Talk about health

How Much Sun is Enough?

2008-06-03T11:58:00.000-07:00

So, what do I do? Go out in the sun or stay indoors? Put on sunscreen or keep my clothes on? Work on my tan or stay pale and interesting? More importantly, who is telling the truth? Conventional doctors or the alternative therapists? Is there an answer or do I simply ‘plump’ for what suits my circumstances?

I think I’ve tried all of the above at one time or another and I still wonder if there is a better way. As summer approaches (I hope) some more definitive answer seems to be a more positive route forward. As I see it the problem revolves around three main points – sun exposure time, sunscreens and vitamin D.

Lets start with vitamin D. There are lots of articles around now that explain how vitamin D or rather lack of vitamin D is a factor in many diseases of the 21st century. From all of these, both conventional and alternative views, the consensus seems to be that we all need more vitamin D to be healthy and most of us don’t have enough in our bodies. Whether this is because of our diets or where we live doesn’t seem to matter if we can increase our vitamin D somehow.

The most natural and efficient way of achieving this is to get some sunshine on our bodies every day. Easier said than done, especially in the part of the world where I live that seems to have more sunless days that sunny. When the sun shines we rush out and spend too long sunbathing so all we get is red and sore. Not ideal!

The sensible solution is to restrict our unprotected time in the sun to about twenty minutes or so then cover up or apply sunscreen. You don’t want to burn. That’s where the cancer can begin. And that brings me neatly to the problem with sunscreens. There isn’t such a majority view here. Many conventional doctors say sunscreens are absolutely essential to prevent some cancers, while others and alternative advocates tell us that sunscreens or their components cause cancer.

It isn’t always realistic to put clothes and a hat on when you’re in the sun, although this is the simplest answer to over-exposure. Search out a suitable product that is effective and apply it as directed by the manufacturer. Sunscreens of all types, even the swim-resistant type, wash off to reduce or negate any protection.

The first thing to look for in sunscreens is protection from UVA rays – these are the cancer-causing ones. The UVB rays need to be screened out too, but are less problematic. Then avoid the chemicals used as filtering agents that can be toxic and those that can penetrate your skin and get into the blood. One combination that is classed as a safe, natural sunscreen contains a mix of titanium dioxide and zinc.

The conclusion? Get into the sun for 15 to 20 minutes a day if possible. Then cover up or use a safe sunscreen. Maximise your vitamin D level this way and you will have the best chance of staying healthy and avoiding disease. If you can’t do this, try a vitamin D supplement.

Use it or lose it

2008-05-19T06:43:00.000-07:00

Neighbourhood shops and businesses, which find themselves under extreme financial pressure following the latest onslaught from the supermarkets, tend to put up posters proclaiming, “Use it or lose it”. It an unfortunate truth in today’s economic climate that it only takes a relatively small number of people to take their custom away for a formerly thriving concern to fall into the red and be forced to close their doors forever. I’ve been very close to that situation myself, so I can attest to the personal devastation that follows.

I mention this not to start an argument on supermarket power, but to illustrate a parallel in health. It has become fashionable to point out the same principle of ‘use it or lose it’ when referring to your brain. Hand-held computers are sold to the older generation (me) with special programs that, when used properly, are claimed to keep your brain active and hence stave off approaching dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

They are by no means the only way to keep an active brain, but they certainly have something to offer. I choose to write articles on health instead, and I’ll let you know when bewilderment approaches.

The same is true with all of your body. Nourish it, exercise it, and use it as it was intended or has evolved to do, in short, look after it while you can.

I’ve come to this line of thought because I’ve just listened to a radio program that involved a lady who had lost an arm due to cancer. Now, that has nothing to do with the above since events were not under her control. But, it made me think of how we take it for granted that everything works, until something goes wrong. It’s only when there is a problem that we suddenly find it difficult or impossible to do the simplest things.

I only have to remind myself of some of the health problems I’ve experienced. For instance, a bad back. I’ve had a few of these over the years and, according to the statistics, I’m not alone. Apart from the pain, it’s the lack of mobility that struck me. Once, on my way to recovery, I thought I would cross a busy road and started off to find a car bearing down on me. Try as I might, I simply couldn’t make me legs work fast enough to avoid a confrontation. My back hurt and so did my ego as the driver slowed, tooted his horn and mouthed some expletives at me.

Then, there was the bad leg incident, when I could hardly crawl around the house. It made me realise how much we take simple things for granted. If I had been single, I would probably have starved to death. (Don’t tell my wife, will you?) I felt old.

It reminded me, also, of a patient of mine who had had a lung removed due to cancer. He staged a remarkable recovery and was soon back to his chirpy best. One winter’s day he hove into view for his prescription and a chat, as was his wont. He wasn’t the complaining type, but on this occasion he took issue with the keen and bitter wind. He said the wind felt as if it was blowing straight through his chest. The space left where his lung had been felt empty and cold despite the layers of clothing.

Getting back to the lady whose missing arm began this train of thought, she recounted an incident on a transatlantic flight where she was forced to ask a stewardess to cut up her in-flight meal. You don’t appreciate two arms until you’ve only got one and suddenly even feeding yourself becomes a problem.

My patient came to realise what his missing lung really did. I found how a simple back strain and painful leg had such a significant impact on normality.

Your body works well when everything is in place, fuelled and used properly. Clearly, it isn’t always possible to keep all the parts in pristine condition until you die at a very old age. However, with judicious consumption of nutrients, regular exercise, effective relaxation and sleep you can keep it functioning at its best.

Look after that body and mind of yours. It’s the only one you’ll get.

Contact James at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk , subscribe to the no-cost newsletter,OR read the blog and leave your comments and questions.

Wishing you the best of health.

Mind and Body Dieting

2008-05-13T02:54:00.000-07:00

Now that spring is well and truly here, it’s a time when advertisers try to cash in on the latest diet plan. Regular readers will know that I have a jaundiced view of fad diets mainly because they don’t work in the long run. Yes, you’ll lose some pounds. But when the initial enthusiasm wears thin long before your body does, the weight will come creeping back.

Losing weight only really becomes sustainable if you work on changing your lifestyle. More exercise, smaller portions, more fresh fruit and vegetables, less processed and fast food … it’s a bit like a broken record. You’ve heard it all before, but it’s true.

However, as some of us have found out, following this plan doesn’t always produce the weight loss you hoped for. You’ve followed the advice to the letter, and still your weight remains anchored well above your target level. What’s going on?

Before you give up in disgust and go back to your old ways, here’s one possibility as to why your excess pounds are reluctant to leave you. It’s your attitude and state of mind!

How you think and feel has a lot to do with how your food is digested. What you put in your mouth is only part of the problem. The next part is to do with the efficiency of your digestion.

Ideally, you’ll chew slowly to break up the mouthful and mix it with the first digestive enzyme in saliva. Then there will be enough acid in your stomach to carry on the process of digestion; correct amounts of bile and digestive enzymes throughout the small intestine and so on. The end result is all the nutrient content of the food being absorbed into your body to nourish you, repair and maintain all the organs and cells, keep you fit and healthy and at your ‘fighting weight’ without any excess fat.

What’s your mind got to do with that process? Well, research suggests that your digestion will improve if you have a positive attitude about what you are eating.

Today’s lifestyles tend to work around the 24/7 way of existing. You’re on the go all the time, rushing to cope with the pressures of work and family, living with the worries of finance and health, rushed snacks, and catching a meal without stopping to consider what you are eating.

Life is all pressures and stress, and that is a major factor in the efficiency of your digestion. Stress is all about the fight or flight response. The stress hormones change the emphasis of your bodily functions so you can fight or run away. Your heart, brain and muscles get more blood to make you ready for this and, at the same time, the blood supply to your stomach and intestine is reduced. So, digestion becomes less efficient.

Your body is not built to digest food and run away at the same time. It does one or the other, not both. This is where modern life doesn’t help. A great many people live with almost constant stress. At the last estimate it was well over half of the population.

Give two people the same diet, one is stressed and anxious, the other calm and relaxed and the impact on their health and weight is very different. Stressed means poorer health and more weight.

If you want to get rid of some pounds and feel better, it isn’t simply a matter of cutting the fats, sugars and carbohydrates and getting some exercise. You have got to address your stressors and worries too. Find a way to relax at meal times. Discover how to calm down and enjoy your food. Improve your attitude and state of mind. Then your chances of losing that weight will greatly improve.

Find out what stress does to your body and how alternative therapies can help control that stress by visiting http://www.healthexplored.com , sign up for the newsletter, get hold of my STRESS e-books and much more.

Wishing you the best of health.

TV Health Complaints and Vitamin D

2008-05-09T02:10:00.000-07:00

I've been visiting my children and attending a wedding hence the reasons for my not adding an article last week. However, I've now sorted out my e-mails and am almost back to normal - whatever that is!

There's a particular TV program here in the UK with a regular health spot. I like watching this program - it's casual and friendly presenters make it a 30 minute easy view. Usually, the medical people who do the health spot appear open to viewing alternative therapies in a good light. They are not exactly 100% in the altenative camp, but having an open mind is a first step.

But, the other day the health spot took a turn for the worse. On a previous occasion they covered the benefits of vitamin D and sunlight. The point was gently made that we need some sunlight before slapping on the sunscreen to have the best chance of improving vitamin D levels. This time they spent a great deal of time in the old total-block groove so beloved of mainstream doctors.

The five minute slot could have been written a few years ago by the archetype blinkered GP. It pointed out the dangers of sunbeds (absolutely correct) but then told us to stay out of the sun or use high-factor sunscreens. If I'd had any hair, I would be pulling it out.

Having calmed down a little, I've come to the view that TV simply cannot bear to approach a complex problem in depth. I understand that people are busy and don't necesarily want to think too deeply about anything that can't be covered in a five-minute slot. But, is that a valid reason for over-simplifying health topics to a one line message presented by charming ladies?

If you really must simplify everything to a one-point message, stick to that and do it one step at a time. I don't think any health item is simple. Everything that goes on in your body and mind is a vastly complicated interaction of many things, most of which we don't really understand fully. The only way to rationalise it is to highlight current knowledge and point out that the story is not complete.

Take the vitamin-D and sunlight problem. So far as I can tell, the ideal situation to maximise vitamin D is to get some direct sunlight on your face and body every day for about 15 minutes or so, then shield your body thereafter using clothes, shade or sunscreens. Just to complicate matters, there is some concern that certain ingredients in sunscreens could be harmful. And some scientists say that regular sun is better protection from skin cancers that occasional exposure.

I say, 'break it down even further, then join it all up again at the end'. To me, it would be better to point out the dangers of sunbeds to fair skin and stop at that. Then to recommend ways of improving your vitamin D level giving the apparent benefits of this particular vitamin on health and stop there. And tell us the dangers of prolonged sun exposure giving us the results of trials, to complete that part of the picture.

In other words, have three relatively simple views of sunshine, vitamin D and health that form a more realsitic view rather than one very simple but flawed message that glosses over the whole truth by majoring on only one aspect.

The glossy magazine, simplistic presentaion may have a useful message to help others get a point but in the long run it must be better to tell the whole truth. It may take longer to get your point across but people won't be confused by different advice on the same subject.

There! I've got that off my chest for now. Let me know what you think about the way TV deals with health matters or your thoughts on vitamin D and sunshine.

Join me by subscribing to my regular but Fr ee newsletter. Go to http://www.healthexplored.com and subscribe - and you'll get a bonus tips booklet as well.

Wishing you the best of health.

Take Your Vitamins, Please!

2008-04-22T07:51:00.000-07:00

You can't have failed to notice the press reports on how vitamins are the new killers. As usual, the journalists don't bother to check up on the truth behind a story and certainly don't let the facts get in the way of a blockbuster headline.

Since publication of the 'antioxidants may shorten your life' fiasco, many reasonable commentators in the health field have taken the time to point up the many shortcomings of the so-called science behind the original report.

Briefly, the 'scientists' carefully chose a small proportion of available research papers to 'prove' their point, thus confirming the lies,damned lies and statistics saying. By ignoring any vaguely positive findings they created figures that justify the headline.

I suppose they feel happy, but few can support them.

However, my point is not simply to pour scorn on these researchers, but also to encourage you to continue to take your multivitamin supplements in the way they should. The bottom line is that our current lifestyle and diet means we are almost bound to be a little short in the basic vitamin and mineral levels. A multi-supplement should go some way in topping-up and moving towards the optimum for the very best of health.

As part of this system, you really must take these supplements daily, even before you feel ill or develop any condition. For this is something positive you can take from the published review that caused all the fuss.

Most of the reports reviewed showed that people only started taking their vitamins after they had been diagnosed with a disease. Frequently this was some form of cancer. Unfortunately, with the best will in the world, it may well be too late to start a supplement, especially a standard mix of vitamins and minerals.

Once an illness has developed to the point of giving you symptoms, a supplement such as this may help your health a little, but in that situation, very high doses may be necessary. And in this circumstance, very little research has been done, except for high dose vitamin-C injections as part of cancer treatment.

So, what can you take from this tirade? First of all, get yourself a reasonable supplement of vitamins and minerals - reputable manufacturer, optimum mix for your age and so on in a form that you can swallow. Then take it daily as part of your healthy diet and lifestyle. With any luck you should live as well as you can, for as long as you can. It's not a guaranteed system, but at least you will have done your very best.

Take the pluses from such negative reporting as the media choose to give. Be realistic and ask for clarity before changing your lifestyle and ignoring these essential substances. They're not called vitamins for nothing!

Concerned about health matters? Visit http://www.healthexplored.co.uk to read articles and join our fr ee newsletter subscription list - e-mail newsletters to keep you up to date with health, and a bonus gift that explains food, vitamins and minerals.

Fight back against cholesterol

2008-04-15T02:39:00.000-07:00

I am returning to the cholesterol topic today. Not that I am obsessed you understand. It's just that I've come across two recent articles that more or less support my views that a lifetime of taking statin drugs is not necesarily the only or best way to proceed. Certainly, I agree that having high cholesterol is not a situation to be ignored, and as such, something has to be done.

The first problem is that there are no symptoms for cholsterol. This means that once you are diagnosed as having high cholesterol, usually following a routine check-up or heart-related incident, you are hooked. The mainstream medical opinion is to start you off on statins with the eventual aim to get your cholesterol down to some mythical low figure, as if that is the end of the matter. Low cholesterol could well be the end of you instead.

However, thousands of people who begin statin treatment stop taking their drugs over the first year of treatment. Sometimes it is just because they don't feel any different. But most of the time it is because of one or more of the damaging side effects of the stains. Commonly, these include muscle pain and weakness, but there are many more that affect patients and tempt them to look for some other ways to lower cholesterol that don't include a lifetime's medication.

From a purely dietary point of view, grapefruit has been found to lower cholesterol. All kinds of fresh grapefriut seem to lower cholesterol, but red grapefriut appears to have the most beneficial actions. 'Fresh red grapefruit contains higher quantities of bioacive compounds and has significantly higheer antioxidant potential than blond grapefruit,' the researchers concluded.

That seems to be a painless way of putting a lid on your cholesterol level, but the only fly in this particular ointment is that grapefruit may interfere with the way some medications work. So, if you already take drugs for other conditions, you must find out if you could be affected. It has to do with affecting your liver enzymes and how they break down drugs. Be warned!

If you are not taking other drugs, there should be little problem with adding red grapefruit to your diet.

The second article is more to do with adding two things to your life to counteract the worst side effects of statin therapy. I've mentioned muscle pain and weakness as a major drawback of statin therapy. This effect follows the way statins work - they have a toxic action of the mitochondria in cells. These powerhouses are responsible for your energy supply, and statins interfere with their normal working thus creating the nasty side effect.

If you assume that you want to continue taking your statin, you can apparently minimise the side effect by taking green tea. This contains a substance called 'deoxysappanone'. This seems to cut down the free radicals, has a beneficial effect on motochondria and helps boost energy production.

And, while you're at it, since statins cut the supply of co-enzyme Q10 - a necessary chemical for optimum heart and circulation - supplementing with this substance will also help reduce the effects of statin therapy. Co-enzyme Q10 occurs naturally in foods such as fish and meat. And you can get supplement versions at most health shops.

There you have it. Ditch the statins and get a range of alternative ways of controlling your cholesterol and bringing levels back to normal. Or stick with the statins and try to control the side effects by a few simple changes to your diet and supplementation routine.

Find of all about cholesterol and controlling it by visiting my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and clicking onto the sales page to find the big green heart. order this tell-all book and find all the ways to lower cholesterol and why you shouldn't getcholesterol too low for comfort. You get access to the instant download digital version, or drop me aline at info@healthexplored.co.uk to order the print version.

Wishing you the very best of health.

Cholesterol Drug Problems

2008-04-04T02:28:00.000-07:00

It has become routine to suffer from one of the big four - high blood pressure, diabetes type-2, stomach acid, or cholesterol. People wear them like a badge of distinction, bragging at the dinner table of their diagnosis and showing their drug collection with pride. Only last week I was sharing a dinner party with four friends (and my wife) when the conversation took what has become an habitual road down health. As it turned out, each of the friends is on medication. My wife and I appear to be alone in taking only fish oil and multivitamins regularly.

Of the four drug takers, one has stomach acid problems, one has high cholesterol and two have blood pressure concerns. What they have in common is they now take drugs daily in an effort to control their symptoms. And presumeably they will continue taking them for the rest of their lives.

Knowing what I do, my friends ask my thoughts on their condition and treatment. And being an obliging chap I run through my thoughts on this kind of long-term medication - should be avoided if at all possible by changing lifestyle, diet and exercise regime, reviewing stress and sleep options.

At our age, over 50, thoughts turn to retirement and worries about pensions, and finance tends to overcome health concerns. But should they? What's the point of working endless hours under pressure trying to ensure financial comfort if you drop dead the week after your officially retire? It isn't always possible to do everything for yourself and family so far as finance is concerned. Children may have to look after themselves by working just as their parents did.

My point is that you shouldn't ignore your health in the quest for what you consider is sufficient cash to have regular costly holidays and new cars once you retire. When you've been diagnosed with one of the popular four conditions I mentioned at the start, it may seem a simple matter to begin taking your tablets as the doctor ordered. You'll feel you are doing something positive to address the problem, and in the case of acid-lowering drugs, you'll probably feel much better, too.

But, for bood pressure, diabetes and cholesterol, it's more likely you will feel little different. Your doctor will tell you how well your condition is responding to the medication.

Before you get that smug 'I told you so' look, just consider one thing - side effects! I read recently of a person given one of the statin drugs for cholesterol. It took only a few days before he felt as though he had the flu - weak legs, aching muscles, sore back and tending to want to sleep a lot.

Did he have the flu? Perhaps. However, the symptoms lasted for several weeks and didn't change. Probably not the flu then. What else could it be? Is it coincidence that the symptoms and his cholesterol medication were included in the same timeframe?

Returning to his doctor resulted in calming words from the medical profession about the safety of statin drugs and advice to keep taking the tablets.

The problem is that statin drugs are known to cause such symptoms, and worse. Some people don't develop side effects to them but a surprising number do. Symptoms range from the relatively minor ones such as the person above did - the flu-like symptoms, to potentially serious ones involving muscle breakdown, heart failure, nerve damage, and memory loss.

Did the statin cause the flu symptoms? Probably. The only way to prove it would be to stop the medication and follow the consequences. The symptoms would go away if it was the drug, and return if treatment started again.

The problem with continuing the medication as the doctor suggested is that the side effects are not always reversible if they have gone on too long. So this person is in a difficult position and he alone has to decide. Stop the drug or not? I know what I would do - stop the drug and see what happens. It's not easy when your health is at stake and your trusted doctor is at odds with what you want to do.

Why not try to discover the truth about cholesterol and controlling it. Does it really cause heart attacks or is there another explanation? Can you control cholesterol without resorting to a lifetime's medication? Maybe the alternative therapy scene can help, too?

It won't necessarily take major changes to your lifestyle to achieve much more than any drug. Find out in my publication "Cholesterol - Villain or Savoiur?". Find out more at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk , join the newsletter subscribers or buy the book (digital or hard copy).

Wishing you the very best of health.

Cholesterol and Statin Side Effects

2008-03-17T03:30:00.000-07:00

Being told you have high cholesterol may not rank alongside getting bad news of cancer, but it is the start of justifiable worry about your heart. Publicity suggests cholesterol is the one and only risk factor, and a heart attack will surely follow - unless you get your cholesterol down! So, you embark on a lifetime of drug taking, with your doctor's blessing. And all will be well ... or so you think.

As with all health-related topics, the above scenario simply doesn't hold for everyone. For instance, will you take your tablets for the rest of your life? The research tells us that quite a lot of people stop taking the drugs after a year or two. Then what? I haven't seen any results on follow-ups of these people.

Is high cholesterol the villain it is portrayed? That's the real question. It seems that half the people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol. And the majority of people with high cholesterol never suffer a heart attack. So, clearly something else is involved along with cholesterol.

Well, yes there is. C-reactive protein is recognised as a better measure of risk for heart attack. Other factors include family history, blood pressure, excessive weight, exercise, diet, and smoking. And these factors have an effect on inflammation in the heart and blood vessels, and inflammation follows damage. The result is that cholesterol is now seen as part of the way your body tries to deal with inflammation - the more inflammation the higher the cholesterol.

Even if you think taking drugs to lower cholesterol is the answer, have you considered there are side effects related to every drug and the cholesterol-lowering statins are no exception? The conventional medical professions tell us that the statins are a safe group of drugs. Yet stories abound of how the statins are the cause of some worrying side effects. Muscle pain is the usual and most common side effect.

However, over the past few years reports have emerged about memory loss caused by the statins. A US doctor was taking atorvastatin (Lipitor) and realised he had lost his memory for a few hours. His own investigation revealed the statin drug was the cause. He stopped his medication and recovered completely.

After reporting his story on the Internet, hundreds of other people confirmed the same thing had happened to them. And just last week another case was chronicled on a reputable health site. Once again, a successful, intelligent businessman found he had trouble remembering things. He got lost driving in areas he knew well and had to carry a note pad with him to jot down reminders. Dementia or Alzheimer's disease was his first thought, but he was wrong.

Again, investigation discovered the link with atorvastatin, and he began the process of weaning himself off the drug. This involved changing his diet to include more soluble fibre in beans, peas, fruit etc; increasing his intake of omega-3 fatty acids from fish; snacking on a dail handful of nuts and introducing some flaxseeds. Added to this he increased his weekly exercise regime.

With carful management of these and other diet and lifestyle changes this person managed to get his cholesterol down without the statins. His memory is back to normal.

These stories and many others point out the potential problems with cholesterol-lowering drugs such as the statins. Why take the chance. High cholesterol is a warning that things are not as they should be. The important thing to remember is that you can get your cholesterol down by taking some judicious steps to improve your diet and exercise. Once you have incorporated them into your life, review the situation and only then consider the necessity of taking a statin.

Remember the fact that high cholesterol doesn't necessarily mean a heart attack is coming. Normal cholesterol doesn't mean you won't have a heart attack, either.

Yes, try to get cholesterol back to normal by changing your habits. But if you feel better after that, why take the chance with a statin?

You can read the whole story of cholesterol, heart healt, statins and natural and alternative ways of lowering cholesterol by getting a copy of my book All About Cholesterol - villain or saviour?. Just log onto http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and follow the links to the secure order page and look for the big green heart. You'll get your digital copy by return and discover how you can look after your cholesterol without drugs.

Log on to the same site to subscribe to my newsletter - its fr ee and comes with a gift.

Truth or half truth?

2008-03-12T06:58:00.000-07:00

It's good to know both sides of an argument, or so I understand. Only one side can be biased and misleading. What everyone needs is balance. Unfortunately, the doctrine of balance doesn’t reach into every aspect of reporting. Twice in the past few days I’ve come across examples of bias in health reports, and it makes me angry. Reporters and program makers clearly don’t share an open mind or look for reasonable conclusions.

The first instance concerned a hospital professor who wished to test claims of super foods, probiotics and so on. Sponsored by a TV company, she trotted out the usual mainstream, conventional medical thoughts on diet that I’ve come to recognise. You know the kind of thing – balanced diet is all you need, why bother with probiotics because it doesn’t really affect health, and so on. It’s just one big yawn.

Then, while she was discussing foods that lower cholesterol, she informed us that she had high cholesterol but was taking a statin drug for it. Why, therefore, would she even consider controlling her cholesterol with diet? A tablet a day and she was fine, thank you very much.

Cue a heated one-way discussion between the TV and me. How can a highly qualified, intelligent medical person be allowed to get away with that? No mention of side effects. No concern about long-term medication. No thought of changing diet to a healthier version. No trace of wonder that avoiding the drug might be preferable. No nothing! Just a large measure of complacency.

Apart from my instant anger, I was disgusted to see that the medical profession has apparently not moved forward in the past decades. They still see treatment as a pill for each symptom. And treat each side effect with another pill. Until the patient (you) ends up taking handfuls of tablets at every meal or even in place of every meal.

I hadn’t long calmed down from that when I read an article in which a doctor had claimed one of his patients had died from taking glucosamine to help his arthritis. The piece went into some detail of this poor man’s symptoms as justification for demanding all alternative remedies be subject to the same legal requirements as drugs. It ended with two sentences from a representative of the herbal profession on the forthcoming European laws regarding supplements and remedies. So much for balance.

What got me going in this case was the lack of details on the case. For instance, was glucosamine the only thing involved? Was he also taking medicines for other conditions or perhaps painkillers for his arthritis as well? How did the doctor come to the conclusion that glucosamine was the thing that caused his death? He was sure it was the glucosamine that caused the death, but why? Had he eliminated all other possibilities?

I have no reason to protect glucosamine. Everything I’ve read about it suggests it is safe and effective. But, I’m prepared to accept that it might be involved in some unfortunate train of events that lead to the ultimate side effect. But I would like some more proof, not just some doctor’s opinion.

While we’re on it, I would like a little context, too. Tell me how many deaths are caused by this doctor’s regulated and approved drugs for arthritis. None, presumably, or we would have heard of them. Wouldn’t we?

Anti-arthritis drugs have caused many thousands of deaths worldwide and I don’t remember the media giving each death the prominence afforded this one. And there have been no claims for the removal of theses drugs from the market. Well, that’s not true. One was removed a couple of years ago because of its exceptional record of causing death. The rest remain for you if you want them.

Don’t ignore this casualty of glucosamine, if that is what it is. Lets get to the bottom of it and find out why a seemingly safe remedy proved not to be safe at all. While you’re at, lets be told the safety record for the prescribable arthritis drugs.

These instances of mainstream medicine ignoring the very basis of health and medicine are all too common in the media. People, even doctors, are entitled to their opinions. But so are the rest of us. The constant one-sided view of health as portrayed without any critical analysis leads the non-medical among us to think that there is no other view worthy of consideration. It’s down to drugs and surgery or nothing.

Its time the media reviewed their rules on balance to include health along with politics. Not that I want them to be mixed, you understand. Don’t start me on our politicians!

Health isn’t solely a conventional medical thing. Convention must be in the mix, but it certainly does not hold all the answers. It has a pretty poor record on safety of medicines. It is responsible for many deaths that might have been avoided if it had taken a wider and less singular view.

Perhaps I should retire to a cave with no TV and no newspapers!

Contact me through http://www.healthexplored.co.uk . Sign up to my fr ee newsletter and check out the reports on stomach acid, cholesterol, pain, stress, and acupuncture. I pride myself that I try to see and understand all views on health. Only then can you decide which one or combination suits your situation and beliefs.

Stay well!

Health Thoughts for Today

2008-02-25T06:36:00.000-08:00

I spend most of my working hours reading or writing about general health matters. Not just one specific illness or disease. For me the basics are to regain and maintain the very best of health that you can. And this means looking after all of you and addressing the whole range of problems that might befall. Prevention and treatment are at the heart of my work.

I've mentioned this because there are a lot of health sites that major on just one condition. And I wish them well in their quest for the best treatment for the sufferers of that particular condition.

I would rather take a more general overview of health by trying to help the section of the population that are sometimes called "the worried well" in addition to those people that are suffering from certain problems. That is to say that intelligent people with full and possibly stressed lives who may be concerned that ageing can produce a raft of health issues that might be avoidable with some judicious changes to their current lifestyle.

Or those sufferers of common conditions who wonder if their therapy could be made more effective if they employed an alternative therapy or even combined bits of several therapies to suit their particular circumstances.

The universal truth is that each of us is an individual and no single treatment option is going to suit everyone. Whatever your first choice of therapy, wherever you begin your search, the chances are it won't suit you.

Conventional treatment with drugs and surgery tends to be the first choice in the Western world. I can attest to the benefits of antibiotics and surgery. They have kept me alive and relatively healthy, especially through my younger years. However, as time has passed, I have come to understand the flaws and holes in the conventional system. More recent years have seen the glaring problems of hospitalisation - superbugs, queues, staff fatigue, drug side effects and so on. Hence the rise of the alternatives.

So what? Many of the alternative therapies have been widely used in other parts of the world for centuries. They, too, have faults and create problems. What's the answer?

My thoughts, for what they are worth, is that you should have an idea of just what these alternatives have to offer. Then you can make some kind of judgement of what is the best option for you - that unique individual, with your specific set of circumstances and concerns.

I believe that the best person to decide on your prevention regime or therapy is you, just as long as you have a reasonable idea of the choices available to you.

Where does that leave you?

First, you need to have an idea of what being healthy really means. Then how does that compare with you. The basics include diet, exercise, sleep, and stress. How might these be made to adjust and fit into your lifestyle? How could you add them to an already busy schedule? Is the busy schedule really necessary? What could I do to help you?

No one, least of all me, can tell you how to lead your life, and I have no intention of doing so. What I think will help is to provide you with some general information in a way that you can understand and in a form that you can access as and when you need it. Hence my posting articles here and sending you my newsletter.

And providing a series of useful booklets on subject such as STRESS, STOMACH ACID, ACUPUNCTURE, CHOLESTEROL, PAIN CONTROL and so on. They are designed to provide a clear and concise view of the condition, its cause and its possible treatment and cure using conventional and alternative therapies.

You may be surprised at just what the alternative therapies can do, given the chance. I know I was when I first started researching them.

The options are yours. Prevention, treatment and cure are out there if you know where to look and what to do. Why not take a look at my site at http://www.healthexplored.com and sign up for my newsletter? There is no obligation to buy anything. The newsletter give you a chance to check out my style and objectives at no cost to you.

It's then up to you to take it further if you wish. Ask me health questions, make suggestions for future articles, criticise my views, ... go on. Give it a try. Here's that link again http://www.healthexplored.com .

Thanks for reading this and all the very best of health to you.

Beetroot Juice Anyone?

2008-02-07T01:54:00.000-08:00

Where does the time go? After resolving to write here regularly I've managed to let the days slip away again!

Anyway, I've received several queries about an article that made most of the daily papers here in the UK. It was based on a published research papaer that noted how drinking 500ml beetroot juice a day could lower blood pressure significantly. The points I would make on this would probably go for many of the newspaper health reports printed these days.

The first is that these articles tend to be short on detail and long on possible benefits. What I mean is that having read quite a few of the beetroot juice articles not one mentioned the juice itself. How was it made? Juicing a few beetroot perhaps? Or boiling them up and concentrating the water? Was it beetroot alone? If so at what concentration? Could anyone make a suitable alternative? Or does it need some chemical assessment procedure first?

No such luck ... no clues in the aritcles anyway. So, I did a little surfing and found at least one warning on drinking juiced beetroot alone. Apparently it can cause a series of side effects unless it is mixed with other vegetables such as carrots, ginger and so on. So let's have a bit more detail on the so-called magic juice.

Then, how often would you need to take it to have the desired effect? The research used normal people - not suffering from high blood pressure, and only over a few days. How do the results stack up for sufferers from high blood pressure if they were to take it for months or even years?

And, how palatable is it to drink 500ml of beetroot juice every day? It is a lot of liquid to consume daily, and if it has a distinctive taste and colour ( as I think it does) would it put people off? Does it turn your urine a nice pink-purple colour and stain everything it touches? All of these considerations influence its acceptance as a form of medication.

Nothing in the articles so far as I could see. Certainly the researchers gave their explanation of how beetroot juice could have the desired effect. And for that I'm grateful.

Then I came across a site that suggested that beetroot could actually raise blood pressure if it was below normal levels.

The newspaper reports clearly have not included a search of current literature. I know they have to fill papers with something, but to suggest a new and revolutionary treatment for one of the more troubling conditions of this century without qualification is poor.

This type of blindly reporting single research findings on health has the effect of raising people's hopes that a cure is at hand when it clearly is not. Research such as this could well be the start of a new and useful path to treating high blood pressure. Beetroot may be the source of some wonderful chemical to treat this condition. Or it might point to the fact that vegetables such as beetroot as part of a good diet has a blood pressure moderating action in everyone. The point is that this report is only the beginning of a process, not the end.

We're back to the good dietary advice again! Carrot juice and orange juice is said to have similar effects to beetroot juice. But, who is researching this?

Finally, I wonder who said, "I know. Let's do some research on the actions of beetroot juice."

A New Year Thought

2008-01-15T02:23:00.000-08:00

Regular viewers will have realised that I haven't posted anything for over a month. This was because I caught a chill that has taken a long time to subside, coupled with the festive season celebrations and family get togethers. But I hope normal service will be resumed starting with this, my view of another New Year's beginning.

Still soldiering on with the current batch of resolutions? I didn’t make any this year since I don’t remember ever managing to keep one of them however solemnly made for more than a few days. And this applies to several decades of them.

Well, everything I’ve seen and heard since 2008 began is about either stopping smoking, going on holiday or changing my diet.

The holiday stuff and nicotine replacement is nothing new. Hope for the end of a cold winter or the chance to quit the habit and improve your health. It’s good for the mind and the body.

“What about diet, then?” I hear you ask.

I’m not a fan of the fashion or fad diet. I’m more of an eat-less-and-exercise-more person. Cut out the processed, the excessively sweet and the over salty, … and the deep-fried, is what I say, and try but don’t always manage to do!

At this time of year, however, I get a little exercised about the rash of detox advice and the ubiquitous-ness of superfood facts.

The detox should be a simple affair. Stop drinking vast amounts of alcohol in all its forms. Cut out the snack sausage roll, miniature quiche, finger size vol-au-vent and handy chicken bite. Get off your but and go for a walk. Return to a reasonable food and beverage intake and what you get is a detox. Your liver and kidneys should do the rest.

As for the latter, I admit to being in two minds. Labelling fresh foods as ‘super’ or otherwise has become habit that is not strictly justified. The bottom line is that fresh, seasonal foods grown close to the point of consumption are better than those flown round the world, frozen and defrosted. However, many of these exotic fruits and nuts are good for you. But, let’s get back to my theme.

How many superfoods are there? I recall when there were supposed to be only half a dozen or so. Now, there’s a book that discusses fifty or more. Are they all super? The list includes bananas, avocados, almonds, apples, parsnips, broccoli and so on. When you analyse how they come to be given the ‘super’ status, you realise they have the same things in common.

At a general level, they all have fibre, vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, proteins and carbohydrates, and sometimes, strangely named compounds involved in maintaining good health and fighting illness. What they do is to nourish you, top up the batteries, maintain a healthy body, repair tissue damage and all the things food is intended to do.

The superfood has lost a lot of its meaning. Is there any point in trying to recall today’s example or even to carry around the list of fifty so your shopping basket can now keep up with the Joneses? Taken as a whole, none is particularly more super than another. But I suppose it’s a way of trying to get your attention.

The moral is to forget all about so-called superfoods as if they are some recent groundbreaking scientific discovery. Just consider fresh fruits and vegetables, spices and herbs for what they are.

Each has something to offer for your continuing good health. Avocados have mono-unsaturated fat, vitamin E, potassium, folate and fibre. Tomatoes have a whole list of immune boosters, vitamin C and B, and lycopene. Broccoli has protein and cancer-fighting compounds. Apples have cholesterol-lowering chemicals, fibre and more. Cinnamon has a moderating effect on insulin production to lower the risk of developing type-2 diabetes. Almonds as packed with magnesium to lower cholesterol and help your heart. Need I go on?

There’s nothing especially super about any one of them. Until you compare their nutritional benefits with eating the flavoured cardboard that constitutes much of the fast food consumed today … and consider nutritional deficiencies are the root of much of modern diseases.

When you adjust your diet to include a range of fresh fruit and vegetables, you will get the whole thing - the range of vitamins and minerals your body needs: fibre, antioxidants, chemicals with their strange sounding names to help you fight infections, disease and cancer. Clearly, judicious supplementation helps to fill in any gaps and top up minor shortages.

In fact, maximising the amount of such foods while cutting down the processed, the salty, the sweet and the fried could be the best resolution of this and future years. Perhaps we should rename all fresh fruit, vegetables, spices and nuts as superfoods. Or simply go back to calling them food. Then we could downgrade fast foods, processed food and the like to non-foods? Just a thought!

Why not get some more information about health through foods and alternative therapies by visiting http://www.healthexplored.co.uk , sign up for the Fr ee newsletter and check out the articles.

Blinkered Healthcare

2007-12-08T06:03:00.000-08:00

Too many people wear blinkers when it comes to health. Blinkers are defined as screens that prevent a horse from seeing sideways. Applied to the human animal I think of them as imaginary screens erected to give a very narrow view of something - health options in this case. They effectively close off the list of choices to just one or perhaps two.

I can well understand that conventional health gives a vast array of drugs, surgery and other treatments. And doctors are taught how to use them to help the sick. But, like all treatments, they are nowhere near being universally effective. Neither are they free from side effects and other potentially harmful actions.

Despite this being the case, many doctors believe there is little or no alternative to this approach. And this is where the blinkers come in. They've put these imaginary items on so they simply do not recognise there being any other way. Convention is the one and only!

And they are not alone in their single track approach to health and healing. It affects a range of health professional in much the same way. These individuals are unable and unwilling to accept that there could be something else that could benefit their patients. They will argue that their view is the only sensible and successful way of doing things. They dismiss each and every vestage of evidence of some other way doing what their way has failed to do. They move heaven and earth to dismiss the alternative approach.

However, it must be clear to most right-thinking people that the blinkered view is mistaken, whichever profession or individual discusses it. We have by no means reached the peak of our understanding of how the body works, how it may go wrong, and how it could be righted. Conventional medicine has made giant leaps forward over the past century, but it still has many gaping holes in it.

Similarly, complementary medicine has hundreds of years of trial and error to base its current successes upon. It has answers where convention does not. It can cure, when convention can only patch up. It retains choice when convention has exhausted it. Yet, complementary and alternative medicine has less than 100% success.

My point, dear reader, is that there is no reason for restricting your choices unnecessarily. Don't be tempted to put on your blinkers. Not ever! As they say in other circles, think out of the box. Don't be hemmed in because your health professional reckons he has the only answer. It's unlikely he has. And so it's up to you to discuss the options with your chosen professional.

If not, you have to look outside your own box and get a handle on what other approaches might be open to you. There must be something you could try. Some other professional you could ask. And ther's a good argument for doing some basic research while you are in good health. Before your are struck down.

That is why I've started trying to get to the bottom of some of the many alternative therapies. It's why I've researched the alternatives to drug treatments for cholesterol, stomach acid and so on. It's why I've written about how acupuncture can do so many things to help in a whole range of conditions. It's what I do - try to show you that a one-track approach is so limited. And why ther are usually a list of options you might try to get you back to the very best of health. Never give up!

If you are interested in my Acupuncture book, just drop me an e-mail to info@healthexplored.co.uk and I'll tell you how to get hold of a copy - digital or paper - right away. You can pay through PayPal, cheque, or credit card - $7 for ditial and $9 for print. Or just go to http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and sign up for my FR EE newsletter and some backgroung info.

Cholesterol Drugs (Statins) - people stop taking them

2007-11-27T07:34:00.000-08:00

It's cholesterol time again.

I make no apologies for returning to the theme. Mainly because the drug industry is constantly trying to enlarge the number of people to take their products. Researchers seem to be spending their time to find another aspect of heart health that could possibly benefit from taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs - The STATINS.

I'm no fan of lifetime medications unless they have either been proved safe and relatively free from side effects or are the last resort for people who otherwise have little hope. The statins don't fall into either category, in my opinion. On the surface, they really do lower cholesterol. the more you take the lower it gets.

Surely, that is a good thing? Well, perhaps. In theory lowering high cholesterol to a 'normal' measure is the preferred action. It may lower the risk of heart attack. But, the fact is that 50% of heart attacks happen to people with 'normal' cholesterol.

That makes me just a little sceptical about the benefits or otherwise of statins. And today, I've read a research report that tells me that of those people who take statin therapy, half stop taking them after one year of treatment. Here is a family of drugs that should be taken for the rest of your life to have the desired effect (provided you belive what that is!) and half of the patients don't take it after a year.

Those 50% of patients will therefore be catapulted back up towards the top of the 'at risk' table.

Anyway, this research decided that the reasons for not continuing taking the statins was not because of the side effects, but because of a lack of information as to what the drugs were supposed to be doing. And a lack of communication with the doctors concerned. And little follow-up information when they returned for repeat prescriptions and check-ups.

It seems laughable that people are put on these drugs presumeably to save their lives and return them to health, then they are more-or-less abandoned to their own devices. No information, no follow-up, no education as to the best way to live their lives after consultations.

This episode adds to my belief that it's about time that each one of us takes charge of our own health as far as possible. You have to begin with diet, exercise, relaxation - in other words prevent illness by looking after yourself. If illness strikes you, get some independent information about the disease and the possible avenues of treatment. Then you'll have a better understanding of what the doctor or health professional is trying to achieve and why.

I've spent many years in conventional health and was probably a little brainwashed into believing it was the one and only way to go. But, no more. The research I've mentioned here just proves to me at least, that picking or creating a disease then prescribing a drug to treat it is not enough. The back-up, the information on side effects and toxicity, and the alternatives are of paramount importance to the patient.

Don't, whatever you do, rely on just one opinion. Look around. There's lots of information out there. Admittedly, some of it is a little suspect. So, be careful where you look and what you do about it.

If you want to know more about cholesterol, for instance, I have a booklet all about it. It tells you why you need some cholesterol, what the statin drugs do, their side effects, the alternatives ( and there are many to choose from) and much more. You will see what you need to do and how you can do it - all in everyday language, easily understood and put to good use.

Just visit http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and click on shop to find the Cholesterol publication. ordering is easy and secure and you will get the download digital copy by return - 24 hours a day. Or to get the fr ee newsleter and tips booklet, just subscribe to the newsletter.

Cholesterol Essentials

2007-11-09T02:21:00.000-08:00

The publicity given over to cholesterol and its link with heart disease is vast. The consequence of that is many people think cholesterol is the only thing to worry about. And to get it down to as low a level as possible with drugs means a long and healthy life.

Well, I'm sorry to have to tell you it doesn't follow. Sure, high cholesterol is on the list of possible causes and doing nothing to get it down may prove damaging to your health. But the facts are that more than half of heart attack victims have normal cholesterol.

You should realise that cholesterol is essential to good health. The healthiest person on the planet has cholesterol. It's there to do a whole raft of things to help you maintain health. It's only when levels rise above normal that something should be done, and not necessarily with drugs. Drugs have side effects, so may cause more problems. Low cholesterol is not a good thing either. If you've got rid of much of it you lose the benefits to your health and you could well be heading for a different problem entirely.

So, first off, try non-drug ways of lowering cholesterol. There are a few that you can try. They are usually successful and will save the worry of side effects.

But, there are other markers that will give you an idea of your risk of heart disease.

They include your fasting insulin level. Raised insulin can point to increased risk of heart disease. Therefore, getting it back to normal is a good thing.

On the cholesterol theme, instead of just taking a total cholesterol measure, ask for a figure for both your total and HDL cholesterol. Then divide the HDL reading by the total value. The percentage should be higher than 24%.

If your doctor does a reading for triglycerides as well. Divide that number by the HDL and that should be below 2.

Finally, it seems that a major part of ageing and poor health is due to the ravages of excess iron that causes free radical damage and is said to be a more important measure of heart disease risk than cholesterol. Now it is possible to have a test for ferritin. This is an iron reading and a raised level will determing your risk of heart disease.

Even if you don't want to get involved in all this testing and mathematical calculation, you can do something to lower your risk of heart disease.

Get plenty of exercise on a regular basis. Make it part of your daily routine.

Work on changing your diet to remove processed foods and fast foods and increase fresh fruit and vegetables. Cook them yourself.

Get enough good quality sleep most nights. Seven or eight hours is average.

Get a handle on your stress levels. Too much stress can be a killer. So, try to identify what causes the stress and then work on reducing it. Relaxation is the key and there are lots of ways to achieve it. One will work for you.

Vitamin D has come to the fore as an absolutely essential thing for good health. So review how much you take regularly in food, and how much susnshine you get daily (5 to 15 minutes is good). Then consider whether you might add fish oil to your supplement list to help bolster levels.

To sum up, cholesterol is important but not to the exclusion of everything else. You can do some simple things to help your health without resorting to medication. That is the starting point. Leave the drugs until you absolutely must. You'll feel better for it.

Why not check out my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and sign up to my newsletter. I have books on cholesterol and stress that you might find useful. Both explain the basics and discuss how alternative therapies and other non-drug approaches can help. You might be surprised to find how you can vastly improve your health without drugs - just some basic changes to lifestyle and perhaps one or two alternatives.

Is Meat Causing Cancer?

2007-11-02T02:52:00.000-07:00

I hadn't intended to talk about the subject of today's article when I was planning what to say. (You're probably suprised that planning came into it!) But as happens occasionally, the media created a bit of a splash in the UK yesterdayand changed my thoughts. And it's all about what causes cancer. The answer, according to a report out? - meat, specifially bacon and red meat.

So, there you have it. Don't eat bacon ever again and cancer will be banished across the land. At least, that is what the papers and TV stations would have us believe. It's a great headline - short and to the point and easy to remember. From a marketing point of view it's a winner. Sadly, from your health's point of view, maybe not so clear cut.

My advanced years and development of a sceptical muscle lead me to suggest all is not so simple or straightforward. Your body is a complex and wonderful thing where the causes of illness and disease are usually the coming together of a series of factors - not just one.

And what about the research that produced this wonderfully simple cause and effect revelation? What groundbreaking scientific expose revealed the answer so simply?

Apparently the authors looked over research done by other people during the past ten years or so. They did nothing new! And it wasn't every piece of relevant research either. They seem to have discounted quite a bit of the available research to narrow down the volume of work. Is it my twisted view that says they might have ignored work that didn't correspond to their feeling of what the outcome should be? Perhaps.

They chose the work to be reviewed and they did nothing new.

How about the results? No bacon and no red meat. Well, not quite. You're allowed 500g of red meat per week. Being a believer in moderation in all things, I feel that is reasonable as a general rule. The problem is that to take that to the conclusion that cancer and meat-eating is a direct link doen't ring true with me.

There are many other factors involved from smoking to overindulgence in both food and alcohol, pollution, stress, genetics and much more. To pick out one and give it the emphasis of this report seems a little extreme.

Then, to put all the blame on the consumer is wrong. The supermarkets are crammed with an array of processed meat including bacon, cooked meats, all kinds of smoked meat and the rest. Is the curing and smoking process at fault? If they are killing the population as this report states, should the government not be curbing manufacture and sale of these products. Instead, there is silence from that quarter. Not a word from the people who normally try to limit our enjoyment and freedom at every turn. Strange, isn't it?

My view, for what it's worth is to take on board the warning and perhaps cut down on our consumption of such products. Be more aware of what goes into producing them and initiate some new research into the links between meats processing and cancer - to resolve what they might be if there are any.

It's all too easy to be carried away by the headline. But, take a step back and have a closer look at the details of the story. It isn't that I want to dismiss it completely, more that it needs to be put into perspective. Perhaps there is truth in the conclusions. However, it's too soon to say one way or another.

What do the government experts say? So far, nothing at all. Perhaps it is just another report in a plethora of conflicting health stories. Wait and see. That's my opinion. And don't panic!

Have your say by replying to this article. Get regular articles sent direct to your inbox by visiting http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and signing up to my newsletter - no charge and a bonus Tips booklet on food and nutrition as well.

Side Effects Kill Thousands

2007-10-26T02:52:00.000-07:00

Recently, a report published in one of the popular daily newspapaers in the UK discussed the problem of side effects of both prescription and counter medicines. There are probably equivalent reports emanating from the USA, Canada, Australia and the rest. What they amount to is a damning indictment of conventional medicine.

In England alone the report estimates 10,000 deaths every year from the side effects of widely used drugs. This figure has gone up over 150% in ten years. The cost to the health sevices is more than £466 million per year.

In anyone's language that amounts to a lot of money and enormous loss of life. The reasons given include the poor training of doctors, poor information presentation to patients, inappropriate medication prescribed with little instruction on spotting possible side effects and inadequate reporting of suspected problems.

Where does that leave us, the patients?

The first thing is that, at the very least, you have to be involved in the process a lot more. It's no good simply trotting off to the doctor with your symptoms and accepting everything you're told as being the one and only solution. You have to question the diagnosis and the proposed treatment. Ask about effects and importantly, the side effects you can reasonably expect.

Discuss the dosage - is it the lowest it hes to be for action or is the doctor using some arbitrary average. Are there any alternatives such as herbal and homeopathic remedies? Or maybe there's is a different approach to the problem using alternative therapies?

Since side effects are important (remember those deaths!) ask where you can find the relevant information. The data sheet handed out in the packaging should tell all. But can you read and understand it all. Many people cannot read the small print, and it could make the difference between life and death. It is very important.

Following from that, you need to be aware of how your symptoms change with the medication. It's no good taking the tablets faithfully and ignoring that you feel worse than you did before or you've developed a whole new set of symptoms different from the ones you had at the start.

So, having accepted your doctor's take on your condition and his prescription for recovery, you really must look at how your body and mind react to it all. Question it if your blood pressure goes down but you develop a dry cough instead. Ask why it is that your muscle pain has gone away, but your stomach is causing you pain instead. Request an opinion as to why your heart is skipping beats after having taken your blood pressure medication without problems for ten years.

The whole thing revolves around both you and your doctor. If you don't keep in touch, he'll think everything is OK.

I'm a great believer in keeping a diary of how you feel mentally and physically as you diet, exercise, fight stress or take medications of any kind (including herbal and other alternative therapies). Then you'll see changes that shouldn't be there more clearly, and you can do something about it.

Use your health professionals to help you. Talk to your pharmacist, acupuncturist, masseur etc to get another opinion. Whatever you do, don't do nothing!

In this complex world we live in, you can't take medicines for granted as being safe for everyone at all times. You have to be involved in your own health. The thousands of deaths a year in England could well translate to millions of deaths worldwide. You don't want to become one of these when it can be avoided.

The report calims that doctors do not receive the correct training for proper use of modern drugs, but you can't do much about that. Nor can you influence the drug industry very easily.

The bottom line is that it is down to you. You have to decide what is right for you - Conventional medicine or complementary therapies or a combination of both. And in order to do that, you need a source of independent information to help you.

It will take some work on your part, but what would you rather do? Take a chance on your doctor calling it correctly? Hope fate is on your side?

I know what I want, but in the end it's up to you.

Help me to help you by subscribing to my newsletter and join in with discussing health. Check in to http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and sign up fr ee. You'll receive a Tips booklet as a thank you and access to reports and articles on health.

Treat or Cure - CAM to the rescue

2007-10-08T07:03:00.000-07:00

I was thinking about why I veered towards alternative therapies and came up with this piece which tries to explain my thinking. I hope you like it.

It’s a breakthrough! Some scientific expert has created a drug to treat one of the silent killers of the modern age. Good news all round … or is it?

It’s probably more relevant to look at a word that isn’t there - cure. It struck me a few years ago that treat and cure were rather different. I hadn’t really thought very much about it. I spent many years of my life recommending and dispensing medicines that, in my innocence, I had taken for granted as a form of cure. My regular (ill?) customers returned on a routine cycle for their supplies.

Over the years I built up many happy relationships with people who were quite unwell but survived. Their condition was kept under control so they could live a reasonable life, assuming their drugs continued working and that the side effects could be kept in check.

The seemed happy enough and the fact they kept coming back showed the treatment worked. At the time I was keen they did come back because it was the foundation of my business, and I took it for granted that it was best for everyone concerned. The patient was being kept in reasonable health and I was scraping a living.

I was in the middle of it so didn’t take a step back to review exactly what was going on. In a ‘wood from the trees’ moment I happened to read a book on modern medicine. It discussed the breakthroughs in medicine over the 20th century, and pointed out the fact that few modern drugs cure anything. It is only the antibiotic that cured bacterial infections – and even that boast is losing out with the superbug problem.

From that beginning, it didn’t take much research to conclude that the author was right. Most of what I dispensed didn’t cure anything. Or even try to. The drugs had been developed by chance or design to control one specific aspect of some particular condition. Trials confirmed that they worked as expected for most people.

The patient appears at the surgery with symptoms of high cholesterol, raised blood pressure, diabetes, depression, osteoporosis or whatever. The doctor prescribes the latest (although not necessarily the best) drug treatment and everybody’s happy.

The doctor has used his expertise to diagnose and prescribe, the patient has his prescription, the pharmacist earns his fee and the system is satisfied – but crucially, nobody is cured. The sticking-plaster approach to health - cover it up and hope it goes away.

I have to agree that, from the patient’s perspective, being alive with a few tablets to take is infinitely better that being dead. And if I were in that situation, I confidently predict that I would rather take the tablets, too.

So, why am I banging on about it? I am not criticising drug research per se. There are millions of people around the world who are alive today purely resulting from it. My point is that I am disappointed the rest of us are quite happy with treatment rather than cure as an aim.

We take it for granted that treating the symptoms is the one and only option. We sit and wait and hope that the drug industry will come up with a new drug for every ill, eventually! It’s only a matter of time when those hard working, philanthropists at the multinational drug companies can tell us of their latest revelation and swell their coffers at the same time.

It’s bound to be hugely expensive and have a longer-than-ever list of side effects. But, it’s approval for use will open spell survival for another section of the population. Hoorah!

While you’re waiting for that day, don’t hold your breath and consider whether you really need to sit on your hands. There are other ways – the CAM ways (complementary and alternative medicine). It depends on what you perceive is the cause of disease.

Is it some external force that distributes illness like some health lottery? Meaning that whatever you, personally, do in life your health remains or deteriorates anyway. What will be will be. Drug treatment may keep you relatively well for the rest of your days, and who knows, one day there may be a cure. You might die before your time, but what the …

Or do you think your lifestyle choices have a bearing on your health? In which case, just by changing the way you live will change your health for good or ill.

And, if you do suffer some illness it isn’t inevitable that a cure is out of the question. Once more, drugs may treat you successfully, but there could be some alternative approach to lead you to a cure. Conventional holding treatment can buy you the time to investigate the options.

‘Body, mind and spirit’ is the new mantra. Just looking after the physical body is important, but it is also true that mind and spirit play vital roles in the overall health picture. To continue my random song lyrics – ‘You can’t have one without the other’.

I know which view I take. Get out of your rut and take a look at what is available.

Check out my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and sign up for my F ree newsletter. If you would like to let me have your thoughts on any health matters just post them here.

It's Up To You!

2007-10-01T07:31:00.000-07:00

One of the problems with life is that everyone's an expert. In everything. It just takes two or more, gathered together for a casual drink or lunch or dinner. Someone only has to say what their current worry or concern is and the rest will spare no time in giving of their thoughts and opinions.

In fact, I was at dinner a couple of days ago and the conversation turned to cars. The immediate reaction was a veritable torrent of advice on which car was the best, which garage gave the ideal service and what finace offers were currently out there. The fact that none of those present had any particular knowledge or expertise of cars, garages and financing made no difference. They had some specific practical experience since they all had cars, bought and serviced.

I'm sure no one was intent on damaging reputations or any kind of malice, but it would have been difficult to ignore everything and strike out alone. The moral of this brief story is to get your advice from the appropriate expert and allow your friends and co-workers to add their opinions only to refine your decisions.

A case in point is that last week I wanted some help with a financial problem, so I called my financial advisor ( a helpful professional I have known and dealt with for some years) to get his opinion. He explained the options as he saw them; I thanked him for his time; then I discussed all of this with my wife. The upshot was that I didn't change my choice of action, but I felt more confident in it. After all, financial decisions can have a significant effect on your life.

So it is with health. Making the wrong choice can be serious, even fatal. So it isn't something to put entirely in the hands of your friends especially if they have no health-based qualifications. I hope it is becoming clear that my aim of telling you this is to encourage you to seek out opinions from the people in the health professiona that you trust to give you reasonable and largely unbiased opinions. From their words and advice, you have to be the final arbiter of the path you choose.

You can choose whoever you wish to furnish their opinions and I have no wish to stop you. But,if you would like my advice, let me tell you that I have spent a great deal of my life working in the health profession as a pharmacist in both hospital and retail sectors and have advised many thousands of people. I hope that my advice is unbiased and accurate and the options I give are reasonable, based on many years experience.

Since leaving pharmacy to begin this work, I have amassed many tens of books and I access many health newsletters and sites in an attempt to get as wide and up-to-date view as possible. No one is infallible and I can't give you cast iron help that always works.

The down side of any professional opinion is that it is you, the customer or patient, who has to make the final decision. Most professionals give you the options and let you decide. My financial advisor left me with the words, "That's all I can say, I'm not allowed to make the choice. Only you can do that."

With my advice, too, I can only give you some options. And no one can do more than that. Then it's over to you to make that choice, for better or worse. At least you'll have improved your chance of making the right choice having got some professional help along the way.

The moral is to seek out a trusted professional, get the options and the downsides explained so you understand as much as you need. Then go for it ...You can do no more than that.

If you agree with what I say, you can get information on my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk , subscribe to my F r ee newsletter, reply to this blog or get hold of my books and publications digitally through the secure order form on the site or get further detail at info@healthexplored.co.uk .

Should you have any health questions, please e-mail them to me and I shall do my best to help your decision making process.

Wishing you the very best of health.

Stomach Acid Strikes Again

2007-09-14T02:16:00.000-07:00

I've read that as many as 44% of adults in the UK (and maybe the USA too) suffer from heartburn or acid reflux. If it's true, thats a whole lot of people.

Part of the problem is because the sphincter (a circular muscle at the bottom of the oesophagus and the top of the stomach that keeps the acid where its supposed to be) that normally shuts the opening after food you've swallowed goes into the stomach doesn't do its work properly. The result is that acid can get back out onto the oesophagus causing the burning feeling. In extreme cases the acid even gets quite a way up the oesophagus and into the bronchi and lungs. So, the escape of acid can cause a whole range of symptoms over and above heartburn.

Some experts suggest the reasons for the sphincter becoming less efficient is due at least partly to the antacids we swallow in an attempt to counter the acid. Its a kind of vicious circle where less acid means less need to have the protection of the sphincter muscle, so the muscle doesn't need to 'try' as hard.

And it's generally agreed that the long-term use of powerful drugs to limit acid production (proton pump inhibitors and histamine antagonists) just makes it worse.

As usual, conventional medicine searches for a innovative and usually expensive, if not life threatening treatment, while the alternative camp have much safer and ultimately more effective cure.

In this case, a UK hospital team have devised a piece of equipment that is inserted into the sphincter area to make it more efficient and cut the acid reflux. It needs general anaesthesia to insert, with all the problems associated with that. Not to mention the recovery time, pain killing medication and the rest while the patient stays in hospital.

Now, there may well be a use for this device and many people may benefit from it and feel much better in the long run. So, I don't want to 'rubbish' it until I've seen more information on the success rates, problems and so on.

However, I think you can treat and possibly cure heartburn using alternative therapies. Dietary changes, probiotics, and herbs all feature in effective treatment. It certainly takes some effort by the patient and a little time. Very few cures are instantaneous. But, by making the necessary changes to diet and lifestyle, heartburn and reflux can be effectively worked on.

The 'one stop' treatment does have its attractions, but there is always a downside. Please consider this when contemplating the options.

If you would like to find out more on the good and bad of antacids in general, and ways of approaching the alternatives, get in touch for a copy of my booklet called 'Heartburn, Indigestion & Acid reflux- Causes and treatment'. Its available as digital download or printed copy through http://www.healthexplored.co.uk , or drop me an e-mail at info@healthexplored.co.uk for more information. Or you can subscribe to my FREE newsletter and get regular health updates.

Vitamin C for ever

2007-09-07T01:33:00.000-07:00

You know, when I decided to start a blog, I thought it would be easy to post articles at least once a week if not more often. Just sit down and write your thoughts. How long could it take?

Well, if anyone actually reads this, they will realise that I've managed to miss almost three weeks. And it's not as if I have been ploughing ahead with the business, either. I have spent these weeks working on the house and garden, playing dad and host to my adult children and their partners as they visit/ stay, and generally trying to make myself useful.

The time sure flies by and then when you eventually sit down at the computer, your mind is full of all kinds of random thoughts and concerns, most of which have little to do with the business in hand. Anyway, sorry for the feeble excuses and let's try to put something on 'paper'.

Autumn, the season of mists and mellow fruitfulness, usually sees a bit more media activity on the preparation and build-up to winter. The prospect of the cold and flu season brings out an avalanche of articles on building up the immune system, taking vitamins and herbs to fight colds and the like.

And I've just been reading one in my local paper that tells me that vitamin C is useless and all you need is a balanced diet. According to the reporter some guy has brought together the results of 30 trials all of which merely shows that taking the recommended daily dose of vitamin C, that's 60 mg in the UK, has no effect on preventing or limiting colds.

I thought we had got over that sort of rubbish. Most articles I've read in recent years plainly states that 60 mg of vitamin C is the absolute minimum anyone needs to stop them getting scurvy. If you want to be healthy, you really need to think about taking at least 500mg a day and probably a lot more besides. Some experts say at least 1,000 mg or more taken is divided doses (500mg twice or three times a day) is what you need.

To make matters worse, the reporter trotted out the 'balanced diet' argument for the millionth time. Who eats a balanced diet? And who even knows what a balanced diet looks like? I wish I did. Because a balanced diet in theory is a mix of fresh fruit and vegetables, some oily fish, carbohydrate and protein to match your metabloic type ...

And thats assuming you are not stressed out, depressed or ill, and on your exercise program.

A balanced diet for me will simply not be a balanced diet for you. We're all different and while our dietary needs are certainly based on the ideal, they are not the same in every detail. So, good luck in your quest for a balanced diet.

To my way of thinking, aim for that ideal diet by all means, but while you work on getting there, you simply have to boost certain aspects of your nutrition to keep you as healthy as possible. That means a form of basic supplementation to boost your essential nutrients and top up the vitamin and mineral content in your body.

So, get yourself a good quality vitamin C tablet and take it every day. Look for a vitamin and mineral supplement, too, to boost the rest. And consider a fish oil supplement to top up your omega-3 essentail fatty acids. Those three will give you a sound basis for health.

As for preventing colds, I believe that vitamin C supplements will help as long as they are reasonable doses. That is, more than the measly 60mg RDA.

If I feel a cold coming on, I reach for the 500mg tablets and take at lease three a day. And I get myself some zinc lozenges and suck half of one twice a day. I find the combination of vitamin C and zinc helps soothe my throat, make the symptoms less severe and limit the length of the cold. Together they make me feel much better. A result, I would say.

And my regime of basic supplementation also means I get fewer colds in the first place!

Overall, when I read these articles, I smile serenely and reach for my vitamin C supplement.

A Philosophical Question

2007-08-14T03:58:00.000-07:00

Few people can be immune from the current blaze of publicity and new-found political clarity about glogbal warming. The media is working overtime to bring us pictures and stories of just what it is doing to the climate. Wretched weather and extreme temperatures, blurring of seasonal changes and the misery caused by torrential rain or no rainat all. Great sections of the world population simply cannot cope.

It brings me to what you think you could or should do about it - if anything! At Heathrow Airport in London, protestors are trying to stop the building of a new runway. I don't imagine they will succeed, but stranger things have happened.

Their view is that we should take a long, hard look at our travel habits. In the UK many people fly all round the world for holidays and business. But, with computer technology and instant communications, is business travel really as essential as before? And as responsible citizens, should we fly quite so frequently just to spend a few days in the sun?

Or, and it's a big OR, should we spend millions of dollars trying to make travel more environmentally friendly? Can we invent or develop the means to travel without destroying the ozone layer or producing tons of carbon dioxide in the process?

Maybe we should be doing something in each direction - going back to holidaying nearer home, making air travel more costly so we can't afford to fly as often, finding efficient travel methods, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and anything else we can think of.

Each option has its afficionados and detractors. But by working together an answer or conglomerate answer may come sooner than if everyone works alone.

Although this is not stricly a health problem, if we do nothing then all of our health problems will eventually go away as the earth dies!

I've chosen to hightlight this today because there are parallels to draw with health issues. Should we be preventing disease by trying to reverse the advances of the last century, namely going back to growing your own fruit and vegetables, and changing life style to how our parents lived?

OR do we accept where we are here and now, and try to adapt our current lifestyle given we eat the wrong food and don't exercise enough, and rely on the magic bullets of the pharmaceutical industry to treat all our man-made and lifestyle induced disease?

I suppose the answer is somewhere in between.

The problem is that, as I see it, it is much simpler to change our lifestyle to a less complex and more empirical existence. Stay at home more, appreciate the benefits of cultivating a few vegetables, exercise a little more and relax a bit, too. Then you'll avoid the worst the drug industry can throw at you by keeping well for longer.

We don't need to work 20 hours a day so we can afford four foreign holidays a year, a big house with low maintenance garden, a car for each adult, shopping as a hobby, child minders and nurseries for our children. It's a treadmill that we fall off - dead. Where's the enjoyment of this life - the only chance we get?

They're probably looking for the magic bullet for a long life right now. But, will you be around to take advantage of it?

Subscribe to my newsletter at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk , check out my explanatory booklets and publications and access articles.

Wishing you the best of health.

Broaden Your Horizons

2007-08-08T02:38:00.000-07:00

Nothing is simple in this world. Especially when it comes to health matters. If you're at all interested in your health and begin to look around for useful pointers to helping maintain good health in the face of a complex and fast-moving world, you will quickly become confused.

Starting with the media. They report whatever they want and give the stories the slant that suits the editorial team at that time. Nobody says that they should give a balanced view of anything. Or that they might join the relating stories together over a period of time.

The result? One day the TV tell us that a particular complementary therapy has been found wanting. Someone has taken the conclusions from a series of badly constructed trials over the past ten years and said this proves the case. No mention that the trials were poorly thought out, relied on the memory of the subjects ( what did you have for breakfast five weeks ago? for instance), and were paid for by a pharmaceutical company selling a rival drug.

That is bad enough, but then, next day the same TV company reports that a homeopathic remedy has been found to successfully treat a chronic condition. All change! Now the complementary therapy, using properly devised trials has had good results which have been published.

Perhaps this is good reporting. At least it fills the alloted slots and keeps the reporters gainfully employed. The down side is that the average person doesn't know what to believe. Is homepathy good or bad? Do complementary threapies have a place in modern medicine? How can you discover the truth?

After all, you might be the very person considering what treatment could help you! Given some joined-up thinking from some independent source, the answer might become clear. the mists of doubt will part. Your eyes will open wide and a cure might be just round the corner.

You may think this is some kind of fairy tale. But it's not. The media have their good points and can play a significant part in spreading the word. But I can't get away from the old adage that reporters don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

My advice? There are people around who can give you sensible, independant advice on health, conventional and complementary therapies. I happen to be just one, but there are many health sites you could choose from. I subscribe to a few myself just to keep me up to date and give me points of view to consider.

The basic fact is that when it comes to health, no treatment or therapy is successful for everyone. Human beings are uniquely different, with different genes, metabolisms, weaknesses and susceptibilities. Each of us reacts differently to stresses, foods, work, environments and so on. So there can never be a single simple answer to any health situation.

Fortunately, there are averages and so many things help many people. But there are always some people who are not helped. You need to think outside conventional medicine now and again.

In fact, I recommend you try to get as wide a picture as possible of both conventional and complementary therapies. Then you will see how some combination of these may be better for your specific situation that one or other alone. Combining aspects of conventional and alternative therapies might be more successful in finding a cure.

Don't ignore the media treatment of health, just see them as giving pointers for further research or discussion. That is what I try to do and I might clarify things for you, if you take the chance.

Why not subscribe to my newsletter at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk (you'll get a free bonus tips booklet) and read some of the articles and newsletters posted there. You can ask any questions on health you like and I'll try to give you my considered opinion. Or post your thoughts here.

When it comes to your health, don't rely on just one possiblity for treatment. Look around.

Wishing you the best of health.

Does Alternative Therapy Always Work?

2007-08-02T03:13:00.000-07:00

I had a chat with one of my clients/friends this week about someone who had been advised to try a herbal pain remedy. She asked me about it and my thoughts on the subject. The thing was that the person in pain had recently undergone a complicated 'plating and pinning' operation on a broken wrist. Now, three days later, she was still in a lot of pain and wondered whether adding another pain killer would be a good thing.

As it happened, the herb in question was not advised to be taken unless under professional supervision, but could be applied as a cream to help bruising etc. In this situation the cream idea could not be used either as the operation involved healing wounds and stitches, not to mention an external splint.

The conclusion was that the lady in question should get back to her surgeon/doctor for a progress check-up and a request for appropriate conventional analgesics.

My reaon for telling you this story is to point out where conventional medicine has the last word. I spend a lot of my time writing about the deficiencies of conventional medicine - the life long drug taking, the blinkered attitudes, the box-ticking doctors uncaring of their patients and so on.

But when it comes to medical emergencies - the heart attack, stroke and accident - conventional medicine wins most of the time. The techniques of such crises are second to none and simply don't exist in the alternative world. You can't beat how surgeons and consultants deal with the physical traumas involved in everyday accidents and organ failures.

So it is with the lady's wrist. The operation to stabilise and fix a broken wrist must have been traumatic and painful. (My toes are curling at the very thought.) I can well understand her worry that the extreme pain was not subsiding as quickly as she hoped. But, given some effective pain killing drugs for a few days, I'm sure she will recover fairly quickly.

Alternative therapies will come to the fore once she has got over the initial stresses of the operation. After the acute pain of the procedure and its aftermath, and when it all settles down, she will have time to consider her position more carefully.

Then some of the many alternative therapies, either alone or in combination, may well have something to offer. For instance, a pain killing remedy from the herbal range, or a homepathic remedy could help. An appropriate Flower remedy migh be useful. Acupuncture could help wipe out the last of the pain and some massage may restore movement to the affected joint.

I know that this may not be what the patient wants to hear - she only wants rid of the pain. But I can't offer her anything else right now. A few days wll surely make all the difference, although they will seem like an eternity to her.

After that, however, it is possible that conventional medicine will pass on to the next patient, leaving her behind to cope with the aftermath. That's when alternatives come into their own.

What I try to show is that you need to consider what's best for you at the time. convention may be ideal in some situations while alternative hold sway at other times. But whatever place you find yourself take an overview before choosing.

Always keep your options open!

Wishing you the best of health.

Subscribe to my newsletter and read many more articles at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and post your thoughts and responses here.

Do It Yourself?

2007-07-23T03:51:00.000-07:00

I'm really not improving very much, am I? Another week has flashed by without my writing a post for the blog, so I'm trying to start the week on the right foot by writing something before I get embroiled in other work.

While I'm watching the TV, I sometimes feel obliged to shout at it when I reckon there is some rubbish being spoken on health matters. (Don't get me started on reality programs on any other subject either!!)

Anyway, I had occasion to yell last week when there was a short piece about three submariners who were using the new smoking ban in the UK and the fact that they were going on a three month tour of duty under the waves to quit smoking.

A noble and worthwhile aim I must agree, and one that would surely improve their long-term health. So what's the beef?

It was one of these sailors who began by using nicotine patches to help wean him off the habit. So far, so good. The theory is to start with strong nicotine patches each day for a few weeks, then switch to a middle strength for a few more weeks and conclude with the weakest strength until you feel you can stop altogether.

It's a classic dose reduction technique that has been used for years to get people off various habits from hard drugs to chocolate. It has at its root some scientific logic that has stood the test of time and given good results.

So, this guy begins with the usual enthusiasm of a job that will prove smooth and worthy, and with the TV cameras there too, to give an additional impetus to success. Then, things start to go wrong after the first week or so. He is studying for some promotional exam and he decides that the stress brought on by this prospect will certainly be too much for him to bear without a cigarette.

What he does is to throw away his patches (not very far if he is in a submarine!) and try to quit without them. My shouting starts here. "What are you doing, you twit. Don't you understand that you need to keep going? What makes you think you will succeed without the crutch, especially when you are under more pressure than usual with your exam on the horizon? Do you think it is clever to try this just because of the cameras? etc, etc, etc..."

The postscript to the piece was the anchor telling us that he had failed to stop smoking and was back to his habit with a vengance.

Surprise? I think not. He did everything wrong. He thought he knew better than the many brains that devised the nicotine replacement program. He didn't bother to ask for help and advice to smooth his path and help him cope with the inevitable stresses along the way. At the first sign of an impending problem he rushed off to get his cigarettes.

The bottom line? I think he didn't really want to quit. He was only doing it to get on TV and have his 5 minutes of fame. He though that quitting would be easy with his nicotine replacements stuck on his body.

I've known many people who smoke whilst applying patches. I've heard of people who try to smoke the patches. I had a close friend who gave up smoking and all was well until he had a close shave when his car narowly missed being in an accident. The first thing he did was to rush to the nearest tobacconist for a pack of cigarettes. It took him a long time to quit again - but he did. Because he really wanted to.

The thing is, to give up any habit is difficult. it takes an amazing amount of willpower. You have to start with the real desire to stop whatever it is you want to do - lose weight, give up smoking, eat more vegetables, cut out the chocolate!

You will not succeed if your heart isn't in it with you. This sailor was a prime example of his heart and mind not being on song with his aim.

The moral of the story is don't start down such a difficult road unless you really want to succeed and get as much help as you can along the way. You can do it. For your health's sake, you should do it.

The bottom line is that if you choose to start down a particular health route you really should listen to the experts for that route and not think you know better. By all means find out what the theory is and what you are trying to achieve. It seems that nowadays people think you can pick up a profession in a few short minutes and know more about it than a professional who has been in the job for thirty years.

Take advice but don't expect to succeed if you ignore it and go your own way.

Check out my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk or leave your thought here on the blog.

Wishing you the best of health.

Recipe for waste

2007-07-13T02:29:00.000-07:00

It's funny what catches my eye. I came across an aticle in my paper the other day that struck a chord. At a time when we are being exhorted to be more careful about what we consume - food, energy, fuel, etc, etc ... this piece pointed out the quantity of food we in the UK are wasting. And the authors laid the balme squarely at the door of TV chefs.

It's a by-product of the popularity of the vast number of cooking programmes that grace the small screen here. As time passes the chefs involved have done 'simple' and 'plain' recipes to death - at least that is what they think! The result is they are seeking out ever more exotic dishes with ever more exotic ingredients to fill their alloted TV slots and put into their latest compilation books. Ah, the draw of the fast buck!

Us poor consumers watch these TV delights and consider that we, too, could prepare that exotic meal for our family and friend. We rush to the supermarket or deli and demand fresh crab, balsamic vinegar and the like. Then, our confidence wanes as reality dawns. What exactly do we do with this and how many more strange and expensive ingredients do we need to complete this culinary delight?

"Never do today what you can put off 'till tomorrow" some wag once said. We subscribe to this wholeheartedly and leave our purchases at the back of the fridge. Investigating the unusual smell some days later, we come across the said ingredients well past their best, and with a little relief, throw them out.

The lesson learned is that most of us stick to what we know and like. Generally, this is simple, nourishing food like mom used to make. We add some new recipes to our repertoire and adjust older ones to accommodate different and interesting ingredients. But overall, the latest complex and exotic recipes simply don't register. it may be entertainment, but it isn't reality.

This process of making life ever more complex is driven by the media seeking to maintain an edge over the competition and bears little resemblance to life. Food is a basic necessity for all of us and speaking as a health writer you simply can't beat natural ingredients prepared in a simple but interesting way to get the very best nutritionally out of food.

So, when fresh fruit is healthy and nutritious just as it comes from the plant, why is it necessary to chop or puree it, add refined and processed flour or sugar, heat it to destroy vitamins, put it into pies and cakes, and generally muck-it-about and mess it up.

Just wash it and eat it. You'll get the maximum nutrition from it for your general health and it tastes good as well.

I have to admit that I watch cookery programmes too, probably too many. Occasionally I find a recipe that appeals to me. But, instead of rushing off to the deli, I just sit a little longer and forget all about it. For me, the less heating and fewer processed additions to my food the better.

The newspaper estimated that we in the UK throw away £60 million unused food a year. That's an enormous price to pay and an mountain of food that might have been useful to someone else.

As a foot note, isn't it strange that so many of us rush out to try a new recipe, yet so few actually take on board a health-improving tip.

Wait a moment .. the new cookery programme is just starting ...

Check out the site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk for more health information, or reply to this post with your views and questions.

Wishing you the best of health.

More ramblings

2007-07-05T06:40:00.000-07:00

This time I've got no excuse. Time just seems to fly by and when I finish the things I have to do there's no time left to write these pieces.

Something that struck me the other day was to wonder whether people who are interested in health treat it just as they do the many cooking and gardening programmes on the TV. I enjoy watching these programmes and making mental notes to try to be a little more adventurous with my meal preparation. But when it comes to action, I slip easily into the rut of buying and preparing the same old ingredients to make the same old 'favourite' meals.

Don't get the idea that I do all the cooking in my house. Not by a long shot. But once or twice a week the evening meal is all my own work. The rest of the time, I make a reasonable bottle and dish washing assistant!!!

Gardening is slightly different - only slightly. I tend to do most of the physical part of gardening. The planting choices and garden design are done under the direction of my wife. But, here too I favour the routine type of gardening, rather than the adventurous way portrayed on the TV.

So, despite the raft of good advice and entertaining presentation, most of it goes through my mind and out the other side.

For me, health information is a different animal altogether. I listen carefully and analyse what I've been told. I look for the flaws and try to come to some sort of reasonable conclusion as to whether it is relevant to my situation. I make a note, physically or mentally, to research a little further to satisfy my curiosity. I consider if I could write an expanatory article about it, so making the point clearer to others. And if it might help my own health, I think how it might be incorporated into my life.

Now, this might seem a little grand to you, and as I read it it strikes me as a little pompous too. I am trying to say that I treat health info a little differently from other things that interest me. Is it because my training and experience is all health based, therefore I start off knowing some more that my friends and list members? Do I worry more about my health than you? Is that because you are perfectly healthy right now? If you were unwell, would you be looking for specific health information rather than general stuff that didn't relate to your problem?

If you happen to be struck down by some problem, I'm sure you (and I) would want to know as much as I can about it - causes and treatments, chances of control or cure, and so on. Therefore you would be on the lookout for help everywhere you could think of. Maybe, then general health information would only be of incidental interest.

Now more than ever, we expect to live for ever, we think there should be a cure for everything no matter how complex or severe the disease. And we're disappointed and distraught when a loved one dies or conventional medicine says it can do no more.

I think we should be a bit more realistic and accept that illness does indeed harm ond even kill a great many people every day. Conventional medicine does not have all the answers. Neither does alternative medicine. The best of both gets closer to cure.

If you don't take some advice about healthy living; if you let health information wash over and through you like those cooking and gardening programmes; and if you don't make small, subtle adjusments or even major changes to your life to improve your health and reduce your risks of disease; then you'll have little chance of sitting in a lovely garden or eating a healthful meal for as long as you can.

Good health is at the root of a long and fulfilling life. Don't let it pass you by because you couldn't be bothered. Try to make the changes you can. Get more information if you need it and take a moment to review your situation. As they say in the adverts, "because you're worth it!"

Need more info? Visit http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and subscribe to my free newsletter or reply to this blog with your comments and questions.

Cholesterol and statins

2007-06-14T04:06:00.000-07:00

Apologies for missing a week, but I was away for a few days visiting a relative so didn't have the time to fit everything in despite the best of intentions - sorry!

There are so many things I could write about, sometimes my head spins. Anyway, I help occasionally in a local charity shop and one of the other volunteers gave me an article she had cut from a national newspaper. It had the headline 'Statins are safe and they do work, major study finds'.

Knowing I had written a booklet on this very subject, she wanted to know what I thought of this latest piece of medical journalism. So, here goes ...

Bascially, this piece was reporting on the work done by a doctor. The research was not an original work but merely drew together some of the research findings over a 20-year period. These were simply that statin drugs lower cholesterol effectively and consistently. And that statin drugs have few side effects. The conclusion declared grandly that ' statins seem to be a remarkably safe group of drugs when used at their usual doses'.

Well, that just fine, isn't it? Statins are safe and effective. Hooray!

On reading this article several things crossed my mind. (Not what I was having for lunch!)

The first thing is that I agree that statins certainly lower cholesterol efficiently. Every study seems to show that. No argument there.

Unfortunatey, that is the only thing I can accept. What this doctor has done is take the results of a number of trials and add them together to come up with her "new" findings. Really what she has done is assume all these trials were properly conducted over a long timescale by independent researchers. This is a very dangerous path to take, since many trials are flawed and few use the same techniques.

Drug companies finance and conduct clinical trials of their own drugs to 'prove' how wonderful their products are and influence the prescribing doctors of the efficacy of their drugs. And if they don't do the trials in-house, the frequently pay so-called 'independent' researchers to do it for them.

The result is that many trials are biased and under the influence of the manufacturers. This point makes such trials open to the accusation of ignoring bad results and enlarging on good results. There are cases of drug companies suppressing bad results just to enable sales to go ahead.

Next is the time factor. Some drugs are intended to be taken for a limited time. Antibiotics are usually prescribed for seven to fourteen days for example. While others are expected to be taken for the rest of the patients life. Insulin for diabetics is an obvious one. Statins also fall into this category. They may lower cholesterol but they do that only for the duration of taking them. If you stop, your cholesterol is bound to creep up again. Unless of course you have also been changing your lifestyle along the way as well!

Clinical trials are meant to reflect this timescale, but rarely do they really do this. Most trials have a limited scope of perhaps several months or a year. The hope is that such trials will throw up side effects and potential problems well within that time. But, who is to say that is always the case.

What if side effects don't happen until someone has taken the drug for say 18 months or more? Who is checking for this and reporting back? Certainly not the drug companies if it could affect their bottom line profit outcomes.

SO, when looking at such reports in the papers just reflect on the original trials and the limitations that are conveniently ignored by the researcher. Statins seem to be implicated in many worrying side effects, especially with long-term use.

The drug companies and independent researchers are at odds concerning the frequency of side effects. The companies say few if any problems, researchers say many and frequently, sometimes dangerous. I know where my money is - with the independents. I have at least two friends who have had to reduce or stop takins statins because of side effects, and a doctor-friend who refused to take them in the first place because he had seen what statins can do to his own patients. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their safety!!!

And can we know who is funding this latest piece of published work? I think we should be entitled to find out whether it is truly independent or if this doctor is in the employ of a drug company. It might have a significant effect on the headlines.

Just to end on a different note. Who says cholesterol needs to be lowered to the level that statins can achieve? From what I've read, we all need a fair amount of cholesterol to protect us and make the body work properly. SO, when you can control cholesterol by a few simple lifestyle adjustments, why take a statin at all? You tell me ...

If you want to know more about cholesterol, what it does and how to regulate it without drugs. or if you wonder what statins can do and their side effects and doses, then why not get a copy of my booklet 'Cholesterol- villain or saviour'. Its available through my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk for instant download or print copy.

Wishing you the very best of health.

Not again ...

2007-05-29T02:04:00.000-07:00

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.

Onions and Cholesterol

2007-05-22T01:40:00.000-07:00

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.

More Health Depression!

2007-05-15T02:47:00.000-07:00

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

Alternative versus convention - again!

2007-05-10T01:53:00.000-07:00

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)

Over to you!

2007-05-03T03:53:00.000-07:00

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.

That Diet Again

2007-04-23T02:41:00.000-07:00

A recent article in my local paper the other day posed the same question to seven different 'experts' on health. The question was, "How do you feel about supplements and which one would you take if you could only have one?"

Predictably the GP reckoned he didn't need any since his mythical 'balanced diet' has all the nutrients you need, while the holistic GP mentioned a list of vitamins and essential fatty acids. However, what struck me was that these seven experts chose completely different supplements as their one essential.

The common thread was this diet business. Eat well, a balanced diet, antioxidants and so on appeared time and time again. If you've been a regular reader of this blog, you'll be aware of my views on this - a balanced diet is an ideal that very few of us manage to achieve no matter how much we try.

I think I eat pretty well. Regular meals using fresh fruit and vegetables, limited alcohol, decent sleep, exercise routine, etc. But in all of this I am sure I don't ever have the ideal balanced diet where all the nutrients I need are in there. Often, meals are rushed, too many sweet things creep in - the cake with coffee, the chocolate snack, the processed cereal or ready-meal.

I just don't think it is easy in this society to eat perfectly. As one of the experts mentioned, "I take a multimineral supplement just to fill in the gaps".

If you get anything from this it is that quote. I take a mulivitamin and mineral supplement to fill in the gaps. The practicalities of life mean that the way we live leaves gaps and minor deficiencies in the nutritional picture however hard you try.

For me, the simplest answer is to take a reasonable quality multivit and mineral supplement to give you a reasonable chance of having all the nutrients you need on a regular basis. You've still got to eat as well as you can. Including some omega-3 fatty acids is another useful supplement especially if you don't like fish or only eat fish occasionally.

Taking supplements such as antioxidants may be useful now and again as a booster or taking zinc for a cold is a good idea, but otherwise only add other supplements if you have a specific need for them.

It is all too easy to spend a fortune on assorted supplements 'just in case'. Rather, think of what you really need and start from there. These seven experts couldn't agree on one thing, but the multivit is the one that sruck me as the most logical and necessary of them all.

If you re interested in this subject, there's more information at my site http://www.healthexplored.co.uk . Subscribe to the FREE newsletter and get a gift of my Tips booklet on food and supplements.

Wishing you the very best of health.

Stress For All

2007-04-16T02:56:00.000-07:00

In the space of one break in the TV programme last night, I saw two adverts for so-called 'stress busting' products - Stressless recliner chairs and Antistress shoes. Now, I have no experience of either of these things so cannot comment on their effectiveness. But what it shows is that there is clearly a market for things to fight stress.

It demonstrates just how widespread stress is these days. And I'm sure you can think of quite a few times in your life when you've thought stress is affecting you. Your list will have all the things you could do without - your work, the journey to work, struck in traffic, queueing for the bus or train, trudging through bad weather, the holidays (aren't they supposed to be relaxing?), the kids, the dog or cat, money worries ... the list goes on and on.

True enough, these are all stress producing, and if you don't do something about it this bad stress will start affecting your health, and not in a good way either.

Stress is not necessarily all bad. Just a little stress is what gets you out of your rut. It spurs you on to greater things in your career. it's what gives your free time a kick. Just think of the white-knuckle rides, bungee jumps or parachute jumps and you'll see how some good-stress gives you a lift, a challenge to be overcome and an edge to your life. So, stress is not all bad.

What you have to do is start to work on the bad stress in your life. Your doctor won't have a clue so don't bother to ask him (or her).

There are a whole raft of things you could do to help yourself. And there are a list of alternative thrapies that can help if you need them.

The crux of the matter is being able to find a way to relax, and a way to adjust how you react to stressful events and situations. You'll see that it's you that creates the stress in you - it's all about how you percieve changes in your life and how your mind treates those changes. Change how you treat the changes and your almost there.

You need to work at it just as you would adopting changes in your diet or as you factor in new exercise routines into your day. Adapting to stress is not something you can easily switch on and off. it takes practise and persistence on your part.

After all, your life and everyone else's is full of ongoing changes and hence could be full of stress too. It's up to you to search out the options whether by yourself or with the help of professionals and go to work on your stress.

You might like to get a pair of anti-stress shoes or relax in your Stressless recliner. Who knows if they help - I hope that they do. I would rather try out some stress busting techniques or perhaps visit a hypnotherapist, acupucturist or other health professional.

Before you get started, let me point you to a source of invaluable information on what is available and the king of things that you can do to help your stress. Visit http://www.healthexplored.co.uk/eOrder/shop.php to order a comprehensive guide that tells you what stress is, how it affects your body and how it will ultimately affect your health and whatyou can do to get on top of it.

The book is called, "How to Conquer Your Stress" and you can get it by instant download. The package also includes a useful Stress Busting Tips booklet ablsolutely free, that has many tips you can start today to get some control of your stress.

The bottom line is that stress will get the better of you unless you get the better of it first. So think about it, but not for too long. And get this book right away. You won't regret it.

Wishing you the very best of health.

HRT to the fore again!

2007-04-10T02:10:00.000-07:00

Just when I was mulling over something to write about today, I heard on the News that some scientist had reviewed the data on HRT research and come to completely the opposite conclusion from the original researchers. Apparently this bloke thinks that HRT protects women from heart attacks after all and women should go back to using it NOW!

Aren't our journalists wonderful? They interviewed some lady who expressed her anger that she had been taken off her HRT five years ago and suffered consequently from the loss of her daily fix of female horse hormones(Pregnant Mares Urine = Premarin).

No word from the alternative medicine camp and no comment from the original researchers either. A little strange, I thought, not to approach them for reasons that they clearly had misinterpreted their own work. Or had they?

Giving two minute cover for years of work and carefully thought out conclusions binned in favour of the drug industry is just a little on the suspicious side. Now, I can't say how the original results are flawed and neither can I say how the new information is so completely different from it. I wonder what is going on here. Is the latest release some jiggery-pokery at the behest of the drug industry? Or is it genuine scientific fact?

Whatever it is, I'm sure the next few weeks will see some clearing of the muddied waters. For what its worth, my view is that HRT will never be the only or necessarily the safest way to control the menopause and its attendant symptoms.

Menopause is a natural process, not a disease. Unfortunately, many women suffer symptoms associated with the changes, and often these symptoms badly affect their lives. But taking HRT, a synthetic drug, is bound to have some side effects. And occasionally these could be harmful in the extreme. It's true of every drug, and HRT is no different.

The original story caused many women to reassess the alternatives and brought these alternative approaches to mainstream thinking. Sure, HRT was an easy thing to use - a pill or a patch. Like many mainstream treatments today all you need is a prescription and away you go.

What women need to consider is the ease of access with the possibility of fatal side effects. Research might eventually agree on a number for this - x deaths per thousand cases. But what is sure is that alternative therapies don't kill very many people as compared to drugs. So think carefully before you jump back on the HRT bandwagon.

This scientist may have started it moving again, but has it only got one wheel?

Wishing you the very best of health.

Why alternaive therapies?

2007-04-03T01:31:00.000-07:00

I'm sometimes asked why I chose to follow complementary and alternative medicine. While I worked in pharmacy I had the same blinkered view that many health professionals have of their own situation. After all, whatever job or profession you happen to be in, I'm sure you have a bias towards it and will readily justify it to any outsider who questions it.

It's the same with medicine. While I was studying pharmacy at university, I shared a flat with a friend who was studying building. After a hard day at the learning interface we would meet up to relax and unwind. the conversation took the form of, "How many pills did you count today?" and "How many bricks did you count?" Hardly side splittingly humorous but it gave an outsider's view of a fellow professional.

In a way this is true today, perhaps even more so. From the outside, any skill or profession can be reduced to some basic truth. From golf to nuclear physics, it's all the same. But when someone questions your particular job, you react immediately by justifying your own position even if you harbour doubts.

So, while I was a pharmacist, I would leap to my own defence quoting the apparent logic of drug research and development, the costs involved, the reasons for supporting drug companies and the wonderful work done on our behalf by medics everywhere.

Age comes with a wider perspective, realism and even cynicism. It's as if the scales drop from your eyes. All of a sudden, you see the cracks, the faults of your situation and the weaknesses of your arguments. No longer is conventional medicine the be-all-and-end-all. No longer does conventional medicine have all the answers. Now you see where it does more harm than good. Now you can look at the vast numbers who gain nothing from drugs and those who suffer and die at their hands.

I don't make excuses for not seeing this before. I worked long and hard to try to make my business prosper. I tried my best to help my patients and customers, even if i didn't sell them anything and simply gave my advice. Many of them became friends.

But, what all those years of effort did do was to make me throw off my blinkers. Conventional medicine is not the only route. There is a plethora of alternative approaches out there. You only have to look.

I've spent quite a few years now learning about just some of these alternatives. And. I've been surprised at just how effective they can be. Just like conventional treatments, alternatives don't always work for everyone, and sometimes they have side effects and sometimes you need to be careful, and sometimes you should use an appropriate professional for help and advice.

So what? It's only what you would do if you were buying a new car or TV. Get some information, preferably independent; review the possibilties that suit your situation; think about the pros and cons; then make up your mind and go for it.

It's just the same with alternaitve therapies. You need information on what's available, the potential problems and benefits, the costs, where you can get it and so on. The important thing here is to accept that its your health, your family , your future. So. it is really the most important thing you can do and you need to be careful.

I'm sure you don't think about a visit to the doctor so carefully. Why not? You could be putting your health at risk.

The basis of this is that you should look at health treatments as a whole and not be blinkered by convention or any single alternative. Look at the bigger picture. Get some information to help you make up your mind, and go for your chosen path. You can only help yourself.

If you want or need any information on any alternative therapy or even an old pharmacist's view of conventional treatment or new drugs, why not visit my site at http://www.healthexplored.com or drop me an e-mail at info@healthexplored.co.uk . I've got a free newsletter and article bank and a series of booklets and special reports to help.

Wishing you the very best of health.

GM Crops

2007-03-27T01:39:00.000-07:00

How do you feel about genetic modification? Up to a few days ago I had no strong feelings about it in principle. I've read some of the arguments for and against and in general could agree with some points on both sides. My working view was that so long as there were proper precautions and careful regulation GM might be a solution to some problems with food production. You could say I've been firmly on the fence.

However, just recently I've come across an article that made my fence-sitting not so firm. Apparently in the USA the number of honey bees has been declining at quite a fast rate. So what? Well. many plants need honey bees to help pollination and fertilisation so that they can form seeds and fruits. It's an essential part of the life cycle of these plants. Bees transfer pollen from flower to flower.

No bees means no seeds or fruit. One estimate has it that seeds and fruit form as much as 33% of the average diet. So, it's hardly a trivial matter.

What has GM to do with all of this?

Scientists have been trying to discover the reasons for the decline in honey bee numbers and one possible source of the problem is GM crops. A German study allowed bees to feed from GM rapeseed and found that having been fed GM pollen, younger bees were affected. The GM pollem seemed to change the normal genetic material in the young bees guts. Normal gut bacteria had changed to match the genetic traits found in the GM cropand suvival goes down.

Clearly this is only one study and we need to have more evidence. But, can we allow honey bees to disappear from our lives? I think not.

Until there is a definitive answer to questions such as the loss of bees and the consequences of it, scientists should tread very carefully. There must be other ways to optimise food production without GM. Large companies are using GM to push their profits up while influencing politicians with their cash-rich lobbying. As with new drugs you don't need to adopt them just because you can.

GM could well have some benefits for the planet, but manipulating sensitive natural cycles for a quick buck could have devastating consequences for all of us. I have often wondered why we need more GM if farmers could improve yield with simple efficiency measures. Now I have serious doubts that there are enough controls on GM, and it is spreading under the radar.

If the media don't report problems such as the decline in honey bees, how will we know until it is too late. You could choose NOT to buy GM products in the shops - assuming the labelling is correct.

What will pollinate crops when there are no bees to do it? A man with a brush? How will that be a step forward? I think I am leaving the fence for the "against" side.

Do you agree? Post your opinions here.

Stress - Don't let it affect your health

2007-03-20T03:49:00.000-07:00

Have you ever thought just how much influence stress has on your life? I know it plays quite a large part in mine. I went through a very stressful episode a few years ago when I was forced to take on extra staff just to keep my business running. The outcome was that my profit margin went down to almost nothing and undermined the whole thing.

I felt depressed and anxious all the time; I couldn't get to sleep at night and once I eventually fell asleep, woke up several times during the night; I was bad tempered and snapped at my family; I grew to hate going to work, and romance was certainly not on the agenda.

All of this and more was due to stress. At the time I was aware of stress but didn't really understand the health consequences of not tackling it head on. I thought that everything would work out in time and I could get back to a less stressful existence. As it happens I got out of the business and my health improved.

But, stress doesn't have to be due to that kind of major problem. It can happen at any time with an unexpected occurrence such as a near miss when driving to work, preparing for a vacation, moving house, getting married, arguing with a colleague and so on.

All of these will set your stress reaction in motion. It is based on the 'fight or flight response' that is part of everyone's makeup. Developed many thousands of years ago as a way of self preservation when faced wth a challenge, it has not evolved at the same speed that we have.

This means that when we experience change, large or small, our body triggers the same reaction. The flight or fight response kicks in if the challenge is an unexpected queue at the supermarket checkout or a life-threatening confrontation.

The bottom line is that the way we live today means we come across a stream of small changes that cause stress. Each may be small but added together the result is stress at a level that begins to affect your health. Your health suffers gradually, building up to many of the probelms that are widespread - heart disease, diabetes, cancer and much more.

What can you do? Well, you have to first of all accept that some things stress you out. Write a list of all the things you reckon cause you stress. Then start to work your way down the list to see if you can alter the stressors so you don't react the wrong way. Then you need to find a way to relax, to get control over your stress and begin to make things better.

After all, you owe it to yourself to fight stress so your health will improve; you'll live longer and healthier; and your friends and family will enjoy your company for many more years.

I appreciate I've not given you more than a brief overview of stress and how to control it. But, there's a lot more information and detail available in a new book called 'How to Conquer Your Stress' that you can get a a digital download straight to your computer or as a print version delivered by post.

The book is 160 pages of helpful information covering

What stress is and where it comes from
How you react to stress
The symptoms and health effects of stress
Simple relaxation techniques that work anywhere
Breathing techniques for relaxation
How to make insomnia a thing of the past
Benefits of regular exercise
Tips to fight stress at work
Complementary therapies for stress
How diet can help stress

And you also get a bonus booklet with 150 quick and easy tips for fighting stress.

Get this invaluable book and bonus today by visiting http://www.healthexplored.co.uk/eOrder/shop.php and scrolling down to the title. Ordering is by secure order page and access is by instant download of the PDF.

Wishing you the best of health.

Mammograms, good or bad?

2007-03-10T10:08:00.000-08:00

"No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof", Henry David Thoreau.

I found this quote the other day and I began to wonder at its relevance today when we talk about all things medical and medicinal. Whatever way we choose to go for help and sustenance, treatment and reassurance when we do something to help our health, the hope is that it is proven, tried and tested. Who wants to be a guinea pig and trial some unknown and perhaps unsafe treatment?

Not me, and I would suggest you don't either. From a conventional viewpoint, probably most alternative and complementary therapies would come into the unproven camp. Doctors tend to classify such therapies in the "nutty and extreme" file and hide it behing the sofa.

But, are they so sure they are not kidding themselves and you and me as well? Does it follow that drugs and conventional 'accepted' tests and treatmaents are proven just because they are allowed in today's medical bag of tricks?

I was struck by an article claiming to be the truth about mammograms. It's a process I've often wondered about ever since a patient of mine who became a friend told me that she was convinced that a series of mammograms she suffered during her fight against breast cancer had made the condition worse.

The simple truth was that she firmly believed she had felt something in her beast break during one of these tests. To her it was the cancer bursting and spreading the cancer cells all over her body. She told me of her beliefs on many occasions when I visited her and chatted about her health and feelings. She died shortly after.

What she told me raised doubts about the safety of mammograms, and this article confirmed them. First of all is the way the system works. The breast is compressed between two plates so that it can be scanned. The author mentioned the damage that could be done through compressing cancerous growths.

Then the author's opinion of the radiation used opened my eyes further. Apparently mammography uses low energy radiation that can be up to five times more harmful that x-rays. He concluded that ten years of annual screening will result in a 10 to 20% greater risk of causing breast cancer, and this risk is greater the younger patient on whom the tests are started.

What about the proof of safety here? Even an article in the Lancet said that mamography of pre-menstrual women had no significant reduction in breast cancer mortality. At best four women in every 10,000 might be saved. Not wonderful for the vast majority although the four saved would be eternally grateful.

And 1 in 10 women may be the victims of false positive results, and some may have unnecessary treatment including mastectomy as a result.

Finally, it is said that if women examined their breast carefully they would stand just as good a chance of discovering cancer as the complex and possible dangerous mammogram.

The alternative view is that a technigue called 'Thermography' or thermal imaging is less dangerous and more effective. It's in its infancy right now but if it clearly show a hot spot of cancer, then full diagnostic mammography would be a logical second step.

Whatever your view, it's by no means certain that mammography as a one-and-only tool is the best thing to do. Let's not get carried away and assume that just because governments accept it, it really is the way to go. Where is the proof? Just who are the guniea pigs being used to test the system?

It isn't good enough to quote statistics because as we all know you can use statistics to prove anything. What we need is an unbiased review of the good and bad of mammography, and a proper investigation of the results. Then we need research into the alternatives - which exist but are dismissed for lack of proof!

Women havenot been told the truth about mammograms. It's about time they were.

Let me know what you think.

Wishing you the best of health.

A Step Too Far

2007-02-28T07:01:00.000-08:00

If you happen to have read any of my stuff before, you've probably got the impression that a good diet with lots of fresh fruit and vegetables, lean meats, the occasional supplement and regular exercise is at the roots of a health life. And you would be correct in that.

Just by managing to avoid some or all of these things has the effect over a lifetime of making you less healthy and more likely to contract some disease or other that could shorten your life.

Having said that, I really wanted to talk today about obesity. I'm sure you are only to well aware that it is a growing problem in every sense of the phrase. My point is what to do or not do about it. I've seen a couple of TV programmes over the past week concerning young people who are unfortunate enough to be very overweigh with the consequence that their health may be at risk.

In the first case, a teenage girl was having surgery to remove more than half of her stomach in an attempt to reduce her weight. The story revolved around her history of always being overweight for her age, being bullied at school and turning to the wrong kind of food as a comfort and to cheer her up.

The second story involved a young boy who was also vastly overweight for his age and was being assessed by Social Services to determine whether he should be taken from his family and put into care.

The first thing that strikes me is how anyone thinks care could be better than his own family who seemed to be equally concerned with the boy's weight.

However, in each case my reaction ws that these children were always heavy for their age, even before they were subject to junk food and bullying. The reason for their condition was not simply eating too much of the wrong foods. And I think we should be looking at the reasons for this so as to get to the root of the problem.

It is too easy for people to jump to the conclusion that they obviously ate too much of all the wrong things and therefore they are obese. What about hormone imbalances causing weight gain, disorders of metabolism, or deficiencies in absorption of nutrients and fats from the intestine?

Then, is there a psychological factor or two that might send them down the path of over eating? It isn't as black and white as these programmes made out. A single cause (eating too much) with a single cure (surgery or removal fom your family)??

Has anyone bothered to ask or has the medical profession tried to find out? It certainly wasn't mentioned.

Perhaps the producers thought we would be confused if they told us about it. All they seemed to do was to show, in the case of surgery, that removing a great chunk of your stomach would lead to weight loss. No mention here of the long-term effects of having only a part stomach on proper digestion. No mention of psychologiacl help, dietary advice or exercise.

In the case of the young boy, it turns out he wasn't taken from his family. But, how much mental suffering would he have gone through if he had been? And, just how would he have been encouraged to lose weight without the support of his parents and siblings?

I think we are just getting a bit carried away with the weight thing! My view is that everybody should be made aware of the facts as we currently know them. Tell all the problems and the solutions. Give them help and support if they encounter problems.

The bottom line, however, is that we still have a choice in this country. The consequence of government interference at any level is to remove choice. If you want to eat the wrong food even after you have been told the whole story, that's your choice. It's not up to some local official or government lackey to tell you otherwise.

I try to eat as healthy a diet as I can, and I encourage you to do the same. But, that's as far as I go. And it should be as far as anyone else goes, too. Eat badly if you want. And if you change your mind and want to go a healthier way, let the government set up help lines and help centres where you can get practical advice to change your ways. "Hands off " is my messeage to the food police.

Eat what you want. And if it harms your health, just remember, it was your choice. If you are more that five years old, no one made you eat anything. You didn't become overweight by accidentally swallowing your food.You choose and you take the consequences. But you re not alone.

There is help on healthy eating everywhere. And there should be help to discover if there are any other reasons for being overweight.

I have some info for you if you want. Just go to http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and have a look around. I've got a Food Guide with loads of information on basic nutritional content and how certain foods help your health. And there's a FREE newsletter and TIPS booklet for joining my list.

Eat well.

Wishing you the very best of health.

Information overload

2007-02-19T04:10:00.000-08:00

One of this morning's news items was about the amount of fish that pregnant women should eat. It referred to the guidelines that we all should eat oily fish such as samon, tuna or sardines twice a week to get the best amount of omega-3 oils to sustain ideal mental and physical health. However, pregnant women have previously been advised to perhaps cut this in half just in case of impurities in the fish, such as mercury and other metals, that could affect the growing child. And now they have been advised by another board to increase their intake of fish. The result? Confusion!

What should they do? It's another example of information overload especially when it comes to food. The number of books and research findings each of which makes the news seems to multiply. Eat this, do that, avoid the other.

And then there are a growing number of cookery programmes on TV. With the statutory "celebrity chefs" demonstrating just how easy it is to rustle up a three course meal with a few simple ingredients (and twenty years of cooking experience).

I like these programmes so I shouldn't complain. But, I don't use what I've been shown. I go back to what I know and what I've cooked over the years. It's all a little boring.

Two things!

One. Just remember that food is the basis of your health. Eat rubbish food all the time and your health will suffer. A diet of mainly processed or fast foods will lead to being overweight, type-2 diabetes, high blood pressure and worse. The bottom line is to eat as much fresh fruit and vegetables as you can. Don't add sugar to everything. Fruit is sweet enough just as it is.

Cut down on the readymeals and other processed food. Manufacturers have become financially fat on providing you with the meal in a box; biscuits; fizzy drinks and the rest.

You'll get the maximum nutritional value and the best of health from a diet that includes at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. And add to that regular portions of oily fish - I think twice a week is enough whether the fish may or may not have contaminants in it. Remember you can always take fish oil supplements to boost your omega-3 levels.

Two. Use the cookery programmes as something to stimulate your ideas for new and different recipes for you and your family. If nothing else, they show that it doesn't necessarily require a degree in nutrition and many years experience. Meals don't need a days preparation, just a little planning.

What's the answer? Be a little skeptical about the mass of food advice. Don't rush into changing your diet right away. Try to change a little at a time based on what appeals to your way of thinking. Today's research breakthrough wil be forgotten by next week when another breakthrough is announced. Stick with basic common sense advice to use simple foods with a minimum of factory manipulation. Cook it yourself so you know what's been added. Then if you'll know where it cam from and how fresh it is, your health will be at its best.

If you want to know some basic facts about your food and health just pop over to http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and read about our publications and sign up for the FREE newsletter and gift.

Wishing you the best of health.

Is it fate or genes?

2007-02-12T02:01:00.000-08:00

I suppose I've always believed in fate. You know the kind of thing your parents said to you - "If it's got your name on it ..." or "What's for you won't go past you" and so on. So, when you come to make a decision about which job offer you will accept, something inside you gives the answer after a subconscious toss of the coin.

And it's true with health as well. Theer is an element of fate in what life throws at you by way of health. You are sort of stuck with the genes you inherited from your parents. These genes might make you tall and slim with blue eyes and blonde hair, or vertically challenges with little hair but a genius. I've always thought that you have little choice but to go with your genes.

However, the news today is full of scientists discovering the gene for type-2 diabetes. In just a few short years doctors will be able to repair, renew, fix, change the faulty gene for a brand new, shiny, perfect gene that will sort everything out. Or will it?

The reporting is slanted towards the impression that this repaired or replaced gene will mean that the patient will no longer be a patient. He will ride off into the sunset having been cured and will henceforth be able to eat as much and as often as he likes. His vastly overweight body will cope with the excesses of his lifestyle and diabetes will not enter his horizon ever again. Hooorray!

It seems to me that science is falling into yet another phase of the universal cause of illness. In the 1950s and 60s it was the nasty bacteria that caused all ills. Antibiotics would sort all that out and we would live happily ever after once those bacteria were all dead. The result - the rise of superbugs and resistance and even more infections that can't be treated.

Then, the nasty viruses were the cause of all diseases. Antibiotics don't touch them and there are very few anti-virals that are really effective. Oh dear!

Now we think that if only we could find the gene involved in each disease and we work out how to sort it, all will once again be well. I wonder.

The truth is that there is no universal cause of illness. It is a complex process involving all sorts of factors including bacteria, viruses and genes. As part of the understanding process it is good that scientists are searching for the gene involved and the possibility of affecting it in some way. But I think we are at the start of a process that may take a great many years. In the meantime, the simplest way of working to avoid or treat many illnesses is to look at your lifestyle.

What you eat and drink, the exercise you take, the sleep you get, the stress you suffer, the risks you take and so on contribute more to your health than the genes you have. All of these can be altered by a little thought and worked on with some strength of purpose. And the changes you make will have an effect much more quickly that hoping for a cure in an indeterminate number of years in the future. We could all be dead and gone by then.

I read recently that about one third of people choose not to do anything about their health because it is all down to fate. I have to disagree. If you choose to smoke, drink a lot, eat processed foods, take no exercise and suffer from stress all the time you are loading the dice against you and giving fate a helping hand to make you ill and perhaps even end your time on earth sooner that you would otherwise wish.

It's time to wake up to the things you can do right now to help your heath. Not wait for a new gene. It might be too late.

Go to my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and sign up for my FREE newsletter and bonus booklet; check out my articles and look over the range of information booklets that show you what you can do to help your health.

Wishing you the best of health.

Don't offer them to me, thanks!

2007-02-06T06:17:00.000-08:00

"... people over 40 will be offered statins to help their hearts." WHAT??? Have I heard correctly? I caught the end of that sentence as I turned on the news this morning. I couldn't believe it, so I waited around until the headlines came on again about half an hour later. Sure enough, there it was again. This time I caught the whole piece and scribbled down the relevant sentence. Here it is: -

One in two men and one in three women over the age of forty in Scotland will be offered statins to help their heart.

Help their heart what? I wondered. I'm sure you have heard that Scottish people lead the world in suffering from heart disease, so I can see where they are coming from. But, giving a large proportion of Scots some expensive drug for the rest of their natural lives is not the answer. It's not even one of the answers.

This seems like yet another story dreamed up by the multi-national drug industry marketing department to increase their hold on power and money. Before you think I'm just having one of my turns, you might like to find out just what these statin drugs can do.

Sure, they lower your cholesterol. In some cases they just about drain all the colesterol out of your body. For a start, there is a great deal of research to show that we all need reasonable amounts of cholesterol just to function normally, so lowering it to artificially minimal levels is not what anyone wants. Except the drug companies that is!

They want as many people as possible to take them, not for any altruisitc health reasons but to help maintain and increase their profit levels. Just because they have the means to lower cholesterol to almost zero, doesn't mean it is a good or healthy thing.

Remember, too, that cholesterol does not mean heart attack. More than half the people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol. There are several factors that lead to heart disease and cholesterol is one indicator, but by no means is it the only one or indeed the major one.

Even if you think mass statin therapy is a good and reasonable thing to do, consider the side effects. The statins have quite a long and interesting list of side effects, some of which are pretty devastating. The most well known of them is rhabdomyolysis a fancy name for muscle pain and wasting followed by kidney disease.

Then there's co-enzyme Q-10, an essential chemical for your heart. Statins cause it to be lowered thus leaving the heart open to failure.

And, there is the problem of episodes of memory loss, and possible triggers for Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, dizziness, depression, tingling, etc, etc...

These side effects cause many people to stop taking statins after a year or so. Where does that leave the lifetime's treatment? I know at least one doctor who stopped his statins just a few months after having had a heart attack. Is he wrong or foolish, or does he know more that he is saying?

This shows that the media are always open to the drug industry hype without bothering to ask any questions or get other opinions to give some balance.

There may well be a place for statins in certain cases. Research show this to be true. But there is no evidence that mass medication on the scale mentioned this morning will do anything other than increase the drug industry profit margins. It will certainly not do much good for the Scots or any other large group of people.

If you want to get your cholesterol down a bit, there are loads of things you can do before you reach for the statin. Diet and exercise for a start, followed by a range of complementary and alternative therapies. To me, statin therpay is vey near the last avenue to go down, not the first.

I have a booklet that will take you through the whole story. it's called "All about cholesterol" and you can get it at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk/eOrder/shop.php for instant download. It tells you the good and bad of statins plus the alternative ways of lowering cholesterol.

Thanks for reading my latest rant.

Wishing you the very best of health.

Prevent Eye-disease with the Right Food

2007-01-31T03:30:00.000-08:00

If you are a regular reader of my occasional rants you will not be surprised at what follows here.

While watching the news yesterday I happened on a story about a retired city councillor who had recently been diagnosed with AMD or age related macular degeneration. Now, this is a condition that is becoming much more common in the elderly, and involves changes to the eye where the central vision is affected at first. It is not reversible and if left untreated it leads eventually to blindness.

Having been diagosed, this lady was informed that there were two drugs currently available to slow down or stop AMD's progress. Their cost was £2,000 and £10,000 per year (approx $4,000 and $20,000). She told the viewing public that fortunately in her case she could afford to pay for treatment, but she was unhappy that the drugs were not yet available without charge through the UK's crumbling National Health Service.

Her message was to the effect that these drugs should be made available right away so as to save the sight of the many older people who are the victims of AMD.

"So what?", you might say. Well, as far as it went, the item was accurate. But, what got me was the complete absense of any qualifying mention of the benefits of dietary and supplemental carotenoids. These are well-known to prevent AMD in the first place and slow its progress in the second place.

Simply by adjusting your diet to include more vegetables such as corn, squash, broccoli, and peas, and adding an egg a day could make all the difference. You could prevent or postpone AMD for years and by judicious choice of diets you may be able to slow down or stop AMD progressing any further.

The thing is that such changes in diet would cost relatively little to the patient and nothing at all to the health services. Just by being aware of which foods contain the magic carotenoids with strange names such as lutein and zeaxanthin could make all the difference to your life.

It annoys me that the drug industry appear to have a strangle hold on the media such that journalists seem unable or unwilling to put things in perspective. All they want to show is that modern very costly drugs are the be-all-and-end-all of treatment, when they clearly are not, and point out the deficiencies in the health services of the UK.

AMD is an avoidable condition with the simple expedient of a healthy diet. So don't be panicked into thinking there is no hope unless you have lots of disposable income to buy the drugs. Just find out which food have the necessary carotenoids and eat them as part of your new and healthy diet. or get a carotenoid-containing supplement and follow the dosage instructions.

One final point, my site hase a useful booklet on Basic Food Groups that gives all the details and notes the corotenoid content of each food described. Just log on to http://www.healthexplored.co.uk to find out more. There's a free newsletter and a growing list of articles to refer to. And you can buy the booklets as well if you want to know more.

Wishing you the very best of health.

Would you like some fish oil with that?

2007-01-23T01:43:00.000-08:00

I don't know if you agree, but I've found getting back into work more difficult this year than ever before. Yes, well, maybe it's just me. Anyway, here's a thought to start the year (again)...

Does adding omega-3 to foods make them healthy or better for you?

This thought occurred to me as I searched the isles of my local supermarket recently and noticed that a lot of processed foods seem to have added vitamins, minerals and now essential fatty acids. The omega-3 thing is probably the one that is trumpeted more than some of the others right now. Hence my question.

There is omega -3 in yoghurts, cereals, fruit juices, dairy foods and others, all added, I presume, with the intention of making them appear healthy. But does it? From what I have read about fortifying food with vitamins that aren't normally in them, it seems that you don't get the benefit you might expect.

As a theoretical rule, you would suppose that having vitamins etc from any source is going to help you healthy. Not so. Ideally, get your nutrition from the freshest form of natural food that contains the nutrient - fresh natural fruits and vegetables, lean meats, oily fish all in season and sourced as locally as possible.

But, just adding random, fashionable health ingredients to hightly processed foods that otherwise are filled with sugars, transfats and so on but have little or no fibre doesn't transform them from unhealthy to healthy.

Omega-3 are very important nutrients that are sadly lacking from many diets these days. They are necessary factors in good health and most of us would benefit from taking more of them in our diets. So, the principle is right - get more omega-3 in your life.

However, you have to keep a balance. Your body is not designed to extract omega-3 from processed foods. Your digestive system expects to handle omega-3 along with the fish or nuts it appears naturally with. You can work with omega-3 in fish oil, krill oil and nut oils, but just adding it to some unrelated product is likely to cause problems.

My thoughts? I would rather work with nature to get my nutrients instead of fighting it. Don't expect your complex body to be able to deal easily with something else. Adding nutrients to an otherwise unhealthy food won't make it healthy. A few vitamins or essential fatty acids in a sugar-filled cereal or transfatty spread dosn't change its basic nature.

Don't be misled by adverts. Read the labels. Eat healthily most of the time - including omega-3 and vitamins. And limit the amount of processed food you eat.

There's a lot more to food than you think. Check it out at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk , sign up for my FREE newsletter and look at some of the articles available there.

Wishing you the best of health.

Apologies for the break in service

2007-01-12T02:07:00.000-08:00

Sorry! That's right, I'm sorry. Sorry for not posting anything for almost a month now. I'm just full of excuses if you would like to hear some of them. OK, you asked for it.

At first I got caught up in the pre-Christmas shopping festival, if you can call it that. It's probably one of the disadvantages of working from home. All the problems of what to buy and for whom are discussed at the breakfast table and the outcome is that I go with my wife to help and advise ( maybe she doesn't quite see it this way).

Then, my children were both coming home for a few days, and their respective rooms had to be prepared for their arrival. And it was my 60th birthday, too. A milestone that just had to be recognised by close friends and family, so a small celebration was organised with a special meal out and the occasional alcoholic beverage!

Before I knew it, Christmas was upon us and several days of food preparation and consumption filled the time. Then, more visitors and the Scottish New Year - more excuses for overindulging. The January Sales followed and when I looked round it was now. Four weeks later and very little done with Health Explored or the Blog. Where did the time go?

In amongst all these feeble but understandable excuses (I hope you agree!) for not working, I have been progressing my stress book and associated tips to control it. It is almost ready for release, but I keep adding bits to it and now its is a lot longer than I had expected. I hope to have it on the site for sale in both downloadable and printed forms within the next week or two. Rest assured I shall let you know all about it as soon as I can.

In the meantime, I hope you accept my apologies and my resolution is to be better at keeping you informed on health issues. You can find out more on my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk . The newsletter is FREE and discusses all the health problems arising on a regular basis - just what you need to help your own health. Sign up at the site right away.

Wishing you the very best for 2007 and the best of health, too.

James.

Christmas Cheers

2006-12-14T03:31:00.000-08:00

Well, you can't escape the approach of Christmas no matter how much you try. Here in the UK it seems to start earlier each year and creates strange thoughts in our politicians. The most recent additions ot the politically correct files includes some health-related points. Apparently we shouldn't send cards with the word "merry" on them. So, no more "Merry Christmas". The word has connotations of overindulgence in alcohol.

Then, I read recently that postraying Santa or Father Christmas as a jolly, roundish man is not a good image to allow our children to see. They think it will make them think that overweight is good.

What exactly are these people thinking? Receiving a couple of cards and seeing a happy but overweight man will lead us to eat and drink to excess and therefore destroy our otherwise healthy lives???

I have serious doubts about such people. The problem is that we elect them to power and expect to be led to greater things. Some hope if this is the extent of their thinking.

While they canvass for our votes, they never tire of telling us how intelligent the electorate are and how we can see through the lies and deceit of their opponents. Yet, once they are elected, we are unable to distinguish between traditional images and reality.

Are they right? Well, at this time of year I think we can forget about the healthy diet for a day or two. Why not enjoy a little overindulgence. One or two big meals and a little celebratory alcohol won't destroy an otherwise healthy diet of moderation and lots of fruit and vegetables.

There's a good excuse for a longer than usual walk with the family on Cristmas day or a quick game of footbal in the park to work off some of the excess calories you might consume. While a couple of drinks will help you relax and forget your worries for a day or two.

If you look after yourself for the rest of the year, I don't see the harm in a little blow-out now.

I can't think of anyone who would be influenced by a greetings card or a chubby Santa to do anything other than celebrate this time of year, give to others, and help the less fortunate among us.

So, enjoy the holiday however you choose, and even feel a little pity for the politically corrrect. Are they ever happy?

Visit my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk to subscribe to my free newsletter and read about our integrated and alternative health approach to illness and life in general. There are articles to read and booklet and reports on various subject.

Excuses, excuses!

2006-12-04T02:14:00.000-08:00

These last two weeks have been a bit of a disaster as regards my health info work. I spent the first of them helping my wife run a charity art exhibition. It involves selling original art work, part of which cost goes to a cancer charity and the rest to the artist. My wife spend the whole week there while I keep the house going with all its attendant chores, and doing a couple of days and a few evenings at the exhibition. I do it willingly, but it means my health work suffers as a result.

Then, after that had been tidied away for another year, I managed to catch a cold. Again, not earth shattering but enough of a distraction to curtail the real work for a few days. By the way, despite my friends mocking me since they think my supplement taking should mean I never catch anything, I truly believe my daily multi and cod liver oil supplements make my symptoms less severe!

So, here I am at the start of another week, and now all talk is of the fast-approaching Christmas festivites. Travel arrangements for the family to get home, gift ideas for friends and family, eating arrangements and the like have started to take on epic status. And my wife asks how much work I have done today!

At least I have given you my excuses this time. Or am I just trying to convince myself that I have a legitimate reason for not puting in the hours at this time of year? Either way, I'd better get on with something right away ... or else!

Just to let you know that I am nearing completion of my new book(let) on dealing with stress - a major factor in our health these days. More on it soon. In the meantime please check out my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk for information on my alternative health guides and special reports on pain, cholesterol and antacids. Or sign up for the newsletter - its free!

Think about the flu vaccine campaign

2006-11-16T06:22:00.000-08:00

A few years ago I was a proponent of flu jabs. I thought they were an answer to older people and people at risk because of their job or illness. Having suffered a particularly nasty episode of flu some years ago, I would have been very happy to think that I could avoid it again just by getting a flu jab. And I'm sure many other people think the same.

But, as time has passed, I've read about several studies that cast doubt on it's worth. Just recently, a new study on the effectiveness of the annual flu jab has found that it had little or no effect on campaign objectives such as cutting the number of people hospitalized, time off work and deaths from flu. Mind you, most deaths are in people already weakened by other illnesses.

One problem the researchers identified is that it is difficult to measure how well the vaccines work since the strains of virus used in the vaccine change every year. And, I've talked before about how the drug companies manipulate the information and supply of vaccine to create demand.

There is now a growing body of people who suggest that not only is the flu vaccine a waste of money - ours! - but some of the additional chemicals in the vaccine could be harmful as well. Preservatives and additives could cause side effects.

So, what can you do if you don't want to have a flu vaccination this year?

The main aim will be to build up the effectiveness of your immune system.
You can do this by restricting the amount of sugar you eat
Get enough sleep - this can be 7 or 8 hours a night
Don't let your exercise schedule slip - keep exercising at least five days per week for half a hour or so a day
Include some garlic in your diet - garlic boosts your immune system and is also antibiotic and antiviral
Don't be a martyr to stress - look into ways of relaxing and controlling your stress
Make sure you eat properly and take a good quality multivitamin supplement and vitamin C

All of these will help put your immune system in good fettle and help to resist the flu. And you'll probably feel better, too.

So why not give it a try and have a flu-free winter without the flu vaccine.

Check out my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk for info on foods and vitamins. I'm in the final stages of writing a stress-busting book that will be on the site very soon - clik on the order online page.

Eating yourself healthy

2006-11-09T06:37:00.000-08:00

If you want to be healthy, you should eat more of ... I'll leave you to fill in the blank. As a regular reader of healthy e-zines and publications, I'm sure you could list a whole range of foods that help your health. If you were to try and eat all of them all of the time I doubt there would be much time for anything else in your life. But, at least, you would be very healthy.

The thought occurred to me the other day when I was making my weekly supply of muesli. I base my recipe on rolled oats and add all sorts of nuts, seeds and fruits. Some months ago I began adding pumkin seeds because I'd read that they were good for you. They don't taste of anything really, but they are good for you, so in they go. I thought, "you could go on for ever, adding the latest ingredient that is good for you", but you have to stop somewhere.

The thing is that these tips you see in the magazines and e-zines for adding a new healthy food to your diet don't usually let you know how much you need and how often you need to eat it. So you are wandering around your supermarket or health shop and you suddenly spot a packet of it. Just the thing, you think, to supplement your diet.

You get back home and sprinkle it on your cereal, fruit or whatever, and hope for a little better health in the future. And really, that's about the best you can do.

The ideal is to make it a habit to eat as healthily as you can, get regular exercise, maybe take a regular vitamin supplement and hope for the best. If you take every piece of advice on healthy eating you'll worry too much to enjoy your newfound health. So, be realistic and practical. Adjust your diet to suit your taste while avoiding processed foods as much as you can.

Your health will improve if you stick at it.

I have a booklet on foods that will show you just what they can do for your health. Just visit http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and check out the booklet range on offer there: subscribe to my newsletter and get a free Tips booklet on food and supplements .

Flu vaccines - are they worth it?

2006-11-01T02:56:00.000-08:00

Today I want to have a little rant about flu vaccines. It has become an annual media event when it is announced that there will be a shoratge of flu vaccines this year, and every other year in recent memory.

I remember when, about 20 years ago, there were several manufacturers of it and they competed on price and availability. The resut was the patient always go the vaccine if they wanted it and the costs to the health sevices was kept down. In this case at least, competition worked.

Then the number of producers declined to two and everything changed. All of a sudden, prices rose steadily and the now yearly shortages began to appear. There was always a problem of either the strain of flu to be included in it or difficulties at the production units.

At first, I could understand these problems. They happen to all kinds of products in all walks of life. But then, I became a bit more cynical. Just consider what the publicity does to the numbers of vaccines used.

It's human nature to want something just as soon as you know it is in short supply. Every Christmas there is THE toy that suddenly has dwindling numbers for sale. The queues for it get longer by the minute.

And it's the same with flu vaccines. Simply because there might not be enough to go around, everyone really needs it, and right now!

Who benefits? I'll give you one guess ... that's right - the manufacturer. It will be able to sell every unit it makes because demand outstrips production all through the vaccine season.

This year, too, there has been a research finding that pregnant women might benefit from having the vaccine so ther babies can resist the chance that their immune system might not be up to scratch once they are born.

So, the manufacturers will have yet another market to exploit.

On the other side, one professor of medicine has got into print saying that he doubts the percieved benefits of having the flu vaccine in the first place.

There is a body of medical opinion, still in the minority, that vaccination against flu just doesn't change the mortality rate at all. The same number of people die each year despite mass vaccination.

Perhaps we should just work on our general health and immune system by eating well, exercising and taking the occasional supplement. then we can forget the yearly dash to shove money into the drug companies' and doctors' hands.

Just a thought!

Let me know what you think. Reply to this post or visit my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk to get in touch and join my newsletter list, it's FREE.

Keep your options open

2006-10-25T07:19:00.000-07:00

It's all very well to talk about complementarty and alternative medicine or CAM, but when it comes to the point do you really use it or do you run off to your conventional doctor?

I've thought about this problem quite a bit recently, partly because with my advancing years some of my friends have taken ill. For all their support in what I am doing to get the CAM word out there, not one has told me they went to their alternative practitioner.

Now, I understand that in an emergency, conventional medicine just can't be beaten. They rush you to the hospital and stop the bleeding, get your heart going again, set broken bones and generally get you back together using the latest techniques. And I applaud them for that. They are the very best at that side of medicine. And, if you are unfortunate enough to have a heart attack or stroke, the emergency treatment will be second to none.

Because I have been brought up on the perceived benefits of conventional medicine and indeed because I worked almost exclusively in that field for more than 35 years, I have to admit my first reaction to illness is just the same as my friends.

I don't know if is the shock of being ill that propels me towards the GP or the idea that there is a pill to cure whatever ails me. Whatever it is I'm sure most people of my generation feel much the same. There's something very comforting about the conventional system, the reassuring chat and the prescription at the end of it all.

However, more and more I am hearing about the shortcomings of conventional medicine and the lack of basic help and advice that comes from it. It has become an unsympathetic money guzzling machine. Doctors are too busy pushing paper and ticking boxes to really care about the patient. Money and the desire to get as much as possible out of the system while allowing politics to muddy the waters is making more people worry about whether the system will kill them rather than cure.

One of my favourite ideas is that by all means use your doctor to get diagnosis and a start to treatment. Then , once you are over the initial shock and settled down again and feeling better, that is the time to think about whether keeping going with the conventional approach is best. The chances are it could be all you need.

But, there is a growing chance is that something else may be just as good but without the side effects, or even better. You really have to look around at the options - and there usually are a few to choose from.

Its remarkable the effect your diet might have on your condition. It's very basic, but the more I research disease, the more I realise how important diet is. Just by changing from processed and fast foods to organic, home grown, whole foods cooked in the old fashioned way, you could turn your health around. From stress to cancer to ADHD, diet plays an important part.

Equally important is exercise. Just 30 minutes a day can make significant inroads into weight loss and improving the condition of your heart and muscles, not to mention your brain.

You probably know that, but do you do it?

Then, there are many CAM therapies that might offer ways forward. The thing is that you don't have to stick to only one. I've been surprised just how much they have to offer in all kinds of ways to all sorts of disease states.

The important thing is their holistic approach. It's important to remember that your mind as well as your body is involved. CAM takes account of that and therapies treat your mind as a way of healing. And that is usually missing from conventional treatment. (Although I know that modern treatment of stroke now includes treatment for depression - not before time!)

The point is that by all means use conventioal medicine when you need it, but don't forget that it's not the only option. CAM has much to offer, along with proper dietary advice and exercise.

SO, don't close your mind to the variety of effective options out there. My aim in what's left of my life is to let you know as much as you need to, so that you can make an informed choice. You choose what you want and need in order to improve and maintain your health.

Have a look at my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk , join my newsletter (for free) and check out my booklets, reports and articles, or just drop me an e-mail to let me know what you think about all of this.

Wishing you the best of health.

A Health Rant

2006-10-13T02:25:00.000-07:00

If you've read any of my articles or visited my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk you will have gathered that I have a real interest in trying to explain about health, how to get it and how to keep it once you've got it. And, having spent a lifetime in conventional pharmacy, I've come to realise that many people are being conned by the hype and advertising put out by drug companies and the conventional health lobby.

The more I read about various conditions that are widespread today, the more I wonder how anyone can stem the tide. Most people that I know remain convinced that conventional drugs will cure each and every illness. If one doesn't exist so far, then it will surely come along soon.

In fact, in my experience, I've known several people with life-threatening diseases who were "hanging on" with the belief that a cure would appear at any minute.

Yet, in this age of accountant-control, the availability of drugs is being controlled on a cost-effect basis. This means that people are being told that certain drugs are not available unless they want to use their own money just because some more expensive new drug is being used in another disease treatment. If you are unlucky enough to have some illness you may not get a drug not because it won't work, but because a committee say's you can't get it.

And, this is just another factor in the increasingly complex health services of the UK, and maybe elsewhere as well. But, that's not to say that the NHS doesn't do a lot of good work, especially in emergency situations. It does!

What I'm getting at in a very round about way is that it is becoming increasingly more important to look after your health yourself. If you become ill you need to have a range of options to help you cope and get better. Clearly, one option is drug treatment, and that may well be useful.

Other choices in the complementary and alternative therapies abound, if you have some idea of what they can and cannot do. The bottom line is that you need to take charge of your health in a positive way. You simply can't rely on doing anything you want to your body and digestion and expect some drug to cure it when something goes wrong.

It's up to you to do your very best to avoid being ill, by eating properly, getting some regular exercise, and limiting the amount of stress you suffer at work and play. In other words do your damndest to not be ill in the first place.

If you are ill look further than your doctor for help. Other therapies may be just what you need. I have to admit that I have written a series of booklets on some of these - Aromatherapy, Herbs, Homeopathy, Flower Remedies, and I've also written a booklet on Vitamins and Food Groups to help with your diet.

Anyway, the theme today os to work on your own life and try to be a healthy as you can be so you won't need to rely on anyone else. I think the longer you stay our of the conventinal doctor's clutches the better you will be.

That's my rant for today.

For more information and a chance to invest in your future good health, visit http://www.healthexplored.co.uk

Vitamin D and Flu

2006-10-02T07:00:00.001-07:00

The question is about whether sufficient doses of vitamin D will help prevent colds and flu. There is logic in the argument for it, based on the fact that vitamin D levels in the body mirror the incidence of colds and flu. And if you take a moment to think about it, it's probably true.

In the autumn, vitamin D levels drop at the same time as colds and flu take hold. In winter vitamin D is at its lowest and flu reaches a peak. Then, comes springtime and vitamin D rises agin as flu decreases until summer comes and vitamin D peaks while colds and flu reach their lowest rate.

I read this discussion on a vitamin D site so there is a certain single mindedness about it, despite its truth. What they are saying relates to your immune system as well as vitamin D. So, you could argue that the answer is more about making sure the immune system is in the best of order.

Since the research has been done with reference to vitamin D, the conclusion is to try to maintain your vitamin D levels at a summer high all the year round. In summer, exposing your skin to sunshine stimulate your skin to produce vitamin D. And this, along with some dietary sources such as fish, eggs, milk and green vegetables gives a maximum vitamin D count.

As the seasons change, and as you get further away from the equator, the amount of sunshine deteriorates and the skin production falls significantly, even if you are regularly out of doors.

The dietary sources take over and supplements may be needed to keep levels up. Fish oil and cod liver oil are the most popular, while multiviatmin and mineral supplements help, too.

But, there are two other factors you need to think about. One is having a flu jab to boost your resistance to flu. You may see this a a simple, one-off answer. A painless injection in the autumn will tive you the necessary strength to fight off flu. Or will it?

A recent article in the Lancet reviewed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the flu jabs at best show a modest improvement in flu prevention. After all these years of extolling the percieved benefits of immunisation against the flu and the benefits are only modest!

You have to askif the programme of flu injections is worh the time and money if the outcome is as limited as the review suggests.

And then, every year at autumn time, we hear of the problems associated with the current year's flu vaccine production. It need to be reformulated each year to take account of the current strains of virus that are causing flu - they mutate regularly making previous vaccines useless. Every year there are delays in producing or supplying them in sufficient quantity for the expected demand.

Just exactly who is profiting from this? The recurring supply delays makes the headlines and causes panic among those people who believe that no vaccine means an unprotected tussle with the flu virus. The publicity opens the flood gates and people in the "at risk" groups besiege the doctors. The doctors complain to pharmacists and health chiefs. No one is happy.

Well, not exactly no one. I reckon there are at least one or two happy organisations. The manufacturing companies have the monopoly of production. They create great demand by informing the media of this year's problems and wait to see their profit figures grow.

The result of this is to point out to that if you want to avoid the flu or winter colds, you had better start doing it yourself. Forget the flu jab and concentrate on building up your immune system while you can. Get more vitamin D from whatever source. Add a supplement to your diet; improve your diet to include the vitamin D sources; don't forget the other vitamins and minerals that help, especially vitamin C and zinc.

If you catch the flu, look to some of the herbal preparations to help fight it. Things such as echinacea have good records of success, as have larger doses of vitamin C and vitamin D.

Start right now and you can thumb your nose at the pharmaceutical industry st least so far as flu is concerned.

Get more information on vitamins and minerals as well as details of supplements and alternative therapies at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk

Time on your hands

2006-09-18T07:14:00.000-07:00

I've said it before and I'm sure to say it again, that one of the differences between conventional and alternative therapies is time. Time between starting and noticing a difference. For instance, if you have a pain and take an analgesic tablet, it should start to work once it gets into your blood stream Normally that could take something from 30 minutes to an hour. All being well, your pain will start to fade shortly after, although you might need to top it up with another dose of painkiller about four hours later.

On the other hand, let's say for the sake of discussion, you suffer from chronic pain and after swallowing tablets for a month or so, decide you want to try something else. Of course, you would check out my "Special Pain Report" to get the low-down on what therapies you could try!! (http://www.healthexplored.co.uk/eorder/shop.php ) Then, having done your homework, you start on the 'new' remedy.

This is where you'll see the major difference. It' s a good bet that you won't see an immediate improvement in the pain - it may take a few days. There are several reasons for this, the main one being that alternative remedies are very different from conventional drugs. They have many fewer side effects and tend to be less powerful. So their actions start low and build up as you continue with treatment.

This does NOT mean they don't work. Starting a holistic approach to your condition has a several pronged approach. It doesn't work on the simplistic principle of you have a pain, you take a painkiller, and that's all. Alternative therapies look at all of you and your surroundings. It tries to find a reason or reasons for you being in pain. Perhaps it is stress at work or home. Maybe the kind of work you do unbalances your muscles and causes strain. You might be worried or anxious about an aspect of family life. You may even be depressed. There are many things that cause pain, not all of them physical.

The result is that if you take your therapist's advice and work on the things you need to change to smooth out work and home life, together with any remedies the chance you'll get cured are much greater. The plan is that by changing several aspects of your life while taking gentle yet effective medicines you will be cured, once and for all.

Conventional medicine doesn't really care if you get better. It treats your symptoms one at a time and sends you on your way cluthcing a bag of powerful medicines. Take them and hope is the message. But it doesn't really give you the hope part. It's too busy to really care. You have to take that into your own hands.

So, my advice for what it's worth is by all means use conventional medicine for the short-term gains, but don't rely on it for a cure or long-term benefits. For that you need to explore other avenues. Alternative therapies.

Check out my range of booklets and reports on http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and sign up to my FREE newsletter today.

Avoiding carbs

2006-09-12T03:30:00.000-07:00

It's not easy to change what or how you eat. I don't mean moving to chopsticks from fork and knife, or eating standing up rather than sitting down. No, I mean which foods to eat and how to prepare them.

I thought about this after my daughter was diagnosed with polycystic ovaries a month or two ago. She hasn't got a full-blown version, but more of a borderline case. But, it explains some of her symptoms that we worried about.

It would have been simple to start her on a life time regime of tablet taking, but what knowledge I had led me towards investigating other ways of tackling it. Fortunately, there are several good books that explain all about the condition and ways of adjusting lifestyle to accommodate it so that tablet-taking fades from the foreground. Although tablets can be a useful addition.

In broad terms, the dietary changes are to limit carbohydrates and increase the amount of exercise. The idea is to control the insulin levels so that the weight gain and other symptoms are controlled. And, it's not a bad idea for the rest of us, too.

Anyway, given that the principle is a straightforward one, we all decided the best way to make it work is for all of us to go on the same diet. OK, so cut down the carbs. That's bread, potatoes, cakes and the rest. Easy, you say? Well, so did I until you try to do it. Toast for breakfast, potatoes with the evening meal. You can surely cut down on portion size or find an alternative such as sweet potatoes or pasta.

I agree it should be simple. But if you've gone through life eating the kinds of food your parents and friends eat it's not so easy. You have to rewind your brain and start again with your weekly shop. You start visiting parts of the supermarket you haven't been to before. And, you get to know your local health-food store better as you ask for the more unusual items.

Cooking and preparation times are all different, so you need to rearrange your routines around mealtimes. And you consider whether each ingredient is protein or carbohydrate. It's amazing how disrupting it can be, especially when you get to my advanced age!

But, by far the biggest problem is lunch. Just look around at the middle of the day. Sandwiches, bagels, wraps, cakes, biscuits, pizza, burgers - all manner of convenient and fast food to pick up for lunch. How can you get around that?

Even at home, a quick lunch tends towards the sandwich end of the spectrum. Something few people consider is the amount of carbohydrate in lunch. A nice sandwich and a latte, followed by a Danish doesn't sound a lot. But in carb and calorie terms it's a lot to take in a few short minutes.

Preparing a healthy lunch that is easily carried and will meet your nutritional needs takes time and thought, not to mention a suitable container and utensils to eat it with. And, just look at the sugar content of those drinks.

You see. It's not as easy as it looks. SO spare a thought for my daughter and the many like her who are trying to avoid what many of us take for granted.

Perhaps more of us should give the sandwich and drink for lunch a miss. Healthier options are out there but they take some finding!

Check out the articles and booklets at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk on all sorts of health matters, and join our growing band of subscribers to the newsletter. It's free and comes with the gift of a supplements booklet when you sign up.

Ask the doctor? No way!

2006-09-08T01:27:00.000-07:00

I'm sure you all remember that when you get any advice that is not from a conventional doctor, it always ends with the words, "be sure to ask your doctor before starting or changing treatments". It's the get-out clause for everything; as if your doctor knows all there is to know about your body, health, every form of treatment and all the good and bad things that can happen if you mix and match therapies from conventional to complementary and alternative.

But I have bad news. Most doctors hardly know enough about their own speciality, never mind any alternative treatment. So why ask them? It's all about blame. If it goes wrong, you can sue the doctor and perhaps get some money out of the system.

I've come to this because of a couple of recent events. My daughter graduated from university and came back home for the summer. She had a couple of relatively minor health concerns she wanted to ask the family doctor about, and she made an appointment. Her preferred GP couldn't see her for four weeks!!! Another doctor had appointments in a few days, so that had to do.

Armed with her list of questions, my daughter went for the appoinment as arranged. When she came out I asked how things had gone. I had hoped for some concern, sensible discussion, and possible ways forward from the doctor. But no. She apparently didn't really care; it wasn't urgent; go away and buy a couple of things from the pharmacy.

I was very disappointed and upset that the health service in the UK simply did not want to know. The practice that we have been with for more than 30 years didn't care that my daughter wanted a little help. I know it wasn't an emergency or life threatening. But giving some useful advice now could well save more serious problems in the future. And I'm told the average GP earns something approaching £100,000 a year.

Well, I for one, don't think they warrant such a return if that's any example of what they do.
And, as for asking your doctor before you start any treatment of any kind is just laughable. Let's face the facts. Your doctor knows little of complementary and alternative therapies. He or she certainly will not be able to help you. All they will do is to try to put you off everything except for some conventional treatment.

In other words you'll come away with a prescription for an expensive and poweful drug that has a long list of side effects, and will probably cause some other problem that needs yet another drug to control it.

The second thing was while I was reading an article on trying a herbal remdy to help you sleep. The author described a simple situation of insomnia and the herb that might help while compaing it with the problems associated with a conventional equivalent. The herb had few if any side effects while the latter had real problems with hangover drowsiness and addiction. He finished with the usual "ask your doctor first".

I almost shouted at the screen, "Why ask him?" It is clear that the herb is much safer than the prescription drug so why bother. Try the herb first and if it doesn't work, move on. Talk to the herbalist or health professional; get some other advice. Only go to the doctor if you think there might be some underlying cause for your problem, such as cancer. Then insist on answers.

If you want to try something new, read up about it yourself and if you think it might help, just get on with it. Telling your doctor really won't help you. But, remember that if you do this it is your responsibility if it doesn't go the way you hope. You can't sue yourself. But, at least you will go into it with your eyes wide open.

Asking your doctor is clearly there to avoid law suits flying to the authors. I understand that since I am an author too, and the last thing I want is to be sued. So everything I write is with the understanding that it is educational advice, not medical. The responsibility is yours to be informed and happy with what you choose to do about your health. You choose, you decide and you take the consequences. Ask your doctor if you want to; as if he cares!

Get some of my educational advice at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk We have articles and a newsletter for FREE and some informative and useful booklets to buy online or in print.

Tea anyone?

2006-08-25T06:53:00.000-07:00

I was watching TV this morning before starting work when I saw the "Resident GP" talking about a survey that had found tea was good for you. It's amazing just how particular GP s can be when discussing surveys on alternative and natural medicines. She mentioned right away that the survey had been funded by the Tea Council of GB, before condescending to agree that tea probably wouldn't do you any harm.

I get really annoyed by the attitude of conventional doctors. I'm sure that had we been concerned about a new drug from the vast multinational drug companies, the same GP would manage to NOT mention that the research had been paid for by the very company that was marketing the drug. Funny that, isn't it?

I think it is too much for TV producers to call only on a conventional representative in these situations. It's about time that they balanced things by inviting an alternative practitioner to give their point of view.

Why should conventional medicine get all the publicity, as if their's is the only voice that matters. What really matters is a balanced view that can be got only by hearing more than one side of an argument. How many recent drug launches have been supported by conventional medicine, only to find a few years later that they are killing unnacceptable numbers of people. In the case of Vioxx it was estimated that it ran to thousands who died from its side effects. How many die from a cup of tea in an average year? And who asked anyone other than the resident GP?

After all, there are new findings almost every day that prove the value of tea drinking, whether green tea, white or black teas. All the report mentioned today was about was that any sort of tea drinking can do you good in the context of a balanced diet. Here, here!

Grumpy Old Man

2006-08-18T03:06:00.000-07:00

I don't know if you read the newspapers or watch TV news programs. I tend to look at the TV news a couple of times a day and read the occasional paper to keep up to date with the world. Some things annoy me about the way things are reported these days - it could be my advancing years.

Calling those things newspapers is a misnomer because what they carry is rarely new. Most of the time they promote CDs and DVDs, never news, to sell their wares. And, TV tends to base their reports on what is happening where they have reporters - not necessarily where anything interesting is going on. So, you get a selective series of items that they grandly call the "Main Stories", but they omit anything covered by other channels, especially sport.

But, something thay all have in common is their superficial take on anything medical. They begin with the sensational headline - the new magic bullet; costly but wonderful new drug; why alternatives don't work and so on. Ten they skirt round the research picking on the phrases that suits their take.

They major on the benefits, perceived or imaginary, of the new drug while managing to forget about potential and real side effects or drawbacks. I must admit it get right up my nose. Why can't they just tell us the truth - all of it, not just a selected part. OK So, a new drug might well help the survival rate for a certain cancer. I think that is the way of progress. But, all drugs have side effects, some of them can be fatal when dealing with life-threatening conditions such as cancer.

The drug companies must have a list of side effects and their frequency. Why not tell us so we can get the thing in perspective. It's no good if a drug helps 30 people while also killing 60 more.

And, why the double standards? If an alternative medicine is thought ( thought, mind you, not proved) to perhaps have been involved in a small number of incidents, the media crucify it, shouting for it's immediate withdrawal. Yet, a drug like Vioxx kills thousands in the US alone and it takes years to get it taken off the market. I suspect it's down to money and power.

I have to admit the press can and do do a good job in exposing charlatans and cheats, fat cats and dodgy politicians. They are like a two headed man, one being logical and thoughtful, the other short-sighted and biased.

It makes me want to shout at the TV and give up buying papers.

That's why I started this blog and my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk to let more people have a balanced view of health matters, to explain what I think is going on in a straigtforward way, and let you have your say in it too. So pop over there now and join the newsletter - no charge- and get a gift as well for your trouble.

Something for Nothing

2006-08-08T04:28:00.000-07:00

If you are anything like me you will have signed up to receive e-zines and e-newsletters in the subjects that interest you. Over the years I've subscribed and unsubscribed to quite a few, usually under the headings of all-things-health, building-a-list and marketing.

I mention this because I was reading the latest marketing one this very morning and was struck by something the "guru" had written. He said that it should be easy for the customer: he should do no work: simply pay and get.

I thought, "that would be nice, wouldn't it. Do no work, pay a little money to someone and earn a fortune for yourself."

But, is that realistic? It it were true, you wouldn't bother getting up in the morning, or ever!

I try to take most of the groundwork out of the advice and research I supply. (If you think about it anyone can get any information they like about anything at all. It's all out there somewhere - Internet, books , magazines, etc. But, the argument that there is no need for any more books, newsletters or whatever because we already have it somewhere isn't practical.) It would take weeks and months to research it yourself even assuming you know where to look.

Some of the information is flawed or plain wrong, some is good and some is biased or confusing. I see my job is to look through all of it or as much as I can get to in a limited time scale. Then put it together in a logical fashion while discarding the misleading and mistaken and adding my experience and opinion to the final vesrion.

The result is, I hope, a reasoned and reasonable overview to allow the reader to understand what is going on and give enough detail to let him or her come to a conclusion as to their own best route forward.

The client or reader really has to do some work in order to gain some benefit, even although the amount of work should be fairly small and most of that is in the mind. I can't tell you what to do. That is what your doctor tends to do based on his experience. The problem is that he has had a lot of experience in a very limited section of the health spectrum. It is not their fault. there is a great deal to know about, and one person cannot know it all.

My aim is to get you thinking about more options in health treatment, not just conventional therapy. Then, you have a better chance in getting just what you need from a range of health professionals - just what suits your circumstances at the time.

Use more than the easy option. By all means go to your dotor and get the conventional view. But, don't stop there. Do a little work based on my independent advice and choose your individual path to better health.

It might be good to have everything done for you, but only you can do exactly what you need to help yourself.

Why not take a look at my site on http://www.healthexplored.co.uk to see some of my booklets and Guides to alternative and conventional health topics, or sign up to my free newsletter (e-zine) and get a free booklet on supplements and vitamins.

Supplements in the dock again

2006-08-04T02:06:00.000-07:00

It's been a funny old week for me. Because it's the summer holidays, loads of people are away enjoying a well-earned break. My daughter has come home from university and really adds sparkle to my otherwise fairly humdrum life. And I went to look after a relatives garden while they are out of the country for a few days.

The sum total of this has meant my time "at work" has been very limited. However, an article in a newspaper caught my eye last night. The headline was "Supplements may damage health" penned by the paper's health correspondent.

"Here we go again ", I thought. A tirade against supplements because we all know that a balance diet is all you need. But, I was wrong. Well, not entirely.

It was based on research done some years ago where smokers were given antioxidant supplements to see if it reduced their risk of cancer. It seems that it actually increased their risk instead, so the trial was stopped and the results screamed around the world.

The problem as I see it is that the researchers were trying to use a fairly simple test for a very complex situation. In other words they wanted to show whether antioxidant supplements could treat cancer. Now, antioxidants are not like drugs. They won't act right away, even in large doses. Natural products such as antioxidants need months and years to build up their effect in small doses, so you can't expect a drug-style trial to work in these circumstances.

Recent research using vitamin C to treat cancer uses very large doses given by intravenous injection. Initial results have been promising. Small oral doses simply don't have any effect over the short-term.

Then, smokers have altered their body's circumstances because they smoke - the nicotine, tars and other chemicals they inhale regularly must change things even in minor ways. So, expecting regular doses of antioxidants to work miracles is stretching the imagination a bit.

I think this type of trial will never work to the satisfaction of mainstream medical scientists and journalists writing articles based on flawed reports.

The good thing about the article was that it concluded that dietary changes were better than antioxidant supplements. But you have to start now, not when you get struck down by some disease-or-other.

I would add that as well as a diet with more fresh fruit and vegetables, a good general multivitamin and mineral supplement is your best bet for good health. High doses of antioxidants might help in certain circumstances, but won't counter poor dietary choices or protect you if you smoke.

There's a moral there if you think about it.

Discover more on supplements for free when you sign up to my newsletter at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk -you'll get a copy of my food and supplements tips booklet as a gift.

A Wonder-Drug for Slimmers? I wonder!

2006-07-27T06:38:00.000-07:00

If you have visited my site or read this blog before, you'll probable have realised that I write a two-page newsletter every two months for my list. It's a straightforward look at some of the things happening in health and includes conventional as well as alternative therapies. This month (July) I have talked about a new drug called Rimonabant for treating obesity.

As usual with new drug launches, the publicity has been carefully choreographed to show it under the best of lights. The media duly complied and presented us with a shining example of yet another wonder drug to cure one of the major problems afflicting the Western world today - overweight people.

The headlines had not a word about any down side, just glowing reports of the success of trials. Patients could lose pounds, many clothes sizes and all their cares about over eating or eating the wrong foods and not having any exercise need worry them no more.

Maybe so, but I listened carefully to a longer report on TV and heard a few words at the end, "When people stopped taking it they put back on all the weight they had lost".

Well now. To me, that's a major downside. Once you start the drug you have to take it for the rest of your life, unless of course, you don't mind regaining the weight you lose. A little research confirmed what I had heard - lifetime medication or ...

From the drug company's point of view it is not a problem. The sales will keep on rising. The pot of gold for these companies is finding a weight-loss drug that really works. The queues would be immense.

From your point of view the picture is not so one sided. Starting on a lifetime of tablet-taking isn't something you want to begin unless you have to. And there is the problem of side effects that maybe have not yet been discovered since the trials lasted only a couple of years - long enough for some medicines but not for medication to be taken for 30, 40 or 50 years or more.

A look at the drug wesites reveals some side effects that are already known, namely depression, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, anxiety and irritability.

And, the two-year weight-loss averaged just 20 pounds or so. Not such a lot for the average slimmer over 24 months.

There may well be a place for this drug for certain people and certain conditions, and the side effects may not be common or severe in most cases. But, I for one just can't seem to be very enthusiastic that this is a breakthrough in controlling excess weight or a wonder drug. It's too soon to condem it. It needs more research and practical results.

You may feel differently. I welcome your comments what ever your point of view.

You can pick up a copy of my free newsletter at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk and signing up. (And you'll get a tips booklet on food and supplements for your trouble.)

Wishing you the best of health.

Sunshine and Vitamin D

2006-07-18T02:24:00.000-07:00

What do you do when the sun shines? Tear off as many of your clothes as you can to reveal as much flesh as is legal and present your pale body to the sun? Or dash indoors and get the air conditioning or fans working to cool you down?

It always seems that changes in weather in the UK are a surprise. Transport services are disrupted by flakes of snow, autumn leaves, heavy rain and hot sunshine. Now, it's summer and a few days of uninterrupted sun take up major chunks of news reporting.

Many people end up red, in pain and burned. This is despite many campaigns aimed at limiting sunburn and skin cancer. The lure of a tan seems to overcome all inhibitions and health concerns.

We all need at least some sunshine on our skin so we can make vitamin D. Despite what the mainstream medicine says about exposure to sun, getting adequate amounts (about 20 minutes) of natural sunlight every day is essential to your health.

Sunlight, as I've said, causes your body to make vitamin D... This incredible natural healer boosts immunity, strengthens bones, rejuvenates the flesh and body tissues, and increases your resistance to cancers - even SKIN cancer .

And unlike all other vitamins, which can be effectively supplemented, vitamin D requires sunlight for optimum bodily levels.

So, with this in mind, by all means, give yourself a treat and relax in the sun for about 20 minutes without sunscreen. But then, get on some protection in the way of clothes, hat, shade or sunscreens. Don't get burned what ever you do.

A little sun every day will be the best for your health. Too much and you could be in trouble later on. And none at all won't help either.

Make the most of summer, boost your vitamin D and help your general health while you're at it.

Now, where's my sun hat?

Check out what all vitamins can do for your health by claiming a copy of my Guides at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk

Cholesterol report comments

2006-07-11T03:38:00.000-07:00

I happened to meet an old friend and customer of mine while I was walking the dog the other day. And after the usual pleasantries and enquiring about respective spouses and children the conversation got round to the Cholesterol Report she kindly ordered from me. Although I don't want to blow my own trumpet ... oh well, why not, just this once ... she said she really enjoyed reading it. So far, so good. Then she told me she had given it to her husband and he enjoyed it, too, and thought it was very interesting. So she gave it to friends whom she was staying with, and they read and enjoyed it as well. (Mind you, the thought that the friends could have ordered their own copy did pass fleetingly through my mind - but only fleetingly!)

Naturally, I was flattered. She taught biological sciences for a few years so she has a professional interest in what I have to say, and I'm sure she would criticise it if it was not up to standard.It's always comforting to discover that the hours you put into creating a review of some therapy or condition have not been wasted.

Anyway, the point of this story is that the Cholesterol Report in question is only one of a series of reports and booklets on various complementary therapies, nutrition and reviews of current conventional therapy and alternatives in specific illnesses and conditions. You can review them all at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk . There are articles and previous newsletters at the "Article Archive"

Take a look and post your thoughts and reactions here or through the contact area of the site.

Cook it yourself

2006-07-07T01:29:00.000-07:00

I just received a copy of a booklet produced by Which Magazine called "What's really in your food". It explains something about salt and sugar in processed foods and how manufacturers get round labelling regulations to tell you as little as possible about what you are eating. It goes on to tell you what current regulations are and how they should be adjusted to help you choose the best foods.

Some producers do tell you the truth, but many try to avoid it or conceal it in some way.

I found it an interesting read but for me it was only a small part of the problem. I think we all need to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables, and we need to revise our thinking about what we eat.

It's become a joke these days about how many TV programs are about gardening, cooking and home improvements. They all seem to attract sizeable audiences, and their spin-off books sell well. But, the number of people actually doing their own cooking, gardening or home improvements seems to be falling. What's going on?

Surely, it should be the other way around? But, apparently we sit and watch these programs ... and that's all.

For me, the idea is to get some inspiration from them and go and put it into practise. Get your fresh ingredients, prepare and cook them for yourself, friends and family, and enjoy a great meal.

Then, incorporate these ideas into your everyday meal planning and preparation. The end result is that you enjoy cooking once more, in the knowledge that what you are eating is full of nutrients and helping you keep healthy.

Processed foods, ready meals and the like have too much sugar, salt and fats in them, along with preservatives and E numbers. At least, if you make it yourself, you will know just what you add in the way of salt and sugar and it's unlikely you'll add any of the other things.

I'm not convinced it takes much longer to make a meal from fresh ingredients than it does to heat-up a frozen ready meal. What I am clear about is the significant health benefits of the home prepared foods compared to the doubtful results of fast food consumption.

You can't beat the taste and flavour of fresh fruits just as they are and you don't need to do anything to them - just tuck in!

Discover just how many nutrients your fresh food contains by getting hold of a copy of my FOODS GUIDE at http://www.healthexplored.com . It's one of a collection of guides that explain alternative therapies and nutrition.

Tea and Sympahty

2006-06-27T07:29:00.000-07:00

It's easy to get carried away and think that everyone suffers from serious illness. We tend to overlook the fact that for most of us, it's the minor things in everyday life that bothers us.

Over the weekend, I managed to put in a few hours gardening - you know the kind of thing, cutting the lawn, removing a few weeds and so on. But then I got carried away and decided to take a few branches off a fairly large tree to give me some space aroung the base to plant some small things.

I think you can guess the outcome. The dreaded aching back!!!

As I relaxed in the evening, the pain developed... So, for a few days I shall be shuffling around, bent over to minimise the ache.

And, my daughter reported that she had been bitten by some unknown insect whilst she was camping. So, she had a swelling on her leg and couldn't sleep, for the discomfort.

To top it all, my wife has her annual bout of hay fever. Sniffing and blowing of the nose can be heard throughout the happy home.

You couldn't call any of this life-threatening, but together it is a nuisance and disrupts what you could call normality.

The answers to all these complaints are fairly simple. A few pain killers, a hot bath and perhaps a massage for me. An antihistamine and a tepid bath for the daughter, and an antihistamine and a box of man-size tissues for my dear wife.

And given a few days, we shall all be back to health.

In all my years as a pharmacist, a great many of my counter prescribing experiences were just the same - the careless worker, the unfortunate condition and the uncomfortable sufferer.
It's a bit more than tea and sympathy, but it wasn't rocket science either.

Alternatives For All

2006-06-20T07:30:00.000-07:00

I wrote the following article recently to introduce my thoughts on alternative therapies. I am going to put it on my archive, but I thought you might be interested in reading it too, so I have copied it here. Do please let me have your thoughts on the subject and any other health topics that you want to share.

Alternatives for all

I suppose that most of us are well aware that conventional medicine holds a pretty strong hand in today’s medicine deck of cards. In many parts of the world it’s the first port of call. At least part of this is because the drug industry is very powerful. It generates vast amounts of profit through its “block-busting” products. Their publicity and marketing machines are efficient and influential, that influence reaching into governments and the very roots of medical opinion.

It has got to the stage now that you begin to wonder if the latest story of medical breakthrough arises from independent research or carefully massaged company PR. Recently, it has become clear that companies create new syndromes or diseases simply to match a drug to it. And, sometimes the flaws in the testing systems throw up highly publicised disasters such as when six young men became critically ill after just one dose of a new drug.

The upshot is that more people doubt the absolute right of conventional medicine to be the first and only port of call. Witness the inexorable growth of complementary and alternative medicine or CAM.

You can say that Cam has its faults, and it does. But, so does conventional medicine. Nothing is perfect, especially if it is man-made. Even the best of drugs cannot successfully treat every person with a particular set of symptoms. And this is true of CAM as well.

CAM points to hundreds or even thousands of years where people have been helped, while convention has scientific evidence of its actions. Science versus experience is what it boils down to.

Where do you stand? Maybe like me you have always gone to convention first. You visit your doctor or nurse and do what they suggest. If you don’t get better what’s next? Back to the doctor, perhaps a specialist, and try again.

But, there comes a time when you run out of doctors, consultants and the rest, and probably patience with the system, too. Then, where do you go?

In reality, you don’t have to look very far. There is an array of CAM out there waiting and willing to help you in your particular situation.

That is the crux, your particular situation! CAM usually looks at all of you, your physical and mental health, and your own circumstances at work and home. In other words, it is the holistic approach.

It means so much to be able to discuss how you feel and why. You can understand what is happening to you and how CAM can help.

Now, the trick is to find which speciality in the CAM spectrum might be useful. And for that, you need some pointers. Then you can narrow the choice down to something you can believe in and use positively.

For me, this is the step you absolutely need to take. You will benefit from becoming involved in all of the decisions about your own health. A little knowledge in health is something you need to have.

So, get some information on your symptoms, and add that to some facts on CAM. Then you can make up your own mind for what can help you. And go for it…

Wishing you the best of health.

Remember that you can access other articles, past newsletters and CAM booklets on particular therapies such as Flower Remedies, Herbs, Homeopathy and much more on my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk . Why not take a look?

Guarantees or not

2006-06-16T07:08:00.000-07:00

Do you buy things online? For all my advanced years, I've done it for quite a number of various things ranging from books on Amazon and assorted items from eBay to e-books and courses. On the whole I've been happy with what I've got, but just occasionally I have been disappointed.

I bought a course on bookbinding techniques not too many months ago, and when I read it it was not at all what the sales letter had led me to believe. So, according to the guarantee, I got in touch with the seller and asked (politely) if I could have a full refund. No problem, was the response.

It never happened. I emailed again without reply, and I even e-mailed the guy who started the process by recommending the product in the first place. Silence.

But, should the fact that I've spent a small amount of money on something I can't really use colour my online purchasing for life? I don't think so. This has been my only problem amongst many successful dealings online.

Being a Scot, however, I hate to think I've been conned and this guarantee was worthless.

I've also asked for and got full refunds on one or two occasions. Sometimes the sales pages are too enticing for my own good, and I get carried away with the thought of owning a super, new book or coures that will surely make me rich and famous. No such luck, so far anyway!!

I've only recounted this story partly to make me feel better, but also to tell you that I have a guarantee with all of my products. And I shall surely honour it, if anyone is unhappy with my booklets, reports or anything else I supply.

I don't want to have any clients or customers feeling let down ( as I did) when I've taken the trouble to buy online.

I've said many times that there are no guarantees with health and life, but at least I can guarantee my publications.

Check them out at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk

Apologies for my little tantrum.

Wishing you the best of health.

Alternatives and the NHS

2006-05-30T01:57:00.000-07:00

Following on from my previous posting, the letter signed by 13 scientists and doctors urging all non-tested treatments to be removed from the NHS in the UK has caused lots of reaction. As one comment mentioned, very few current surgical procedures have been scientifically tested, and many drugs have limited value.

One science editor in the media said that we taxpayers should stop wasting millions of pounds on treatments that do not work. He was talking about alternative therapies, but should he have included the conventional treatments that don't work as well? And how about the costs of dealing with the side effects of drugs?

Perhaps he was exaggerating a little. The figures I've seen are that the NHS spends £70 billion a year (£70,000,000,000), and of that just £3 million goes towards complementary therapies. I make that 0.004% of total spending. As a proportion its not very much.

I am not advocating wasting any money just for the sake of expanding alternatives to conventional therapy. There has to be some logic and proof that something has a chance of working to improve health. But, it doesn't have to be purely scientific proof.

Prince Charles is quoted as saying, "Many of today's complementary therapies are rooted in ancient traditions that intuitively understood the need to maintain balance and harmony with our minds, bodies and the natural world. Much of this knowledge, often based on oral traditions, is sadly being lost, yet orthodox medicine has so much to learn from it."

And that is a great summing up of the situation, in my opinion. Too many doctors have blinkers on, so they choose not to see the living proof of the successes of alternative therapies. They hide behind the "we must have scientific proof" shield.

The result is that many more people are denied the chance of better health unless they are prepared to do it themselves, and invest some time and effort into finding out what is available.

In his letter, Professor Baum claimed that there is no proof that homeopathy works. Yet over the space of 24 years there have been 298 trials, analysed on four separate occasions. Each time the conclusion was that homeopathy was mcuh better than placebo.

The problem here is that scientists don't know how it can possibly work. They want to see the facts of how it works. But, the mystery of how homeopathy works doesn't mean that it doesn't work. There are many body systems and illnesses that we have no idea about - yet.

Homeopathy has been shown to work in asthma, influenza, pain, anxiety, chronic fatigue, migrains and more.

Many people are helped by homeopathy after conventional medicine has failed to help them.

I simply cannot accept that alternative therapies are unproven and a waste of money. They can do a lot of good for a great many people. Don't be persuaded by a few jaundiced professors and misguided journalists. Find out more for yourself. Go on over to my site at www.healthexplored.co.uk to find out more about alternative therapies, what they are and what they could do for you.

Alternatives under fire - again

2006-05-23T07:11:00.000-07:00

I don't know how they do it. How do the conventional "experts" manage to get such widespread publicity for their views? Today, some professor of pharmacology says that all complementary and alternative therapies should be banned from the NHS in the UK because they don't work.

It makes my blood boil. His view is that there is no scientific proof that CAM works, while conventional drugs do. It makes me wonder which drug company sponsors his research. He didn't mention it and no one has asked him, yet. He clearly thinks that the vastly expensive and occasionally fatal drugs of today cure disease.

Being an expert, I suppose he is aware of the damage drugs can do. Thousands of people die each year as a consequence of overzealous or faulty prescribing, and many more suffer side effects.

And the good Professor reckons that we could save enormous amounts of cash that could then be spent prescribing more powerful medication.

I can't deny the many good things about conventional medicine, but neither can I ignore the evidence that CAM does many good things too. The Professor called for scientific evidence that CAM does any good at all. But, it isn't the be-all-and-end-all. Clinical trials need lots of money to do properly. Who is going to provide it? Certainly not the drug companies. They won't make profits from natural remedies.

Do we really need such trials when there is so much anecdotal evidence around. To me, all the people who have been successfully treated by CAM speaks volumes. They are the basis for the success of alternative medicine. Yes, we should have some scientific evidence as well. And that will come, given time.

Just remember how many people have been harmed by side effects and the rest, mainly due to conventional therapy. And check on the benefits of the alternatives to satisy yourself that it might be just the thing for you. In the scheme of things, alternative therapies are not expensive.

Perhaps we need a review of all therapies to discover what is necessary and what the costs are. Only then should we decide what will be available on the NHS and what each individual needs to pay for himself or herself. For instance, is plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons to be included in a FREE service when cancer therapy is denied. It all depends on your point of view.

Dismissing all complementary and alternative therapies is not, I repeat not, the answer.

Random Sweet Thoughts

2006-05-18T07:35:00.000-07:00

You know, I'm beginning to get a reputation among my friends as being the "one that watches what he eats". Were people being nasty to me, I wondered. Maybe they were, but why should I care when I eat mostly what is good for me. It struck me that many people find it difficult, to get away from some widely accepted behaviour.

I was a child in the 50's when sugar and sweets were something reserved for special occasions, such as birthdays, Christmas and so on. Chocolate was a reward for a job well done, a chore successfully completed, a test passed. And, I suppose that thinking has come down through the years in my brain.

However, I am not alone. The food industry has worked hard to perpetuate the thought of sweet food and chocolates being a treat. The result is that, almost without thinking, when we want to give a friend, family member or colleague a small present we automatically walk to the sweet counter.

The human race has evolved with a delight for things sweet, partly because they were few of them around in those long-off days. Now in the 21st century, our bodies enjoy the sweet treat as our ancestors did. The difference is that such things are commonplace. No longer are they something for the occasional celebration.

To give you a recent example, my wife and I were going to visit our nephews. We should take a gift for them. What do we buy? Correct! Chocolate bars. There's no way these boys had been deprived of chocolate. In fact, they get money regularly for just such a treat ... almost daily! But, there we were, buying more.

To have given them nothing would mean dropping in the popularity stakes at their house. Or would it? What do you take if not sweets? (Any suggestions gratefully received.) Cash is no answer either. My uncle used to flip me a coin when he visited, and I just spent it. And they are hardly in need of money in any case. Computer games are costly, and they've probably got them already.

Anyway, that isn't the point of this little rant.

It suits the food industry to have created this mindset in us. Their profits show that only too clearly. My point is, why do we insist on heading for the sweet shop all the time. Refined sugar is harming our health. It poisons our immune system and feeds harmful bacteria and viruses. It makes us fat and gives us diabetes. It rots our teeth. But, it tastes so very good, we don't really think of the consequences.

Perhaps we should care a little more for both ourselves and those whom we think about buying even more refined sugar.

Next time you go to friends for an evening out, take the bottle of wine, but skip the sugar and get a few flowers instead ... unless they suffer from hay fever!

To sunscreen or not to sunscreen...

2006-05-08T07:29:00.000-07:00

I suppose, like most of us, you've been influenced by the avalanche of publicity about skin cancer and the necessity to slap on a sunscreen before you rush out and get some rays.

Too much sun means increasing the risk of developing skin cancer, some versions of which can be fatal if not caught in time.

It seems a simple task to look after your skin health, doesn't it? But, like most things to do with health, it's not that simple after all. Sure enough, excess and burning sunshine can cause skin cancer and melanoma, but we all need some sun in moderation.

It's vitamin D. Vitamin D is essential to our continuing good health. It's an necessary part of our hormone system and is involved in repair of damaged DNA, as well as essential for keeping your bones in good order. More recently vitamin D has become recognised as an anti-cancer vitamin.

Trials have found it lowers the risk of developing breast cancer, and it stops cancers developing by turning cells back to "normal" and slowing the formation of new blood vessels that cancers need to grow.

What's this got to do with sunscreens?

Well, we need sun on our skin to make vitamin D, otherwise we can only get it from fish oils or supplements. Anything that interferes with our digestion, from diarrhoes to Crohn's disease, antacids to cholesterol-lowering drugs, and toxic chemicals lowers vitamin D levels.

Fish oils also have vitamin A in them and this can interfere with the benefits of vitamin D, although halibut liver oil is better than cod liver oil for vitamin D content.

So, the best way to improve your vitamin D level is by judicious use of 10 to 15 minutes bursts of sun. Sunscreens stop all of that. Vitamin D may even help speed up your tanning.

And ... the chemicals in sunscreens are being tested to see whether they can cause skin cancer all by themselves. Some trials have suggested that they do, while others haven't. It's a blow, because many people, including me, use a sunscreen to protect exposed arms, face and other parts.

Is it the sunscreen causing the cancer or is it the combination of sunscreen and sun on your skin that does the damage? No one has the answer, yet. But, there is some doubt that sunscreens are as safe as they might be.

What to do? Until we get more research details, there is no definitive answer, just a niggling little doubt. My view, for what it's worth? Get your daily ten minutes unprotected sun to maximise your vitamin D, then cover up and don't get burned. Use sunscreens on exposed skin if you must, but not to excess, and be careful. And, very importantly, see your doctor if in any doubt about skin damage, moles etc.

I've written some more about this very subject in my latest newsletter. Sign up for it FR EE on my site http://healthexplored.co.uk , where you'll also find a range of health publications.

2006-05-03T07:44:00.000-07:00

Over the most of the time I have been involved in the pharmacy business I've probably been too busy trying to earn a living to worry too much about the drugs I sold over-the-counter or supplied on prescription to my many patients. It's only in the past six or seven years that I had the inclination to consider how things have changed.

I was a child about the time when penicillin became available, and was truly grateful for its actions. It probably kept me alive then, when my health was none too good.

The intervening years were highlighted by various breakthroughs in drug design and treatments. I along with many others were dazzled by the science and the apparent advantages to mankind.

But now, the drug world is dominated by a few multi-national drug giants, making vast annual profits and which now wield enormous political power. And now, we can all see some of the disadvantages of having all that power in relatively few hands.

Companies have been accused of suppressing clinical trials results that didn't suit their purposes. The company that marketed the anti-arthritis drug, Vioxx, is fighting for its life in the US courts in the face of thousands of lawsuits. This follows the revelation that Vioxx can increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

One observer has calculated that if the company loses half of these cases, it will go bankrupt. I have no idea of this is true, and we'll have to wait and see.

But I've just read of another problem for the same company. This time, its osteoporosis drug is sited as causing unexpected side effects, and the company finds itself in court again.

All of this is on top of the publicity caused after six youg men in the UK reacted badly to a single dose of a trial drug.

Meanwhile, there are websites out there which reveal the many drawbacks of conventional drug therapy.

I have come to understand that complementary and alternative therapies have a lot to offer, and it's tempting in the light of all the negative publicity to close your eyes to conventional drug treatments altogether.

But, I rekon that all it takes is some calm perspective. The health picture is complex and personal. Take on overview of what's on offer, and cherry-pick what suits your needs.

In order to do that you owe it to yourself to find out what the various therapies have to offer. A little knowledge need not be a dangerous thing at all. It brings lots of things into focus and clears the path.

The last few years have been something of a revelation to me. I thought alternative therapies were a bit "way out" for me. But, no more! In many cases, their logic and accomplishments can equal or even surpass convention.

The bottom line is that all therapies have something to offer; something to contribute to your health picture. Don't be left out. Check out our booklet and report selection at www.healthexplored.co.uk

Your Health Diary

2006-04-24T01:42:00.000-07:00

You've probably heard that someone becomes ill through a combination of factors - genes, environment, lifestyle, for instance. Science and medicine hasn't yet reached the stage of being able to alter your genes for you. Although who knows how long that particular nighmare scenario might take to happen.

And changing your environment, while it's possible, isn't always practical. You could change your job, but that's easier said than done. You might move to a different neighbourhood or even a different country, but that takes money and willpower. Leaving your accustomed surroundings, your friends and neighbours, your parents and family ... it's very difficult and heartwrenching. It can be done if you want to and have the means.

Lifestyle, however, can be changed relatively easily. A lot of todays illnesses and diseases seem to have evolved from poor dietary choices and lack of exercise. Type-2 diabetes, ADHD, cholesterol, Alzheimer's and so on have become much more prevalent over the past thirty years. Delve into the research on these and other diseases and a pattern emerges.

As I've already said, there may be a genetic link, but added to that is usually dietary or lifestyle factors. When added together, the genes and lifestyle, the result is more people suffering the consequences in poor health and constant drug taking.

What to do?

Keep a diary.

I don't mean the "Got up, got dressed", type of diary. No. Get yourself a notebook or pad of paper, put today's date at the top and write down what you eat, when and how much. Then add your exercise for the day - how long and what type.

If you can keep this up for four weeks, what you'll have is a useful record of your current lifestyle that you can use to plan changes for the better.

For instance, eating a Mars Bar every lunchtime should let you see that maybe, you are indulging you sweet tooth a little to frequently. Or having breakfast at 11.30 in the morning and dinner at 10.30 in the evening might give a clue as to why you can't lose weight. No entries for exercise actually done won't help insomnia. Breakfasting on the previous evening's left-over Chinese meal may be economic sense but that's all.

The "diary" is all it takes to highlight inconsisitencies in your diet and exercise regime. And, it's a great starting point for getting your lifestyle changed to a healthier version.

You don't need to make sweeping changes all at once. Take small steps regularly and you'll get there. And as you go along, your health will surely improve. You will feel better and happier.

For more health publications - special reports, booklets and a FREE newsletter, take a look at www.healthexplored.co.uk

Wishing you the best of health,

James.

The first of many?

2006-04-17T06:39:00.000-07:00

A working lifetime in pharmacy has probably made me a little cynical about drugs and medicines. I know they do a lot of good for many people and save a lot of lives, but I just have this feeling that they have a darker side. I see and hear too many reports of how the latest super-drug will cure some disease, but there is rarely a list of the side effects and limitations to use. I want to know what could happen if I take a drug for months or years, and maybe you should know as well.

The drug companies don't want you to know too much in case it affects their profit margins. Many doctors are aware of possible problems but just don't have the time or inclination to explain it all to you. And for too long now we all have been a little too trusting that what the doctor says is what we do - no questions asked.

Before thing go too far, it's time to raise your hands and ask for some time and space to find out for yourself before you go blindly on, swallowing medicines every day and hoping for the best.

You won't need to do the research for yourself. I can do it for you. Why not go on over to my site at www.healthexplored.co.uk and take a look at some of the booklets and reports there? They are available as print versions or e-books that you will get almost instantly.

As well as that, I want to post articles here on a regular basis that you might be interested in. I welcome any subject suggestions that I could write about in the future and that might help others too.

And if you disagree with me, let me know. No one is correct all the time, and much of health is a matter of opinion. Treatment can be as diverse as the number of individuals on the earth. Each of us is unique, and what helps you may not help me, but will help someone else.

Get the info and decide for yourself.

Wishing you the best of health.

James.