Finally! The studies have been done, and it has been proven that the new American standards for obesity are unscientific and -- in fact -- wrong! I have been upset about this for the last three years, precisely because there was no scientific basis for the change. However, these findings have stirred up a lot of "politically correct" controversy.

First, a bit of history: About 3 years ago, overnight, the government declared 1/3rd of the American public obese. This happened because a new standard was adopted by the National Institutes of Health (the NIH) - the BMI, or Body Mass Index. I have tried to find the source data that triggered this change, but haven't been able to locate any data. I believe the change was instituted because it created a new, government sanctioned, category of treatable disease -- obesity related illness. The immediate effect was to make weight loss treatments (such as, gastric bypass surgery, for example) reimbursable procedures under many health insurance plans.

Prior to the adoption of the BMI, target weights were based on actuarial tables from the life insurance companies, which correlated life expectancy with body weight and height. That standard also made allowances for bone structure. Large boned individuals' ideal weight was higher than the average; petite-boned people were to weigh correspondingly less. No comparable studies on weight and its effect on life expectancy were ever done for the BMI standard.

Well, now, such a study has been done. And guess what? The BMI standard does not correlate well with life expectancy. This means that the BMI is completely arbitrary, has no scientific basis and using it as a standard for your personal body weight will not improve your health or long-term life expectancy. In fact, doing so might actually be harmful, since the study found that people who were slightly heavier than their recommended BMI actually lived longer! The study was printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and reported by the Associated Press on April 20, 2005.

The effect on the statistics for obesity is startling. In January of this year, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was estimating that 365,000 deaths per year were caused by obesity, making it the 2nd highest cause of preventable death in the US. That number was down from 400,000 last fall. The number was reduced after scientists inside and outside the agency questioned the figure, and the CDC admitted making a calculation error! However, the media and the government continued to hype the fact that 2 out of 3 American adults are overweight or obese and are at higher risk for heart disease, arthritis and diabetes. The government, in particular, has spent millions of dollars promoting this message, because it represented a huge policy change.

The new data indicate that obesity accounts for 25,814 deaths a year in the US. This is a 14-fold decrease, making obesity the seventh, instead of the second preventable cause of death in the US The causes of preventable death in the US are now as follows: tobacco, alcohol, germs, toxins and pollutants, car crashes, guns, obesity, risky sexual behavior and illicit drugs.

However, and this is the kicker, the CDC is not willing to make this information official, because of the controversy in the agency. And this, despite the fact that the study (and several recent smaller studies, as well) clearly demonstrates that people who are modestly "overweight" (according to the BMI) have a lower risk of death than those of "normal weight."

In my view, political correctness is the reason for the reluctance of the CDC to publicize their much vaunted "scientific" results. Let's face it: Our culture is obsessed with thinness -- to an unhealthy degree. Any data which contradicts the thought that "thin" equals "healthy" is simply too uncomfortable for many people to confront. No wonder we have so many eating disorders!

In alternative medicine, we are constantly told that our therapies are useless, because we don't have the scientific studies we need to validate our results. Now, the medical profession has such a study and is simply suppressing it because it doesn't fit the preconceived culturally induced bias. This double standard makes me crazy! To me, it appears that your health is not important to the powers that be; being "politically correct" is the most important consideration.

As we age, it is normal that we pick up some weight -- it actually extends our life. So, don't fret.

Enjoy balanced meals, and try not to become absorbed by the notion that you must be rail thin in order to enjoy a happy and healthy life.

For a link to the actual Associated Press article, and to keep up-dated on the latest information concerning the Codex Alimentarius, please check out my blog -- www. Richardsfamilyhealth.blogs.com. I posted Senator Orrin Hatch' response.

Are you as tired as I am of all these "scientific studies" designed to demonstrate that what you really need is drugs?

The latest in a long list of poorly designed -- or possibly, purposefully rigged -- studies is the latest, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, on February 16, 2006. The headline screams "Calcium, Vitamin D Won't Protect Older Women From Fracture." Let's analyze both the article on Forbes.com and the study that generated it.

The article is very biased. I believe the author reveals that bias by the way the article is structured. The lead sentence basically states that taking daily calcium and vitamin D do not provide significant health benefits.

Then, in the second paragraph, a positive finding is actually turned into a negative. It turns out that the calcium given to healthy postmenopausal women over the age of 50, even in the wrong form and at low dose (see more about this below), did increase hip bone density, ". . . but [they received] no significant reduction in their risk of hip fracture until . . . their. . . 60s." Hunh? "Nearly 50% of all hip fractures occur in adults older than 80 years. Hip fracture at a young age is not common and is usually the result of a major traumatic event or, rarely, is related to bone pathology." (emphasis added) This statement from a teaching article on Emergency Room medicine. http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic198.htm

Furthermore, the greatest at risk group from osteoporosis is elderly white women, who experience hip fracture. Black women, black men and white men are not among the at risk population. Pub Med has more than 175 articles on this topic. Here is the link to just one which contains this statistic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query .fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed& list_uids=8651229&dopt=Abstract However, the study did not control for race.

The third paragraph unequivocally states that vitamin D had no effect on the risk for colorectal cancer. Given the recent information concerning serum vitamin D and incidence of cancer, this statement is simply abysmally ignorant. The truth is, study participants took 400 IUs of vitamin D, the current RDA. However, data has shown that many people suffer from a subclinical vitamin D deficiency and that, as their serum vitamin D concentration rises, their risk of colorectal cancer, as well as reproductive cancers, such as ovarian and breast, declines. This study was published in England, but didn't make much of a splash in the US. (See my last blog on this topic: www.drrichardstalksback.com/) Dosages need to be in the 1,000 to 2,000 IUs per day range, which is the amount we use at the RFHC.

There are other problems with the study as well: the form of calcium used, the dosage given, a lack of screening of study participants for their actual risk for osteoporosis, and, lastly, the length of the study.

First, the form of the calcium: The study group took 1,000mgs of elemental calcium in the form of calcium carbonate. In other words, they were taking cement! Calcium carbonate is the most unabsorbable form of calcium you can consume. That's why it's so cheap. Do you remember the dolomite craze from the 70's and 80's? Dolomite is essentially rock that contains calcium carbonate and magnesium oxide. It was hyped as the answer to both your calcium and magnesium requirements. Only trouble was: It didn't work. You can't digest rock! Other calcium products that are essentially calcium carbonate include coral calcium and oyster shell calcium.

The dosage was also amazingly low and not adjusted for body weight. Body weight dosages of elemental calcium are as follows: 1,000 mg for a person under 120 pounds; 1,500 mg for a person 120 to 200 pounds; and 2,000 mg for people over 200 pounds. Given the increasing weight of the American population, I would venture that few of the study participants weighed less than 120 pounds. And, among the women who took the supplements, there was an average 12% reduction in their incidence of hip fracture, which increased to 21% in women over 60. It would be interesting to know which cohort experienced the reduction. The finding was not considered statistically significant, but it might have been if the researchers had controlled for body weight.

As you may be aware, at the RFHC, we use elemental calcium in the form of calcium citrate -- which is very absorbable -- adjusted for body weight. In Caucasian women (those most at risk for hip fracture) who are perimenopausal or postmenopausal, I add a product which contains bone matrix -- microcrystalline hydroxyapatite concentrate (MCHC). This provides all of the co-factors required to rebuild the bone structure into which the body deposits the elemental calcium. Osteoporosis is a degeneration of the bone matrix, as well as a calcium deficiency.

With regard to pre-screening for risk of osteoporosis, none was done. Why is this important? Remember, only about 15% of women over the age of 70 will experience a hip fracture. And, primarily Caucasian women are at risk for hip fracture from osteoporosis. Therefore, when you are doing a study with this many participants, any positive result can be washed away by the number of women who simply are not at risk. And, even under these unfavorable conditions, please remember that there was an average 12% reduction in the incidence of hip fracture in women in their 50s. It just wasn't "statistically significant" because the proper parameters were not applied to the analysis.

The length of the study is also an issue. It lasted seven years, which seems like a long time. But, please remember, both cancer and osteoporosis take 10 or even 20 years to develop. Therefore, the study really was short-term and inconclusive.

There is one more item of note in the article that I want to emphasize. It illustrates how important an understanding of physiology, rather than pharmacology, is to proper use of nutritional support. It was noted that some of the women taking calcium plus vitamin D experienced an increased risk of kidney stones. This is a direct function of urinary pH. Now, urinary pH is an intensely interesting and complicated topic. It has ramifications for everything from urinary tract infection, to degenerative diseases (i.e., cancer) -- to formation of kidney stones. At the RFHC, we routinely monitor urinary pH for anyone on calcium supplementation. The reason? To avoid kidney stones. Most Americans eat a diet heavy in grains and animal protein. That diet yields an acid urinary pH, and therefore, protects from kidney stones. However, if you eat a diet high in vegetables, with little protein and/or low in grains, you shift your urinary pH to the alkaline side. Voila! You are at risk for kidney stones. Therefore, being monitored while taking calcium supplements is extremely important.

Finally, I was unable to find out who funded this study, but I have my suspicions. All of the news reports (although not the article I read) concluded by recommending medication, instead of supplementation to reduce your risk. I find it offensive that such an ill-conceived and poorly executed "scientific study" is being used as an excuse to further medicate us, particularly in light of the severe side effects of the popular medications for osteoporosis. These side effects include erosion and perforation of the esophagus and internal bleeding. Some of the medications (Foxamax, e.g.) actually making the bones brittle -- which may actually increase the risk of fracture!

Once again, we are forced to read with a critical eye, to really understand the "rest of the story." So, take care of yourself, get your blood work done and obtain a customized nutritional program from the RFHC to optimize your overall health -- which includes reducing your osteoporosis risk!

Spring is here and seasonal allergies are blooming. You probably already know that, especially if you have allergies. This year, with all of our rain, we have an unusually high pollen count.

I thought I'd share with you a natural approach to seasonal allergy control. A treatment plan that doesn't make you drowsy and doesn't have adverse side effects.

If you have seasonal allergies, it essentially means that you have been sensitized to the plants that grow in your local area. When they bloom, you react to their pollen by releasing histamine from the mast cells in your tissues. The mast cell breaks open, flooding your system with histamine which causes the typical symptoms of itchy eyes and running nose.

Each area in the US is designated as a particular "zone." Here in Southern California, we live in Zone 9. My sister, in Atlanta, Georgia, lives in Zone 2. Each Zone has its own indigenous trees, grasses and weeds that cause problems.

If you are familiar with the medical approach, you may have heard of "allergy shots." These are injections of allergens to keep you in a constant reactive state and minimize the chance that you will have a massive, life threatening reaction. The allergens in the injection react with your mast cells, triggering a "controlled" release of histamine. The theory sounds good, but oftentimes" the results are not.

The shots have side effects. Often, you end up in an on-going inflammatory state, and you also become increasingly allergic to the allergens that are being injected into your blood stream. Eventually, the shots lose their effectiveness entirely, and you are left with a higher risk of an anaphylactic reaction -- particularly if you stop them. The inflammation can cause joint pain, fatigue, fibromyalgia, asthma and a myriad of symptoms not ordinarily associated with the runny nose and itchy eyes of an acute allergic response. The response is still there; just its nature has been changed. Instead of a superficial irritation, your internal organs and tissues are now involved.

There is a two-pronged natural approach to acute seasonal allergies that is very effective. The first product is Allergena, Zone 9. (If you live in Georgia, it would be Zone 2. We can special order the appropriate Zone for you.) Allergena is a homeopathic formulation of the trees, grasses and weeds indigenous to the area in which you live. You use them to desensitize yourself, just as you would with allergy shots, but with no side effects. You begin at the level of 1 to 2 drops per day, increasing your dose to 7 drops morning and evening. Ideally, you start this protocol as winter ends. The further into the season you begin Allergena, the more carefully you have to dose it to avoid triggering the very reaction you are seeking to avoid. You take Allergena from the end of winter through the summer months, when everything is blooming. If your allergies are not too severe, you may be able to stop Allergena in early summer.

The second natural line of defense is D-Hist. This is an amazing product. It deals with the histaminic reaction and the acute response triggered by pollen. It contains quercetin, bromelain (a proteolytic enzyme to break up the congestion) and nettle leaf for the runny nose.

One of my patients puts it this way, "One of the things I like about D-hist is that symptoms don't come back 4 times worse like they do when taking over the counter antihistamines -- or even prescription antihistamines. It's much gentler and, to me, easier on the body, than say, Benadryl."

If you have a severe reaction, you need to take a LOT of D-Hist -- 12 to 16 in a day is not uncommon. More commonly, 2 to 3 capsules per day is sufficient. The advantage to taking Allergena early and continuing it, is that you can use less D-Hist, resorting to it only when you have an acute attack. The good news is that D-Hist causes absolutely no drowsiness. It simply relieves the irritation and allows you to continue to function normally.

A WORD OF CAUTION: If you have very severe asthma that is triggered by pollen, this simple approach is not for you. In fact, it could be life threatening if you attempted it. You need a program that supports both your lung function and your adrenal function. You should make an appointment to have your adrenal function evaluated and have a personalized protocol developed.

I have been very interested in work that is being done in Scotland by Dr Graham Devereux, of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. Dr. Devereux and his team studied over 1,250 women who were pregnant and attending neo-natal clinics in Scotland between 1997 and 1999. They published 2 articles, one in April of this year, and the latest, in September in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The study involved maternal diet from conception through age five, tracking the children's risk of asthma and respiratory disease.

Their findings certainly offer food for thought. They found that low intake of vitamin E during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk among offspring for developing persistent asthma, beginning during the first two years of life and continuing to at least until age five. In fact, children born to mothers rated in the bottom 20% for prenatal vitamin E intake were more than five times more prone to asthma than children born to mothers in the top 20% of intake.

Youngsters born to mothers with relatively poor vitamin E intake during pregnancy were also at higher risk for developing persistent wheezing in their first 5 years of life, the Scottish researchers reported. It makes sense, since vitamins E and A are vital to the development of the skin and mucous membranes. And, fetal airways are fully developed during the first 16 weeks of pregnancy. It appears that a child's diet at age 5 has little impact on asthma.

Dietary sources of vitamin E include eggs, whole grains {not processed or refined; ie, wheat germ, not white bread}, and soybeans. Vitamin E is added to some oil products to preserve freshness; however, not in large enough quantities to be therapeutic. Refined flour has become so widespread in the American diet that many people no longer tolerate the taste of whole grains and won’t eat them. And, of course, eggs are "taboo" because of cholesterol! That restriction is particularly unwise during pregnancy when the fetus requires cholesterol to build every cell membrane.

I would add my clinical experience to this finding. I find that exposure to a number of environmental chemicals, particularly pesticides, markedly increases respiratory problems in young children.

There are at least two facets of this study that I find of interest:

1. It has not received wide attention in the American press. In fact, the week it was published, the lead on all the news programs was about "obesity." {Please refer to the article on my blog from April 27, 2005 "Body Mass Index Invalid" for another piece of suppressed "health" news.} Yet, the information about vitamin E could actually benefit both you and your children! Trouble is: Vitamin E isn't a drug, and no one can patent it. {To access my blog, go to www.DrRichardsTalksBack.com}

2. The article I referenced went on to say that "more study" is needed and no one should take vitamin E! Please!! Vitamin E, especially natural vitamin E containing all of the naturally occurring isomers, is vitally important to red blood cell membrane integrity {vitally important when exposed to cigarette smoke, or smog!}, skin health, heart health, and is a vital anti-oxidant in eliminating free radicals.

The problem we have, especially in America, is that we have invented an entirely new category of "science." "Food science." This discipline -- and I use the term loosely -- is most concerned about taste, mouth feel, shelf life and customer acceptance. Nutritional value isn't on the list. So, we increasingly process and massage our "food." Moving ever further away from the field and the tree, creating a host of unintended and unpredictable, consequences for ourselves.

At my clinic, I routinely provide my patients with nutritional programs based upon their blood chemistry profile. And, yes, vitamin E is one of the foundation items it seems almost every person needs. {See "Vitamin E and Heart Health" on my blog from November 10, 2004 for the differences in the type of vitamin E}.

Remember one very important point: Human physiology hasn't changed much over the last 10,000 years. Yet, food fads come and go. It's very important that we provide our bodies -- which are, after all, biological machines -- with the essential fuel they have required for the last 100 centuries!

Repeatedly, researchers discover that there are good reasons why our foods contain the vitamins and minerals that they do. And, I find that the programs I have prescribed for years are repeatedly validated as "science" catches up with common sense. If you are interested in learning what, if any, nutritional deficiencies you have, contact me through my web site and have a nutritional blood chemistry analysis prepared.

This last couple of weeks have presented me with an interesting (and unusual) experience. After 20 years in practice -- validation from medical research! And, not just on one issue -- but, on multiple issues. Usually, I feel like a lone voice, crying out in the wilderness! So, pardon me if I crow a little. Also, I'd like to share these important issues with you.

The first issue: Estrogen and cancer risk. It's been almost a year since the initial announcement that estrogen therapy increases a woman's risk of cancer. This is true even of bioidentical hormones, which many doctors have turned to as an alternative to Premarin®.

A new analysis of federal cancer statistics, presented Thursday, December 13, 2006 at a scientific conference called the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed a 7.2% drop in breast cancer over the last year as women stopped taking hormone replacement therapy.

This most recent announcement came as no surprise to me. I remember in the late 1980s and early 1990s doing presentations on the risk of estrogen therapy. At one event at Whole Foods Market, an audience member challenged me by asking, "Don't you have any more recent data?" I explained to her that human physiology hasn't changed in 10,000 years. So, the age of the data was not a factor. Now, we have hard evidence that estrogen is extremely carcinogenic.

Unfortunately, the medical profession has no alternatives to offer menopausal women. I have studied this subject in depth and have a variety of herbal alternatives. These herbs are not estrogenic. More importantly, as a woman I appreciate the fact that herbal medicine treats each of us as individuals. And, what works for one woman may not work for another. So, at the RFHC, we customize a program for your individual metabolism.

If you have an interest in a non-hormonal approach to menopausal relief -- including insomnia, hot flashes and vaginal dryness -- you can schedule a consultation at the office.

Prilosec®, Nexium® and Zantac® (and other similar drugs used to suppress acid production in your stomach) increase osteoporosis, and the risk of hip fracture. (JAMA, December 27, 2006) This finding is a "duh!" You may have heard me carrying on about using Tums® (an antacid) for calcium supplementation -- which is a complete joke! You cannot absorb calcium in an alkaline environment. So, anything that decreases stomach acid inhibits calcium absorption. Ipso facto, osteoporosis!

I will reiterate what I have said hundreds of times -- actually, I feel like a broken record -- supppressing stomach acid is exactly the wrong approach to gastroesophageal reflux (GERD). For the stomach to empty, you need a pH of 1 or 2 in the stomach. That's a LOT of acid. When you have inadequate stomach acid, pressure builds up in the stomach and the upper, esophageal sphincter opens because it is the weaker of the two valves -- resulting in heartburn.

In some instances, problems in the lower gut -- yeast overgrowth, allergies, and parasites -- cause excessiv e peristalsis in the gut and upward pressure that causes the reflux.

The key: Finding out what is causing you to have symptoms, and then addressing them. For some, a bowel cleanse program is the key; for others, it's a simple matter of taking digestive aids. At the RFHC, we can determine what you, personally, need.

And, I predict that the next problem with these drugs will be a documented increase in stomach cancer. Low stomach acidity is a known risk factor for stomach cancer. I just think these drugs -- which have the highest sales volume in the US, followed closely by pain killers -- are dangerous. Does this seem helpful? If so, see our information on Consultations.

[TOP]

Fish Oils Supplements Vital During Pregnancy

Finnish Antioxidant Study

Seasonal Allergy Relief

Osteoporosis, Calcium Supplements and Drug Therapy

Prenatal Vitamin E Intake and Childhood Asthma

The Dangers of Splenda

Have you ever wondered exactly what Splenda is made of? I know I have; and when I went looking out on the Web, the information wasn't readily available. Now, the news is out!

This week an article appeared under the headline "Lawsuits Over Splenda Marketing Campaign" through Reuters, a large news agency. The issue is misleading advertising. Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) marketing line is: "Splenda No Calorie Sweetener is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar." Doesn't that make you think the product is like sugar?

The reality is that Splenda is an artificial chemical sweetener that is actually chlorinated. J&J's patented process replaces three hydrogen-oxygen groups with 3 chlorine atoms. In the process, a food is converted into a non-food. And, a toxic, non-food at that! Chlorine is one of the strongest oxidating agents. It forms free-radicals in the body and damages the mitochondria -- your intracellular energy factories. Remember, chlorine is used to sterilize water supplies!

Don't be misled: Splenda is not a natural, healthful product. But then, none of the artificial sweeteners on the market are.