Columnist Opeyemi Parham: Masculinity and the Global Heart

Image via Wikipedia.

Masculinity and the Global Heart .

On the cover of the September 20th issue of Newsweek is this photo of a hunk of a guy (and I do mean hunk, the muscles just ripple off of his naked back, as he faces away from the camera), holding a three year old boy in his arms.  The boy looks directly into the camera, and the look on his face is wise beyond his years.
I don’t know how they got that little boy to give such a probing stare, but the article’s title is what hooked me. “Man UP! The traditional male is an endangered species. It’s time to rethink masculinity.”
My reaction to the title?  Thank GOD someone has noticed! Let us now hope the article takes a sensible direction and not a sensational one.
I’ll let you read the article yourself, and decide what you think of it’s biases:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/why-we-need-to-reimagine-masculinity.html
 All I can say is, finally someone is talking about what I have known for years. Men have been as trapped by the sterotypes of masculinity as women have been by those of femininity. The trouble is there has been no first, second or third wave of feminism to help the poor guys out of their own mess.
I am very excited to have recently read a book by Anodea Judith called “Awakening The Global Heart: Humanity’s Rite of Passage from the Love of Power to the Power of Love”. In this well researched and deeply spiritual treatise, she describes our historical evolution through various kinds of power. She points out positive and negative characteristics of dynamic and static eras of time, with masculine or feminine power at the helm. She describes our current evolutionary crisis as needing to move from a static masculine to a dynamic feminine model, and our emotional state as equivalent to an adolescent, moving into adulthood.
It is a facinating book and an exciting theory. In order for us to make this shift, men have to surrender (I use this word with caution) many of the trappings of power that have actually been hinderences to the heart. And in the power of that arresting photo that I saw the shadow that we still carry culturally
It is the emotions evoked deliberately by that Newsweek photo that led me to comment here. Something about the beefcake guy holding the child implied protection and “father”, but the lack of a face and the photo’s deliberate focus on the physical symbol of power (muscles) disturbed me. And that probing stare of the boy child seems to hold an accusation. Something about this boy not having a clear set of  scaffolding for himself, if the roles are changing. There is a bit of a feeling of If you take away my power, WHO AM I?" in the eyes of that child.
Then I remembered an Anne Geddes photo of these huge hands, holding this tiny sleeping child:
http://www.youjustmademylist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/man_holding_baby_hands.jpg
and the Spencer Rowell photo of a blue-jeaned man and a baby
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/magazine_enl_1169145934/img/1.jpg
 And I realized that we have truly done boys and injustice, with very little imagery to offer alternatives to static masculine, "power over" roles.
Google”man and boy” as a subject line and you won’t find many heart warming images. In fact you won’t find many images, at all. That is how foreign this concept of men moving outside their proscribed role of protector into other roles as nurturer, or caregiver, or healer (of the heart-- there is an image of a man later in the Newseek article that implies that he is a NURSE, not a doctor) truly is.
Opening to this conversation may be a dirty and painful process risking cheap shots and silly inuendoes, but finally someone is talking about how scary and threatening new roles for men can be.
Let us keep shifting that paradigm.

--
                        Opeyemi  413-336-1291

Related articles by Zemanta

• Disturbing New Research Shows Women Die Younger from Sitting Too Much at Work -- Here's How We Can Save Our Lives (alternet.org)
• Top Ten Management on Masculinity Versus Femininity in International Business: An Overview of Who is Really The Boss? (bizcovering.com)
• You're a Woman, I Am a Man (socyberty.com)
• Can Men Really Be An Endangered Species? (blogs.forbes.com)
• Newsweek to American Guys: We Can Learn Some Lessons from Europe on How to Be a Man (newsbusters.org)
• The Media Is Way Behind On The Matter Of Men [Men's Studies] (jezebel.com)
• Newsweek: Why we need to reimagine masculinity (newsweek.com)
• Man Up, Newsweek, and Put The Silly "Men In Decline" Meme In Context (mediaite.com)

Excercise and Reduce Fructose to Live Longer

Image via Wikipedi

Dr. Joseph Mercola

By Dr. Joseph Mercola on Huffingtonpost

If You Want to Age Gracefully, Don't Eat This

Death is surely inevitable, but I do believe you can live far longer than the average life expectancy tables (1) would predict, which in the U.S. is about 78. Genetics may play a role, but it is NOT the final determining factor for whether you'll live a long healthy life.
Barring an accident, your lifestyle has everything to do with your longevity.
It's already been established that diet can override genetic predispositions for disease (2), so don't fall into the trap of believing your health and longevity is somehow inescapably tied to what's polluting your gene pool.
The Leading Cause of Premature Aging and Death
Increased insulin and leptin receptor resistance (3) has clearly become the leading cause of premature aging and death. This results from two primary conditions: too much sugar and processed foods, combined with insufficient exercise.
Interestingly, controlling these two factors will likely eliminate more than 90 percent of the following medical conditions:
• High blood pressure
• Obesity
• Diabetes
• High cholesterol
Of all the molecules capable of inflicting damage to your body, probably the most damaging are sugar molecules. Fructose in particular is an extremely potent pro-inflammatory agent that accelerates aging.
Today's excessive sugar consumption is mostly an artifact of the postindustrial agricultural revolution.
More than 30 years ago, scientists learned how to cheaply produce sugar from corn, and now it is loaded into nearly all processed foods and has become the number one source of calories in most developed countries.
Fructose is a major contributor to:
• Insulin resistance and obesity
• Elevated blood pressure (4)
• Elevated triglycerides and elevated LDL (5)
• Cardiovascular disease (6), liver disease, cancer, arthritis and even gout
How Fructose Accelerates Aging
Fructose adversely affects your body in a number of ways, but one of the mechanisms that causes significant damage is glycation, a process by which the sugar bonds with proteins and forms so-called advanced glycation end products, or AGEs. It's a fitting acronym because--along with oxidation--it's one of the major molecular mechanisms whereby damage accrues in your body, which leads to disease, aging and eventually death.
When sugar glycates, it creates inflammation, which activates your immune system in a defensive maneuver. Macrophages are scavenger cells that are part of your immune defense, and as such they have special receptors for AGEs, aptly called RAGEs (think: raging inflammation). These RAGEs bind to the AGEs and get rid of them.
Unfortunately, this process can leave its fair share of battle scars.
Inside your arteries, for example, the scar tissue created from this process is called plaque. This process underlies the strong connection between diabetes and heart disease.
As a standard recommendation, I strongly recommend keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day.
However, most people would be wise to limit their fructose to 15 grams or less, particularly if you have elevated uric acid levels, which can be used as a predictor for fructose toxicity. (For more information on the fructose/uric acid connection, please see this recent article.)
This includes keeping track of your fructose intake from whole fruits. For a helpful chart showing the fructose content of many common fruits, please see this link. I recommend this lower level simply because if you consume processed foods or sweet beverages at all, you're virtually guaranteed to consume "hidden" sources of fructose.
Read this if you believe fruit is healthy and you can consume unlimited amounts:
Many people who eat large amounts of fruit are not convinced that fruit can be dangerous. However many fruits have a large amount of fructose that can worsen insulin resistance if you consume too much of it. It is also important to realize that 80 percent of Americans have diseases resulting from insulin resistance which are listed at the beginning of this article.
If you have one of these conditions you would be wise to limit your total grams of daily fructose to 15 grams per day until you resolve the insulin resistance. If you are still unconvinced you can measure your blood uric acid level and it will typically be greater than 5.5 if you are eating too much fructose.
New research has shown that uric acid is a far more accurate predictor of heart disease than your total cholesterol level and the more it is higher than 5.5 it is, the greater your risk. If your uric acid is between 3 and 5 than you do not need to be concerned about your current fructose intake, as you likely have a metabolism that can adjust for it and not cause you harm.
Fresh fruit is nearly always preferred to fruit juices as the processing destroys many of the nutrients in the fruit and many commercial fruit juices are also highly adulterated or deceptively labeled.
Additionally it is important to understand that most commercial fruit juices should be avoided as fruit juice typically has large amounts of methanol, which is wood alcohol, and a metabolic poison. Often the methanol is bound to pectin and when you consume fresh fruits the methanol passes through your body and causes you no harm. However, after the fruit is processed into juice and put into containers, the methanol gradually dissociates from the pectin and dissolves in the juice.
The longer the fruit juice is in the container, or the more heat it is exposed to, the more methanol that is released into the juice.
Next, in order to better understand the cause of aging, you need to become familiar with some nasty little compounds called "free radicals."
Free Radicals on a Mission to Damage Your DNA
The most widely accepted idea for life extension is the free radical theory, which says that as you age, you begin to "self destruct," courtesy of free radicals. Free radicals are aggressive chemical compounds, created as a byproduct of your natural metabolism, that damage your DNA.
Poor lifestyle choices (7) such as smoking, consuming processed foods laden with trans fats and other harmful chemical additives, along with pesticide and other chemical residue, further add to your free radical burden.
With time, your DNA eventually becomes damaged beyond your body's ability to repair it; and once your biological processes fail, you die.
Antioxidants continually combat these free radicals--which is why a diet high in natural antioxidants is so important for your health and longevity. Antioxidants are abundant in a number of foods, and your BEST source of high quality antioxidants is fresh, raw organic vegetables and fruits (especially berries).
To Supplement, or Not to Supplement
I have never been a fan of taking fistfuls of supplements in lieu of altering your diet to get the nutrients you need. However, supplementation can sometimes be useful.
There are three nutrients that have special importance with respect to aging:
1. Resveratrol
2. Coenzyme Q10
3. Glutathione (GSH)
Resveratrol is one antioxidant that I often recommend as a supplement.
Sometimes referred to as a "fountain of youth" nutrient, resveratrol appears to be particularly potent (8) for extending lifespan. It is unique among antioxidants because it can cross the blood-brain barrier to help protect your brain and nervous system.
Another important but often overlooked antioxidant is coenzyme Q-10--but more specifically the reduced version, called ubiquinol.
Your liver produces CoQ10, which is actually an essential nutrient for health and longevity because it provides energy to every single cell in your body. Unfortunately, after age 25, your natural levels of this critical compound begin to decline, which is why I personally take ubiquinol every day.
CoQ10 is also an absolute necessity if you're on statin drugs as they can quickly deplete your body of this vital antioxidant. This is partly why statins are so harmful to your heart.
Glutathione is another important and underutilized antioxidant. Interestingly, increased glutathione levels may actually play a role in stopping telomere (9) shortening, which is one of the most exciting anti-aging discoveries in recent years.
Glutathione is one nutrient I believe you can optimize with proper diet, so it is probably unnecessary to supplement. If you are recovering from a serious illness, you certainly could consider supplementation.
I have reservations about most glutathione supplements, in general.
You can obtain it from raw organic milk, free-range animal foods and eggs. But probably your best source of glutathione (10) is a high quality whey protein.
If you want to use a whey product, realize there are vast differences among them. Many whey proteins on the market are highly processed and contain a number of undesirable additives. Make sure your whey protein is derived from grass-fed cows and is very carefully processed to preserve the fragile amino acid precursors.
I am so impressed by the research on telomeres and glutathione that I take a high quality organic grass fed whey protein called Miracle Whey protein every morning, and a second dose before my twice-weekly strength training sessions.
Learning from Those Who've Lived the Longest
Longevity researchers (11) have long searched for the magic common denominators that might explain the extended life spans of centenarians.
What they've found is the people who've lived the longest tend to eat large amounts of whole unprocessed minimally cooked plants and live in areas that promote regular physical activity, such as daily walking. They also tend to have effective strategies for coping with the inevitable stresses of life, such as prayer, meditation and strong social networks.
In fact, being able to effectively cope with stress, it turns out, is one of the MAJOR common denominators for people who live long, robust lives.
One of the proposed reasons for this strong link is that stress, just like fructose, promotes inflammation in your body.
Indeed, most of the research indicates that longevity hinges on preventing chronic inflammation. Avoiding sugar/fructose while consuming antioxidant-rich whole foods, together with physical exercise and stress reduction, will do just that.
Adopt the Anti-Aging Lifestyle
Of all the healthy lifestyle strategies I know of that can have a significant impact on your longevity, normalizing your insulin and leptin levels is probably the most important. And that means modifying your diet to avoid excessive amounts of fructose, grains and other pro-inflammatory ingredients like trans fats.
Here are the rest of my top "anti-aging" recommendations:
1.Learn how to effectively cope with stress. As discussed earlier, stress has a direct impact on inflammation, which in turn underlies many of the chronic diseases that kill people prematurely every day. Therefore, developing effective coping mechanisms is a great strategy for increasing your longevity.
Meditation, prayer, physical activity and exercise are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional and mental equilibrium. I also strongly believe in using energy psychology tools such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) to address deeper, oftentimes hidden emotional scars.
2.Eat a healthful diet based on your nutritional type. My nutrition plan should be your first step. This is so important that I now offer the full nutritional typing program for FREE (12).
3. Optimize your vitamin D levels (13) . This is another very powerful and inexpensive intervention that can have profound benefits to your health. You can either optimize your levels by carefully managed direct sun exposure, or use an oral supplement (typically 5-10,000 units of vitamin D3 for most adults).
4.Eat plenty of animal-based omega-3 fat (14) . Correcting the ratio of omega-3 to healthful omega-6 fats is a strong factor in helping people live longer. This typically means increasing your intake of animal based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil, while decreasing your intake of damaged omega-6 fats (think trans fats).
I do not, however, recommend the new prescription-strength fish oil medication, sold under the name Lovaza (15) . Don't be fooled by their "all natural" PR campaign. This is actually a drug to treat very high triglyceride levels.
As with most other drugs, Lovaza comes with potentially dangerous side effects that you would not experience with a natural fish oil or krill oil supplement. Side effects include flu-like symptoms, infections, back pain, skin rashes, upset stomach, taste changes, digestive issues, chest pain, migraines and respiratory problems.
Additionally, new research strongly suggests that 500 mg of krill oil is more potent and far less expensive.
5. Get your antioxidants from real foods. Good sources include blueberries, cranberries, blackberries, raspberries, strawberries, cherries and most intensely pigmented vegetables.
6. Use coconut oil(15) . Another excellent anti-aging food is coconut oil, known to reduce your risk of heart disease and lower your cholesterol, among other things. In fact, it's doubly beneficial because it can be both eaten and applied directly to your skin. Coconut oil can be used in place of other oils for most of your cooking needs.
7. Get your resveratrol naturally. Resveratrol is one of the forerunners in the anti-aging pill race, but more than likely, by the time they've manipulated it into a synthetic pill (like the fish oil discussed above), it won't be healthy for you.
Although resveratrol is found in red wine, I can't recommend drinking wine regularly, in the hope of extending your life because alcohol is a neurotoxin that can poison your brain and harm your body's delicate hormonal balance. Instead, get your resveratrol from natural sources, such as whole grape skins and seeds, raspberries, and mulberries.
8. Exercise regularly, and correctly. Studies repeatedly show that regular, moderate-to-vigorous exercise can help prevent or delay the onset of hypertension, obesity, heart disease, osteoporosis and the falls that lead to hip fractures.
Although a lifetime of regular exercise is ideal, it's never too late to start. It's been shown that even individuals in their 70s can substantially increase both strength and endurance with exercise.
I'm very excited about the research showing how high-intensity interval training can increase longevity as this specific style of training (Peak 8) promotes human growth hormone production--yet another aspect of the longevity puzzle.
9. Avoid as many chemicals, toxins, and pollutants as possible (17). This includes tossing out your toxic household cleaners, soaps, personal hygiene products, air fresheners, bug sprays, lawn pesticides and insecticides, just to name a few, and replacing them with non-toxic alternatives.
10. Avoid pharmaceutical drugs. Pharmaceutical drugs kill thousands of people prematurely every year--they are now the largest cause of fatal drug overdoses (18). If you adhere to a healthful lifestyle, you are less likely to "need" drugs since a healthy immune system will protect you from chronic disease.
Incorporating these simple guidelines will help set you squarely on the path to optimal health and give you the best shot at living a long, happy life.
Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder and director of Mercola.com. Become a fan of Dr. Mercola on Facebook, on Twitter, and check out Dr. Mercola's report on sun exposure!
References:
(1) "List of countries by life expectancy," Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
(2) Dai J, et al. "Mediterranean dietary pattern is associated with improved cardiac autonomic function among middle-aged men: A twin study," Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 2010;3:366-373 http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/3/4/366
(3) Olatunbosun ST and Dagogo-Jack S. (April 16, 2010) "Insulin resistance." eMedicine from WebMD http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overview
(4) "Higher fructose intake tied to increased hypertension risk" (July 2, 2010) Modern Medicine http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/Modern+Medicine+Now/Higher-Fructose-Intake-Tied-to-Increased-Hypertens/ArticleNewsFeed/Article/detail/677401
(5) Mercola.com, "This Common Food Ingredient Can Really Mess Up Your Metabolism" http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/26/sugar-may-be-bad-but-this-sweetener-is-far-more-deadly-part-2.aspx
(6) Bakalar N. (April 22, 2009) "Fructose-sweetened beverages linked to heart risks," New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/health/23sugar.html
(7) Kvaavik E, et al. "Influence of individual and combined health behaviors on total and cause-specific mortality in men and women: The United Kingdom health and lifestyle survey" Arch Inern Med. 2010 Apr 26;170(8):711-8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20421558
(8) Daniells S. (September 14, 2009) Science: Resveratrol's miraculous promise" NutraIngredients http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Science-Resveratrol-s-miraculous-promise/?c=YcPaFAqXDgt92iRxXsRniQ%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_special_edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BSpecial%2BEdition
(9) Mercola.com, "Science Finally Reveals How You Can Actually REVERSE Aging" http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/02/23/science-finally-reveals-how-you-can-actually-revese-aging.aspx
(10)Palkhivala A. (July 30, 2001) "Glutathione: New Supplement on the Block" WebMD http://www.nutritionadvisor.com/web_md.htm
(11) Mercola.com, "See My Presentation at the Anti-Aging Conference" http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/18/see-my-presentation-at-the-antiaging-conference.aspx
(12) Mercola.com, "The Secret that is Stunning Nutritionists" http://products.mercola.com/nutritional-typing/
(13) Vitamin D Council http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/
(14) Herper M. "What you need to know about fish oil." Forbes http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/09/omega-fatty-acids-lifestyle-health-heart-disease.html
(15) Lovaza.com, http://www.lovaza.com/
(16) "Research on coconut oil" http: //www.coconutoil.com/research.htm
(17) Centers for disease control and prevention, National report on human exposure to environmental chemicals, the fourth report, July 2010, http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
(18) Szabo L. (August 10, 2010) "Prescriptions now biggest cause of fatal drug overdoses" USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-30-drug-overdose_N.htm

Related articles by Zemanta

• Finding Patient Zero in the High Fructose Corn Syrup Hate Epidemic (reason.com)
• It's Not Just Your Gene Pool (lewrockwell.com)
• Fat Doesn't Make You Fat, Fructose Does (lewrockwell.com)
• Sugar's Power Over Humans Traced (news.discovery.com)
• Change "High Fructose Corn Syrup" Name To "Corn Sugar", Industry Asks Regulators (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Reverse Aging with the Anti-Inflammation Diet (lifescript.com)
• Corn Refiners Association Wants to Change Name of High Fructose Corn Syrup (shoppingblog.com)
• High Fructose Corn Syrup to be Marketed as Corn Sugar (projectswole.com)

End The War On Drugs

Image by Morgan200 via Flickr

Published on Sunday, June 13, 2010 by The Independent/UK

How Can America's 'War on Drugs' Succeed When Prohibition Laws Failed?

America's Prohibition laws were meant to cut crime and boost morality – they failed on both fronts. So how can the 'War on Drugs' ever succeed? It can't.

by Johann Hari

Since we first prowled the savannahs of Africa, human beings have displayed a few overpowering and ineradicable impulses—for food, for sex, and for drugs. Every human society has hunted for its short cuts to an altered state: The hunger for a chemical high, low, or pleasingly new shuffle sideways is universal. Peer back through history, and it's everywhere. Ovid said drug-induced ecstasy was a divine gift. The Chinese were brewing alcohol in prehistory and cultivating opium by 700 A.D. Cocaine was found in clay-pipe fragments from William Shakespeare's house. George Washington insisted American soldiers be given whiskey every day as part of their rations. Human history is filled with chemicals, come-downs, and hangovers.

Yet in every generation, there are moralists why try to douse this natural impulse in moral condemnation and burn it away. They believe that humans, stripped of their intoxicants, will become more rational or ethical or good. They point to the addicts and the overdoses and believe they reveal the true face - and the logical endpoint - of your order at the bar or your roll-up. And they believe it can be ended, if only we choose to do it. Their vision holds an intoxicating promise of its own.

Their most famous achievement - the criminalisation of alcohol in the United States between 1921 and 1933 - is one of the great parables of modern history. Daniel Okrent's superb new history, 'Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition', shows how a coalition of mostly well-meaning, big-hearted people came together and changed the Constitution to ban booze. On the day it began, one of the movement's leaders, the former baseball hero turned evangelical preacher Billy Sunday, told his ecstatic congregation what the Dry New World would look like: "The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever rent."

The story of the War on Alcohol has never needed to be told more urgently - because its grandchild, the War on Drugs, shares the same DNA. Okrent only alludes to the parallel briefly, on his final page, but it hangs over the book like old booze-fumes - and proves yet again Mark Twain's dictum: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

There was never an America without chemical highs. The Native Americans used hallucinogens, and the ship that brought John Winthrop and the first Puritans to the continent carried three times more beer than water, along with ten thousand gallons of wine. It was immediately a society so soaked in alcohol that it makes your liver ache to read the raw statistics: by 1830, the average citizen drank seven gallons of pure alcohol a year. In 1839, an English traveller called Frederick Marryat wrote: "I am sure that Americans can fix nothing without a drink. If you meet, you drink; if you make acquaintance, you drink; they quarrel in their drink, and they make up with a drink. They drink because it is hot; they drink because it is cold... They commence it early in life, and the continue it until they soon drop into the grave."

America was so hungry for highs that when there was a backlash against all this boozing, the temperance movement's initial proposal was that people should water down their alcohol with opium.

It's not hard to see how this fug of liquor caused problems, as well as pleasure - and the backlash was launched by a furious housewife with eight children from a small town in Cincinnati. One Sunday in 1874, Eliza Thompson - a woman who had never spoken out on any public issue before - stood before the crowds at her church and announced that America would never be free or godly until the last whisky bottle was emptied onto the dry earth. A huge crowd of women cheered: they believed their husbands were squandering their wages at the saloon.

They marched as one to the nearest bar, where they all sank to their knees and prayed for the soul of its owner. They refused to leave until he repented. They worked in six hour prayer shifts on the streets, until the saloonkeeper finally appeared, head bowed, and agreed to shut it down. This prayerathon then moved around every alcohol-seller in the town. Within ten days, only four of the original thirteen remained, and the rebellion was spreading across the country.

It was women who led the first cry for Temperance, and it was women who made Prohibition happen. A woman called Carry Nation became a symbol of the movement when she travelled from bar to bar with an oversized hatchet and smashed them to pieces. Indeed, Prohibition was one of the first and most direct effects of expanding the vote. This is one of the first strange flecks of gray in this story: the proponents of prohibition were primarily progressives - and some of the most admirable people in American history. The pioneering suffragist Susan B Anthony gave her first public speech demanding a booze ban. The ex-slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglas said: "If we could make the world sober, we would have no slavery." America's greatest Socialist, Eugene V. Debs, said liquor was a capitalist tool to render the workers supine.

The pioneers of American feminism believed alcohol was at the root of men's brutality towards women. The anti-slavery movement saw alcohol addiction as a new form of slavery, replacing leg irons with whisky bottles. You can see the same left-wing prohibitionism today, when people like Al Sharpton says drugs must be criminalized because addiction does real harm in ghettoes.

Of course, there were more obviously sinister proponents of Prohibition too, pressing progressives into weird alliances. The Ku Klux Klan said that "nigger gin" was the main reason why oppressed black people were prone to rebellion, and if you banned alcohol, they would become quiescent. The dry newspaper the Nashville Tenessean wrote: "The Negro, fairly docile and industrious, becomes, when filled with liquor, turbulent and dangerous and a menace to life, proporty, and the repose of the community." And of course there were hints that white women were in greater danger: one Congressman said alcohol "increases the menace of the black man's presence."

This, too, is still there in America's current strain of prohibition. Powder cocaine and crack cocaine are equally harmful, but crack - which is disproportionately used by black people - carries much heavier jail sentences than powder cocaine, which is disproportionately used by white people.

It was in this context that the Anti-Saloon League rose to become the most powerful pressure group in American history, and the only one to ever change the constitution through peaceful political campaigning. They announced their movement "was begun by Almighty God." In fact, it was begun by a little man called Wayne Wheeler, who was as dry as the Sahara and twice as overheated. One of Wheeler's friends said of him: "Like most humourless men, he had to make life into a crusade to make sense of it." Okrent compares him to Ned Flanders, but he was a political genius, maneuvering politicians of all parties into backing a ban. He made them change the school curriculum so children were taught that "the majority of beer drinkers die of dropsy" because it is "a narcotic poison [that will] deaden or paralyze the brain."

Wheeler and the Prohibitionists had a structural advantage over his enemies. As the writer George Ade pointed out: "The Non-Drinkers were organising for fifty years but the Drinkers had no organization whatsoever. They had been too busy drinking." The League succeeded in 1921, when the Eighteenth Amendment came into effect, and it became a crime to drink alcohol anywhere in the United States. They celebrated the arrival of Utopia - and the inevitable dysfunctions of prohibition began.

When you ban a popular drug that millions of people want, it doesn't disappear. Instead, it is transferred from the legal economy into the hand of armed criminal gangs. Across America, gangsters rejoiced that they had just been handed one of the biggest markets in the country, and unleashed an Armada of freighters, steamers, and even submarines to bring booze back. Nobody who wanted a drink went without. As the journalist Malcolm Bingay wrote: "It was absolutely impossible to get a drink, unless you walked at least ten feet and told the busy bartender in a voice loud enough for him to hear you above the uproar."

So if it didn't stop alcoholism, what did it achieve? The same as prohibition does today - a massive unleashing of criminality and violence. Before prohibition, the saloon-keepers could defend their property and their markets by going to the police if they were threatened. After prohibition, the bootleggers could only defend theirs with guns - and they did. As the legendary lawyer Clarence Darrow explained: "The business pays very well, but it is outside the law and they can't go to court, like shoe dealers or real estate men or grocers when they think an injustice has been done them, or unfair competition has arisen in their territory. So, they naturally shoot." Massive gang wars broke out, with the members torturing and murdering each other first to gain control of and then to retain their patches. Thousands of ordinary citizens were caught in the crossfire.

The icon of the new criminal class was Al Capone, a figure so fixed in our minds as the scar-faced King of Charismatic Crime, pursued by the rugged federal agent Eliot Ness, that Okrent's biographical details seem oddly puncturing. Capone was only 25 when he tortured his way to running Chicago's underworld. He was gone from the city by the age of 30, and a syphillitic corpse by 40. But he was an eloquent exponent of his own case, saying simply: "I give to the public what the public wants. I never had to send out high pressure salesmen. Why, I could never meet the demand."

By 1926, he and his fellow gangsters were making $3.6bn (in 1926 money!). To give some perspective, that was more than the entire expenditure of the US government. The criminals could outbid and outgun the state. So they crippled the institutions of a democratic state and ruled, just as drug gangs do today in Mexico, Afghanistan, and ghettoes from South Central Los Angeles to the banlieues of Paris. They have been handed a market so massive that they can tool up to intimidate everyone in their area, bribe many police and judges into submission, and achieve such a vast size the honest police couldn't even begin to get them all. The late Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman said: "Al Capone epitomizes our earlier attempts at Prohibition; the Crips and Bloods epitomize this one."

Occasionally, the alcohol gangs would have "Peace Conferences" in Atlantic City where they would divide up the country, fix prices, and agree to stay out of the other's territory - and violence would go down. But then the police would try to take out one of the many gangs, and war would break out again to seize control of the newly-available territory. This dynamic explains something that might appear, at first, to be a paradox: the more the police try to enforce prohibition, the worse the drug violence becomes. Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon tried to knock out the heads of the drug gangs, 40,000 people have been killed. Each killing triggers a new war for the dead dealer's patch.

Of course excessive alcohol and drug use can cause terrible harm: I have friends whose lives have been ruined by it. But the harm caused by prohibition soon outweighs the harm caused by the drug itself - whether it's alcohol or cannabis or cocaine. An appalled President Hoover soon said in private that prohibition had caused "a complete breakdown in Government" in Detroit with "indiscrimiate shooting on the river." Sound familiar?

One insight, more than any other, ripples down from Okrent's history to our own bout of prohibition. Armed criminal gangs don't fear prohibition: they love it. He has uncovered fascinating evidence that the criminal gangs sometimes financially supported dry politicians, precisely to keep it in place. They knew if it ended, most of organised crime in America would be bankrupted. When Michael Levine, one of America's top narcotics agents, went undercover in the 1980s and 1990s with la Mafia Cruenza, the Bolivian cocaine cartel, he discovered that, as he puts it, "not only did they not fear our war on drugs, they actually counted on it." The cartel's boss, Jorge Roman, told him the drug war was "a sham on the American tax payer" and bragged it was "actually good for business." When Levine told his boss, the officer in charge of the US drug war in South America, about this, he replied: "Yeah, we know it doesn't work, but we sold [the War on Drugs] up and down the Potomac."

So it's a nasty irony that Prohibitionists try to present legalizers - then, and now - as "the bootlegger's friend" or "the drug-dealer's ally." Precisely the opposite is the truth. Legalizers are the only people who can bankrupt and destroy the drug-gangs, just as they destroyed Capone. Only the prohibitionists can keep them alive.

Once a product is controlled only by criminals, all safety controls vanish - and the drug becomes far more deadly. After 1921, it became common to dilute and relabel poisonous industrial alcohol, which could still legally be bought, and sell it by the pint-glass. This "rotgut" caused epidemics of paralysis and poisoning. For example, one single batch of bad booze permenantly crippled 500 people in Wichita in early 1927 - a usual event. That year, 760 people were poisoned to death by bad booze in New York City alone. So many people became partially paralysed by an industrial alcohol known as 'Jake' that a shuffling, stumbling inability to walk was known 'Jake leg.' Wayne Wheeler persuaded the government not to remove fatal toxins from industrial alcohol, saying it was good to keep this 'disincentive' in place.

Prohibition's flaws were so obvious that the politicians in charge privately admitted the law was self-defeating. Warren Harding brought $1800 of booze with him to the White House, while Andrew Mellon - in charge of enforcing the law - called it "unworkable." Similarly, the last three Presidents of the US have been recreational drug users in their youth. If the law was enforced in full, they would all have been ineligible to vote, never mind enter the Oval Office. Once he ceased to be President, Bill Clinton called for the decriminalisation of cannabis, and Obama probably will too. Yet in office, they continue to mouth prohibitionist platitudes about "eradicating drugs", and insist the rest of the world's leaders resist the calls for greater liberalisation from their populations and instead "crack down" on the drug gangs - no matter how much violence it unleashes.

The need to mouth this script can lead even the sharpest brains into unwitting absurdities. Obama recently praised Calderon for his "crackdown" on drugs by - with no apparent irony - calling him "Mexico's Eliot Ness." Yes: he praised an enforcer of drug prohibition by comparing him to an enforcer of alcohol prohibition. Obama should know that Ness came to regard his War on Alcohol as a disastrous failure, and he died a drunk himself - but drug prohibition addles politicians' brains just as drugs addle a chronic addict's.

By 1928, the failure of alcohol prohibition was plain - yet its opponents were demoralised and despairing. It looked like a fixed and immovable part of the American political landscape, since it would require big majorities in every state to amend the Constitution again. Clarence Darrow wrote that "thirteen dry states with a population of less than New York State alone can prevent repeal until Haley's Comet returns," so "one might as well talk about taking a summer vacation of Mars."

Yet it happened. It happened suddenly and completely. Why? The prohibitionists made a serious miscalculations: they reacted to their failure by demanding the laws be tightened even more. Misdemeanours were turned into felonies - and it threw up a series of judgements shocked America. For example, one 48 year old mother called Etta Mae Miller with ten children was given a life sentence - for selling two pints of liquor to an undercover cop.

But the biggest answer is found in your wallet, with the hard cash. After the Great Crash, the government's revenues from income taxes collapsed by 60 percent in just three years, while the need for spending to stimulate the economy was sky-rocketing. The US government needed a new source of income, fast. The giant untaxed, unchecked alcohol industry suddenly looked like a giant pot of cash at the end of the prohibitionist rainbow. They needed it. Could the same thing happen today, after our own Great Crash? The bankrupt state of California is about to hold a referendum to legalize and tax cannabis, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has pointed out that it could raise massive sums. Yes, history does rhyme.

Many people understandably worry that legalization would cause a huge rise in drug use - but the facts suggest this isn't the case. Portugal decriminalized the personal possession of all drugs in 2001, and - as a study by Glenn Greenwald for the American Enterprise Institute found - it had almost no effect at all. Indeed, drug use fell a little among the young. Similarly, Okrent says the end of alcohol prohibition "made it harder, not easier, to get a drink... Now there were closing hours and age limits and Sunday blue laws, as well as a collection of geographic prosecriptions that kept bars or package stories distant from schools, churches and hospitals." People didn't drink much more. The only change was that they didn't have to turn to armed criminal gangs for it, and they didn't end up swigging poison.

Who now defends alcohol prohibition? Is there a single person left? This echoing silence is suggestive. Ending drug prohibition seems like a huge heave, just as ending alcohol prohibition did. But when it is gone, when the drug gangs are a bankrupted memory, when drug addicts are treated not as immoral criminals but as ill people needing healthcare, who will grieve? American history is pocked by utopian movements that prefer glib wish-thinking over a hard scrutiny of reality, but they always crest and crash in the end.

There will always be millions of people who want to get drunk or stoned or high. The only question is whether their needs are met to by mafias and militias, or by legal and regulated businesses. Okrent's dazzling history leaves us with one whisky-sharp insight above all others. The War on Alcohol and the War on Drugs failed because they were, beneath all the blather, a war on human nature.

© 2010 The Independent

Johann Hari is a columnist for the London Independent. He has reported from Iraq, Israel/Palestine, the Congo, the Central African Republic, Venezuela, Peru and the US, and his journalism has appeared in publications all over the world.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bill Piper: Don't Just Smoke a Joint on 4/20 -- Take Action Against Marijuana Prohibition (huffingtonpost.com)
• Medical Marijuana (herbalmedicine.suite101.com)
• Diane Francis: Legalize drugs, balance budgets (huffingtonpost.com)
• Fabio Periera: Ten Minutes with: Cypress Hill (huffingtonpost.com)
• Child discovers marijuana in used game case (destructoid.com)
• Review Round Up: Micro Zombie Invasion [List] (kotaku.com)
• Willie Nelson To Larry King: I Smoked Pot Before Your Show (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Daniel Okrent's Last Call revisits Prohibition. (slate.com)
• Johann Hari: How can America's 'War on Drugs' succeed if their Prohibition laws failed? (independent.co.uk)
• Book Review - Last Call - The Rise and Fall of Prohibition - By Daniel Okrent (nytimes.com)
• Op-Ed Contributor: The False Promise of Legalization (nytimes.com)
• Against sin taxes and soft prohibition (trueslant.com)
• What Led to Passing of Prohibition (services.newsweek.com)
• 20 reviews of Prohibition (rateitall.com)
• The War on Drugs is a War on Liberty, Not to Mention Good Taste (trueslant.com)
• Stanton Peele: Alcohol Addiction: The Good and the Evil of Alcohol (huffingtonpost.com)
• The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (politicalwire.com)

GIC Contract With CVS Questioned

State contract pits CVS/Caremark against Independent Pharmacies despite federal and state investigations

By Genevieve Fraser

The Commonwealth’s Group Insurance Commission (GIC) has chosen CVS/Caremark as the state’s new pharmacy benefits manager, a move that will impact tens of thousands of state retirees and will serve to further undercut the ability of community pharmacies to remain in business. The Group Insurance Commission is a quasi-independent state agency governed by a fifteen-member Commission appointed by the Governor.

The GIC contract was drawn up with CVS/Caremark despite investigations by the Federal Trade Commission, the Massachusetts Insurance Commission and the Attorney General’s office regarding monopolistic practices by CVS/Caremark. The change over to the Rhode Island based CVS will take effect on July 1 and replace Express Scripts which has been the state vendor since 2000.

The greatest change to the consumer is “retirees will have the option of receiving their maintenance medications through the mail or picking it up at the retail level,” according to a GIC announcement. Mail order deliveries involve 90 day supplies that are transferred through unsecured delivery routes to mailboxes that are not secured.

“With CVS that problem has been solved, in that you can now get the financial benefit of mail order, but still visit the pharmacy to pick up the drugs,” Ralph White, president of the Association of State Board of Retirement stated. “The catch is that you will need to use CVS in order to participate in the mail order plan.”

CVS, which operates 7,000 retail stores throughout the country, merged with the pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) giant Caremark in 2007. Earlier, Caremark had swallowed up three pharmacy benefits manger companies.

“With the completion of the merger between CVS and Caremark, the Company became the largest provider of prescriptions in the United States, filling or managing more than 1.2 billion prescriptions annually. CVS Caremark also has more retail drugstores (6,900), more retail health clinics (over 500), more active cardholders in its retail loyalty program (over 50 million), and more pharmacists and nurse practitioners than any company in the nation. The combined drugstore-PBM giant has relationships with over 150 million consumers, one of every two Americans, and has access to data on approximately 30 percent of all prescriptions in the United States,” according to the Change to Win coalition of labor unions initiative, Alarmed about CVS/Caremark.

David Benoit, vice president of Patient Care Services for the Northeast Pharmacy Service Corporation voiced concern that problems arise from supplying 90 days worth of medicines to patients. “Many drugs require close monitoring due to possible drug interactions or reactions to particular prescriptions,” he explained. If for any reason, the patient changes to a different medication, precious dollars are wasted. He also cited problems with individuals on anti-depressants. “Overdoses with antidepressants can cause real problems with a thirty day supply; 90-day supplies are much more dangerous,” Benoit said.

Todd Brown, executive director of the Massachusetts Independent Pharmacy Association stated, “It’s disappointing that despite the fact CVS/Caremark is being investigated by several different parties the Massachusetts GIC has still decided to use them as their pharmacy benefits manager. This has a negative impact on consumers because it limits their choice of pharmacy.”

In 1970, there were 26,000 independent community pharmacies in Massachusetts. Today there are 1,000. CVS owns three hundred Massachusetts based pharmacies.

NOTE: Genevieve Fraser is an Independent candidate for state representative for the 2nd Franklin District. For further information, contact Fraser4Rep@gmail.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• New troubles for CVS Caremark (money.cnn.com)
• Antitrust, Chain/PBM's, Independents and You (theangrypharmacist.com)
• CVS Caremark Task Force Probe Includes Connecticut, Illinois (businessweek.com)
• CVS Multi-State Probe Tied to Caremark Purchase, Florida Says (businessweek.com)
• CVS Heats Up Pharmacy Benefit Competition for Medco (Update1) (businessweek.com)
• CVS to Invest 'Substantial' Amount to Integrate Caremark Units (businessweek.com)
• Chicago News Cooperative: Walgreen Drops Bid for City Contract After Employee Took Data (nytimes.com)
• DBN On Mandatory Mail (georgevanantwerp.com)
• CVS Caremark, Behavioral Economics, Social Media, and Adherence (georgevanantwerp.com)
• NextRx purchase boosts Express Scripts 4Q profit (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Take More Vitamin D

Image by Perfecto Insecto via Flickr

Mark Hyman, MD

Practicing physician and pioneer in functional medicine
Posted: May 22, 2010 08:00 AM

Vitamin D: Why You Are Probably NOT Getting Enough and How That Makes You Sick

What vitamin may we need in amounts up to 25 times higher than the government recommends for us to be healthy?

What vitamin deficiency affects 70-80 percent of the population, is almost never diagnosed and has been linked to many cancers, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, depression,(i) fibromyalgia, chronic muscle pain, bone loss and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis?(ii)


What vitamin is almost totally absent from our food supply?

What vitamin is the hidden cause of much suffering that is easy to treat?

The answer to all of these questions is vitamin D.

Over the last 15 years of my practice, my focus has been to discover what the body needs to function optimally. Vitamin D, a nutrient (more of a hormone and gene modulator) is a critical, essential ingredient for health and optimal function. The problem is that most of us don't have enough of it because we work and live indoors, use sun block and can't get enough from our diet--even in fortified foods.

Two recent studies in the journal Pediatrics found that 70 percent of American kids aren't getting enough vitamin D, and this puts them at higher risk of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and lower levels of good cholesterol. (iii) Low vitamin D levels also may increase a child's risk of developing heart disease later in life.

Overall, 7.6 million, or nine percent, of US children were vitamin-D deficient, and another 50.8 million, or 61 percent, had insufficient levels of this important vitamin in their blood.

The average blood level of vitamin D was 25 ng/dl for Caucasians and 16 ng/dl for African Americans. The optimal level is 45 ng/dl and requires about 3000-4000 IU a day of vitamin D3 -- 10 times current recommendations. If our whole population achieved a minimum level of 45 ng/dl, we would have 400,000 fewer premature deaths per year. There would be a reduction of cancer by 35 percent, type 2 diabetes by 33 percent and all causes of mortality by seven percent. (iv)

The economic burden due to vitamin D insufficiency in the United States is $40-$53 billion per year. This can be corrected for pennies a person per day.

Over the last five years, I have tested almost every patient in my practice for vitamin D deficiency, and I have been shocked by the results. What's even more amazing is what happens when my patients' vitamin D status reaches optimal levels. Having witnessed these changes, there's no doubt in my mind: vitamin D is an incredible asset to your health.

That is why in today's blog I want to explain the importance of this essential vitamin and give you six tips on how to get optimize your vitamin D levels.

Let's start by looking at the massive impact vitamin D has on the health and function of every cell and gene in your body.

How Vitamin D Regulates Your Cells and Genes

Vitamin D has a dramatic impact on the health and function of your cells. It reduces cellular growth (which promotes cancer) and improves cell differentiation (which puts cells into an anti-cancer state). That makes vitamin D one of the most potent cancer inhibitors--and explains why vitamin D deficiency has been linked to colon, prostate, breast and ovarian cancer.

But what's even more fascinating is how vitamin D regulates and controls genes.

It acts on a cellular docking station called a receptor that then sends messages to our genes. That's how vitamin D controls so many different functions--like preventing cancer, reducing inflammation, boosting mood, easing muscle aches and fibromyalgia and building bones.

Vitamin D also helps prevent the flu and colds and infections. In an observational study of Finnish soldiers, those with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels higher than 16 ng/mL (40 nmol/L) had fewer respiratory infections than those with lower levels.(v) More recently, in a double-blind randomized controlled trial involving school girls, supplementation with 1200 IU/d of vitamin D3 during the wintertime significantly reduced influenza A infections.(vi)

These are just a few examples of the power of vitamin D. When we don't get enough it impacts every area of our biology, because it affects the way our cells and genes function. And many of us are deficient for one simple reason ...

Your body makes vitamin D when it's exposed to sunlight. In fact, 80 to 100 percent of the vitamin D we need comes from the sun. The sun exposure that makes our skin a bit red (called 1 minimum erythemal dose) produces the equivalent of 10,000 to 25,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D in our bodies.

The problem is that most of us aren't exposed to enough sunlight.

Overuse of sunscreen is one reason. While these product help protect against skin cancer--they also block a whopping 97 percent of your body's vitamin D production.

If you live in a northern climate, you're not getting enough sun (and therefore vitamin D), especially during winter. And you're probably not eating enough of the few natural dietary sources of vitamin D: fatty wild fish like mackerel, herring and cod liver oil or porcini mushrooms.

In addition, aging skin produces less vitamin D--the average 70-year-old person creates only 25 percent of the vitamin D that a 20 year-old does. Skin color makes a difference, too. People with dark skin also produce less vitamin D. And I've seen very severe deficiencies in Orthodox Jews and Muslims who keep themselves covered all the time.

With all these causes of vitamin D deficiency, you can see why supplementing with enough of this vitamin is so important. Unfortunately, you aren't really being told the right amount of vitamin D to take.

The government recommends 200 to 600 IU of vitamin a day. This is the amount you need to prevent rickets, a disease caused by vitamin D deficiency. But the real question is: How much vitamin D do we need for OPTIMAL health? How much do we need to prevent autoimmune diseases, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, chronic muscle pain,(vii) depression, osteoporosis and even cancer?

The answer is: Much more than you think.

Recent research by vitamin D pioneer Dr. Michael Holick, Professor of Medicine, Physiology, and Dermatology at Boston University School of Medicine, recommends intakes of up to 2,000 IU a day -- or enough to keep blood levels of 25 hydroxy vitamin D at between 75 to 125 nmol/L (nanomoles per liter).(viii) That may sound high, but it's still safe: Lifeguards have levels of 250 nmol/L without toxicity.

Our government currently recommends 2,000 IU as the upper limit for vitamin D -- but even that may not be high enough for our sun-deprived population! In countries where sun exposure provides the equivalent of 10,000 IU a day and people have vitamin D blood levels of 105 to 163 nmol/L, autoimmune diseases (like multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus) are uncommon.

Don't be scared that amounts that high are toxic: One study of healthy young men receiving 10,000 IU of vitamin D for 20 weeks showed no toxicity.(ix)

You might have seen a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that shows that a single high dose of 500,000 Units of vitamin D3 (one year's worth of vitamin D) increased the risk of falls and fractures in elderly woman.(x) Does this mean that vitamin D doesn't prevent fractures or falls? Absolutely not!

The design and logic of the study were completely wrong. As a friend once said, "The well meaning are often ill doing."

Imagine a study that gave people a year's worth of vitamin A, or iron (both are nutrients that are stored in the body like vitamin D) in one dose. The vitamin A would cause immediate liver failure and death. In fact, the way the Inuit used to kill explorers in the Arctic was to feed them polar bear liver, which gave them toxic doses of vitamin A. A year's worth of iron in one dose would cause severe intestinal problems and iron poisoning.

Biologically we understand why a single high dose of vitamin D may cause problems. A single high dose induces protective mechanisms that reduce the available vitamin D by increasing the activity of enzymes that cause the vitamin D to be broken down by the body. (xi) The body requires a balance of the right nutrients at the right dose at the right time. No one would eat a year's worth of anything in one day and expect it to be healthy.

The question that remains is: How can you get the right amounts of vitamin D for you?

6 Tips for Getting the Right Amount of Vitamin D

Unless you're spending all your time at the beach, eating 30 ounces of wild salmon a day, or downing 10 tablespoons of cod liver oil a day, supplementing with vitamin D is essential. The exact amount needed to get your blood levels to the optimal range (100 to160 nmol/L) will vary depending on your age, how far north you live, how much time you spend in the sun and even the time of the year. But once you reach optimal levels, you'll be amazed at the results.

For example, one study found that vitamin D supplementation could reduce the risk of getting type 1 diabetes by 80 percent.(xii) In the Nurses' Health Study (a study of more than 130,000 nurses over 3 decades), vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of multiple sclerosis by 40 percent.(xiii),(xiv)

I've seen many patients with chronic muscle aches and pains and fibromyalgia who are vitamin D deficient--a phenomenon that's been documented in studies. Their symptoms improve when they are treated with vitamin D. A Danish study of Arabic women with fibromyalgia found significant vitamin D deficiency and recovery with replacement of vitamin D.(xv)

Finally, vitamin D has been shown to help prevent and treat osteoporosis. In fact, it's even more important than calcium. That's because your body needs vitamin D to be able to properly absorb calcium. Without adequate levels of vitamin D, the intestine absorbs only 10 to 15 percent of dietary calcium. Research shows that the bone-protective benefits of vitamin D keep increasing with the dose.

So here is my advice for getting optimal levels of vitamin D:

1. Get tested for 25 OH vitamin D. The current ranges for "normal" are 25 to 137 nmol/L or 10 to 55 ng/ml. These are fine if you want to prevent rickets -- but NOT for optimal health. In that case, the range should be 100 to 160 nmol/L or 40 to 65 ng/ml. In the future, we may raise this "optimal" level even higher.

2. Take the right type of vitamin D. The only active form of vitamin D is vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Look for this type. Many vitamins and prescriptions of vitamin D have vitamin D2 -- which is not biologically active.

3. Take the right amount of vitamin D. If you have a deficiency, you should correct it with 5,000 to 10,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day for three months--but only under a doctor's supervision. For maintenance, take 2,000 to 4,000 IU a day of vitamin D3. Some people may need higher doses over the long run to maintain optimal levels because of differences in vitamin D receptors, living in northern latitudes, indoor living, or skin color.

4. Monitor your vitamin D status until you are in the optimal range. If you are taking high doses (10,000 IU a day) your doctor must also check your calcium, phosphorous and parathyroid hormone levels every three months.

5. Remember that it takes up to 6 to 10 months to "fill up the tank" for vitamin D if you're deficient. Once this occurs, you can lower the dose to the maintenance dose of 2,000 to 4,000 Units a day.

6. Try to eat dietary sources of vitamin D. These include:

• Fish liver oils, such as cod liver oil. 1 TBSP (15 ml) = 1,360 IU of vitamin D
• Cooked wild salmon. 3.5 oz = 360 IU of vitamin D
• Cooked mackerel. 3.5 oz = 345 IU of vitamin D
• Sardines, canned in oil, drained. 1.75 oz = 250 IU of vitamin D
• One whole egg = 20 IU of vitamin D
• Porcini mushrooms 4 ounces = 400 IU of vitamin D

You can see now why I feel so passionately about vitamin D. This vitamin is critical for good health. So start aiming for optimal levels--and watch how your health improves.

Now I'd like to hear from you ...

Have you experienced any symptoms of vitamin D deficiency?

Do you think you are not getting enough sun?

Have you experienced any health benefits from getting more sun or correcting a vitamin D deficiency you may have had?

Please let me know your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

To your good health,

Mark Hyman, M.D.

References

(i) Wilkins C.H., Sheline Y.I., Roe C.M., et al. (2006) Vitamin D deficiency is associated with low mood and worse cognitive performance in older adults. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 14(12):1032-1040.

(ii) Holick, M. (2004). Sunlight and vitamin D for bone health and prevention of autoimmune diseases, cancers and cardiovascular disease [published online]. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (80)suppl:1678S-88S.

(iii) Kumar, J., Muntner, P., Kaskel, F., et al. (2009). Prevalence and associations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency in US children: NHANES 2001-2004. Pediatrics. 124(3):e362-e370.

(iv) Grant, W. (2009). In defense of the sun: An estimate of changes in mortality rates in the United States if mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were raised to 45 ng/mL by solar ultraviolet-B irradiance. Dermato-Endocrinology. (1)4: 207-214.

(v) Laaksi I., Ruohola J.P., Tuohimaa P. et al. (2007). An association of serum vitamin D concentrations < 40 nmol/L with acute respiratory tract infection in young Finnish men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 86(3):714-717.

(vi) Urashima, M., Segawa, T., Okazaki, M., et al. (2010). Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren. American Journal of Clinical Nutriton. 91(5)1255-1260.

(vii) Atherton, K., Berry, D.J., Parsons, T., et al. (2009). Vitamin D and chronic widespread pain in a white middle-aged British population: Evidence from a cross-sectional population survey. Annals of the Rheumatic Disease. 68(6):817¬-822.

(viii) Holick, M. (2006). Vitamin D deficiency. New England Journal of Medicine. 357(3):266.281. Review.

(ix) Heaney, R.P., Davies, K.M., Chen, T.C., et al. (2003). Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing with cholecalciferol. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 77(1):204-210.

(x) Sanders, K.M., Stuart, A.L., Williamson, E.J., et al. (2010) Annual high-dose oral vitamin D and falls and fractures in older women: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association. 303(18):1815-1822.

(xi) Dawson-Hughes, B., Harris, S.S. (2010) High-dose vitamin D supplementation: Too much of a good thing? Journal of the American Medical Association. 303(18):1861-1862.

(xii) Hyppönen, E., Läärä, E., Reunanen, A., et al. (2001). Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes. A birth-cohort study. Lancet. 358(9292)1500-1503.

(xiii) Munger, K.L., Zhang, M., O'Reilly, E. (2004). Vitamin D intake and incidence of multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 62:60-65.

(xiv) Munger, K.L., Levin, L., Hollis, B., et al. (2006). Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and risk of multiple sclerosis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 296(23):2832-2838.

(xv) Glerup, H., Mikkelsen, K., Hass, E., et al. (2000). Commonly recommended daily intake of vitamin D is not sufficient if sunlight exposure is limited. Journal of Internal Medicine. 247(2):260-268.

Mark Hyman, M.D. practicing physician and founder of The UltraWellness Center is a pioneer in functional medicine. Dr. Hyman is now sharing the 7 ways to tap into your body's natural ability to heal itself. You can follow him on Twitter, connect with him on LinkedIn, watch his videos on Youtube and become a fan on Facebook.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Healing Foods (naturalmedicine.suite101.com)
• Mark Hyman, MD: Glutathione: The Mother of All Antioxidants (huffingtonpost.com)
• UltraWellness or Ultra-Hype? Antidepressant as Demagogue (psychcentral.com)
• The UltraSimple Diet: Shed 10 Pounds in 7 Days! (lifescript.com)
• Get an UltraMetabolism Upgrade (lifescript.com)
• Dairy: 6 Reasons You Should Avoid It at All Costs or Why Following the USDA Food Pyramid Guidelines is Bad for Your Health (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Mark Hyman, MD: How to Rid Your Body of Mercury and Other Heavy Metals: A 3-Step Plan to Recover Your Health (huffingtonpost.com)
• Vitamin D - it's the essential "sunshine vitamin" everyone needs. But are you getting enough? (newswire.ca)
• Mark Hyman, MD: Resveratrol -- Eat Whatever and Live to 120? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Too Many Infants Short on Vitamin D (nlm.nih.gov)

High Fructose Corn Syrup Critic Defends Princton Study

Image via Wikipedia

The bitter with the sweet
A high-fructose corn syrup researcher answers his critics


by Tom Laskawy

This is Part 1 of 2 posts of in-depth analysis into the breakthrough work on high-fructose corn syrup and weight gain by Princeton researchers.

_______________

I have to admit that I was fascinated to watch the fallout over the Princeton HFCS study. What I thought would generate a "oh, look, another great reason to avoid HFCS!" reaction swiftly turned into "that study doesn't prove a thing!!" -- a sentiment that nutritionists, food business columnists and the Corn Refiners Association all, remarkably, shared.

Still, several questions raised by critics are worth addressing. We contacted the lead author of the Princeton study, Bart HoebelhoebelPrinceton researcher Bart Hoebel and crew prepare to feed rats HFCS. Photo: Princeton University, Office of Communications, Denise Applewhite, to see if he could shed some light on general questions surrounding the work as well as particular objections raised by physiologist Karen Teff, PhD of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in a blog post by Nicci Micco on Eating Well's website.

The full email transcript appears below. One clarification in particular that I found interesting has to do with claims that the researchers didn't directly compare HFCS consumption to table sugar consumption in a key experiment and thus are not able to conclude that HFCS causes more and worse weight gain over table sugar. In the experiment in question, researchers gave rats access to a 10% HFCS "drink" in addition to their normal feed. The rats gained excess weight in their abdomens (which is associated with metabolic disorders) and their triglyceride levels increased (also a symptom of metablolic disorders).

Dr. Hoebel points out that previous research has firmly established that if you give rats access to a 10% table sugar "drink" in addition to their normal feed, they do not gain additional fat. In other words, their bodies are able to metabolize the extra calories without creating more weight. This previous research is referenced in the study--but was apparently overlooked by critics. In other words, while the researchers didn't compare HFCS to sugar directly in that particular experiment, we already know what happens to rats when you feed them small amounts of additional table sugar.

I understand that his answers to this and other criticisms won't convince everyone, but I hope people will read the commentary below and think about just what level of "proof" we need before questioning the wisdom of making HFCS ubiquitous in our food system. For more thoughts on why the debate over HFCS has become so contentious, see Part 2 of this analysis, which will appear Monday.

The first two questions we had for Dr. Hoebel came from Grist Food Editor Tom Philpott:

Q: Do you have any particular comments on the issue of "statistical significance"? Is it true that the results in experiments 1 and 3 both lacked statistical significance, as some have claimed?

Hoebel: No, this is not true as a general statement. We reported results that are statistically significant as stated in the article. In Experiment 1, rats with 12-or 24-hour access to HFCS gained significantly more weight than the group with 12-hour access to sucrose. In Experiment 3, the main finding is that females rats with 24-hour access to HFCS weighed the most after 7 months , and this was overall (Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance) statistically different than the sucrose and chow fed controls.

This is important and meaningful because the 24-hour HFCS females had significantly heavier fat pads in the abdominal and uterine areas. They also had higher blood triglyceride levels than the other groups, which may have contributed to the body weight and body fat.

Q: Why did "Experiment 2" in your study, which compared rats' access to HFCS over 12 and 24 hour time periods, not include sucrose? What are the clearest conclusions that can be drawn from its results as constructed? [Note to reader: this question is also addressed above--the bit about access to table sugar solution not seeming to show weight gain in rats.]

Hoebel: The goal of this paper was not exclusively to compare HFCS to sucrose. Rather, we were interested in assessing 1) limited vs. continuous access to HFCS, as our previous research has focused on binge eating of sugars, 2) differences in body weight gain as a results of access to HFCS that might result in males vs. females, and 3) the effects of long term access to HFCS on parameters such as triglyceride levels and fat accrual.

The vision of the paper was to study the effects of HFCS on body weight and obesity, not just to pit it against sucrose. The clearest conclusions that can be drawn from Experiment 2 are that, in male rats, long term consumption of HFCS increases triglyceride levels and fat accrual. To us, this is an important finding. It shows that not only will HFCS increase body fat, but it will also increase these obesogenic parameters

Next, we asked Dr. Hoebel to respond to criticisms of his work leveled by Dr. Karen Teff of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in a blog post by Nicci Micco on Eating Well:

Comment #1: The solutions of HFCS and sucrose used in all the studies—there were a few—in the Princeton report provided different levels of calories. (The HFCS, in fact, was lower in calories.)

Hoebel: It is true that the solutions of HFCS and sucrose were not offered as calorically equivalent. We note this in the Methods section of the paper. However, it is important to note that the HFCS consuming rats in Experiment 1, the short-term (2-month) study, showed greater gains in body weight while taking in fewer calories of sugar compared to the groups consuming sucrose. This led us to hypothesize that there might be something different about the way HFCS affects the body. Thus, we conducted Experiment 2, the long-term (6 month) study, and measurements showed that increased triglyceride levels and increased body fat were seen in the rats will access to HCFS, but not sucrose.

Comment #2: In one of the studies, the authors reported that male rats had a higher body weight after being exposed to 12 hours of access to the HFCS plus their typical rat chow compared to 1) standard chow alone, 2) 12 hours of access to sucrose with chow, and 3) 24 hours of access to sucrose with chow. However, they did not report or do the statistics on the change in weight. Thus, this is meaningless and poorly controlled.

Hoebel: One of the groups listed above is cited incorrectly; group 3 had 24 hours of HFCS and chow access (no sucrose access). As stated in the Methods section, the males in the three groups of Experiment 1 were “weight-matched”. That means the average (mean) weight of the rats in each group started out the same. Therefore the end-point body weights reported are in fact accurate representations of the mean body weight change. Ergo, the statistics were done on the appropriate measure. The result is meaningful and well controlled, given the use of not one but three comparison groups.

Comment #3: In a second experiment, they compared chow to chow-plus-HFCS for 24 hours and chow-plus-HFCS for 12 hours and found that access to the HFCS increased body weight. So what? Again, meaningless. This is like taking two groups of people, giving them the same diet but allowing one group to drink sweetened soda whenever they liked. Of course, they will gain weight because they are ingesting more calories. These findings have nothing to do with the controversy between sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup.

Hoebel: The result is, in fact, meaningful. As cited in the Discussion section, we have previously shown that the rats are able to compensate for the excess calories obtained when drinking 10% sucrose by taking fewer calories of chow and thereby maintaining a normal body weight. Therefore, we thought it was interesting and important to report that long-term access to HFCS causes rats to become overweight, whereas access to 10% sucrose does not. While comparisons were made to sucrose in some of the studies, this was not the sole focus of the paper. Rather, we were interested in seeing the effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic characteristics, and there were other variables of interest that were studied (as described in the response to the next comment).

Comment #4: Finally, in a third study, they show body weight as a percent of baseline (this is appropriate) and show that rats who had free access to both chow and HFCS gained a tiny bit more weight than chow alone, 12 hours of HFCS or 12 hours of sucrose. They did not compare it to the control of 24 hours of access to sucrose.

Hoebel: The statistical test (Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance) did show an overall significant difference between female rats with HFCS to drink 24-hr per day and the groups with chow alone or 12-hr access to sucrose, as described in the Results section. We did not compare 24-hr HFCS vs. 24-hr sucrose in this study because 1) in our previous studies (with both male and female rats) we have noted that rats with 24-hr access to 10% sucrose do not gain significantly more weight than chow-fed controls, and 2) in addition to comparing HFCS to sucrose, we were interested in the effects of limited (12-h) access to HFCS to see if it would cause binging that might enhance HFCS intake or body weight. Further, we chose to focus on assessing 12-h access as a variable because we did not know the effect of 12-hr vs. 24-hr HFCS access in female rats. This was of interest to us in light of the findings in Experiment 1 in males where we made that comparison, and because our laboratory has a long-standing interest in the effects of binge eating of palatable food. We explain and give the rationale for the choice of these variables in the Methods section.

So, yes the females drinking 24-hr HFCS showed a statistically significant increase in body weight. It is important and meaningful because these females had significantly heavier fat pads in the abdominal and uterine areas. They also had higher blood triglyceride levels than the other groups, which may have contributed to the body weight and body fat characteristics of obesity.

Our study in laboratory rats complements the growing body of literature suggesting that HFCS affects body weight and some obesogenic parameters. We cite in our paper additional evidence reported by other groups that supports our findings, and also acknowledge studies that suggest that HFCS does not affect body weight in ways different than that of sucrose. We acknowledge in the paper that at higher concentrations (e.g. 32%) sucrose has been shown to increase body weight. We are claiming, however, that at the concentrations we compared in this study, HFCS causes characteristics of obesity. The data show that both male and female rats are (1) overweight, (2) have heavier fat pads, particularly in the abdominal area and (3) have elevated circulating triglyceride levels.

For more information and references on this topic, as studied in both animals and humans, see a review published this year by George Bray, Curr Opin Lipidol. 2010 Feb;21(1):51-7."Soft drink consumption and obesity: it is all about fructose".

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bill Chameides: High Fructose Corn Syrup: How Sweet It Is? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Latest high-fructose corn syrup study generates buzz, debate (cnn.com)
• High Fructose Corn Syrup, and the Branding of Obesity (pamil-visions.net)
• High-Fructose Corn Syrup "Prompts Considerably More Weight Gain" than Sugar [Diet] (lifehacker.com)
• Yes, High-Fructose Corn Syrup Is as Bad as We All Thought (simplycooking.wordpress.com)
• High Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Bigger Weight Gain In Rats (science.slashdot.org)
• Does high-fructose corn syrup make you fatter? (arstechnica.com)
• High-fructose corn syrup linked to obesity (kottke.org)
• Sweetened drinks may aggravate liver disease (cbc.ca)
• "It's made from corn, doesn't have artificial ingredients, and like sugar it's fine in moderation." (slog.thestranger.com)