Health Advice/Discussion

phlargo wrote:Any chance you have a link to a study on the adrenal gland issue - I'm curious about it? Are we talking massive quantities or reasonable quantities?

Wiki time. :mrgreen:

phlargo wrote:

Yeah, something with which I was not familiar and I'm pretty up on this stuff, for the most part. What I understand about caffeine is that it's generally just fine if it doesn't negatively impact your sleeping and you aren't hypertensive and it doesn't create too much of a stimulative reaction.

Any chance you have a link to a study on the adrenal gland issue - I'm curious about it? Are we talking massive quantities or reasonable quantities?

I'd have to look it up...it isn't something I have bookmarked...but I remember reading about it sometime ago...just google caffeine and adrenal fatigue or adrenal exhaustion and you'll find tons of information.

I'm not saying ppl should give up caffeine but ppl rely on it too much in this country. I personally gave up caffeine years ago...occassionally I'll have an iced coffee...I drink herbal teas for the most part which have no caffeine. I do drink green tea as well, but not excessively....even that has negligble amounts of caffeine vis-a-vis soda or energy drinks that ppl guzzle down like idiots.

Tu_triky wrote:

I'd have to look it up...it isn't something I have bookmarked...but I remember reading about it sometime ago...just google caffeine and adrenal fatigue or adrenal exhaustion and you'll find tons of information.

I'm not saying ppl should give up caffeine but ppl rely on it too much in this country. I personally gave up caffeine years ago...occassionally I'll have an iced coffee...I drink herbal teas for the most part which have no caffeine. I do drink green tea as well, but not excessively....even that has negligble amounts of caffeine vis-a-vis soda or energy drinks that ppl guzzle down like idiots.

yeah, that's why I'm somewhat curious- I'm an avid incidental caffeine drinker - it doesn't really have much stimulant effect on me, but I'm a tea and coffee drinker and love each with a passion. I don't think I'd ever stop consumption, but I may make a more calculated risk/reward calculus if I had more information about that.

phlargo wrote:

yeah, that's why I'm somewhat curious- I'm an avid incidental caffeine drinker - it doesn't really have much stimulant effect on me, but I'm a tea and coffee drinker and love each with a passion. I don't think I'd ever stop consumption, but I may make a more calculated risk/reward calculus if I had more information about that.

If you drink caffeine in moderation I doubt it's a problem...you probably derive the relative health benefits from it without any deleterious effect.

Weight Loss Efforts Aided by Omega-3s
Low-calorie diets prove more satisfying when they include omega-3s from fish or capsules
by Craig Weatherby

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing dieters stems from the bodyfs built-in hunger response to deprivation.

As we reported last year, the results of a small clinical trial indicated that omega-3 fish oil supplements make very-low-calorie diets more satisfying.

In that 2007 study from Czechoslovakia, 20 obese women were randomly assigned either to a very-low-calorie diet plus omega-3 supplements, or to the same very-low-calorie diet plus placebo capsules.

After three weeks, the women taking omega-3 fish oil supplements showed significantly greater weight loss and reductions in their body mass indices (BMIs) and hip circumferences, compared with a control group.

Overweight study participants experienced less hunger on very-low-calorie diets that were high in omega-3s from Salmon or fish oil capsules.
Participants experienced more hunger on calorie-identical diets that were low in omega-3s.
Overweight people with high ratios of omega-3s to omega-6s in their blood experienced less hunger.

But the small size of the 2007 Czech study precluded firm conclusions, despite fast-growing understanding of the role of omega-3s in human metabolisms.

Now, the results of a much larger trial appear to affirm the potential value of diets low in calories but high in omega-3s from fish or fish oil.

New study finds omega-3s help suppress hunger

The study published this month was part of a research project called SEAFOODplus YOUNG, funded by the European Union and intended to probe the health effects of seafood.

The new clinical trial was conducted by an international team from Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain, and involved volunteers from all four countries (Parra D et al. 2008).

As the authors wrote, gIt is known that appetite sensations play a key role in the control of energy intake, therefore in the control of body weight.h

And the studyfs title summarizes the results obtained by the European researchers: gA diet rich in long chain omega-3 fatty acids modulates satiety in overweight and obese volunteers during weight lossh.

The researchers recruited 324 volunteers with an average age of 31 and an average BMI (body mass index) of 27.5 to 32.5 kg per square meters: height to weight measurements that classified them as overweight or obese.

All of the volunteers followed a detailed, calorie-restricted, diet plan for eight weeks.

But the participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups, whose diets provided identical amounts of calories, but resulted in them consuming relatively low or high doses of omega-3s.

Each of the diets provided the same amounts of calories, fat, carbohydrates and protein. The only significant differences were the types of fat that predominated in each diet:

Both of two glow-omega-3h diets provided no more than 260 mg per day:

Diet 1: No seafood, plus 6 placebo (fake) fish oil capsules per day.

Diet 2: Lean fish (150 grams of Cod 3 times per week).


Both of two ghigh-omega-3h diets provided at least 1,300 mg per day:

Diet 3: Fatty fish (150 grams of Salmon 3 times per week).

Diet 4: Fish oil capsules (6 per day).

To ensure optimal compliance with the assigned diets, each volunteer made at least three visits to a participating clinic during the trial and was contacted by phone in week two and week six.

During the last two weeks of the study, the participants answered questionnaires designed to determine how satisfied they felt by their diets.

The researchers also measured the amounts of omega-3s and other fatty acids in the participantsf blood at the beginning and end of the study.

And their answers showed two encouraging results:

People in the high-omega-3 groups had fewer, weaker hunger sensations for up to two hours after eating, compared with the volunteers on the low-omega-3 diets.

Participants with higher omega-3/omega-6 ratios in their blood reported fewer, weaker hunger sensations for up to two hours after eating.
As the authors wrote, gc subjects who eat a dinner rich in long chain omega-3 fatty acids feel less hunger and more full directly after and 2 hours after .... This observation indicates that long chain omega-3 fatty acids modulate hunger signals.h (Parra D et al. 2008)

And one comment they made gets to the heart of the matter: gThe usefulness of long chain omega-3 fatty acids in the nutritional treatment of obesity has to be investigated further, since they could improve the patients' compliance to changes in dietary habits required for weight loss and weight loss maintenance.h (Parra D et al. 2008)

In other words, low-calorie diets may be easier to follow if they are high in omega-3s and low in omega-6s, which predominate Americafs most commonly consumed vegetable oils (corn, soy, safflower, soy, canola).

To cut back on omega-6s, avoid these oils, the packaged and take-out foods made with them, and standard, grain-fed meats and poultry.

Instead, use extra virgin olive oil, hi-oleic sunflower oil, or macadamia nut oil, and look to fish and grass-fed meats or poultry for protein.

How might omega-3s moderate appetite or aid weight control?

Why would EPA and DHA – the long-chain marine omega-3s found only in fish and algae – aid weight control efforts?

Our search of the scientific literature uncovered at least seven ways in which the omega-3s in fish and fish oil might help:

Stimulate secretion of leptin, a hormone that decreases appetite and promotes the burning of body fat.

Enable burning of dietary fats by helping move fatty acids into body cells for burning as fuel.

Encourage the body to store dietary carbohydrates in the form of glycogen, rather than as hard-to-lose body fat.

Dampen inflammation, which is known to promote weight gain.
Enhance blood-sugar control by increasing our insulin-producing cellsf sensitivity to sugar.

Flip off genetic switches (nuclear transcription factors) that promote inflammation and storage of food as body fat.

Help the body transport glucose from blood to cells by increasing the fluidity of cell membranes.

This excerpt from a recent Japanese report adds more illuminating evidence: gWe recently reported that omega 3 c from Salmon roe prevented the development of obesity-related diseases through the suppression of lipogenic [fat-storing] gene expressions and the enhancement of lipolytic [fat-burning] gene expressions in the liver of obese rats.h (Yanagita T, Nagao K 2008)

^ Good article. :victory:

And the added benefit that omega-3s are good for your heart. :)

bmwracer wrote:^ Good article. :victory:

And the added benefit that omega-3s are good for your heart. :)

Yup...the are like a billion benefits it's seams...Good for your heart, lowers blood pressure, cholesterol, thins blood, anti-inflammatory, critical for brain health, etc.

Tu_triky wrote:Yup...the are like a billion benefits it's seams...Good for your heart, lowers blood pressure, cholesterol, thins blood, anti-inflammatory, critical for brain health, etc.

I should just constrain my diet to green tea and omega-3s... :beaten:

bmwracer wrote:
I should just constrain my diet to green tea and omega-3s... :beaten:

:rofl: Haha...we'll call you Buddha Boy. :hehe:

Tu_triky wrote: :rofl: Haha...we'll call you Buddha Boy. :hehe:

"Skinny" Buddha Boy. :beaten:

bmwracer wrote:
"Skinny" Buddha Boy. :beaten:

:hehe: That's assumed, given the diet. :hehe:

A follow up to my earlier discussion about how most people are deficient in Vitamin D...and how the current RDA for Vitamin D is hopelessly low and puts people at unecessary risk for degerative diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD):

From the Life Extension Foundation website:

How much vitamin D do we need?


Research conducted at Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola, New York, has determined that individuals with vitamin D insufficiency need an average dose of 3800 to 5000 international units (IU) per day in order to attain optimal levels. The findings were published in the June 2008 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

One hundred thirty-eight men and women with baseline serum values of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] of less than 80 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) were included in the current study. Optimal levels of 25(OH)D have been proposed to be at least 75 nanomoles per liter by U.S. experts, with an upper limit of 220 nmol/L. In order to determine the amount of supplemental vitamin D3 necessary to achieve this concentration, participants whose serum concentrations of the vitamin were greater than 50 nmol/L were started on 2,000 IU per day or a placebo, and those whose levels were below 50 nmol/L were given 4000 IU or a placebo. Follow up visits occurred at eight week intervals over the six month study period, during which serum vitamin D levels were assessed and vitamin D dosage adjusted accordingly.

All of the subjects who received vitamin D were able to attain the target level by the end of the study. No evidence of toxicity of the doses administered was observed. The authors note that the selection of 2000 IU vitamin D per day as a safe tolerable upper intake level by the Food and Nutrition Board is now considered to be based on insufficient evidence. According to the current study's findings, the authors suggest that individuals whose 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are above 55 nmol/L consume 3800 IU per day vitamin D to achieve optimal serum levels, and that those whose levels are less than 55 nmol/L consume 5000 IU.

--D Dye

Excerpt from Yahoo! Health ( http://tinyurl.com/69qmob ):

Live Longer: The One Anti-Aging Trick That Works

Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
LiveScience.com Tue Jul 8, 11:51 AM ET

While the quest for the proverbial Fountain of Youth is endless and typically fruitless, one method known to extend the human lifespan by up to five years has quietly become accepted among leading researchers.

The formula is simple: Eat less. It could add years to your life, several experts now say. And done in moderation, it could at least help you live a more healthy life.

The only question is: Will the average person do it?

While little short of a nip-and-tuck will make you look younger, calorie restriction, as it is called, is as close to a real Fountain of Youth as any known technique comes. Even scientists who are cautious about anti-aging hype say it works, both by cutting risks for some diseases and by allowing all body cells, somehow, to hang in there longer.

"There is plenty of evidence that calorie restriction can reduce your risks for many common diseases including cancer, diabetes and heart disease," says Saint Louis University researcher Edward Weiss, who last week announced a new study that brings fresh understanding to how it works. "And you may live to be substantially older."

The numbers

Here's a rough rule of thumb that many experts generally agree on now: Eat 15 percent less starting at age 25 and you might add 4.5 years to your life, says Eric Ravussin, who studies human health and performance at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana.

One important caveat: Ravussin's estimate is based mostly on studies of other animals and only preliminary research in humans. But the work by Weiss and others is unlocking the mysteries of aging and suggesting the animal studies apply to humans.

"There is absolutely no reason to think it won't work," Ravussin told LiveScience.

Perhaps even more promising, though in early stages of research, are drugs designed on the basis of what's been learned from calorie-restriction studies. Those drugs would target human cells to deliver the same benefits, turning off bad things and turning on good things to extend cell life in general, or offer new therapies and cures to vexing diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer.

If you can hang in there until these promising new drug therapies are developed, you may live in a world where lifespan increases by 10 to 15 years, researchers say.

Don't plan on living to be 200, Ravussin said, "but I think we're going to gain quite a few years."

Tu_triky wrote:

Yup...the are like a billion benefits it's seams...Good for your heart, lowers blood pressure, cholesterol, thins blood, anti-inflammatory, critical for brain health, etc.

Seriously, I've heard increasing discussion in the nutrition community that one of our most serious nutritional problems involves our highly upset Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio.

Human traditional diet is something like 2-1 or 2.5-1. Most Americans get something like 20-1.

I take Omega 3 supplements and have flax-fed eggs, eat cereals and breads with flaxseed and eat a good amount of fish... I bet my ratio's somewhat better than 20-1 ;-)

phlargo wrote:

Seriously, I've heard increasing discussion in the nutrition community that one of our most serious nutritional problems involves our highly upset Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio.

Human traditional diet is something like 2-1 or 2.5-1. Most Americans get something like 20-1.

I take Omega 3 supplements and have flax-fed eggs, eat cereals and breads with flaxseed and eat a good amount of fish... I bet my ratio's somewhat better than 20-1 ;-)

Yeah people in this country eat far less fish than in other countries...I've constantly taken fish oil and flax oil capsules myself, along with omega-3 enriched eggs as well. Too bad the fish supply is f*cked...so I don't eat too much fish...way too many heavy metals.

I do love my sushi and sashimi though.... :inlove:

Tu_triky wrote:

Yeah people in this country eat far less fish than in other countries...I've constantly taken fish oil and flax oil capsules myself, along with omega-3 enriched eggs as well. Too bad the fish supply is f*cked...so I don't eat too much fish...way too many heavy metals.

I do love my sushi and sashimi though.... :inlove:

Seconded!! :smitten:

phlargo wrote:I bet my ratio's somewhat better than 20-1 ;-)

19-1?? :beaten:

Speaking of fish...more crap from China. QC is obviously priority #1.


============================

Chinese Fish Farms Full of Toxic Chemicals
by David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Contamination of water supplies and illegal use of veterinary drugs has led to the severe contamination of Chinese fish farms, with potentially serious health consequences for those who eat the fish.

China produces 70 percent of the world's farmed fish, and since the 1980s has become the biggest seafood exporter in the world. Yet this growth has only exacerbated the pollution problems already facing China's water sources. The high density of fish farms in regions like the Fuqing Province in the south has led to the discharge of huge quantities of wastewater into already compromised rivers.

"Our waters here are filthy," said Ye Chao, an eel and shrimp farmer from Fuqing. "There are simply too many aquaculture farms in this area. They're all discharging water here, fouling up other farms."

The Chinese government has declared more than half of the rivers in the country too polluted to drink from. Many sections of Fuqing's major waterway, the Long River, have been declared too toxic for any use.

Pollution of river and coastal waters comes from rapidly growing industries that are discharging pesticides, oil, mercury, lead, copper and agricultural runoff. This pollution has caused massive die-offs at fish farms, leading farmers to illegally mix veterinary drugs into their ponds to try and keep their fish alive. According to farmers who eventually abandoned such practices, not using drugs led to an immediate 30 percent increase in fish mortality.

Beyond the health risks to the fish themselves, pollution causes the accumulation of toxic substances in the bodies of the fish, which poses a health risk to people who eat them.

"There are heavy metals, mercury and flame retardants in fish samples we've tested," said Ming Hung Wong, a biology at Hong Kong Baptist University.

Wang Wu, a professor from the Shanghai Fisheries University, attributes the problem to unbridled growth. "For 50 years, we've blindly emphasized economic growth," he said. "The only pursuit has been GDP, and now we can see that the water turns dirty and the seafood gets dangerous."

Tu_triky wrote:Chinese Fish Farms Full of Toxic Chemicals

Surprise, surprise, surprise...! :bleh:

bmwracer wrote:
Surprise, surprise, surprise...! :bleh:

Seriously....I guess you get what you pay for...you want cheap fish that's grown in lakes in which ppl pee...you know where to go.