[ Note: This article was written by fitness and nutrition author Jon Benson. Jon is a good friend of mine so I have his permission to share it with you.  I have personally reviewed Every Other Day Diet in addition to Jon's other products and I give them my highest recommendation. I'm an affiliate of Jon's and receive a portion of the proceeds made via the links in this article. A portion of the proceeds I receive are used to help expand Natural Health On The Web. This gives me the resources to expand so I can continue to create articles, blogs and offer you a free and reliable resource of natural health information. Enjoy the article.]

Ever heard of Rowdy Gains?

Rowdy was swimmer and Olympic gold-medalist in the 1984 Olympics.

But that’s not what made Rowdy special.

And certainly not what makes his story worth reading when it comes to muscle-shaping secrets.

Over the next few days I’m going to be sharing 5 Tips for putting on lean muscle. If you want to put on a 2 lbs or 20lbs of muscle, these 5 Tips will help you do it faster than ever.

Remember: Muscle burns calories at rest… the more lean muscle you have the less bodyfat you’ll have if you eat the way I suggest. It’s as simple as that.

Back to Rowdy Gains…

His story is golden because of “how” he won the medal.

You see, Rowdy was an underdog. He was considered too old to be a legitimate threat in the race, despite being a world record-holder. He has missed his prime due to the boycott of the 1980 Olympics.

But Rowdy had a good coach (more on that tomorrow)… and his coach knew the power of “distinctions”…

Distinctions are the subtle things that turn average into excellence and losers into winners. Often distinctions are so hard to spot that even the smartest people miss them.

The men and women who succeed massively rarely miss them.

Rowdy was focused on the race… but his coach was focused on the distinctions.

“What can Rowdy do that no one else is doing to give him an edge?”

Well, his savvy coach noticed that the guy who started the race was calling “on your marks…” and then quickly firing the starting-gun. Very quickly in fact.

His coach came up to him moments before the race and said, “Rowdy, jump early.”

And jump early he did. He was first off the blocks and never looked back.

Turns to find out that his time off the blocks was the difference between winning and losing. And the second place guy was furious! He was hitting the wall and yelling about the “false start”… but there was not a false start upon reply.

Just a savvy start! A start based on one, small, tiny… actually monumentally huge distinction.

The first thing you need to ask yourself when it comes to your weight-training goals is this:

“What small distinctions can I make to turn an average workout into a super-productive workout”?

Again, these are small distinctions… little things that add up to huge gains.

Here’s an example:

When doing a chest press exercise, I have two distinctions that have made all the difference in my chest gains.

First, I turn my palms inward, rather than facing out, when pressing with dumbbells. Obviously this does not work with barbell presses, but I use mostly dumbbells.

The result? No rotator cuff or shoulder injuries.

This alone has allowed me to train three more months out of each year. That’s how much time I used to lose before an orthopedic surgeon gave me this tip.

Second, when pressing, I explode up. Then I slow DOWN… I always lower the weight slower than I lift it up. This gives me TWO growth factors rather than just one in the same movement, and without one second difference in the gym.

Again… distinctions.

If you want my book on the best distinctions I’ve ever used for gaining lean muscle, then go here:

7 Minute Workouts <– go.

Think about it next time you plan your workouts.

The Boundless Nutritional Benefits of Flaxseed

Women would be wise to get their "flax fix:" It may help prevent osteoporosis.

Is it me, or does there seem to be an influx of flax in the supermarket these days?  From cereal boxes to pita shells, oatmeal mixes to muffin recipes; flax is spreading its wings and winging its way into our diet.  And it’s about time, too, because flax is one of the best things you can eat.

You probably already know about the array of flaxseed benefits.  These include a protection from long term health complications like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, but also protection from more acute complications, like preventing dry eyes and tempering women’s “hot flashes.”  And speaking of women, women would be particularly wise to load their diets with an influx of flax, as a recent study has shown the effectiveness of flaxseed oil in warding off osteoporosis.

To see if flax could flex its bone-development muscle, researchers did quite a bit of re-working to a group of 70 rats.  For instance, in 30 of the rats, they removed their ovaries to decrease the amount of estrogen that’s produced.  This group served as an example of women in a post-menopausal state.  In other rats, they were genetically altered so that they would produce signs and symptoms of type I diabetes.  This was done to confirm if diabetes truly contributes to osteoporosis development.

They then gave some of the “diabetic” rats flaxseed oil and some of the “post-menopausal” rats flaxseed oil to see if it had any impact on osteoporosis development.  One way of determining this was through urine samples, where they test for the production of bone-building proteins like osteocalcin.  Osteocalcin is one of many proteins found in the blood and urine, but when there’s an especially high amount found, that’s indicative of significant bone formation and resorption.  When there’s an unusually low amount—you guessed it—that’s a good sign that osteoporosis is either in the offing or well underway.

So when researchers found significant amounts of these proteins in the rats taking the flaxseed oil, they didn’t have to think too hard about what the catalyst was.

The rats supplemented with the flax for two months (which was the length of the study period), and the findings were published in the International Journal of Food Safety.  It was conducted by researchers from Cairo, Egypt.

Osteoporosis is not a “women’s only” problem, but women are four times more likely to get in their lifetime than men are.  The reason for this boils down to biology:  Women simply have less bone mass.  As a result, women represent the lion’s share of the combined 75 million osteoporosis cases in Japan, Europe and the United States.

Researchers say that the flaxseed’s bone-promoting benefits are likely due to its rich omega-3 fatty acid content.  You can say that again; just two tablespoons has an omega-3 content that’s 140 percent of the recommended daily value!

Besides getting a healthy dose through flaxseed oil supplements, it’s actually pretty easy to get them through your diet.  It just takes some tweaking here and there.

For instance, instead of sunflower seeds, sprinkle your salad with some flaxseeds.  They’re a sufficient substitute for sunflowers’ nuttiness without being overpowering, as flaxseeds are quite small (slightly larger than sesame seeds).

Or try adding them to fresh baked bread or muffin recipes; it’ll give every loaf and muffin morsel an extra shot of fiber.  Or add them to hot cereal mixes, like oatmeal or grits.

And that’s just for starters.  You’ll be amazed at how versatile flaxseeds can be in your breakfast, lunch and dinner dishes.

Sources:
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
nutraingredients.com
whfoods.com

Rise in Antidepressant, Sedative Use Linked to Elderly Falls

On the heels of the discovery that one in every seven elderly filled an antidepressant prescription last year, researchers say antidepressants, sedatives lead to an increased incidence of falls.

Earlier this year, I wrote about a study from New Zealand that talked about how regular exercise among senior citizens worked wonders in preventing them from falling—the fifth leading cause of death in the developed world, believe it or not.

Here’s a study that talks about what often causes senior citizens to fall.  And the culprits just happen to be the bane of my existence:  prescription drugs, especially mood-altering prescription drugs and sleep aides.

That the study pinpointed mood-altering drugs (like anti-depressants) and sleeping pills (both over the counter and prescription) is significant because the study analyzed the reported side effects of several different classes of drugs, including (but not limited to) blood pressure medications, pain killers, diuretics, beta-blockers, and over-the-counter pain medications like aspirin and ibuprofen.   They then analyzed the occurrence of reported falls among 79,000 study participants over the age of 60 over an 11-year period and whether or not they took these drugs.

Among the nine different classes of drugs assessed, they did not find statistically significant evidence for their being linked to the elderly participants’ falls in the majority of cases.  But when they looked at sedatives, antipsychotics, and antidepressants—the side effects of which almost always include increased grogginess and drowsiness—they did find “statistically significant evidence” that there were more cases of falls when people were on these drugs.

While more research needs to be done before the University of British Columbia researchers can say definitively that it’s the drowsiness side effect that’s to blame, they really think that that’s the chief reason.  Drowsiness, obviously, leads people to be unsteady on their feet, but especially in the elderly.  As lead author and investigator Carlo Marra believes, the elderly aren’t able to metabolize these drugs in quite the same way as those younger than them, thus are even more susceptible to prescription drugs’ side effects.

The study is published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.

Given how many elderly people take prescription drugs in the country—an estimated one in every seven octogenarians (i.e. someone in their eighties) filled an antidepressant prescription last year—this finding is enormously significant.  And while it may not necessarily be the chief reason for why falls are the fifth leading cause of death in the developed world for the elderly, it’s at least partly the reason.  And “partly” is enough to be wholly concerned.

Fortunately, there are natural alternatives to prescription and over-the-counter drugs that can boost your mood or help you sleep.  Check out my article on the best foods for sleep, and for mood, the best supplements and activities you can do.

Source:
sciencedaily.com

The Vitamin that ‘D’etermines Death?

Utah researchers find evidence suggesting levels of vitamin D influences risk of death.

Vitamin D just can’t seem to stay out of the news, this time making headlines in one of the country’s healthiest states, as two-thirds of Utahns are deficient in this all-important vitamin.  And because they’re deficient, Utahns are at an increased risk for death!

It doesn’t seem to make sense, does it?  How can a state that’s consistently ranked among the country’s healthiest states (likely due to the state’s high Mormon population, as Mormons have a rather strict health code) be so at risk for dying?  Could vitamin D really play that big of a role for overall health?

According to researchers from the Heart Institute in Salt Lake City’s Intermountain Medical Center, absolutely!

They realized vitamin D’s importance after charting the vitamin D levels of 28,000 50-year-olds, all of whom had no history of heart disease.  Based on where those levels tended to hover over the year of observation, they were put in one of three groups:  normal, low, or very low (as many reports have indicated in past years, vitamin D levels among Americans overwhelmingly tend to be too low than too high).  They were also interested to see if any health complications resulted over that time period, paying special attention to symptoms and signs indicative of heart disease.

Their findings?  In a word, sobering.

For example, individuals with “very low” levels of vitamin D were 77 percent more likely to have died in that year, 45 percent more likely to have coronary heart disease, and 78 percent more likely to have had a stroke.

The findings, published in the journal Clinical Endocrinology, further emphasize health officials’ need to review the recommended vitamin D levels for all individuals.  Health officials have already increased the recommended levels of vitamin D for kids, doubling the recommended amount from 200 IUs per day to 400 IUs per day.  Despite this recommendation, it’s estimated that 6 million kids in the country are still deficient in this all-important vitamin.

The time has come for health officials to institute a recommended increase for all individuals, regardless of age or gender.  According to the Institutes of Health, people are recommended to consume the same amount as kids:  400 IUs per day.  This is woefully inadequate, and—given the fact that the 400 IU vitamin D recommendation came over a year ago—woefully outdated.

Unless you’re a descendant of Benjamin Button, none of us are getting any younger.  As we age, our bones grow more and more brittle, so adults need vitamin D—i.e., bone food—every bit as much growing kids do.  Thus, this study’s researchers recommend as much as 2,000 IUs to 5,000 IUs per day.

The best source of vitamin D is the sun, but other sources include salmon and mackerel.  A four ounce serving of each has around 350 IUs, so you’ll need to either spend some time in the sun or supplement with a high quality vitamin D supplement as well.

You can find out about your vitamin D levels with a simple blood test.

(Note:  For those interested in why Utahns are so low in vitamin D levels, according to the Salt Lake City Tribune, it’s due to a multitude of factors, including the sun not emitting the same amount of UV radiation on Utah due to its geographical location).

Sources:
sltrib.com
msnbc.msn.com
sciencedaily.com
nutraingredients.com

Niacin Shown to be More Effective than Zetia at Lowering Cholesterol

The cholesterol-lowering drug Zetia may need a new description: Researchers find the B vitamin niacin to be more effective.

As any practitioner of natural medicine can attest, natural medicine is often shoved aside as a “pseudo-science.”  Natural herbs, nutrients and supplements may be beneficial for the body, sure, but only pharmaceuticals can reverse heart disease or lower cholesterol they say.

Well truth be told, their assertions hold at least a kernel’s worth of truth.  I say that because just about everyone knows of at least one occasion in which a cholesterol-lowering drug has worked.  The same generalization can’t be said for natural medicine, only because all-natural medicine is not as widely practiced as traditional medicine is.

And while that trend may not change any time soon, a trend that may change— and if it doesn’t it OUGHT to—is the notion that traditional medicine supersedes natural medicine’s effectiveness.  It couldn’t be said before, but it most certainly can’t be said now.

Publishing their results in the New England Journal of Medicine and presenting their findings to the American Heart Association last Sunday, researchers from the Lipid/Prevention Clinic in Washington, D.C. report that niacin is more effective at lowering LDL cholesterol levels than the cholesterol-lowering drug Zetia, better at reducing plaque build-up than Zetia, and better at increasing HDL cholesterol levels Zetia.

At a news conference on Nov. 15, the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Allen Taylor, said to the assemblage of reporters that, “This trial provides a clear and undeniable (emphasis added) statement on the superior clinical effectiveness of niacin over ezetimibe.”  Ezetimibe is the actual name of Zetia, the drug that lowers cholesterol.

But as Taylor indicated in his comments to the press, Zetia’s reputation for lowering cholesterol has preceded it.

Over 14 months, when researchers analyzed and observed the 363 patients taking either a niacin prescription and a statin or Zetia for treatment, they found that those taking the niacin experienced fewer heart-related maladies (like heart attacks), and had an improved cholesterol profile (i.e. higher HDL count, lower LDL count).

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, the participants on the niacin also used statins, but you already know my stance on statins.  Besides, the researchers pointed to niacin as the true catalyst in lowering cholesterol.

Where this study may go off the rails for natural medicine adherents is the fact that the participants used a prescription kind of niacin rather than an over-the-counter niacin supplement.  Dr. Taylor said over-the-counter niacin’s “safety and efficacy are unknown,” thus was loath to suggest over-the-counter niacin is every bit as effective as prescription niacin.

But as the Mayo Clinic notes, niacin supplements have “long been used to increase high density lipoprotein” levels.  In fact, some studies have found niacin to increase HDL levels by as much as 35 percent!  And when used with statins, they’ve been known to increase HDL levels by 50 percent!

As always, you should consult your doctor before going off cholesterol-lowering (or should I say allegedly cholesterol-lowering) medications like Zetia.

Niacin is a natural vitamin that’s part of the B vitamin family.  It’s plentiful in whole grains and nuts, but it’s also replete in vegetables, particularly mushrooms (Crimini), asparagus spears, and romaine lettuce.  For protein, look no further than chicken breast (a four ounce breast has 72 percent of your recommended daily value) and yellow fin tuna.

If nothing else, this study shows that natural medicine is just what’s it’s always been cracked up to be by those of us who are so passionate about it:  Every bit as effective as traditional treatments, and in this case, even more so.

Sources:
health.usnews.com
mayoclinic.com
en.wikipedia.org
whfoods.com

Study Shows How Yo-Yo Diets Are Doomed to Failure

Yo-yo diets rarely succeed. Recently released findings from The Scripps Research Institute illustrate why that's the case.

I can’t stand it when people say, “I’m on a diet.”  I typically hear this refrain when friends of mine say they want to lose a few; for a short while, they abandon the glut to lose that gut and avoid the yummy to tighten their tummy.

It drives me crazy, though, because once they lose their weight, nine times out of 10, they go right back to their same old eating patterns, and nine times out of 10, they wind up putting on as much, if not more weight, than before.

Sound familiar?  It’s called yo-yo dieting, and it’s something that just about everyone experiences who goes on a “diet.”  But this is precisely why “dieting” is a wrong approach to take for weight loss; it’s destined for doom.  If you want to lose weight, you have to commit to a lifestyle change.  That’s the only real way to ensure success.  But don’t take my word for it.  A study from The Scripps Research Institute says the same thing.

To examine the effects of “yo-yo dieting,” researchers from the Boston University School of Medicine fed two groups of lab rats varying diets.  One group was fed a balanced diet, while the other group was fed a diet where sweet treats were a constant feature.  The rats were able to eat as much or as little of the food as they wanted, but with the yo-yo dieting rats, the researchers swapped their food options in five-day intervals (e.g., five days of a balanced diet, five days of a sweet diet, five days of a balanced diet…).

At the end of the study, the researchers observed some commonalities in the rats’ behavior and brain chemistry.  In their behavior, they found that both groups ate less when given a balanced diet compared to when they ate a sweetened diet.  This was particularly noticeable after the yo-yo dieting rats cycled off the sweetened diet.  But what was even more interesting was that once the yo-yo dieting rats went back on the sweet diet, they returned to their habit of eating more.  For the rats fed a balanced diet consistently, they ate pretty much the same amount throughout.

The changes in food consumption for the yo-yo dieting rats became more understandable when the researchers examined the rats’ brains, specifically the amygdala.  Among many other functions, the amygdala is the section of the brain that’s involved in the body’s reactions to stress.

In the amygdala, the researchers looked at how much of a neuropeptide called corticotrophin-releasing factor, or CRF, was released.  When the body is under stress—or even when the body thinks it’s under stress, but may in fact not be—there is a greater release of this neuropeptide.  So when the researchers found that the yo-yo dieting rats had a CRF neuropeptide level that was five times higher than the control rats on the same diet, they understood why:  They were experiencing withdrawal symptoms from being on the sweet stuff.  It was only when they cycled back on to the sweet diet that the CRF levels returned to normal.

Speaking about the study’s results, lead author Dr. Eric Zorrill, said, “Our findings suggest that intermittently eating sweet food changes the brain’s stress system so that you might feel stressed, even though nothing that terrible has happened.”

Zorrill’s co-author elaborated on the potential pitfalls of this kind of dieting, saying that yo-yo dieting “leads to a vicious cycle.  The more you cycle this way, the more likely it is you cycle again.”

The full details of the study are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

I hearken back to my original point.  If you’re really serious about losing weight, you don’t diet, you commit to a lifestyle change.  This study illustrates why that’s necessary.

Sources:
sciencedaily.com

Re-Branding of Popular Soy Milk Leaves Organic-Conscious Consumers Miffed

Organic grocery shoppers accuse Silk of pulling the wool over their eyes by surreptitiously switching from "organic" to "natural."

As someone that avoids dairy, my milk musings tend to be about one of two things:  almond milk or soy milk.  Both have their nutritional benefits, and both have a great, smooth taste I enjoy.  But after a recent report appearing in the pages of the Dallas Star-Telegram, I can’t help but wonder:  Was I the victim of a Silk bilk?

For the past year, thousands of Silk fans have been drinking from that familiar Silk blue carton, thinking that nothing’s changed.  But boy, how things have changed.  Because if you actually take a look at the labeling on those cartons, it no longer says “Organic.”  It now says “Natural.”

This re-labeling is what has so many fans of Silk—or former fans of Silk—up in arms.  Because as many of you know, “natural” is not the same thing as “organic.”  It’s sad to say, but “natural” has become so broadly defined, virtually anything can be labeled as being “natural” (remember the “Natural” bottles of 7-UP?).  So long as it doesn’t contain artificial ingredients, the natural label can be plastered on to just about any box, carton, bottle, or jug, as there are no hardened-fast guidelines as to what does and does not qualify as being “natural.”  For example, contrary to popular belief, it’s perfectly fine to label a product “natural” even though it’s been sprayed with chemical fertilizers or chemical pesticides.  A much stricter standard is applied to the organic seal, which comes under federal guidelines.

Now, in Dean Food’s defense—the company that markets and produces the Silk line of milk—they do have an organic option.  Their new organic Silk product comes in a green carton and is indeed certified organic.  In an email sent to the Star-Telegram, they apologize to their consumers for the confusion the switch may have caused, but defend the switch by saying that “offering both natural and organic products is the right thing to do for our customers.”

But the “rightness” of their decision is marred by the fact that there was no significant price change when going from the organic to the all-natural variety.  And there ought to have been, because according to The Organic & Non-GMO Report, Dean cut their costs in half by going to natural soybeans (non-genetically modified) over organic soybeans ($11 per bushel versus $19 per bushel).

Dean Food’s clearly didn’t break any laws by instituting these changes, but their re-branding without anyone noticing certainly has all the hallmarks of a “bait-and-switch,” as former fans of Silk are calling it.

What do you think?  Was Silk in the wrong?  Will you continue drinking Silk, or is this an egregious enough action to swear off Silk?  Then again, perhaps you think the difference between “natural” and “organic” is negligible?

Sources:
featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com
star-telegram.com
naturalnews.com

Dark Chocolate Helps Relieve Stress Levels

Dark chocolate connoisseurs, rejoice: It can help relieve emotional distress.

Comfort foods are the oases people turn to for stress relief.  This is OK every once in a while, but not regularly, because comfort foods are more often than not nutritional lightweights.  But that generalization doesn’t apply to chocolate, in particular dark chocolate.  Dark chocolate can—in fact, should—be eaten regularly.  Because according to a recent study published in the Journal of Proteome Research, dark chocolate is not only good for you physically but it’s good for you mentally, because it can help relieve high levels of emotional stress.

Researchers followed the effects of “choco-chomping” among participants that ate about 1.2 ounces of dark chocolate per day for two weeks.  The analysis involved the identification of stress hormones in the body and whether these stress hormones increased, decreased, or remained the same over those two weeks.

To the researchers delight, they found that their stress hormones reduced.  The stress hormones cortisol, adrenaline, noradrenaline and normetanephrine all dropped, and this was identified through urine and blood samples that were collected before and after the 14-day study.

This is the first scientific study to link stress reduction to dark chocolate consumption.  Past studies have linked dark chocolate consumption to other positive health effects, like reducing the risk of developing heart disease by improving arterial blood flow.

So, will any old dark chocolate do?  Hardly.  You want to be looking for chocolate varieties that are highest in antioxidants, or the dark chocolates that have a high cacao percentage.  The higher the percentage, the higher the antioxidant content.  Shoot for any bar that has a cacao content higher than 70 percent (bear in mind that the higher the percentage, the more bitter it is in taste).

As far as amounts go, the amount used in this study was 1.2 ounces or 42 grams.  That’s a little bit less than a full-sized Hershey’s candy bar (the average Hershey’s candy bar is 1.55 ounces)!  Not even the researchers suggest eating a full-sized candy bar to alleviate stress levels.  To keep weight levels in check and still improve stress levels, go for about one-sixth of 42 grams, or 6.7 ounces per day.  Simply chop up the full-sized bar into sixths.

Finally, “cocoa” is not the same as “cacao.”  They’re often used interchangeably, but they’re actually quite different.  “Cacao” refers to the entire cacao bean that’s used in the bar’s production.  All the good stuff, in other words.  “Cocoa” refers to the powder only.  The powder is all the good tasting stuff, but it lacks the other elements that make chocolate so good for you.  It’s sort of like the difference between whole grain and whole wheat.

So, if possible, look for bars that have a high cacao content rather than cocoa content.  If you’re unsure of whether the bar was produced with cacao or cocoa (U.S. regulations allow chocolate producers to use either term, which explains why so many people are confused by the terms), get in touch with the manufacturer.  Their contact information should be written on the bar’s package.

Sources:
sciencedaily.com
examiner.com
worldsfinestchocolate.com

Could Chemicals in Bottled Water Lead to Impotence?

BPA is back in the news. Chinese researchers find the bottled water chemical may be linked to male impotence.

Hey, fellas:  Want another reason why you should opt for the tap over the bottle for water?  The chemicals in those bottles may lead to impotence.

The chemicals linking impotence to bottle-swilling are those three letters that hit the news headlines about a year and a half ago:  BPA, or bisphenol-A.  As you may remember, the report linked high levels of BPA with increased risk for developing metabolic syndrome and poor brain health, particularly poor brain development for newborns.

Now, fortunately, most bottling companies took this issue seriously and stopped making their bottles with bisphenol-A.  But apparently some bottling companies in China didn’t get the memo.

Publishing his findings in the journal Human Reproduction, Dr. De-Kun Li found that among men that were around bisphenol-A due to the nature of their jobs, their BPA levels were 50 – 50! – times higher than the BPA levels found in the typical American male.

Researchers analyzed the blood and urine samples of over 150 male factory workers and assessed the level of their BPA exposure through air measurements.

After asking several questions pertaining to their sexual health, they found that the men with the highest BPA levels were far more likely to report having poor sexual health.  For example, compared to the 386 other male participants of the study that were not around factories that produce BPA (but were in the same town), they were four times more likely to report being unable to achieve or maintain an erection, four times more likely to have a low libido and seven times more likely to have trouble ejaculating!

Now, as this study makes clear, the bisphenol-A levels the study participants were exposed to was in the air, not through the consumption of water from water bottles.  Nevertheless, this kind of effect is enough to give me pause to want to drink from any bottle that contains bisphenol-A, no matter how little it may be.  Especially when I can get my water from the tap for free!

Sure, our bodies may be able to function fine when there are low levels of bisphenol-A in our system, but as a doctor said in a past segment about BPA on the “Today” show, there’s no such thing as a safe level of BPA.

For this and other reasons that you can read about here, it’s best to get your water from the glass.  If your water is unsafe to drink without a filter, here’s the perfect fix.

Sources:
naturalhealthontheweb.com
msnbc.msn.com

Cancer Research Study: 100,000+ Cancer Diagnoses Caused by Obesity

Researchers say more than 100,000 cancer diagnoses every year are directly attributable to obesity.

It’s one thing to be told obesity leads to cancer; it’s quite another to put numbers to that notion, because as the old saying goes, the numbers don’t lie.

According to a new report on the link between cancer and obesity, being grossly overweight is responsible for more than 100,000 newly diagnosed cancers per year.  That’s right – obesity causes 100,500 cancer diagnoses every year.  In the U.S. alone!

These findings aren’t from a university study, either – they’re directly from the world’s foremost authority on cancer, the American Institute for Cancer Research.

The researchers discovered this link by combing through past national surveys that found a wealth of linkages between cancer incidence and obesity.  They then combined those with their own research, and came away with some truly eye-popping findings on just how much of an increased risk for cancer obesity creates.

Consider the following “by the numbers” estimates:

49:  Percentage of endometrial cancer diagnoses related to obesity per year
35:  Percentage of esophageal cancer diagnoses related to obesity per year
13,900:  The estimated drop in the number of annual kidney cancer diagnoses if more people were thin

And that’s just the beginning.  While further research is likely to show that obesity causes even more cancers, the AICR believes the number of breast, colon, gallbladder and pancreatic cancers would also drop if more people were thin.

As shocking as these numbers are, perhaps more shocking is the fact that many people aren’t aware this link even exists.  And “shocking” is the operative word, because the survey’s publisher, Terry Slavin, told CNN in February that he was “shocked to discover the number of people that don’t know about the [obesity/cancer] link.”

Slavin surveyed a total of 40,000 people spanning over 39 countries and found that respondents most oblivious to this fact were those living in African countries and East Asian countries (49 percent and 41 percent, respectively).

Unfortunately, Americans didn’t fare much better.  According to Slavin’s findings, 40 percent of Americans were clueless about this link.  Way too high (then again, 25 percent of respondents didn’t think smoking led to cancer, so maybe the survey respondents were all just a bunch of dunderheads)!

We all know what it takes to stay healthy and lean, but we can sometimes lose sight of the fact that our efforts to remain lean should be for reasons other than trying to impress the opposite sex.  Because when it comes right down to it, all we do to live a healthy life through quality nutrition and regular exercise goes back to our wanting to live a long, disease-free life.  And by staying thin throughout your life, you’re much more likely to achieve that end.

Sources:
cbsnews.com
cnn.com
abcnews.go.com