Part 1:  Some Studies Suggest Stretching Is Pointless:  Could This Be True?

Stretching

There’s a fellow I know who thinks almost all studies conducted are gobbledygook because all they do is point out what’s already obvious. 

While there’s no question studies often do point out what the educated person knows to be true intuitively, they just as frequently point out things that run counter to common sense. 

I can think of no better example of this than the utility of stretching.  Since first grade gym class, ALL of us stretched and ALL of us were told of its importance, as stretching warms up cold muscles so that quick, sudden movements during exercise won’t result in injury.  Many of us have since seen the wisdom behind those words, as a number of people – perhaps even ourselves – have sustained injuries due to improper or a lack of stretching.

But there are some studies out there that suggest stretching “does not produce clinically meaningful reductions in risk of exercise-related injury.”  This was the takeaway conclusion drawn by researchers from Wales, who tested the efficacy of warm-up stretches on a group of army-trained males over the course of 12 weeks.  The soldiers’ stretching exercises were the static kind, the kind where you sit and reach to stretch the hamstrings, squeeze the knee to stretch the glutes, or stand and grab the foot from behind to stretch the quads.

To the researchers’ credit, they do mention that their sample included a group of over a thousand army recruits, but that’s a rarely reported fact in the media.  Too bad, because that fact goes a long way in discrediting their assertion that stretching is useless, because army-trained men have muscles that are far more tuned and trained than average Americans.  Thus, they’re naturally less likely to suffer from injury.

But what about everyone else?  Is the average American safe from injury whether warming up is part of the equation or not? 

If common sense doesn’t already tell you so, the answer of course is NO!  But because some studies suggest it’s OK to “scratch the stretch,” here’s a counter study saying why that’s a bad idea.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina found that warming up – i.e. stretching – is particularly important for young adults, people whose muscles have not yet fully developed.  When comparing how the young adults’ performances and flexibility improved after a new warm-up program was included into their exercise regimen (i.e. soccer), they found that those who engaged in the warm-up program improved their performance on the playing field.  The researchers’ assessed “improvement” by observing their physical play after videotaping them.  Those that used the different warm-up techniques had improved jumping, cutting and foot planting ability.  This was particularly true among those who had the most apparent problems with flexibility prior to the “warm-up intervention.”

The study involved approximately 175 young adults (a mix of boys and girls) between the ages of 10 and 17.  It’s published in this month’s edition of the American Journal of Sports Medicine.

Some stretches may be better than others and how one stretches may contribute to injury, but to say that the act of stretching “produces no clinically meaningful reductions” to injury is a real “stretch.” 

Part 2:  What are the best stretches to perform both before and after a cardiovascular workout.

Sources:
EliteSoccerConditioning.com
New York Times
Ready, Set, GO!
NCBI
Science Daily

Doing One’s Best to Avoid Acrylamide

Potato chips contain acrylamide

Last summer, I wrote about acrylamide – a chemical that’s found most prevalently in potato chips, French fries, crackers, coffee and other carbohydrate-laden snacks.  Many animal studies have shown that when acrylamide is eaten in excess – more than 40 micrograms, according to most estimates – it contributes to various forms of cancer. 

Now comes word that there’s something else one needs to concern themselves with when it comes to acrylamide consumption:  heart disease. 

The more I write, the more clear things become with regards to why heart disease is the number one killer in America today.  Much of it has to do with lack of exercise, but it also has to do with the fact heart disease is linked to so many toxic chemicals like acrylamide. 

It’s estimated that acrylamide is found in as much as 40 percent of the average American’s caloric intake.  And because acrylamide is not an additive but rather a by-produce of the cooking process, it’s not something that can easily be easily eliminated from the diet.  It can, however, be reduced.

Before I get into how it can be reduced – and I’m guessing you already know what I’m going to suggest – let me relate the latest news on how acrylamide is linked to heart disease.

Polish researchers discovered the link after a group of participants for their study consumed an inordinate amount of acrylamide in the average day – about 160 milligrams.  Most of the acrylamide consumed came from chief offenders like the aforementioned potato chip and French fry. 

After four weeks of observing the participants’ acrylamide-crammed diet, the researchers found that their bodies were adversely affected.  For instance, antioxidants they consumed from other foods no longer pushed the acrylamide out of their bodies (strike one!), inflammation increased (strike two!) and the chemical make-up of their LDL levels changed (even though LDL is the “bad” kind of cholesterol, these changes were not of the “good” kind – strike three!).

These are three indicators of how at risk someone is for heart disease (you’re out!).

The full findings are published in this month’s edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

So what’s the best way to eliminate acrylamide from one’s diet?  Well, unfortunately, it’s very difficult to eliminate it entirely – particularly when it’s found in almost half of all calories consumed!  But by eating fewer cooked foods, it can be reduced rather significantly. 

If you’re already a healthy eater, reducing the number of cooked foods shouldn’t be too much of a change.  For example, one of the foods acrylamide is found in is in almonds.  Almonds are traditionally roasted, toasted or salted.  When they’re raw, they have far lesser amounts of acrylamide, one of the reasons why raw almonds are preferable to roasted. 

Another way to reduce acrylamide consumption is by having more vegetables served raw rather than cooked.  Again, acrylamide is produced through the cooking process when a food’s sugars and asparagines combine (and yes, the amino acid asparagine is found in large doses in asparagus, from which the name derives).  So the only way to reduce its prevalence is by reducing cooking. 

Acrylamide is one of those things that is almost impossible to avoid.  Its effects can be minimized, though, with preparation.  It’s sort of like to trying to stay dry when walking in the pouring rain:  You’re going to get wet, but how wet you get largely depends on your preparation (e.g. umbrella, rain jacket, galoshes, walking quickly as opposed to slowly).  With acrylamide, you’re going to consume it, but how much you consume of it depends on your diet (e.g. avoiding processed foods and eating as many raw vegetables, fruits, whole grains and unpasteurized milk as possible).

Sources:
Science Daily
Acrylamide Facts

Comprehensive Harvard Study Indicates Exercise Cuts Colon Cancer Risk by 25 Percent

Exercising

February is heart month in more ways than one.  We give our “hearts” to our sweethearts every 14th, sure, but perhaps more significantly, American Heart Month comes every February.   It’s a month where health-conscious Americans go door to door getting the word out on how to make our heart beats grow stronger through diet, exercise and how to implement those things to avoid the world’s number one killer:  heart disease.

February has been American Heart Month ever since Congress designated it as such in 1963.  While I know Congress has a lot on their plates these days, I suggest this month – March – be designated American Colon Month henceforth.  Why?  Because a new study released from Washington University School in Missouri and Harvard University in Massachusetts suggests that those who “march” to the beat of their own drummer through exercise cut their risk of colon cancer by nearly 25 percent!

All right, all right, I know, it’s a terrible pun, but why not designate one month to colon health?  After all, with colon cancer the third most common form of cancer, and with an average of 100,000 new American cases of it popping up every year, it ought to be given considerably more attention than it is, don’t you think?

Perhaps I’ll take it up with Congress at some point.  In the meantime, all I can do is focus on how to avoid it.  And exercise is one way. 

We already know several things about colon cancer, like how it tends to run in families and that it’s one of the leading cancer diagnoses in America (some estimates suggest it’s the second most common form of cancer, not the third).  We also know that certain foods, like olives, contain compounds that protect the colon from cancerous lesions.
We now have some very conclusive evidence that indicates any form of exercise – be it marching in a drum line or marching toward a marathon’s finish line (all right, all right, I’ll lay off the “March” puns) cuts colon cancer risk by up to a fourth!

The study’s researchers, who published their findings in the British Journal of Cancer, gathered dozens of studies done on the links between exercise and colon cancer going back to 1984.  Using this data that contained information on people’s activity levels and if they were ever diagnosed with colon cancer, they found that the people who exercised the most were about 25 percent less likely to have colon cancer than those who exercised the least.  An example of some of the more active people across the span of studies – about 52 in all – were those who walked for at least five to six hours a week; the least active were those who exercised 30 minutes a week or not at all.

With all we know about the benefits of exercise, it amazes me that so few get the adequate amount needed for optimum health.  The Depart of Health and Human Services advises people spend at least two and a half hours doing moderate amounts of exercise (heck, I know people who spend that amount of time exercising every day!).  Yet 65 percent of people are getting less than that, according to the CDC.

With the economy in rough shape, let’s not make matters worse by letting ourselves get out of shape.  I’m hoping this resonates with people who have a history of colon cancer in their families.  Because you can run (or bike, or swim, or jog) away from that risk through a renewed dedication to making exercise a part of your everyday life.

Sources:
  Science Daily
  American Heart Association
  Reuters

Twitching, Spasms Associated with Heartburn Drug

Anyone who’s a regular reader of my columns knows I’m neither the president nor a member of the FDA Fan Club.  The Food and Drug Administration and I disagree on a bevy of issues, and I don’t suspect that’s about to come to a conclusion any time soon.

But just as Montagues and Capulets, Republicans and Democrats occasionally (and I emphasize occasionally) agree on issues, so too do I and the oft-derided FDA.  Here is one such occasion.

Not long ago, I wrote an article about heartburn and how certain drugs that help treat heartburn wind up adding to insult, rather than treating injury, leaving one saddled with side effects.  The latest evidence of this comes from the FDA, as they’ve called out a heartburn treatment drug called Reglan.  According to FDA studies after a number of complaints had been filed, Reglan leaves people twitching and lurching uncontrollably, especially when taken over a long period of time. 

Though the FDA hasn’t ordered the drug removed from the market, they’ve done the next best thing:  ordered Wyeth, the maker of the drug, to label all bottles containing Reglan with the infamous “Black Box Warning,” alerting consumers to its spastic side effects.

Of course, heartburn is related to digestion.  When food isn’t digested properly, heartburn results due to a buildup of gastric acid.  Food isn’t the only trigger for heartburn – others include stress, obesity and certain pharmaceuticals – but it’s definitely the most common trigger, not to mention a common problem – one in 10 Americans experience it at least once a week!

The FDA estimates that approximately 2 million people are currently taking Reglan; this finding will likely bring that number down quite a bit. 

Wyeth’s notoriety has been more in line with infamy than esteem lately; this certainly won’t do much to revive the public’s confidence.

So if drugs like Reglan, Prilosec and Nexium are out, then what’s in?  In other words, how can one NATURALLY treat heartburn? 

Well, one can start by eliminating those foods that ignite the inferno in the first place, like overly spicy foods.  Spicy foods aren’t bad necessarily, but spicy foods don’t agree with everyone’s stomach.  So do some deductive reasoning for starters.

Then try some tea.  I drink tea every day, and I’m convinced tea is part of the reason why heartburn is such a non-issue for me.  Any organic herbal tea will do, but natural health experts suggest fennel tea.  Adding some ginger to it helps as well, as ginger is a natural relaxant for the body’s digestive tract.

One more tool of the trade for treating heartburn is orange peel extract.  Researchers don’t know why it works; they just know it works, as it’s believed to help clear the lining of the esophagus when taken over a period of days.  The recommended dosage is 1000 mg every other day for 20 days.

Heartburn’s rough as it is; do you really want to be twitching like a mad man to boot?  By following the advice mentioned above, your issues with heartburn will go down in flames.

Source:
MSNBC
WebMD
Associated Content
eHow

Researchers:  Exercise Adds Size to Brain, Improves Spatial Memory

I can honestly say that some of the most together and articulate senior citizens I know are those I’ve met through my health club.  You name the cliché – “with it,” “on the ball,” “sharp as a tack,” you name it – their mental prowess is something special.

It’s no coincidence that this is the case, for the brain actually increases in size and ability depending on that person’s physical fitness.

This is according to researchers from the Universities of Chicago and Pittsburgh, who performed brain scans on the hippocampus region of senior citizen participants.  The motley crew of participants (ages ranged between 59 and 81, so many of them did not meet the standard definition of senior citizen) also went through a slew of physical fitness tests that gauged just HOW fit they were. 

Here’s what they found:  the fittest of the flock had the largest brains, purely from a physical standpoint.  But it wasn’t just that their brains were bigger – their brains functioned better.  Specifically, they were better at spatial reasoning.  Spatial reasoning is a high falutin’ phrase doctors use that in layman’s terms refers to one’s ability to recognize repeating patterns, similarities and differences between two or more things, objects or people.  The part of the brain where spatial reasoning takes place is in the hippocampus, which also happens to be the portion of the brain that’s most adversely affected by Alzheimer’s disease and other memory-related issues.

This is a truly amazing discovery that ought to embolden each and every one of us to strive to continue exercising throughout our lives.  Rarely do we consider how often we use spacial reasoning skills, but we use them all the time, hundreds if not thousands of times a day:  from deciphering what food is what, what face belongs to what name, and where we left our set of keys or pair of reading glasses (and which ones are ours).  Through exercise, we can maintain our spacial reasoning skills for the balance of our lives. 

Art Kramer, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois and co-author of the study, made the following observation about his study that really struck a chord with me:  “Here is yet more evidence that becoming fit has implications for how well you’re going to live your life.”

It’s not a profound statement by any means, but a statement that sort of summarizes the whole point to why exercise every day is so important:  it determines how WELL our lives will be lived today, tomorrow, and years down the road.  Keep that in mind on those days when you’ve hit a wall in your enthusiasm for exercise.  Those days happen; all of us tend to get burnt down by monotonous tasks (and let’s be honest, exercise can get monotonous, even when you change your routine).  The trick is to fight through that wall, and recognize that what you’re doing has virtually no downside.  Exercise is all upside:  an upside that adds years to your physical vivacity and mental longevity. 

Source:
Science Daily

High blood pressure

Children everywhere seem to be doing, becoming or experiencing things earlier in life than when I was a kid.  They’re having sex at a younger age, involved with drugs at a younger age, drinking at a younger age and gaining weight at a younger age. 

In my day, youth was supposed to be a time of innocence, a time when a kid didn’t have to worry about the ways of the world and what it took to avoid pitfalls.

That doesn’t seem to be the case today, as a kid’s world is rife with minefields and pitfalls, most of them forming as a consequence of their actions.  Take obesity as an example.  Most of us know that kids are as heavy as they’ve ever been.  This, of course, is terrible for kids’ long term physical health, but the effects of obesity impact their mental health as well.

Take high blood pressure, or hypertension.  It’s estimated that 10 percent of America’s obese children has hypertension.  Again, this spells disaster for their long term health, as any hypertensive adult can attest.  But it’s particularly bad for young kids, because besides disaster, hypertension also spells failure…as in failure in school.

The findings regarding hypertension and cognitive ability were discovered by Marc Lande, a pediatric nephrologist from the University of Rochester Medical Center.  He recruited 32 children with normal blood pressures and 32 other children, most of whom were both overweight and hypertensive.  He then had them answer a number of questions that tested their cognitive abilities, or how well they were able to think, reason and remember.

While the difference in cognitive abilities was not so stark as to warrant a tutor or medical intervention for the obese kids, it was “concerning” enough to “warrant further study,” as Lande put it.

The children tested were between the ages of 10 and 18.  Each of the 64 boys and girls were matched with someone similar to them from an age, race, gender and IQ perspective; the only difference was in their girth and blood pressure levels.  The study has since been published in the Journal of Pediatrics. 

While I’m saddened by these findings, it serves as a testimony as to why I do what I do and write what I write.  Just recently my book “The Blood Pressure Miracle” was widely released in stores and made available both on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com.  I can’t thank enough the thousands who’ve already read it or are planning on reading it.  I can assure you, you’ll be glad you made the purchase.  It will give you the proper tools you need to lower your blood pressure entirely naturally, without pharmaceuticals that are rife with side effects.  It will also take you on a step-by-step guide on how to bring yourself – or your children – back to vigorous health, with their blood pressure levels in check. 

If there was ever any doubt, let that doubt end today: high blood pressure affects virtually every aspect of life – from the physical, to the intellectual, even the emotional (Lande’s findings also revealed that children who were both hypertensive and obese were more likely to suffer from depression).  But you can put life’s triumvirate of aspects back into harmony with “The Blood Pressure Miracle.”

Source:
Science Daily

Reading Beyond Headlines to Get Full Story of Latest “Anti-Multi” Claims

Head to any “Health” section of your favorite news website and you’re likely to find a headline that says multivitamins don’t work, that their perceived benefits are just that, and that they have no impact on one’s avoidance of killer diseases like heart disease and cancer.

The notion that multivitamins don’t work is not some new mantra for the “multi-“mockers; it’s been a constant and consistent drumbeat played out for decades.  It’s why I rarely bother to read them when they make news because I know they’re just gobbledygook, filled with flawed testing procedures on flawed products (not all multivitamins are built the same).

But just for kicks, to see what new tricks the vitamin bashers have resorted to, I decided to read the most recent of put-downs.  This one was provided by MSNBC.

Not surprisingly, the piece stars off with the “breaking news” that multivitamins don’t provide the body with a multiplicity of benefits, the conclusions coming after “the longest study ever” on everyone’s favorite one-a-day.  But as I dug deeper into the article’s text, it became more and more apparent just how void of conclusiveness the study’s findings actually were.

For instance, while the beginning of the article points out the conclusions of the study’s lead author – i.e. that those taking and not taking multivitamins are at equivalent risks with regards to heart disease and cancer – you have to go to the middle of the article to find a bevy of caveats, noted by the study’s co-author herself.  For instance, the study was only observational; in other words, there weren’t any real scientific studies done on other variables that might have factored into their results, like what the women ate in the course of the study, what their exercise levels were and what their family histories were with respect to heart disease and cancer. 

Secondly, the study itself was somewhat restricted in timeframe, as certain forms of cancer often take years to develop.

Thirdly – a critique of the article rather than the study’s authors– the study was restricted to older women, yet the headline of the news article reads, “Multivitamins no cancer, heart help, study says.”  That’s a sweeping conclusion to come to when the study only tested one age bracket and one gender.

Fourth, in a statement that brings new meaning to stating the obvious, the study’s co-author, from the Huchinson Cancer Research Institute in Washington State, said this: “Whole foods are better than dietary supplements.” 

Gee, ya think?  Thank you Captain Obvious! 

I don’t know of a single natural health advocate – no credible one, anyway – who favors taking dietary supplements over eating whole foods.  After all, supplements are called supplements for a reason – they SUPPLEMENT one’s diet on the days in which one doesn’t get the proper amount of vitamins from whole food sources.

Fifth, Dr. Manson, the study’s co-author, almost goes back on her and her colleague’s conclusions when she says that multivitamins serve as a “form of insurance” for those occasions in which we don’t get the proper amount of nutrients from food.  Medical insurance protects us from having to pay exorbitant amounts when we get sick or injured.  But if multivitamins are of little worth, as this study suggests, why would she advocate using multivitamins as a form of insurance?

There are many other questions I’d like to pose – like what the diet plans were for these women, what medications they were taking and what kind of multivitamin they were using – but I think you get my drift.

We are all news consumers.  Headlines come from all directions – on screen, online, on radio and in print.  Because few of us can spend gobs of time reading a story in all its detail, news purveyors take out the flashiest parts of a story and post them either in the headline itself or in the first paragraph.  This is the classic case of putting style over substance – the “flash” that multivitamins don’t work up at the top of the article, while the substance (that multivitamins are still good to take) on the bottom.

If more people took time to read the full extent of a story and how the study’s lead author is very non-committal regarding the study’s findings, I think people would walk away with a different take on whether or not multivitamins are worth taking. 

But, as the saying goes, “If it bleeds it leads.”

Source:
MSNBC

Major Differences Between Online and In-Store Prices at Vitamin Shoppe    Just about every store in the world these days has a website from which consumers can purchase products online. The Vitamin Shoppe is no exception. I literally spend thousands of dollars at the Vitamin Shoppe every year – both online and in-store – for they sell great products that I use regularly. But I came upon something the other day while perusing their website that rubbed me the wrong way.

I think it’s reasonable to expect that a store’s in-store prices will be the same as the products they offer for online purchase. If not, that information is usually made available. So you can imagine my irritation when some of the products I buy regularly in-store at Vitamin Shoppe would have cost me less had I bought them online.

For example, a 16.9 ounce bottle of Carlson’s Liquid Fish Oil. In store: $39.95. Online: $22.89! That’s a 43 percent difference in price!

I’ll give you another: 120 capsules worth of Cholestene (one of the best supplements on the market to help naturally lower cholesterol). In store: $19.95. Online: $13.82. Again, that’s a sizeable difference in price – 31 percent!

And trust me, those aren’t the only two.

When I approached one of the salespeople from The Vitamin Shoppe for some explanation as to the huge disparities in price, all I got back was, “Sorry, but that’s corporate policy.”

Well, like I said to the salesperson, Vitamin Shoppe’s “corporate policy” is a corporate rip off! The least they could do is advertise in newspapers or on the products themselves as to whether or not a product is cheaper online as opposed to in store. I don’t think that’s asking much. Good grief!

I don’t want this to come off as a scathing indictment of the Vitamin Shoppe. As I said, I spend thousands of dollars in one year alone; what they offer is generally very good at pretty reasonable prices. But in today’s economy, where people are literally living paycheck to paycheck yet want to maintain their supplementation and healthy living lifestyle, every little bit counts when it comes to stretching the average dollar.

To avoid spending more than you need to, you can always check online before checking out the store. But consumers shouldn’t have to go to do this. The onus ought to be put on the business itself, and that onus is driven by consumers’ demands. So get in touch with the Vitamin Shoppe and their website and respectfully ask them to make consumers aware of products that are less expensive online as opposed to in-store. They’ll be crazy not to implement some kind of informative policy because, ultimately, it’s a win-win scenario: consumers’ get what they need at a less expensive price, while Vitamin Shoppe turns a profit one way or another. Failure to do will hurt them more than anyone else, as consumers – yours truly included – can always seek out alternatives stores whose policies are more consumer friendly.

Contact Details for Vitamin Shoppe

http://www.vitaminshoppe.com/content/en/support/feedback.jsp

The Vitamin Shoppe
Customer Care Department
2101 91st Street
North Bergen, NJ 07047

Domestic Callers: (866)-293-3367
International Callers: (201)-868-5959

Update: Over the weekend, a representative of my company had a chance to speak with one of the District Managers at Vitamin Shoppe regarding this issue. She informed me that the District Manager was very cooperative and will honor our request for matching the in-stores prices with the online prices, even without bringing in the printout of the online prices. This means I will continue to purchase supplements at the Vitamin Shoppe. I encourage you to check with your store to make sure they do the same for you.

I am aware that a “brick and mortar” store incurs more expenses than an “online” store, which may contribute to higher prices. However, I feel that consumers should be informed of the higher priced in-store items. That’s why I published this alert. A consumer should be aware of all the facts to make an informed decision. In this case, that decision could mean a big difference for some.