten with a little good quality honey if
wanted.

Rosemary

Rosemary or Rosmarinus officinalis is related to the mint family of
plants and is one of the oldest Mediterranean aromatic shrubs in
cultivation. With it's attractive leaves and pretty blue flowers it is a
favorite for kitchen gardens.

Rosemary tea can help bring relief for colds, catarrh, wheezing and
bronchitis clearing phlegm from the chest. good as a gargle for a sore
throat. Infuse sage with rosemary and use as a gargle for a sore throat.

Rosemary herbal tea recipe:

Use 2 tsp of dried rosemary to a cup of boiling water. The addition of
fresh ginger root and lemon peel makes this a delicious healthy herbal
drink.

Here is the recipe:

1 small bunch of rosemary, leaves gently bruised with a spoon.
1 inch thumb of ginger, sliced into rounds
The peel of two unwaxed or organic lemons
6-8 cups of boiling water

Place the rosemary, ginger and lemon peel in a large teapot. Add the
boiling water and leave to infuse for approximately five minutes. Strain
and sip slowly. You can add a little good quality honey or stevia if you
need to sweeten.

While modern medicine is still searching for a cure for a cold the
history of healing herbs goes back thousands of years. Give these herbal
tea recipes a try next time you are trying to shake off the winter bugs.

Posted Dec 20 2008 6:50pm on
http://www.wellsphere.com/complementary-alternative-medicine-article/herbal-tea-recipes-to-cure-a-cold/537003

Preliminary Study Shows Fish Oil Favourably Affects Prostate Cancer Cells

2012-01-03T12:12:00.001Z

From Nutri Newsletter, Jan 3 2011

A new study, published in Cancer Prevention Research has found that a low fat diet supplemented with fish oil may help to slow the growth of prostate cancer cells compared to a traditional high-fat Western diet.

In the study, 48 men undergoing prostatectomy were randomly assigned to receive either a low fat diet with 5g fish oil daily – a dietary omega 6: omega 3 ratio of 2:1, or a control Western diet, with an omega 6: omega 3 ratio of 15:1, for 4 – 6 weeks prior to the operation.

The researchers found that:

Although serum markers of prostate cancer were unaltered, the fish oil supplementation reduced benign and malignant prostate tissue omega 6: omega 3 ratios and was shown to reduce and slow cell growth proliferation in vivo.
Results also showed that blood from patients receiving fish oil slowed the growth of prostate cancer cells in vivo when compared to blood from men assigned to the Western diet, which did not slow cancer growth.

Study author, Dr William Aronson commented, “The finding that the low-fat, fish oil diet reduced the number of rapidly dividing cells in the prostate cancer tissue is important because the rate at which the cells are dividing can be predictive of future cancer progression.”

“The lower the rate of proliferation, the lesser the chances that the cancer will spread outside the prostate, where it is much harder to treat.”

He added, “You truly are what you eat, we are extremely pleased about our findings, which suggest that by altering the diet, we may favourably affect the biology of prostate cancer.”

The researchers added that because of the short duration and small sample size of the study, further research was needed before dietary changes could be fully recommended. A larger study following 100 men over the course of a year is now planned.

by Rachel Bartholomew Dip ION MBANT

References:

Cancer Prevention Research
Published online ahead of print, doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0298
Aronson, W.J. Kobayashi, N. et al. Phase II Prospective Randomised Trial of a Low-Fat Diet with Fish Oil Supplementation in Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

Prevent a Heart Attack: Know Your Triglyceride/HDL Ratio

2012-01-03T11:20:00.001Z

The published evidence is quite clear in documenting that the actual total cholesterol level itself is not the most important risk factor of cardiovascular disease.

It is the ratio between the level of HDL-"good" cholesterol and total cholesterol that we need to be concerned about.

Therefore, in adults, the HDL-"good" cholesterol/total cholesterol ratio should be higher than 0.24 (just divide your HDL level by your cholesterol).

Or more precisely, the HDL/total cholesterol ratio:

0.24 or higher is considered ideal
under 0.24 - low
less than 0.10 - very dangerous.

Generally speaking, the higher the ratio, the better (the lower your risk of a heart attack).

However, HDL is closely related to triglycerides.

It appears common for people with high triglycerides to have low HDL's, and these same people also tend to have high levels of clotting factors in their blood stream, which is unhealthy in protecting against heart disease.

Therefore, in adults, the triglyceride/HDL-"good" cholesterol ratio should be below 2 (just divide your triglycerides level by your HDL).

Or more precisely, the triglyceride/HDL ratio:

2 or less is considered ideal
4 - high
6 - much too high

And, since HDL (high density lipoprotein) is protective against heart disease, the lower the ratio, the better. In other words, the lower your triglycerides, or the higher your HDL, the smaller this ratio becomes.

It is now believed that the triglycerides/HDL ratio is one of the most potent predictors of heart disease.

A Harvard-lead study author reported:

"High triglycerides alone increased the risk of heart attack nearly three-fold.

And people with the highest ratio of triglycerides to HDL -- the "good" cholesterol -- had 16 times the risk of heart attack as those with the lowest ratio of triglycerides to HDL in the study of 340 heart attack patients and 340 of their healthy, same age counterparts.

The ratio of triglycerides to HDL was the strongest predictor of a heart attack, even more accurate than the LDL/HDL ratio (Circulation 1997;96:2520-2525)."

Taken from http://www.functionalmedicineuniversity.com/public/796.cfm on Jan 3 2011.

Is now the time to target sweet foodstuffs in your diet?

2011-12-30T15:43:00.001Z

From Dr John Briffa
Posted on 30 December 2011

For some time now evidence has linked the consumption of sugar and adverse health effects including raised blood pressure, increased inflammation, weight gain, and unhealthy changes in blood fats. The three most plentiful sugars in the diet are fructose, glucose and sucrose. A molecule of sucrose – table sugar – contains one molecule each of glucose and fructose. Another common sweetening agent is ‘high fructose corn syrup’, which contains roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose, but free floating (as opposed to joined together as in sucrose).

For many years, fructose was touted as a relatively healthy sugar, mainly on account of the fact that it did not raise blood sugar levels directly. It was therefore promoted by some as safe for diabetics. The fact that a lot of sugar found in fruit is fruct se helped give it a health image too. However, a growing amount of research points to the fact that , overall, fructose is actually more toxic to the body than glucose. See here for an example of some relevant research.

The sugar industry is a huge industry, and massive sums of money stand to be won and lost on the public’s perceived beliefs about the health effects of sugar. Not surprisingly, the sugar industry has been concerned with the negative press sugar has been getting, and trade organisations representing manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup seem to have been particularly active. See here for a piece about how the industry is attempting to rebrand high fructose corn syrup with a name the omits the word ‘fructose’.

The heat the fructose has (I think) rightfully attracted has, in some sense, detracted from the potential hazardous effects of sucrose which is still commonly used as a sweetening agent. Half of sucrose is fructose, remember, and the other half – glucose – still has the capacity to damage the body. If nothing else, glucose causes the secretion of the hormone insulin, which can ultimately drive fat accumulation in the body as well as changes that predispose to type 2 diabetes, heart disease and possibly cancer too.

I was therefore interested in a study published earlier this week which tested the effects of the following beverages on a variety of parameters:

sucrose-sweetened cola
aspartame-sweetened cola
semi-skimmed milk
water

Each was consumed by overweight and obese men and women at a ‘dose’ of 1 litre a day for six months. The sucrose sweetened cola provided 430 calories a day (about 30 teaspoons of sugar), while the milk provided 454 calories a day.

At the end of the study, those individuals drinking the sucrose-sweetened cola saw the following changes compared to their baseline values that were not seen in the other groups:

A significant rise in levels of ‘visceral’ fat (fat in and around the abdominal organs that is particularly strongly linked with conditions such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease).
A significant rise is deposition of fat in the liver (‘fatty liver’ is often seen as part of ‘metabolic syndrome’ and can progress to irreversible liver damage in the long term).
A significant rise is deposition of fat in the muscle.
A significant rise in unhealthy blood fats known as ‘triglycerides’.
A significant rise in total cholesterol levels.

A range of other parameters did not change significantly between the groups including body weight, fat mass and fasting insulin levels. However, the study was somewhat hampered by its small size (9-12 individuals in each group) which means that, generally speaking, large differences would need to be observed between groups for those differences to be deemed ‘statistically significant’.

Whatever the relative attributes of glucose, fructose, high fructose corn syrup and sucrose are, I suggest that doing our best to avoid all these things as much as possible is the best way forward. While all of us will likely have some tolerance of these substances without ill-effect, as a general rule, the less we consume of these things, the better, I reckon.

Also, one of the problems with foods rich in sugar (whatever the form) is that they tend to be sweet. For many of us, eating and drinking intensely sweet foods drives a desire for more of the same. I wrote a little about this recently here. For some of us, leaving sweet foods alone makes it easier to leave sweet foods alone, if that makes sense.

I’ve been out of the country for a week and it’s not been easy controlling my diet. I haven’t gone mad, but I’ve eaten a fair quantity of food I wouldn’t ordinarily eat (like a meat-filled roll on a long road and train journey yesterday). However, one thing I have been mindful of is keeping my sweet foodstuff intake to a minimum, lest it triggers some uncontrolled eating.

I have eschewed all the cakes, croissants and other sweet fare available in huge amounts at breakfast, instead opting for cold meats, cheese, full fat yoghurt and nuts. When two days ago I ate a lovingly made tiramisu-like dessert, I found it almost impossible to resist a second portion. This experience reminded me of need for some of us just to keep away from intensely sweet and ‘rewarding’ foods.

If, at this current time, you think your diet could do with some tidying up, you might think now or in the New Year by starting by targeting sweet foods. For many people, this can be a useful and potent first step in progressing to a far healthier ‘primal’ diet lower not just in sugar, but starchy carbohydrate too.

References:

1. Maersk M, et al. Sucrose-sweetened beverages increase fat storage in the liver, muscle, and visceral fat depot: a 6-mo randomized intervention study. Am J Clin Nutr 28 December 2011 [epub ahead of print]

Is your child’s absence from school due to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome?

2011-12-19T10:50:00.001Z

An interesting revelation from the BMJ this week was that children with the greatest absence from school may benefit from screening for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).

Researchers from the University of Bristol set out to discover whether it would be worth setting up clinics within schools to help identify CFS by looking at the absence records of nearly 3000 school children and they turned out some interesting results.

Absence of 1 day a week or more could indicate CFS

All of the children with unexplained absences of greater than 20% (equivalent to 1 day per week or more) were screened and it was found that 6.1% were identified as having CFS (1% of the total school population). This is widely believed to be a conservative figure but has set alarm bells ringing nonetheless. The real beauty of this research is what this early detection system means for the outcome of these children.

Unexplained absence may be a good early detection system

Of the children with unexplained absence those diagnosed through school surveillance had a lesser degree of symptoms, pain and fatigue than those who had sought medical assistance outside of the researchers school clinic. Furthermore, some children who were diagnosed through school surveillance improved within 6 weeks and some in 6 months once they had received diagnosis. This equated to more than half the children with unexplained absence were back at school full time within 6 months.

Reduced school attendance is associated with worse educational attainment and may increase the risk of unemployment so it is in the interest of the long-term future of the child as well as the short-term improvements in their health to implement systems that can return unwell children to full time education.

by Sarah Gill BSc (Hons)

Reference: BMJ Open 2011;1:e000252 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000252

Over 40% of cancers attributable to just 14 lifestyle factors

2011-12-12T14:01:00.000Z

The British Journal of Cancer has published a report which evaluates the percentage of cancers in the UK that were the result of exposure to 14 common, and for the most part, modifiable lifestyle, dietary and environmental factors. Researchers calculated that some 43% of all new cases of cancer in the UK (approximately 134,000 new cases in 2010) and about 50% of all cancer deaths could be attributed to these lifestyle factors. This is something that many nutritionists and health care practitioners have of course been talking about for quite some time but this report makes for interesting reading as well as providing further scientific validation to this matter.

Risky lifestyle habits to try and avoid

For men and women the top risky behaviours also had a few surprises in the data. Although tobacco smoking was by far the most important risk factor for cancer in the UK, the relative importance of other exposures differs by sex. For example, in men they found that deficient intake of fruit and vegetables, occupational exposures and alcohol consumption are next in importance, whereas in women, it is overweight and obesity, followed by infectious agents (including HPV virus).

The next step

Quantifying the impact of preventative interventions requires complex and detailed further analysis and must allow for how realistic it is that the population achieve these changes. Obviously, it is difficult to expect the population to live perfect healthy lives but certainly this gives important data to suggest a shift in habits may help to prevent certain cancers.

Top 14 Lifestyle and Environmental Factors

1.   Tobacco use
2.   Alcohol consumption
3.   Fruit and vegetables intake/deficiency
4.   Red meat consumption
5.   Fibre intake/deficiency
6.   Salt intake
7.   Overweight and Obesity
8.   Physical exercise
9.   Exogenous hormone use (HRT)
10.   Infections (including H.Pylori and HPV virus)
11.   Radiation exposure
12.   Sun/sunbed exposure
13.   Occupational exposure
14.   Reproduction: not breastfeeding

To see a full copy of the open access supplement you can visit:

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/groups/cr_common/@nre/@new/@pre/documents/generalcontent/cr_080626.pdf

Or for an overview of the results you can visit:

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/causes/comparing-causes-of-cancer/results/

Reference:
British Journal of Cancer (2011) 105, S2-S5

Nutri News, No.283, 12 Dec 2012

--

Omega-3 for bipolar disorder

2011-12-05T10:01:00.000Z

Reviewed by Benjamin Brown N.D.

Studies of omega-3 for bipolar disorder have produced mixed results. A new analysis of the collective evidence has found that overall there is strong evidence of a beneficial effect.

After pooling data from 5 independent studies with a total number of some 291 participants it was revealed that omega-3 supplementation as a complement to treatment significantly reduces depressive symptoms. However, while some trials have suggested benefit of omega-3 in mania the pooled data suggested no effect.

“The meta-analytic findings provide strong evidence that bipolar depressive symptoms may be improved by adjunctive use of omega-3” concluded the authors.

Comment:

Some, but not all studies of omega-3 for bipolar have shown benefit, however as this report suggest, the totality of data to date suggests omega-3 may be a useful addition to treatment. Dosages and treatment durations across studies vary considerably, but it has been suggested that a minimum of 1000 mg equivalent of EPA per day would be beneficial.

References:

Sarris J, Mischoulon D, Schweitzer I. Omega-3 for bipolar disorder: meta-analyses of use in mania and bipolar depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011 Aug 9. [Epub ahead of print]

Probiotics for the common cold

2011-11-28T11:25:00.000Z

Looking for a way to stave off colds this winter? An analysis of 10 studies involving 3451 participants has found that probiotics may be a good way to reduce your risk of upper respiratory tract infections.

A systematic review conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration set out to ascertain the evidence for probiotics as a means of preventing upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). URTIs are typically caused by viral infections (e.g. the common cold) and treatment is usually palliative (e.g. pain killers, hydration) or initiated when symptoms become chronic (antibiotics), but not preventative.

Fourteen relevant studies were identified and 10 were included in the final analysis which found that probiotic therapy may reduce the development of acute infections and decrease the need for antibiotic use. Probiotics were also considered safe with side effects limited to minor gastrointestinal symptoms.

Comment: Interestingly this analysis pooled data from trials of several different probiotic strains. Although individual strains have unique biological effects it may be that on the whole regular probiotic consumption could be generalised as having a beneficial effect on immunity against infection.

Reviewed by Benjamin Brown N.D.

References:

Hao Q, Lu Z, Dong BR, Huang CQ, Wu T. Probiotics for preventing acute upper
respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Sep 7;9:CD006895.

Nutri Newsletter
28 Nov 2011

Report of doctor who failed to get the flu vaccine doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story

2011-11-11T19:42:00.000Z

By Dr John Briffa

Posted on 8 November 2011

I saw this story yesterday on the BBC's website. It concerns a consultant chest physician, Dr Peter Hockey, who gives himself a slap on the wrist for not getting a flu jab. He ended up being hospitalised and couldn't work for five months. He's kicking himself for contracting a condition which he describes in the piece as "completely preventable". His chagrin also relates to the fact that he infected a pregnant colleague of his – Dr Rachel Anderson – who thankfully went on to have a healthy baby. She is quoted as saying: "I was really lucky. When I found out I had swine flu I was given Tamiflu [an antiviral flu drug] straight away."

On the face of it the message shouted loudly from this piece is this that we should all get our flu jabs and thank heavens for Tamiflu. One slight oddity about this article is that we are told that Dr Anderson was infected with swine flu, but there's no mention of Dr Hockey ever having swine flu himself. Of course this may be down to reporting error.

More importantly though, let's see what research, rather than rhetoric, tells us about the wonders of flu vaccination and Tamiflu (oseltamivir).

Well, if you were reading this site a couple of weeks back you'll know already that flu vaccination doesn't work as well as some would have us believe. http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/10/27/roll-up-for-the-flu-vaccine-i-think-not/

If when Dr Hockey refers to flu as 'completely preventable' he's suggesting that the vaccination provides 100 per cent immunity then he's very wide of the mark here. I know we doctors sometimes like to give the impression (and perhaps believe) that immunisation gives blanket protection, but it doesn't.

And what of the Tamiflu Dr Anderson was 'lucky' to receive in such a timely manner? The effectiveness of this drug was reviewed in the British Medical Journal in 2009 [1]. One of findings of this study is that Tamiflu reduces the duration of flu symptoms by about a day. The authors describe this as a 'modest benefit'.

Another outcome assessed by this review related to the complications of flu including chest infection. The best data available to the authors showed "… no benefit for oseltamivir against complications." In other words, there really is not good evidence that Tamiflu reduces the risk of complications.

The authors did concede, too, that data on the potential toxicity of Tamiflu was inadequate, commenting that the available evidence: "… could not answer concerns about the toxicity of neuraminidase inhibitors, especially oseltamivir. Governments should set up studies to monitor the safety of neuraminidase inhibitors."

Let's strip away the rhetoric from the piece I link to above and make an assessment based on actual research.

One doctor tells us that flu is completely preventable but it isn't as far as vaccination is concerned (far from it). The other tells us how lucky she was to get Tamiflu though this drug has modest benefit, does not prevent complications of flu and has unknown toxicity. These facts, of course, have been completely lost in a piece which trumpets the supposed benefits of flu vaccination and Tamiflu but only tells us one side of the story.

References:

1. Jefferson T, et al. Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2009;339:b5106

Statins appear to harm about as many people as they hel

2011-11-11T19:40:00.000Z

By Dr John Briffa
Posted on 8 November 2011

When I was at medical school I remember being lectured on the wonders of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). I was distinctly taught, and without reservation, that women taking HRT had a lower risk of heart disease compared to women ‘going without’. This ‘fact’ turned out to be complete rubbish. Subsequent evidence revealed that HRT actually has the capacity to increase risk of heart disease.

How could we have got it so wrong?

The initial ‘evidence’ on HRT was epidemiological in nature, which meant that it looked at the relationship between HRT/non-HRT use in a population and risk of cardiovascular disease. One fundamental potential problem with these studies relates to what is known as the ‘healthy user’ effect. In short, what this means is that healthier individuals are more likely to be prescribed a drug than sicker people who may already be on multiple medications and prone to side-effects and interactions. So, any ‘benefit’ seen to be associated with a drug may have nothing to do with the drug, and everything to do with the fact that people taking it are inherently healthier.

To untangle all of this, what we need is randomised controlled trials. These trials give essentially equivalent groups the treatment or placebo to assess any potential benefits or harms of the treatment. It’s when these studies were done that we realised that HRT actually increased the risk of heart disease.

The healthy-user effect, though, has not gone away, and is still alive and well in medical research. Here’s another apparent example that concerns cholesterol-reducing drugs known as statins…

In the past, statins have said to help prevent pneumonia (infection in the lung) on the basis of epidemiological studies. However, it is generally the case that frail, elderly individuals, with perhaps complicated health histories are less likely to be prescribed or take statins than healthier individuals. Because of this, when we see lower incidence of infection in those taking statins, we have no idea if it’s the statins, or the fact that these people are generally healthier, or both, that accounts for the reduced infection risk.

One way to get clarity here is to attempt to take into account health status of individuals when performing this sort of analysis. That’s exactly what a team of doctors based in the US did when analysing the relationship between statin use and risk of pneumonia in a study published in 2009 [1]. This more careful analysis revealed that statin use was actually associated with a 26 per cent increased risk of pneumonia. For pneumonia severe enough to require hospitalisation, statin use was associated with a 61 per cent increased risk.

Now, we should not forget that these studies are epidemiological in nature, and cannot be used to prove that statins cause enhanced susceptibility to pneumonia. However, the evidence as it stands is incriminating nonetheless. Further suspicion is raised in the form of evidence which shows that statins have the ability to directly impair the immune system and its ability to resist bacteria [2].

The most comprehensive account of statin side-effects I can find was published last year in the British Medical Journal [3]. Known side-effects of statins include muscle weakness and/or pain (myopathy), liver damage , kidney failure and cataracts. Here, in summary, are the findings of this review:

For every 10,000 women at high risk of CVD [cardiovascular disease] treated with statins, we would expect approximately 271 fewer cases of cardiovascular disease, 8 fewer cases of oesophageal cancer, 23 extra patients with kidney failure, 307 extra patients with cataracts; 74 extra patients with liver dysfunction; and 39 extra patients with myopathy.

For every 10,000 men at high risk of CVD treated with statins, we would expect approximately 301 fewer cases of cardiovascular disease, 9 fewer cases of oesophageal cancer, 29 extra patients with kidney failure, 191 extra patients with cataracts; 71 extra patients with liver dysfunction; and 110 extra patients with myopathy.

This study focused specifically on data relating to individuals deemed to be at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Many individuals who take statins are actually not at high risk of cardiovascular disease. For these, benefits are likely to be significantly lower than those elucidated in this study (while risks are likely to be about the same).

But look at those figures for a moment. Two things jump out to me:

Of 10,000 high-risk individuals, only about 300 will benefit – that’s 3 per cent. That means, of course, 97 per cent will not benefit. The number of people who benefit is roughly matched by those who will get a serious adverse effect. Hands up who wants to take a statin now?

References:

1. Dublin S, et al. Statin use and risk of community acquired pneumonia in older people: population based case-control study. BMJ 2009;338:b2137

2. Benati D, et al. Opposite effects of simvastatin on the bactericidal and inflammatory response of macrophages to opsonized S. aureus. J Leukoc Biol. 2010;87(3):433-42

3. Hippisley-Cox J, et al. Unintended effects of statins in men and women in England and Wales: population based cohort study using the QResearch database BMJ 2010;340:c2197

--  Norma Bridge, Dip ION FdSc   Essentia Nutrition +44 (0) 7791 890 541 www.essentianutrition.co.uk  I am a member of the NHS Directory of Complementary and Alternative Practitioners Member of the British Association for Applied Nutrition & Nutritional Therapy Complementary & Natural Healthcare Council Registered Practitioner

More research backs omega 3 joint benefits

2011-11-07T10:38:00.000Z

by Rachel Bartholomew Dip ION MBANT

A new study published in the journal Osteoarthritis & Cartilage has shown that an omega-3 rich diet from fish or flax oil, could substantially and significantly reduce symptoms of osteoarthritis.

The study authors have commented that the findings are a major step forward in terms of evidence to back the benefits of omega 3 fatty acids for joint health, not only for helping to slow the progression of arthritis but even for preventing it from occurring in the first instance.

The Bristol based researchers were led by Dr John Tarlton, they commented:

“This study demonstrates clear benefits of omega 3 supplementation in reducing the signs of osteoarthritis in a naturally occurring model of disease.”

“Furthermore there was no sign that increased omega 3 would lead to disease in the osteoarthritis free strain”

The researchers noted that classic early signs of osteoarthritis, such as cartilage breakdown, and the loss of molecules that give it shock-absorbing properties, were both reduced with an omega-3 rich diet.

“There was strong evidence that omega 3 influences the biochemistry of the disease, and therefore not only helps prevent disease, but also slows its progression, potentially controlling established osteoarthritis.”

The study was carried out on guinea pigs prone to develop osteoarthritis, compared to those that were resistant to developing the disease. They were either fed a standard or omega 3 rich diet from 10 to 30 weeks. The researchers concluded:

“The only way of being certain that the effects of omega 3 are as applicable to humans as demonstrated in guinea pigs is to apply omega 3 to humans. However, osteoarthritis in guinea pigs is perhaps the most appropriate model for spontaneous, naturally occurring osteoarthritis, and all of the evidence supports the use of omega 3 in human disease."

Source: Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

Volume 19, Issue 9, Pages 1150-1157, doi; 10.1016/j.joca.2011.06.005
Knott, Avery et al. Regulation of osteoarthritis by omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in a naturally occurring model of disease

Can Ginger help to prevent colon cancer?

2011-11-07T10:36:00.000Z

An exciting new study, published in the journal Cancer Prevention Research has found that ginger may help to reduce colon inflammation, and the associated risks of developing colorectal cancer.

In the study, the researchers found that people who took ginger supplements had a significant 28% decrease in inflammation of the colon, which is known to be an important precursor of colon cancer, compared to placebo.

Whilst the results of this early study are indeed promising and add further weight to the traditional uses of ginger as an effective anti-inflammatory agent, the researchers recommended caution as these findings are still seen as preliminary.

The researchers added that as people look for ways to prevent cancer “that are non-toxic and improve their quality of life in a cost-effective way” the interest in ginger and other supplements “is only going to increase.”

In the study, lead researcher Dr Susanna Zick and her team, recruited 30 volunteers to take either a daily supplement of 2g ground ginger root extract, or a placebo for 28 days.

The researchers measured eicosanoid (markers known to increase intestinal inflammation) levels both before and after the 28 day period. Results showed that levels of certain eicosanoids were significantly reduced in most markers and there was a “trend toward significant decreases” in others.

They concluded,
“It seems that ginger has the potential to decrease eicosanoid levels” and “seemed to be tolerable and safe”. They also added that the 2g of ginger root used in the supplement is beyond what would normally be consumed as part of a healthy diet, adding further weight to the benefits of supplementation.

by Rachel Bartholomew Dip ION MBANT

Source:

Cancer Prevention Research
Published online ahead of print: doi: 10.1158/1940-6207. CAPR-11-0224
Zick, Turgeon et al. Phase II Study of the effects of ginger root extract on eicosanoids in colon mucosa in people at normal risk for colorectal cancer.

Nutritional therapy for psoriasis

2011-10-31T13:42:00.000Z

Nutritional therapy for psoriasis

Psoriasis, a common, chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disease can be improved with nutritional interventions and a recent review explores the evidence.

A number of randomised controlled trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of various nutritional compounds including topical vitamin A and D derivatives, oral and intravenous ω-3 fatty acids, inositol and antioxidant combinations.

Studies of zinc and selenium alone have failed to yield positive results however a clinical trial investigating supplementation with combined selenium, coenzyme Q10, and vitamin E found treatment to be found effective. Supporting conventional ultraviolet B phototherapy with fish oil or a low-calorie diet was also found effective in randomized, controlled trials.

In addition a gluten free diet may resolve psoriasis in patients who have concomitant celiac disease. Alcohol use and metabolic syndrome may also play a role in psoriasis progression although studies are yet to demonstrate that abstinence from alcohol or addressing metabolic syndrome will result in improvement.

“Although many dermatologists often overlook the role of nutrition in the treatment of psoriasis, consideration of nutritional alternatives in select patients may help to enhance care” commented the authors of this literature review.

Reviewed by Benjamin Brown N.D

References:

Ricketts JR, Rothe MJ, Grant-Kels JM. Nutrition and psoriasis. Clin Dermatol. 2010 Nov-Dec;28(6):615-26.

‘Mediterranean Style Food Plan’ to support optimal health

2011-10-17T10:39:00.000+01:00

Dr Jeffrey Bland started the weekend with his keynote presentation on 'Clinical Breakthroughs in the Toxicity-Disease Connection'; a fascinating presentation delivered with Jeff's unique dynamic style. He ended with some clinical take-aways, which emphasised the importance of a 'Mediterranean Style Food Plan' (MS Food Plan) to support optimal health.

Dr Bland described the Mediterranean Style Food Plan as;
· Low Glycemic Load
· Organic, Whole, Unprocessed Foods
· Minimal Grains & Gluten
· Phytochemical Abundance & Diversity
· Anti-Inflammatory Foods and Fats
· Small Frequent Meals
· Relaxed Mindful Eating

Excerpt taken form Nutri, Newsletter, 17 October 2011

Alternate Day Dieting - How to Lose Weight Faster

2011-09-08T21:19:00.000+01:00

Alternate Day Dieting - How to Lose Weight Faster

Two months ago a small trial by Professor Roy Taylor from Newcastle University, published in the journal Diabetologia, showed reversal of type-2 diabetes by giving people a very low 600 calorie diet for eight weeks. While I am not generally a fan of crash diets (because they are relatively unsustainable and compliance is a major issue) I believe this is the effect of eating what is essentially a very low-GL diet. By cutting food intake so drastically the body not only burns fat, but also doesn’t need to produce so much insulin. These may be the two conditions that bring insulin producing cells back to life.

However, eating between 500 and 800 kcals can also switch genes away from diabetes and heart disease, and obviously cause rapid weight loss. What I find really interesting is that animal studies show you don’t have to do this every day, but every other day for one month, to change genetic expression (in the March 2011 newsletter I wrote about this breakthrough genetic research).

Once you’ve got the hang of low-GL eating you can push the boat out further by applying the principles of alternate day dieting for more rapid weight loss and health gain. While there is no really hard evidence that this works in humans yet, the results with animals are quite extraordinary.

Margaret G, a 60-year-old property developer, is a case in point “I’d been putting on a pound every year for 20 years and I finally decided they had to come off.” Problem was that Margaret had tried “every diet known to woman”. So when she heard about the ‘eat every other day diet’ she was immediately interested. “It was something new and the theory behind it was intriguing and plausible.”

She found the down days extraordinarily easy. “I was limiting myself to 500 to 800 calories – about as much as you’d get on a strict low calorie diet but it was easy as you knew you could have more tomorrow. But I never wanted to gorge the next day. It was like being offered jam tomorrow but when tomorrow came you didn’t actually want it. In fact I found myself seeking out more nutritious food for the down days to get the most benefit from the calories I was allowed and that carried over to the up days.”

The most immediate effect was that Margaret lost 10 pounds in two weeks. “What was really noticeable,” she says “was where it went from. I got my waist back. I can’t see any reason not to eat like this all the time. Unlike many diets it is really easy to fit in round the family and social occasions. You can’t do that with a raw food diet. I’m now doing a relaxed version, maybe two days on, one off. But if the pounds start creeping back I’ll just get a bit more strict.”

In order to trigger this change in genetic expression from alternate day dieting you need four weeks of eating every other day. After the first four weeks you can switch to two days eating normally, and one day off, eating no more than 500 to 800 calories. By eating normally I mean eating a low-GL, highly nutritious diet as shown above.

Since a total fast for a day is quite challenging for many the best way to follow a modified fast of 800 calories is to have one of the following options twice a day:

• A Get Up & Go shake – made with low-fat milk, soya or oat milk, a handful of berries and a 30g scoop of Get Up & Go. With milk and berries it’s under 300 kcals so you can have this twice a day and still be well under 800 kcals. You can even add a teaspoon of chia seeds and up the protein, fibre and omega 3 content. Add a heaped teaspoon of a super fibre such as glucomannan (from konjac fibre) or PGX and it will really fill you up.

Get Up & Go is a powder that you blend with fruit (ideally berries, plums, cherries, a peach or half an apple) and 350ml (12fl oz) skimmed milk (or sugar-free soya milk if you are allergic to dairy). It’s made from a special blend of quinoa, brown rice and soya flour, giving an excellent quality of protein. This is balanced with carbohydrate, mainly from whole apple powder, together with oat bran, rice bran and psyllium husks for added soluble fibre, plus sesame, sunflower and pumpkin seeds and some almond meal, cinnamon and natural vanilla for flavour. In addition, it has added vitamins and minerals, including 50mcg of chromium and 1,000mg of vitamin C, plus all the B vitamins.

This is my top recommendation because it also gives you a very good all-round intake of protein, low-GL carbs and vitamins and minerals and it fills you up the most, being high in soluble fibres – especially if you add more.

• A small bowl of porridge, made with water, plus seeds and berries. Again, this can be split into a morning and evening portion. To stay within 800 cals have no more than a dessert spoon of seeds.

• An egg for breakfast with two oatcakes and a small bowl of soup in the afternoon.

• Fruit (ideally berries, plums, cherries, a peach or half an apple) with a small amount of seeds or nuts throughout the day. The daily allowance for seeds is a tablespoon and of nuts is a small handful.

• A thin slice of lean meat or fish (such as smoked salmon), with a thin slice of Scandinavian style bread or two oat cakes. To stay within 800 calories you need no more than 100 grams of meat or fish and a maximum of 2 slices/4 oat cakes.

• When you are hungry or thirsty drink water. Keep yourself well hydrated.

• Do not do strenuous exercise on your ‘fast’ days although stretching and yoga like exercises are good.

A word of caution: Alternate Day Dieting is not for the faint hearted. If you do have diabetes or heart disease, or any other condition that might be adversely affected by big drops in blood sugar levels please check with your doctor first before embarking on this kind of approach.

Also, it is worth getting well established on low-GL diet principles first. When you are doing Alternate Day dieting, you don’t need to be so strict on the 40 GLs a day (or 45GLs with drinks), which is for maximum weight loss. Eat 60 GLs a day, which is for maintenance. The Low GL Diet books and recipes give you plenty of 60 GLs recipe options.

An important consideration, whether you do Alternate Day dieting or not, is not to get to the point where you are so hungry you go off the deep end and eat anything and everything since that defeats the purpose. It seems you need four weeks, one day on, one day off, to switch on the anti-ageing genes. This way of eating is also excellent for shifting unwanted weight.

However, once you have done this, and got your weight under control, a 20% difference in calorie intake may be enough to maintain the effect. This would be the equivalent of 45 GLs one day (following the diet really strictly) and then 65 GLs the next, eating at maintenance level. This is not so difficult to do. If you give it a go let me know how you get on.

A little exercise can go a long way

2011-08-19T13:15:00.000+01:00

A little exercise can go a long way

Posted on 17 August 2011 by Dr John Briffa

There’s a new study out, based on research from Taiwan, that shows that exercising for just 15 minutes a day (about 1.5 hours a week) is associated with a 14 per cent reduced risk of death over a the course of the study compared with being sedentary [1]. This study is wildly being reported as evidence that even low levels of activity (lower than generally recommended) can delay death. Much that I would like this to be so, from a scientific standpoint, this is a conclusion too far, I think.

The reason for this is that the study in question is what is known as ‘epidemiological’ in nature, which means it is assessing associations between things (in this case, exercise habits and risk of death over time). Associations, though, do not prove causality. We don’t know from these sort of studies if exercise is having a direct positive impact on health. It might, for example, be the other way round. Maybe individuals who are healthier are more inclined to exercise. Maybe being sedentary is a sign of sickness. Basically, we just don’t know. All we know is that even low levels of activity is associated with reduced risk of death.

That said, in my heart (more than my head) I believe that even relatively low levels of activity is indeed likely to benefit health and stave off death. I see activity and exercise as a pillar of health. Long-term studies which randomise people exercise or non-exercise groups and then follow them until death (to see if exercise actually reduces death risk) do not exist. However, we do have shorter-term studies that show improvements in terms of disease markers. These are changes we would expect to translate into reduce risk of disease (and perhaps death) in time.

Also, with exercise, I think there is a ‘law of diminishing returns’. Let’s say you exercise for an hour each day. How much more is to be gained from exercising for say, an hour and 15 minutes? The incremental benefit is likely to be small in comparison to the benefit had from exercising for an hour.

However, if we go from no activity (sedentary behaviour) to 15 minutes of daily exercise, the relative benefit is likely to be huge in comparison. This is one of the reasons I encourage normally sedentary individuals to do something.

In my last book – Waist Disposal – I included a brief, home-based exercise session made up of mix of resistance exercises (like press-ups, sit-ups and squats) and more aerobic exercise (running on the spot). The session is designed to be 12 minutes long. Compared to doing nothing, this brief session can do wonders for improving strength and physique, and I believe it likely impacts positively on health too. This sort of regime is unlikely to allow us to qualify for next year’s Olympics, but I believe it’s impact on health and wellbeing can be profound.

Tack this sort of regime on to recreational walking and perhaps some stretching, and I believe our exercise ‘needs’ will be largely met.

This new study from Taiwan tells us very little about the purported benefits of exercise, and I think its findings have been overstated. However, I utterly support its message: devoting even small amounts of time to activity and exercise is much, much better than doing nothing.

References:

1. Chi Pang Wen, et al. Minimum amount of physical activity for reduced mortality and extended life expectancy: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet, Early Online Publication, 16 August 2011

Alcohol disrupts sleep, and how to drink less (without trying)

2011-08-19T13:12:00.000+01:00

Alcohol disrupts sleep, and how to drink less (without trying)

Posted on 19 August 201 by Dr John Briffa

I was talking with someone yesterday who is generally fit and well, but has a bit of a ‘sleep issue’. He sometimes fails to get off to sleep easily. But even when he does, he tends to wake several times during the night, and can often have difficulty getting back to sleep again.

It’s sometimes not obvious why someone has problems sleeping. One quite-common factor is alcohol. If someone has sleep issues and usually drinks alcohol in the evening, drinking less or nothing invariably helps.

Of course it’s possible for someone to have sleep issues that have nothing to do with alcohol. Indeed, tee-totallers can have problems sleeping. However, if someone has sleep issues and drinks alcohol, drinking less almost always helps, in my experience.

When I got home last night I noticed a study which reminded me of the insomniac man I had met earlier in the day. In short, the study tested the effects of alcohol on sleep. In particular, the study subjects were assessed through sleep with a measure known as ‘heart rate variability’. This can give information about the activity of what is known as the ‘autonomic nervous system’.

This is the part of the nervous system which influences everything from breathing and heart rate to the stress response and sleep. The autonomic nervous system has two main parts: the ‘sympathetic’ and ‘parasympathetic’ nervous systems. In general terms, the sympathetic strand is activated when we are alert and stressed. The parasympathetic part, on the other hand, is more dominant when we are relaxed and at rest.

When we sleep, it’s important for the balance of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems to be weighted on the parasympathetic side – it is partly this that allows sleep to be deep and restful.

What this study found was that alcohol disrupts parasympathetic activity, and more alcohol generally meant more disruption. In other words, there is evidence here that alcohol can disrupt our ability to get deep, restorative sleep.

Here are three things I’ve found can help individuals drink less without sacrifice and deprivation (I wrote previously about these tactics here).

1. Do not start drinking when you’re thirsty
It stands to reason that the thirstier we are, the more we will tend to drink. I know it’s obvious, but the less thirsty we are, the less alcohol we will tend to drink. It makes sense, therefore, to ensure we’re properly hydrated prior to starting drinking. The aim should be to drink enough water to keep our urine pale yellow, and there should be no sense of thirst prior to starting drinking any alcohol.

2. Do not start drinking when you’re hungry
While the fact that thirst can stimulate drinking is quite obvious, what is less well recognised is that hunger can be a factor here. Alcohol can provide ready fuel for the body, and at least some people will find that hunger can stimulate the desire to drink. Some people will, for instance, crave alcohol if their blood sugar level drops below normal levels.

One common manifestation of this phenomenon is a tendency to drink a glass of wine, beer or short with mixer prior to food in the evening. Individuals coming home or entering a restaurant in a quite-hungry state will often reach for the alcohol before anything else. I’ve found in practice that when individuals manage their appetite better, they almost always drink less without thinking.

One simple tactic here is to eat something properly sating such as some nuts at the end of the afternoon or early evening.

3. Match each alcoholic drink with one of water
One tactic that generally works wonders to quell alcohol intake is to match each alcoholic drink (e.g. glass of wine) with a glass of water. This usually leads to less wine being drunk, and also ‘dilutes’ any negative effects the alcohol may have.

References:

1. Sagawa Y, et al. Alcohol Has a Dose-Related Effect on Parasympathetic Nerve Activity During Sleep. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. Epub 16 Aug 2011

My intermittent fasting experiment, Dr Briffa

2011-04-04T10:22:00.000+01:00

Posted March 28th, by Dr John Briffa

I’m a big believer that if individuals want to eat healthily easily, it makes sense not to let the appetite run out of control. Once we get ravenously hungry the desire to eat rubbish can be overwhelming. One of the strategies I have generally advocated to achieve good appetite control is to eat the right food. I favour relatively protein-rich, carb-controlled/primal eating here. This sort of diet does seem to have inherent ability to sate the appetite more effectively that carb-based fare. The other strategy I recommend is to eat this sort of diet regularly.

Historically, I have recommended that individuals generally eat three meals a day. Possibly, they may have a snack of something healthy and satisfying (e.g. nuts) between their lunch and dinner.

I’ve seen a lot of individuals (myself included) do very well on this sort of regime in terms of fat loss, improved vitality and improvements in blood chemistry. However, like anything, this dietary approach is no panacea, and does need some tailoring according to individual circumstances.

I do quite a lot of work in the corporate sector, and I’ve in recent months been meeting quite a few individuals who are highly productive and energised in the morning, but who don’t eat breakfast. I’m not a hardliner on the breakfast thing as long as someone doesn’t get too hungry before lunch. Many of these individuals don’t eat breakfast because, well, they really are not hungry in the morning, and seem to do just fine on little or nothing before lunch.

In their own way, individuals who eschew breakfast are engaging in a version of what is sometimes referred to as ‘intermittent fasting’. Basically, this means going without food for extended periods of time. There’s a myriad of ways this can be done, but here are some examples:

Consuming food in a contracted e.g. 8-hours period every day. For example, if eating starts at 10.00 am, it needs to be finished at 6.00 pm.
Going without food for a whole 24-hour period every so often (e.g. once a week).
Skipping dinner from time to time.
Skipping breakfast regularly or occasionally.

There is some thought that intermittent fasting (IF) ‘forces’ the body to dig into its fuel stores (including fat). IF can improve functioning of the hormone insulin. A quite-recent study did provide some support for this notion [1]. Improved ‘insulin sensitivity’ is a good thing, as it would likely mean lower insulin levels, and lower body fatness, in time. It would also possibly reduce the risk of chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease too.

My interest in IF was piqued recently through some interaction with someone who had lost a lot of weight (about 90 lbs/40 kg) and about 20 inches (that’s not a typo, twenty inches) off her waist following the advice in my last book Waist Disposal. However, she had plateaued at a weight above what she was comfortable with, and so we were looking to see what we could do to push things on a bit. We discussed IF, and she went for it. Her approach was to skip dinner 2-3 times a week. And it worked. Down through the plateau she went. And comfortably and happily too.

Around this time I listened to a podcast in which American low-carb advocate Jimmy Moore interviewed blogger Todd Becker. Todd expressed his scepticism for the need for breakfast, and talked about how extending the time between eating can lower insulin levels. You can listen to this podcast here. This was perhaps a ‘tipping point’ for me, in that I resolved to try this approach myself.

I actually started slowly. About a month ago I starting simply delaying breakfast until I felt quite hungry (but not so hungry that I was starving). Within a few days I found myself getting through to lunch with, really, no appreciable hunger at all. I’ve had abundant energy, and my brain seems to have functioned just as well as before – possibly better. No mood issues either (well, no more than normal!)

The week before last I had my parents around for brunch. I did a big fry-up. We sat down at 11.30 am and I can honestly say I really couldn’t face the food at all. That’s how unhungry I was. And yet I had not eaten for 16 hours.

What’s going on here? I don’t know for sure. But going back to insulin again, there’s a good chance levels of this hormone are lower than before. Insulin encourages fat storage. Put another way, lower insulin means for efficient release of fat, which can be used to fuel the body. The reason that I’m not hungry is possibly because the body is ‘feeding’ off my fat. That might also explain how I’ve lost about 5 lbs and an inch has gone from my waist.

One of things I like about nutrition is that there’s always something new to learn (and try). One thing flirting with IF has done is really get me in tune with eating when I’m genuinely hungry and not ‘by the clock’. I’m starting to realise that perhaps I was previously eating a lot of food because it was ‘time to eat’. Not sure where my IF experiment will take me, but sense it’s a strategy that is here to stay in one form or another.

References:

1. Harvie MN, et al. The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010 Oct 5. [Epub ahead of print]

Fwd: supp info

2011-03-03T12:21:00.000Z

-------- Original Message --------

From:	- Thu Mar 03 12:19:02 2011
X-Mozilla-Status:	0001
X-Mozilla-Status2:	00800000
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Message-ID:	<4D6F8734.1080808@bridgenet.ch>
Date:	Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:19:00 +0000
From:	norma knoop bridge <norma@bridgenet.ch>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110221 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Elite Health & Fitness <info@elitefit.co.uk>
Subject:	supp info
Content-Type:	multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020109060103000408010306"

Hello Mac,

Please find attached your supplement programme, the Bifido probiotic you can get from Nutri-Centre.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Kind regards,
Norma

Dysbiosis. Dr. David Dowson

2011-02-01T20:40:00.000Z

Article written by Dr. David Dowson

Dysbiosis is the disturbance of the normal bacteria in the gut, with reduced levels of the essential bacteria. The concept of dysbiosis is largely ignored by the medical profession in the UK, but is widely accepted on the continent, particularly in Germany. Veterinary practitioners also recognise the significance and importance of the bowel bacteria, and preparations containing these are commonly added to animal feeds. Much evidence exists to show that dysbiosis is the underlying cause of considerable numbers of illnesses, not just those associated with the intestine. These conditions may be caused by the result of the dysbiosis rather than being a direct effect.

The causes of dysbiosis
The most common cause of dysbiosis – and the reason why it is so common in the west – is the inappropriate use of antibiotics. Viral illnesses are commonly and immediately treated with antibiotics, but this is usually ineffective. Whilst this may be effective in dealing with an acute bacterial infection, these so-called wide-spectrum antibiotics kill off a large range of bacteria, including the normal healthy bugs in the gut. This is why disturbed bowel action, particularly diarrhoea, commonly follows a course of antibiotics. Ironically, the overuse of antibiotics increases the need for future antibiotics, as the dysbiosis induced by them suppresses the immune system.

Other medications enhance the development of dysbiosis. Hormones, particularly those taken to treat menopausal symptoms, appear to encourage dysbiosis and make it more difficult to treat. This only applies to hormones taken by mouth, and not those administered by an adhesive patch.

Stress, too, has a role in increasing the development of dysbiosis. This may not be a direct effect, but one which results from poor dietary intake and inappropriate eating habits. Convenience foods, together with rapid and infrequent meals, do not help normal bacteria to develop.

The symptoms of dysbiosis
The main symptom of Dysbiosis is disturbed bowel action – which may be either diarrhoea or constipation, or a combination of both – together with excessive wind and abdominal distension. Other symptoms that are a result of the dysbiosis may be present, and may be so severe that the underlying dysbiosis is ignored.

The treatment of dysbiosis – the role of the probiotics
Clearly, the treatment of dysbiosis involves the replacement of the correct bacteria into the gut, but this is not as easy as it appears. Many bacteria taken by mouth do not even reach the intestine, as they are killed by the stomach acid. In addition, as there are trillions of bacteria in the gut, a large dose – and over a prolonged period – is necessary. The type of bacteria is also important, and depends on factors such as dietary habits. In the majority of probiotic formulations the beneficial bacteria are in a dormant state and only become active on exposure to a moist environment.

Preparations that attempt to replace the bowel bacteria are collectively known as probiotics, as they encourage rather than discourage (as with antibiotics). To be successful, therefore, a probiotic must fulfil several criteria:

•It must contain sufficient numbers of bacteria to ensure that enough reach their destination (passing through the stomach without too great a loss)
•The bacteria must be of types applicable to the individual. If possible, they should also be strains that are specific to the human
•They should be presented in an acceptable and palatable form
•The low pH of the stomach can affect the viability of the probiotic strains, so the use of micro-encapsulated strains to enhance colonisation in the gut is an advantage. Also, taking probiotics with your main meal of the day, or just after, will have a buffering effect on the low pH of the stomach.

Clearly, a preparation which is suitable for all is an impossibility, as individuals vary in their needs according to their lifestyles and dietary habits.

Article written by Dr. David Dowson

The use of Probiotics for Oral Health

2011-02-01T20:33:00.000Z

by Janine Barlow BSc (Hons)

As we know, there is a lot of information now in the public domain on the use of probiotics to gain a beneficial effect within the digestive tract. In recent years, there has been a lot of interest in the use of probiotics in maintaining good oral health and treating oral infections. Few studies have been conducted to date, but those that have been completed show that there is another vital role for probiotics in the longevity and quality of life.

The oral cavity harbours a diverse array of bacterial species, with Kazor & team in 2003 reporting that there are more than 600 species that colonise the oral cavity. This includes a lot of organisms that are not commonly known to reside in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, but also many that are more familiar;Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus rhamnosusand Lactobacillus salivarius. The balance of all these microorganisms can easily be disturbed and a prevalence of pathogenic organisms can lead to various oral health problems including dental caries, periodontitis and halitosis.

Probiotics and Antibiotics - Should they be Given Together?

2011-02-01T20:28:00.000Z

by Aileen Green BSc (Hons) MPhil
Research, Development and Quality Director, Probiotics International Ltd

The use of probiotics in conjunction with antibiotics, will act
to reduce the effects of the dysbiosis caused by the
antibiotics, and maximise the benefits of the probiotic
directly in the gut on competitive exclusion and immune
stimulation. It is advisable however to stagger the
administration of the antibiotic and probiotic such that the
probiotic is administered at least three hours after the
antibiotic dose, where possible, otherwise the antibiotic may
reduce the efficacy of the probiotic microorganisms. It is
important to note that the reverse is not true: probiotics will
not cause a reduction in efficacy or effectiveness of the
antibiotic. The administration of the probiotic for at least one
week following the completion of the antibiotic course.

Omega-3 fatty acids in pregnancy: review and recommendations

2011-01-24T10:31:00.000Z

Reviewed by Benjamin Brown N.D

The majority of pregnant women do not consume enough omega-3 fatty acids which may have a negative effect on pregnancy outcomes. A recent review and recommendation in the Journal of midwifery & women's health sheds light on this issue.

Current scientific literature demonstrates that the omega-3 fatty acids docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) can increase gestation length, improve infant cognitive and visual performance and may reduce the incidence of preterm birth. However it is also clear that many pregnant women do not eat enough fish to meet omega-3 intakes and are often unaware of the health benefits and food sources of omega-3 fatty acids.

The review concluded with recommendations that “the evaluation of dietary intake and strategies to increase intake to 200 to 300 mg DHA plus EPA per day in pregnancy is an essential component of midwifery nutritional counselling. This is best accomplished with a food-based approach, with fish or algal oil supplementation as needed.”

In recommendations for clinical practice it is acknowledged that precise amounts of omega-3s for a healthy pregnancy are unknown and current recommendations may be underestimated. In addition the purity and quality of fish oil supplements is an important consideration.

“Prenatal care providers must recognize that pregnant women may be fearful of eating fish because of concerns about potential mercury and PCB ingestion” points out the author. “Carefully phrased counselling is required to provide a balanced and accurate view of the risks and benefits of fish consumption during pregnancy. Women should be counselled that the benefits of eating fish are greater than not eating fish within the guidelines of specific types and amounts of fish.”

Comment:

The UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition/ Committee on Toxicity recommends a minimum intake of 450 mg EPA and DHA daily for adults. It is likely required intakes during pregnancy are higher however based on this conservative estimate 2 meals of oily fish a week (an amount within proposed safe levels for environmental pollutant exposure) or one capsule of a high potency, purified fish oil supplement each day would meet basic EPA/ DHA needs.

Reviewed by Benjamin Brown N.D
Jordan RG. Prenatal omega-3 fatty acids: review and recommendations. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010 Nov-Dec;55(6):520-8.

--  Norma Bridge, Dip ION FdSc    Essentia Nutrition +44 (0) 7791 890 541 www.essentianutrition.co.uk  I am a member of the NHS Directory of Complementary and Alternative Practitioners Member of the British Association for Applied Nutrition & Nutritional Therapy Complementary & Natural Healthcare Council Registered Practitioner

Antiobiotic found to relieve IBS, and what might work better

2011-01-23T20:50:00.000Z

by Dr John Briffa, posted Jan 6, 2011

I see that a study has been published today in the New England Journal of Medicine [1] that concerns the condition irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). You can read a summary of the study here. This study tested the effect of an antibiotic (rifaximin) on individuals with IBS. Compared to placebo, two weeks of this antibiotic helped to reduce IBS symptoms, and this benefit was sustained for some weeks after the antibiotic was taken.

How might this work? Well, the antibiotic’s benefits here almost certainly had something to do with the fact that imbalance in the organisms within the gut is a potential underlying factor in IBS. I have seen in my time in practice many individuals with IBS symptoms and normal stool test results (from conventional testing) who turn out to have significant imbalance in the gut when more sophisticated stool analysis is performed. Not uncommonly we find one or more of the following:

1. a lack of healthy bacteria

2. the presence of potentially pathogenic (disease-causing) bacteria

3. the presence of potentially pathogenic (disease-causing) yeast organisms

4. the presence of potentially pathogenic (disease-causing) parasitic organisms

On occasion, I have used conventional drugs in an effort to kill off one or more offending organisms, and believe such an approach has at least some merit. However, I don’t believe that this approach should be the mainstay of treatment.

To begin with, such treatment may further erode the population of healthy gut bacteria. This, as I pointed out above, can already be quite depleted.

So, I think it makes sense to use probiotics (healthy gut bacteria supplements) in cases of IBS. And my experience with them has been generally very positive. And I would certainly advise using them after a course of antibiotics, even if the antibiotics have been taken to treat a condition that is outside the gut.

Another major, but often-overlooked, factor in IBS is food sensitivity. Here, foods have the seeming capacity to irritate the lining of the gut and provoke digestive symptoms. In theory, any food can do this, however I have to say that my experience in practice tells me the number one offender here is wheat. Other gluten containing foods including rye and barley should be viewed with some suspicion here too.

Not everyone has a problem with such foods. Even not everyone with IBS has a problem with such foods. However, I can say, hand on heart, that I have found the removal of these foods from the diet (and perhaps other grains too) is a generally hugely beneficial strategy in individuals with IBS.

Some find it hard to accept that supposedly healthy and wholesome foods such as wheat and other grains can be problematic to gut health. However, let us not forget that grains are a relatively recent addition to the diet and, from a theoretical standpoint at least, are foods we’re not likely to be best adapted to. Specifically, grains are rich in certain proteins (rich in the amino acid proline) that are thought to be hard to digest, and this can lead to gut irritation. Grains are also quite rich in substances called lectins which may not be digested in the gut, and end up triggering inflammation in and beyond the digestive tract.

References:

1. Pimentel M, et al. Rifaximin Therapy for Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome without Constipation. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:22-32

Researchers urge caution in prescribing statins to healthy people

2011-01-23T20:45:00.000Z

by Dr John Briffa, posted January 20th

My blog on Monday focused on a piece published in the American Journal of Public Health which detailed some of the tactics drug companies use to persuade doctors to prescribe their wares. The conclusion? The more aggressively a drug is marketed to doctors, the more suspicious of it we should be, basically. I ended the blog with the following remark: “Applying the inverse benefits law should, I think, cause us to be particularly wary of cholesterol reducing drugs. Let us not be too surprised, then, that the science shows statin drugs to be not-very-effective at saving lives, while at the same time putting those who take them at risk of sometimes severe adverse effects.”

What I didn’t know when I wrote this is that a review of statin treatment was about to be published by the researchers from the Cochrane Collaboration [1]. This international collective of researchers prides itself of conducting systematic, unbiased reviews of treatments. The point of this review, the researchers claimed, was to assess the risks and benefits of statin treatment in what is known as the ‘primary prevention’ setting.

Here’s some context on this from a previous blog post:

Statin therapy broadly divides into two main approaches:

Primary prevention – where statins are given to essentially healthy people with no known cardiovascular disease (i.e. there is no evidence of arterial disease and no history of a heart attack and/or stroke)

Secondary prevention – where statins are given to people with known arterial disease and/or a history of heart attack and/or stroke

This distinction is important because individuals in the secondary prevention category are at generally high risk of further problems, and stand to benefit most from statin therapy. On the other hand, individuals in the primary prevention category are at generally low risk of cardiovascular disease issues (such as heart attack and stroke), and may therefore not benefit much from a strategy or treatment intended to prevent cardiovascular disease. This primary prevention category is particularly important when one considers that the vast majority of people taking statins are in this category, and if the pharmaceutical industry and some of its hired hands in the scientific and medical community have their way, increasing numbers of people will be taking statins in the future.

In the recent Cochrane review, 14 trials were analysed. They reported, having amassed the evidence, that overall risk of death was reduced by 17 per cent, and overall risk of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events such as heart attacks and strokes were reduced by 30 per cent. On face value, these results look pretty good. However, the devil turns out to be in the detail.

To begin with, the researchers allowed studies in which up to 10 per cent of participants were in the secondary prevention category. What this basically means is that their assessment of the data was not really focused on the primary prevention setting. What’s required is an analysis of purely primary prevention data. The Cochrane researchers did not manage this, but other researchers have. A meta-analysis of data from individuals in the primary prevention category published just last year [2] (reported here), no reduction in overall risk of death was found with statin therapy.

The Cochrane authors do mention this study, but it’s somewhat buried in the discussion. It is not mentioned at all in the introduction of their review in which they list more than one review, like theirs, that allowed secondary prevention data to corrupt the primary prevention data.

The Cochrane authors have also largely confined themselves to assessment of ‘relative risk’. However, it is well accepted that a more useful judge of the true effectiveness of a treatment is absolute risk reduction (if risk if low, relative reductions in risk translate to very small real reductions in risk) as well as ‘number need to treat’ (e.g. how many people need to be treated for one year to prevent one heart attack – generally, NNTs in primary prevention are high).

However, there are, I think, many good things about this Cochrane review. It highlights many of the deficiencies in the evidence-based regarding statin therapy. Here are a few highlights:

Of the 14 studies reviewed, four of them were not double-blind in design (double-blind studies, where neither the researchers not the participants know whether they are taking the active drug or placebo are considered the ‘gold standard’ for good clinical research).
11 of the 14 studies recruited individuals who, while perhaps not having a history of cardiovascular disease, nonetheless had what would traditionally be regarded as at least one major risk factor for cardiovascular disease such as raised blood fats, high blood pressure or diabetes.
2 major trials were stopped prematurely. This is as cause for concern as may lead to “an over-estimation of treatment effects…”
All but one of the studies was industry-funded. According to the authors, “It is now established that published pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials are more likely than non-industry-funded trials to report results and conclusions that favour drug over placebo due to biased reporting and/or interpretation of trial results.”
The study participants were ostensibly white, male and middle-aged (average age 57), and the authors of the Cochrane review question the appropriateness of this data in, say, older individuals and women.
There was no evidence of significant adverse effects, though about half of the studies did not even report adverse effects. (For more on adverse effects, see the blog post I link to above).
There was little or no significant evidence on the cost-effectiveness of statins in primary prevention.
There was little or no significant evidence on the effects of statins on quality of life.

The authors conclude:

“This current systematic review highlights the shortcomings in the published trials and we recommend that caution should be taken in prescribing statins for primary prevention among people at low cardiovascular risk.”

While I have my reservations about this review, I do think it is high commendable that some researchers (at least) have a mind to review the data on statins with a degree of objectivity. While statins are vigorously promoted by many doctors and researchers, it is good to see some academics urging caution. It’s good that they are presenting the other side to statins. It’s a story that is rarely heard, but one that needs to be heard if individuals are going to make truly informed choices about whether they take a statin or not.

References:

1. Taylor F, et al. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD004816. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004816.pub4.

2. Ray KK, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65 229 participants. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1024-1031