I’ve been writing for years about a popular nutrient that affects your heart and bones. There’s been controversy about how much of it is safe and effective. This has caused a great deal of confusion. Doctors are recommending far too much of it and their patients — primarily women — are paying a huge price for this erroneous information. In many cases, this misinformation is leading to heart disease, muscle cramps, arthritis, and osteoporosis.

Still, doctors and the media insist that they’re right. I’ve worked for more than two decades to correct this misconception and people still don’t “get it.” I’m talking, of course, about the calcium controversy.

The very first article I wrote for this newsletter 18 years ago was on this controversial subject. Before that, in 1985, I hesitated to write about it in my first book, The Nutrition Detective. At that time, I was worried about being attacked for being a nutritional heretic. I ultimately decided to risk my reputation and write about what I had discovered to be true about calcium. Dozens of scientific studies and experts in the field left no doubt in my mind.
I had to tell the truth.

Today, I’m still asked about this subject more than any other. And I’ve watched this “new” information I’ve talked about for decades slowly become mainstream. In fact, many quality supplement companies reformulated their products after my book and articles became known. But we still have a lot of work left to do. Too many women are still taking way too much calcium.

Since this is such an important topic for women, I decided to update my original article from March 1993. It will help clarify the subject for you once and for all. And now it will be available on my website where more people can read it.

The calcium controversy

Since the 1950s, the medical profession has told American women that increasing the amount of calcium in their diets can greatly reduce their risk of osteoporosis. This brittle-bone disease is a leading cause of death among older women.

In turn, advertisers and the media have emphasized the importance of this one mineral over all others — suggesting that calcium is enough to prevent bone loss. As a result, sales of calcium supplements have skyrocketed and the consumption of dairy products has soared as well.

Still, a number of health problems that are the result of calcium-related imbalances, including premenstrual syndrome, arthritis, heart disease, and osteoporosis, continue to escalate.

Why?

We all need calcium for a variety of bodily functions, including good colon health and building strong bones. But all recent studies do not agree that high calcium intake has a positive effect on bone health. And it’s no wonder. The more calcium you ingest at any given time, the smaller the percentage of calcium your body actually absorbs. And there’s research that has shown that when we adapt to a low calcium diet, we actually excrete less of it in our urine and increase our absorption.

What’s more, in 1988 the National Women’s Health Network made a startling announcement. They said that women who lived in countries where calcium intake was low had less osteoporosis than women in this country who are on a high calcium diet.

Indeed, a great number of studies support the idea that lower calcium intake may benefit American women as well. The Dutch conducted and published a study in 1969 that was one of the first to caution about high calcium intake. It said that excessive calcium could result in soft tissue calcification, or arthritis, and one possible beneficial nutrient to help counteract this effect is magnesium. Another study in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, showed an increase in bone density in postmenopausal women who took more magnesium and less calcium than we generally see doctors recommending.

Magnesium’s role in preventing disease

One greatly overlooked factor in calcium absorption is the importance of having enough magnesium. And the amount doctors are recommending we take is too little.

Here’s why.

When we take large amounts of calcium, either in supplements or by eating diets high in dairy products and low in whole grains and beans, our calcium levels in our blood go up. This stimulates the secretion of the hormone calcitonin. At the same time, it suppresses the secretion of the parathyroid hormone (PTH). These hormones regulate the levels of calcium in the bones and soft tissues and are related directly to osteoporosis, heart disease, and osteoarthritis. PTH draws calcium out of the bones and deposits it in the soft tissues, while calcitonin increases calcium in the bones.

But the optimal execution of these two delicate functions is dependent upon having sufficient magnesium. Since magnesium suppresses PTH and stimulates calcitonin, it helps move calcium into our bones. This chemical action helps prevent osteoarthritis, heart disease, and osteoporosis.

A magnesium deficiency, however, will prevent this chemical action. More calcium isn’t the solution, because although magnesium helps the body absorb and utilize calcium, excessive calcium prevents the absorption of magnesium. Taking more calcium without adequate magnesium may either create calcium malabsorption or a magnesium deficiency.

It’s impossible for your body to completely absorb a supplement containing 1,000-1,500 mg of calcium. Unabsorbed calcium ends up in our joints, where it becomes arthritis, or in arteries, where it contributes to atherosclerosis and heart disease.

Only additional magnesium can break this cycle. A study reported in the International Clinical Nutrition Review demonstrated this. Researchers gave volunteers on a low-magnesium diet both calcium and vitamin D supplements. All of the subjects started the study with a magnesium deficiency. And during the study, all but one became deficient in calcium in spite of the fact that they were taking additional calcium. When the researchers gave them intravenous calcium infusions, the level of calcium in their blood rose for the duration of the intravenous feedings. But when they stopped the intravenous calcium infusion, blood levels of calcium dropped again.

However, when the researchers gave them magnesium all by itself, their magnesium levels rose rapidly and stabilized. What’s more, their calcium levels also rose within a few days even though they had not taken any additional calcium.

How is this possible? It clearly indicates that magnesium is as important as calcium — perhaps more so. But there’s much, much more to this controversy that you must know to protect your bones. I’ll tell you all about it in next month’s issue. I’ll explain in more detail the role that magnesium plays in this delicate mineral balance. And I’ll also include the optimal amounts of each mineral based on my “newest” information.

Meanwhile, concentrate on eating a diet low in dairy (calcium) and high in whole grains and beans (magnesium). And make sure that your supplements contain at least as much magnesium as calcium.

The Overlooked Cause of Dementia and Osteoporosis

There are a number of safe, natural therapies used by doctors of integrative medicine, naturopaths, and acupuncturists to prevent various illnesses. But there’s one doctor that’s engaged in preventive care and the health of the whole body that we’ve greatly overlooked and under-used for too long. This doctor is your dentist.

Until recently, most dentists limited their practice to the health of their patients’ gums and teeth. The idea was to reduce inflammation and either save or replace infected teeth. And they also encouraged their patients to practice good dental hygiene to help with this process.

Now a growing number of dentists are going way beyond the confines of the mouth. They’re practicing integrative whole body dentistry. These dentists see
a direct connection between a person’s oral health and systemic illnesses. And they’re partnering with integrative doctors and naturopaths to heal both the mouth and other affected areas.

The bone/brain connection

Recently, researchers discovered a connection between oral health and two seemingly unrelated conditions: osteoporosis in the jaw and dementia. The common denominator was inflammation and a buildup of plaque. Their findings may change the way you care for your teeth. By modifying your dental regime now, you could protect yourself from osteoporosis in your jaw and stave off dementia at the same time.

Plaque is a mixture of bacteria, bacterial waste, and food particles that feed the bacteria. If your dentist doesn’t remove it, the plaque triggers an inflammatory response that can erode the socket that anchors a tooth in place. In other words, plaque can lead to tooth loss. This is the same process that weakens other bones in osteoporosis, like the jawbone.

The journal Menopause recently published a study of postmenopausal women. In this study, the researchers found that women who were at risk for osteoporosis were also at risk for periodontal disease. All of the women in this study had increased levels of dental plaque. This was in spite of the fact that all of them brushed twice a day, flossed, and had at least two cleanings a year with their dentist. Two cleanings a year are often not enough to control plaque.

This increased plaque could put you at risk for loss of bone density in your jaw. And lead to dementia.

A large Japanese study of more than 4,000 participants aged 65 or older found that people with missing teeth were at an increased risk for memory loss or beginning Alzheimer’s. Not surprising, they rarely saw a dentist.

Plaque was the culprit here, as well. Untreated, a buildup of plaque leads to infection in the gums. This infection can trigger the release of inflammatory substances that can travel into the brain and cause a loss of memory. While you can’t reverse the effects of gum disease, you can prevent further damage if you do enough.

What’s enough?

It’s not what you think. There’s no doubt that all of us should be brushing, flossing, and using interdental picks or brushes twice a day. This is the standard way to prevent the buildup of plaque on our teeth and to stimulate healthy gums.

We should see our dentist for cleanings and to take care of any infections or other problems as they arise. This should be enough to support our overall health, since studies have connected heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and lung disease to poor oral health and a buildup of plaque.

But it’s not enough if you only get one or two cleanings a year. Postmenopausal women need much more, say researchers at the Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine and the Cleveland Clinic. In fact, we may need deep cleanings as much as four times a year. That’s what I have done most of my life, and I can tell you plaque control is an uphill battle but worth the fight.
It’s time to talk with your dentist about how controlling plaque, infections, and inflammation can affect your heart, bones, and memory. Ask how often you need professional cleanings and put aside the time and money for them.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/213209.php

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/218911.php

Which Light Bulbs Are Best for Your Health?

Toxins are making us sick. From fatigue to cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and headaches, toxins are in our air, water, and food. No matter what we do,
we can’t stop them. But we can make choices in our lives that will slow down their accumulation. And, unfortunately, light bulbs are one source of toxic pollution. Which ones you use and how you dispose of them can add to your toxic load and affect your health.

Your choices are not obvious. In fact, I was surprised at what I found. And what you may not know is that very soon you may not be able to buy the safest light bulbs!

This is the last year you’ll be able to buy an ordinary 100-watt light bulb. I, for one, am not happy. Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act in December 2007 because traditional light bulbs waste precious energy. I applaud the sentiment. But the solution is far from satisfactory. That’s because it requires bulb makers to phase out incandescent light bulbs and replace them with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) in an effort to save energy. And they do. Unfortunately, they’re not as safe for your health or the environment as the incandescent bulbs.

As you may know, CFLs contain toxic mercury. So until a better light bulb comes on the market, we’re all caught between a rock and a hard place. We can either choose to save energy or increase the amount of toxins that get into our landfills and waterways – and eventually make their way into our food and water. Neither choice is desirable. The sad truth is that whatever you and I decide to do, our environment will continue to become more polluted with health-destroying heavy metals.

Why, then, even discuss this problem? Because some solutions are better than others, and because we all need to recognize that heavy metal toxicity is likely to increase in all of us. If you know this, and take steps to remove these toxins from your body, you could significantly improve your health.

Incandescent bulbs waste a lot of energy. Around 90% of the energy they create is heat and ultraviolet light. The heat they generate has its benefits in cold weather: it helps warm a room. But in hot climates, they contribute to heating an already hot space. CFLs, on the other hand, stay cool and use 75-80% less energy than incandescents. But the light they produce is also cooler and harder on the eyes.

Incandescent bulbs don’t usually last as long as CFLs. I say “usually” because when CFLs are turned on and off frequently, it dramatically reduces their lifespan. CFLs will also overheat and burn out quickly if they’re put in an enclosed fixture. Otherwise, CFLs will outlast incandescent bulbs.

Mercury and other toxins

CFLs contain mercury and no amount of mercury is safe. It can cause neurological illness and numerous other health problems, both minor and serious. A broken CFL bulb will contaminate the environment. So it’s essential to dispose of used CFLs safely. You’d think this was easy, but it isn’t. Most people I’ve talked to don’t know where to take burned out bulbs. Make sure you do. All CFLs should have information on their disposal printed on their boxes.

No matter how careful you are, someone’s CFLs will be thrown in the trash and break in landfills. It takes the amount of mercury in just 40 CFL bulbs to contaminate a 40-acre lake.

Is the answer, then, to forgo both incandescent bulbs and CFLs in favor of LEDs (Light-Emitting Diodes)? Almost everyone considers LEDs to be safe. And you can dispose of them in landfills just like incandescents. But researchers at UC Irvine and UC Davis don’t agree that they’re safe. In an article they published in Environmental Science & Technology, they say that LED Christmas lights contain high amounts of arsenic and lead.

What about larger LED products like the ones used in lamps? “It’s more of the same,” claims head researcher Oladele Ogunseitan. In fact, environmental risks are present in all parts of LEDs and at all stages of production, use, and disposal. The only reason they have a “safe” reputation is because no one has ever properly tested them.

Research has linked the heavy metals in LEDs with various cancers, neurological problems, kidney disease, and other illnesses. Some of them contain copper. This metal poses a danger to fish, rivers, and lakes. Yet no one is talking about disposing of them safely.

What should you do?

When you’re caught between a rock and a hard place, there’s no good answer. But some are better than others. Here are my suggestions:

Turn off any lights that are not necessary for reading or your safety. You’ll save money and lengthen the life of any bulb.

Use incandescent bulbs for reading, in enclosed fixtures, and in areas where a light is turned on and off frequently.

If you live in a cold climate, using CFLs outdoors may not be for you because they take much longer to turn on than incandescents. Unless you’re patient enough to wait for a light to fully turn on, you could slip and fall.

Learn how to handle intact CFL bulbs and how to clean up a broken CFL. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a free brochure that will give you the information you need. Contact them at www.epa.gov/cfl/CFL_brochure.pdf. If you don’t have this information, don’t use any CFL (or LED) bulbs. You could cause more problems than you solve.

In time, I expect we’ll see a light bulb that’s both energy-efficient and made without toxic heavy metals. Until then, handle all light bulbs with care. And stock up on incandescents if they make sense to you. In a few months, the 100 watt bulbs will disappear with lower wattage bulbs following in another short year. Then it will be too late to stock up.

“Goodbye Incandescent Light Bulbs… Energy-Efficient CFL’s Are The Future,” by David Fessler, Energy and Infrastructure Expert, Friday, April 9, 2010.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/216270.php.

NUTRITION DETECTIVE

The Worst Kind of Cholesterol Is Even Worse for Diabetics and Seniors

First, we heard that cholesterol alone was a dangerous substance. They told us it needed to be below 200 mg/dL for us to be at low risk for heart disease and stroke. Then they told us that the issue wasn’t our total cholesterol after all. It had to do with the levels of its components.

That’s when we learned that there were two kinds of cholesterol: “good” HDL and “bad” LDL. HDL, they told us, prevents clogged arteries and should be around 60 mg/dL or higher. LDL, the sticky type of cholesterol that causes a buildup of plaque in arteries, should be lower than 130 mg/dL.

British researchers have found yet another form of cholesterol. It’s the worst kind of cholesterol because it’s stickier than normal LDL. This means it’s easier for it to attach itself to arterial walls and cause plaque buildup, which can lead to heart disease. It’s the most dangerous kind of cholesterol of all.

This type of LDL has an unusual name: MGmin-LDL and it’s most common in seniors and people with type-2 diabetes. MGmin-LDL develops when sugars join with normal “bad” LDL cholesterol. This changes the size and shape of its molecules. It makes them smaller and denser and increases the surface of LDLs making it easier to stick to artery walls.

We know that diabetics have an increased risk for heart attacks and stroke. Now we are beginning to understand why. Metformin, a diabetes drug, holds one explanation. It blocks the transformation of LDL into MGmin-LDL.

This doesn’t mean you should start taking a drug to protect your heart. Just modifying your diet may be all you need to do to make less “bad” and “worse” LDL. I’ve written lots of articles on balancing blood sugar naturally in these pages to help you make some dietary modifications (you can find these on my website). If these changes are not enough, try taking a nutritional supplement designed to regulate blood sugar.

Chromium is a popular solution (500 mcg/day) for blood sugar control, and it works for many people. But I have an even better suggestion. Chinese herbal formulas and Ayurvedic combinations both regulate and repair blood sugar systems. They correct the underlying cause. You can get both of these ancient and effective formulas, along with chromium, in Metabolic Defense (800-791-3395) from Advanced Bionutritionals.

Begin by eating a diet low in carbs and high in protein for several weeks. Eat every four hours. Then add a supplement and continue with this program for six months. You’ll not only feel better, you’ll protect your heart from the worst kind of cholesterol, because a diet that supports blood sugar control also supports good heart health.

University of Warwick (2011, May 27). “Super-sticky ‘ultra-bad’ cholesterol revealed in people at high risk of heart disease.” ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 30, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2011/05/110526204953.htm.

LETTERS

Q: I read that some chemicals called polyphenols found in tea are protective against some cancers. If this is so, which would be better, drinking tea or taking a supplement? It seems to me that supplements would be more powerful. — J.G., Venice, FL

A: I understand your logic, but stronger doesn’t always mean better. It’s true
that both green and black teas contain polyphenols and that these chemicals protect against some forms of cancer.

These polyphenols vary in composition and amount, depending on how the growers harvest and prepare the tea. Two studies in the cancer journal Cancer Letters found that tea also contains other components that are powerful anti-cancer substances. They indicate something I’ve been saying for years: the sum is greater than any one of its parts. Tea appears to be more beneficial than any individual polyphenol supplement.

In addition to polyphenols, the flavonoids in tea appear to decrease the risk for heart attacks. A study out of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts found that in more than 300 men and women who had heart attacks, those who drank one or two cups of tea a day had half the amount of heart attacks as those who didn’t.

Han, C. “Screening of anticarcinogenic ingredients in tea polyphenols,” Cancer Letters, 1997.

Wehrwein, P. “More evidence that tea is good for the heart,” The Lancet, January 30, 1999.

Q: Recently, Dr. Oz had a program on Alzheimer’s disease and the potential relationship of processed meats and beer, which both have sodium nitrite in them. It is now hypothesized that sodium nitrite may contribute to Alzheimer’s. The ingredients in your nitric oxide supplement, Neo40, include sodium nitrate. Do you believe this supplement is safe? Dr. Oz seems to be pretty savvy. — R.F., e-mail

A: Dr. Oz is savvy, and I agree with him most of the time. But in this case, he’s wrong … and years behind the times in what we know about nitric oxide (NO). NO is a signaling molecule that can prevent, stop, and reverse many chronic health problems, including heart disease, fatigue, and vascular diseases. It’s one of your body’s most valuable nutrients.

I don’t know where Dr. Oz is getting his information. But I’m getting mine from Dr. Nathan Bryan, one of the world’s leading experts on nitric oxide.

Actually, sodium nitrite is not only safe, it has been shown to improve cognition in some pre-Alzheimer’s patients.

I’ve talked about this subject in detail in two articles: March 2011 and April 2011, both available on my website. I’m planning to write an article on some of the newer research on nitrites and nitrates. Look for it in the fall. Meanwhile, know that two of the most healthful diets — the Mediterranean and traditional Japanese diets — are higher in nitrates than the acceptable daily intake by the World Health Organization. So eat plenty of fruits and vegetables. And take Neo40 if you want to be sure you’re getting enough NO (800-791-3395). Most people aren’t.