Talk about health

I've mentioned this before, but just recently I noticed another example of it. I'm talking about the trend of adding a hint of something 'healthy' to a popular food or drink. The latest example is in the US and involves adding some glucosamine to a well-known variety of orange juice.

At first glance it appears to be a logical thing to do. After all glucosamine is a very useful natural product that clearly helps many people with joint pain and osteo-arthitis.

What about glucosamine? Here's a few quick pointers -

We all have some in our body.
It helps us make synovial fluid - the thing that lubricates our cartilage and keeps joints healthy.
It prevents loss of cartilage that leads to osteo-arthritis.
It is believed to promote wound healing and speeds recovery from sports injuries.
It has anti-inflammatory properties and mops up free radicals
Normal doses in capsules and tablets are in the region of 1250mg to 1500mg a day.

So, it is a useful substance to take if you have cartilage trouble or sports injuries or aches and pains in your joints. And if you do take it, you'll probably find it needs at least eight weeks of regular dosage to have the best outcome. If it hasn't worked by then, it may not be for you.

Anyway, back to the point. Unfortunately, I don't know how much glucosamine is being added to the orange juice. But, I don't imagine it will be as much as the dose amounts I've mentioned above.

If it is not that much, what effects ar they trying to produce? And will swallowing a small amount of glucosamine have a beneficial effect on your joints? I have my doubts!

I suppose the thinking is that topping up your naturally occurring body glucosamine might just stop joint hurting in the first place. But, I've not come across any research that even hints that it could. (If you know of any, please let me know where it is.)

And, how would you know whether you are getting any benefit at all from small amounts over the years by taking regular drinks of orange juice?

One last thought ... orange juice makes symptoms worse for may arthritis sufferers. The juice of citrus fruits tend to lower the acidity in joints and this makes crystal formation easier - the very thing that makes arthritis even more painful.

SO, arthritis sufferers are advised to avoid orange juice, grapefruit juice and lemon juice. Patients would be better trying carrot juice, or cherries instead to raise their blood acidity a little.

My thoughts are that adding glucosamine to orange juice is just another marketing trick to encourage you to buy and supplement all at once.

Instead, if you have pain in your joints, buy a good brand of glucosamine tablets and take them as the manufacturers recommend. Give the orange juice a miss and make your own carrot juice with a few cherries for good measure.

Subscribe to my FREE newsletter at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and receive a copy of my booklet of tips for getting the very best from foods and supplements as a bonus.

Wishing you the very best of health.

Reading and researching all things health-wise certainly shows one thing. And it's not that we're all going to die sooner or later - although that's for certain! No, it's that what was once taken as a fact appears to be not so true as knowledge progresses.

I visualise it something like peeling an onion. Starting with the skin - you examine it, look at it under a microscope, see how it forms and grows, what damages it, the effects of environment, etc, etc. Then you formulate a series of so-called 'facts' about it and publish them as the latest on onion skin.

If you're lucky, the onion establishment review your 'facts' and accept them into the establishment archives to be used as the latest and most up-to-date 'facts. Then, someone decides to take off that skin and see what is underneath - another layer to be investigated and researched. Now, a new set of 'facts' appears to be subject to review and establishment scrutiny.

The very latest 'facts' then become the starting point for research into the third layer of the onion... and so it goes on, with the eventual goal of reaching the very heart of the onion, when all of the 'facts' will be known.

For me, it's the same with medicine and health. Today's facts are either ignored or updated as research reveals more information. However, medical research has a much harder time than my onion investigators. Your body and mine are infinitely more complex than an onion. You have a plethora of factors that influence your health for good and ill.

You have a complicated and delicate but robust physical body - a combination of muscles, bones, heart and blood vessels, hormones and nerves with an equally complex protection system (your immune system), digestive system, healing system, and an extremely powerful brain.

All of these interact constantly to maintain your health as best it can. And, overall it works.

Over many centuries, scientists and doctors have compiled a large database of knowledge on how the body works and the symptoms and treatment of disease. Knowledge has evolved just as my onion peeling analogy and 'facts' on illness and treatment are constantly beong discovered and verified.

BUT, are they always correct, these 'facts'?

An example of the flaws in them I suggest the cholesterol story. Conventional medicine would have us believe that cholesterol is the main factor in heart disease, and that by lowering your cholesterol to the extreme means your risk of heart attack or stroke is thereby reduced to a minimum. And on that basis, they have forced the statin drugs on the world as the ideal way to cut cardivascular disease from cradle to grave.

A few years ago, I might have agreed with this based on what we knew then. However, things have moved on and today it's all a bit different. Now, it seems that as much as 75% of heart attacks are in people who have 'normal' cholesterol. How would a low cholesterol cut their risk?

Low cholesterol seems to make people more prone to illness, more aggressive, more forgetful, so why use drugs to lower cholesterol even further?

Statn drugs have a number of serious side effects, so why prescribe them without pointing these out to the patients?

And now it appears that cholesterol, far from being a kind of poison to get rid of, is actually an important part of the way your body protects itself from damage. Cholesterol is rushed round to coat damaged blood vessels to allow them to heal and counteract inflammation. The problem occurs when too much builds up in the vessels and blocks them off.

Remember, too, that you need cholesterol to maintain your hormones, digest fats in your diet and much more.

What's the answer? Conventional medicine has it that you need to get your cholesterol as low as possible. Alternative therapies aim to keep cholesterol within normal levels by a combination of diet, exercise and supplements - all of which also help control inflammation as well.

What do you think? Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between. What is clear is that this problem highlights the shifting nature of health today. We can measure cholesterol and artifically or naturally bring it down. It's a combination of all of this that points up the 'facts' as we know them right now.

But, tomorrow .. well then things could be very different. Then where will todays 'facts' be?

If you would like to find out more on the choleterol story, why not send for my book "All About Cholesterol - villain or saviour"? Visit http://www.healthexplored.co.uk/eOrder/shop.php or e-mail me at info@healthexplored.co.uk and request a copy.

Wishing you the very best of health.

I don't know about you, but I find the continuing media coverage of all things health-orientated a little depressing. Yesterday saw the revelation that patients in the UK thought that new cancer drugs would be out of reach of the National Health Service because of the exhorbitant prices. The result would be that if they wanted to get then they would have to pay for them out of their own pockets.

The basis of this was that the Health Services here in the UK simply could not afford to supply such drugs without moving funds away from other uses. And, we saw one man who is currently paying some £3,000 every six weeks from his savings to access a drug to treat his inoperable lung cancer. How long could that go on? I know I couldn't afford to start it never mind sustain it for months.

British doctors say this is ridiculous and will only get worse as new and even more expensive drugs come on the market. And I agree!

Much of my essence of health writing comes from the idea that prevention is better than treatment. A lifetime's careful diet and exercise regime should postpone some of the more serious illnesses to a later stage in life. But, even then, cancer can strike anyone, anytime.

I don't know if the USA fares much better with its insurance based healthcare system, because the premium costs will surely rise as drugs get more expensive. And, I don't see any simple answer to this problem.

It may be that some form of insurance will need to be introdued in the UK to cover at least some of the costs of this type of treatment. I don't know. What I do think is that politicians should spend some of their time considering the options and not worrying about the next election.

After all, they could well be in the cancer treatment situation themselves.

Funding of health services will continue to be a major sticking point. Drug costs are extremely high and rising. How do other countries cope? And, can we adapt their system to bolster ours?

No one said it would be easy. But, someone has to begin or future treatemnt could be even more of a lottery that it is now. People will die when they could survive - if only ...

I still think prevention will help. As will alternative therapies - drugs are not the only way to fight disease. Consider making a start right now. Get some idea of what complementary and alternative medicine could do. Then , when you need it, you will have a head start.

Visit http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and subscribe to my FREE newsletter. You'll get the basis of many alternative therapies and how they help your health through my various publications.

Wishing you the very best of health

Sometimes I have so many thing I want to talk about that I can't decide which one to tell you. Today my choice was made much easier when I was watching some breakfast TV. A doctor and two young ladies were discussing treatment for a condition called scoliosis, a twisitng of the spine more common in women, that is painful and starts when puberty happens.

Conventional therapy is a risky and major operation involving inserting metal rods in the spine to staighten it or a less risky brace that attempts to do the job without surgery.

The reason it was on the programme at all is that one of the other women had discovered a non-invasive technique in Germany that involved seven weeks of intesive exercises designed to strengthen the muscles and sraighten the spine naturally. The third woman had used this therapy and had grown 2 cm while finding her severe neck pain had been resolved -no pain any longer!

The 'alternative' therapy of muscle strengthening and exercises is now available in the UK (through the first young lady) and apparently involves an initial outlay of some £2,400.

Now, I don't have any particular opinion on the therapy except to say that if it works, why not adopt it and offer it as a possible treatment?

My point is that the doctor was almost dismissive of the treatment since it cost so much money. However, she didn't care to tell us how much the conventional therapy cost or the risks involved in what is a major surgical procedure. I would bet it costs much more than £2,400. And I would also suggest that follow-up care and a lifetime of painkillers and possibly physiotherapy would add to the cost many times. Not to mention the psychological and physical cost to the patients.

Compare that to a relatively risk-free therapy that might not be suitable for all sufferers, but would be a great 'first step' down the road. If it worked all that would be needed is some exercise equipment and a continuing exercise regime. No more pain killers, no more pain. A straight and physically normal person who can get on with the rest of their life.

If it didn't work, then the sufferer would have the options of brace or surgery depending on their situations.

Now, the GP reckoned that a series of clinical trials was the way forward to evaluate the therapy 'properly', and I suppose her natural caution suggests that is a non-judgemental route. However, who is going to set up and pay for them? And there would be a substantial cost involved.

Certainly, more work needs to be done. But if I were a sufferer, and I'm thankful that I am not, I think I would like to give the non-invasive therapy a go first. It might work or it might not, but it's a small price to pay to find out if I was looking forward to a pain-free future. Some special exercises seems to be to be a better bet that risky, major surgery especially if they work.

This episode demonstrates just how difficult it is to move the conventional doctor away from his or her ingrained views of the alternatives available. In the end, it's up to you, the potential patient, to decide.

Vote with your feet and if necessary, your money too. Discover the options for treating any illness you might suffer from. Then use the information you find to colour the way you go about treatment. Slash and burn might be the conventional answer but gentle and persistent could be a better one.

First you have to know more about the options, and that is what I try to give you through my seeries of booklets and reports. Visit http://www.healthexplore.co.uk to discover what's available at modest cost. Join my newsletter list and get regular free updates on current therapies plus a booklet on foods and supplements (also FREE)

I was reminded today of a conversation that took place on the radio last week. Two ladies were discussing health. One was advocating a healthy diet since she believed that diet was the source of health whether good or bad. The other complained loudly and at length that she didn't care what anyone said, she would eat just what she wanted and to hang with the consequences.

And this is the problem. You cannot make everyone do the healthy things, just because you say so. No matter how much you agree with the idea that good health stems directly from a good, balanced diet, there is no way you can force others to toe the dietary line.

My whole health ideas are based on the simple premise that all anyone can do is to set out the current facts and state of knowledge and let everyone else do something about it if they want to. Once you are aware of the good, bad independent information about diet, for instance, or cholesterol or stress, what you need to do is to think about it.

Is this me?
What are the consequences of ignoring advice and help?
How does my lifestyle relate to the 'ideal'?
How is my health now?
Will my health be worse if I continue doing what I have always done?
Am I looking at a shorter life if I do nothing to change?
Is there any treatment for the expected illness?
How can I change without disuprting my life too much?
What input do I have to give for best results?

These and other questions should form part of your thought processes. I hope you manage to answer all of them and more.

Once you've come to some sort of conclusion, ask any supplementary questions from the source of the information to complete the pricture so far as you are concerned.

Then, it's up to you. You decide what, if anything you are going to do about it. Are you prepared to take on board what you have discovered about your health, and change or adapt your lifestyle? Alter your diet a little to eat more fresh fruit and vegetabes, limit your alcohol intake, cut down on processed foods, miss out some salt, relax or whatever?

Might you begin to take a little regular exercise? Go for a brisk walk every day, or swim or cycle regularly?

In other words, are you going to help your health now and in the future by making small and regular adjustments to your life?

Or

Are you going to contimue with your current bad habits. Does a trip to the burger bar or pizza house still feature in your daily or weekly routine. Will you still spend every non-working minute in front of the TV? Will your weekly visit to the football match surrounded by consuming lots of lovely alcohol remain one of a few excursions?

No-one can tell you what to do. Legislation won't help and let's hope governments never get to the stage whhere they even contemplate it. Freedom is a scarce enough commodity already.

I have no wish to force anyone to my way of thinking. But, remember, the consequences of your ingoring sensibe health advice from whatever source will be all yours. Illness and disease may feaure large in your later life. And there isn't always a pill to pop to make things bearable.

Something will get you in the end. It's your choice whether to give yourself the best chance of a long and healthy life - or not.

You decide!

Drop by my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk to see the range on independent info of health matters and get a tips booklet on diet and supplements for joining the FREE newsletter.