Sacramento NANP Presentation in PDF format
Day one of my multi-city tour is over and I would like to thank my hosts from the NANP (National Association of Nutritional Professionals) especially Trudy Scott, Certified Nutritionist. As promised, here is my PowerPoint Presentation for all of you to read and enjoy.
I lecture quite often but the next three weeks are going to be busy. My tour starts this Wednesday in Rancho Cordova, California near Sacramento and I will be talking about environmental toxicity testing as well as how it affect obesity. From there I head to Boulder on Saturday and Denver on Sunday to start my 6 city tour with Clinical Nutritionist and Author Robert Crayhon.
My talks there and in Stamford, CT (November 3rd), Boston, MA (November 4th) , Bethesda, MD (November 10th) and the LaGuardia Marriott in NYC (November 11th) will all be about the subject of laboratory testing. Even though I do these talks all over, none of my material will be a re-hash of old stuff. All of it will be fresh with some interesting insights into why not to do genetic testing as well as information about a host of disorders and disease and what testing would be most beneficial.
In America, thousands of men get prostate biopsies after getting a PSA (prostate specfic antigen) test that registers over 4.0. Problem is, 80% of the biopsies show no cancer which is means that the test was highly non-specific, which quite high for any type of procedure. Because this is an invasive procedure, having an 80% failure rate is unacceptable. There is an alternative.
If your PSA is between 4-10, and you are over the age of 40 a free-PSA is the next step and should become the standard of care. If you are under 40 and your PSA is over 2, all bets are off and there may be a need for a biopsy. PSA comes in two types, one is bound to proteins, the other is free.
The higher the percentage of free-PSA, the lower the likelihood that there is prostate cancer present. If the free-PSA is under 10%, then there is a high likelihood of cancer. If it is over 25%, there is a 5% chance that it is cancer if you are between 40-64 and 9% if you are between 65-75.
If your doctor insists on doing a biopsy before doing a free-PSA and you fit in the categories above, find another doctor.
Urine organic acid testing is an easy way of finding out how to achieve optimal health and to help ascertain what nutrients your body needs. Being healthy is not simply being “free of disease”, it is feeling vibrant, full of energy and having optimal brain function. Today’s medical world is so focused on disease and treating symptoms, we forget about feeling good.
Drugs, which in some cases are life giving, are mainly focused on covering up symptoms caused by diseases. Optimal nutrition is where you go for real health and the prevention of disease. My past 23 years of research has been on the use of laboratory testing to biochemically individualize nutritional supplementation and take it out of the world of guesswork.
Urine organic acid testing is a great way to go for many people as the test can be done through the comfort of your home and the results with proper interpretation, can make a world of difference in how you and your family feels. Health Director is the home of the best interpretation of these and many other functional laboratory tests. Tomorrow, I will be posting some sample reports for you to look at and then you can decide if this type of testing is right for you.
Data on the negative effects of the common plasticizer phthalates keeps on coming. Last month, it was the relationship between phthalates, insulin-resistance and male waist circumference and this month it is the effect of this toxin on thyroid function in men. The journal Environmental Health Perspectives has published numerous articles on the subject but the last two issues seem to really bring home the fact that we need to look at phthalates more closely and avoid exposure as much as possible.
The June 2007 article, authored by Stahlhut, et al, shows a link between levels of urinary excretion of phthalates and insulin resistance as well as obesity in males. The gist of the article found here, is that phthalates may be anti-androgenic, meaning it blocks the production of testosterone. We know that by depressing testosterone you see an increase in cholesterol and a decrease in the ability to regulate blood sugar.
This month, researchers Meeker, Calafat and Hauser report on a study they did which looked at 408 men and measured their urine output of two forms of phthalates. There conclusion was that there may be an association between phthalate concentrations and altered free T4 and/or total T3 levels. This is the first time that human studies were conducted on this relationship and it seems to back up the limited animal research that showed this same correlation.
To find out where your levels are, have your doctor call Lab Interpretation LLC at 775-851-3336 and ask about the Environmental Pollutants Panel and you can check not only your phthalate level, but a number of other petrochemical solvents (benzene, toluene, xylene, parabens, trimethylbenzene and styrene), Phthalates are commonly found in drinking water as well as cosmetics, shampoos, perfumes and other skin and hair care products. Go to the Environmental Working Groups website (click the link) and go to their Skin Deep database. There you will find out where your exposures may be from.
In a study published in the June 2007 issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, authors Stahlhut et al, report that they have found that “phthalate (a plasticizer) metabolites showed statistically significant correlations with abdominal obesity and insulin resistance.” The correlations were found in a cross-section of US males. The mechanism they believe is the way that this man-made chemical can reduce androgen (e.g. testosterone) production and/or function. In a number of human studies, men who have had androgen deprivation therapy have shown increases in serum glucose, total fat and have shown the propensity to have a greater chance of having metabolic syndrome.
The study, available from the EHP journal free of charge, has major implications. As some of you may know from my lectures around the world and some of my blogs here, I have always asserted that there is a link between toxicity and obesity. Here is yet another powerful study that shows yet another reason why we need to keep on our toes and make sure that our bodies are able to detoxify efficiently. It also leads to the answer to the proverbial chicken vs egg question, but here it is which came first, obesity (fat is a gerat storage place for toxins) or toxicity. I firmly believe, toxicity is one of the causative factors of the obesity epidemic. My suspicion is that these toxins cause people (even young children) to crave, then eat to excess, sugars and fats to deal with their increasing insulin resistance issues.
Testing for two urinary metabolites of phthalates is easy and inexpensive. Have your physician contact Lab Interpretation LLC and ask for the Environmental Pollutants Biomarker test from US Biotek. Not only does it measure urinary output of phthalates and monoethyl phthalates, it looks at metabolites of xylene, toluene, benzene, trimethylbenzene, styrene and parabens. Since almost every human on earth now has detectable levels of a number of toxins flowing through their body, it is imperative that we measure whether we excrete the toxins effectively.
In today’s toxic world, you need to know your enemy so you can effectively deal with it and find the sources of exposure.
In the May 2007 issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition an interesting series of comments can be found in the letters to the editor. John Hathcock, an employee of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a dietary supplement advocacy group, questioned a study published in the same journal last year that doubted that antioxidants and vitamin/mineral supplementation was beneficial in the prevention of cancer or cardiovascular disease. He made some compelling arguments against the use of meta-analysis (a statistical method) when reviewing the benefits or lack there of, of supplements. First off, he points out that they included only a small number of clinical trials which is a problem using a meta-analysis. Others argue that all we really need is the RDA to avoid disease but he points out that the prevention of neural tube defects through the use of supplemented folic acid is not a sign of deficiency but a need for extra supplementation.
Donald McCormick of Emory University and Joachim Bleys, et al of Johns Hopkins Medical Institution argue in their correspondence that indeed their findings do show no benefit to the use of antioxidants or B-vitamins. While Hathcock says that the famous Women’s Health Study showed a benefit to the use of vitamin E in reducing cardiovascular death, McCormick and Bleys quote the study conclusion that states “These data do not support recommending vitamin E supplementation for cardiovascular disease or cancer prevention among healthy women.” Both are correct but the later is misleading.
First off, the studies were done on a form of vitamin E known as alpha-tocopherol which is not the optimal type. Gamma-tocopherol should make up at least 40% of the vitamin E used for many reasons (to be discussed at a later date). Secondly, the study showed benefits to unhealthy women but the conclusion states that they can’t recommend vitamin E use to “healthy” women. That is a blatant misleading conclusion and is easily misconstrued to show no benefit to anyone.
My real problem with both sides of the controversy is the use of large population studies to support or deny the benefits of supplementation. It is preposterous to suggest that these studies are beneficial in any way, shape or form when you looking at the concept of biochemical individuality. You are different from me, and what would benefit me, may either have no effect on you or may actually harm you. Are all supplements beneficial? Depends. To some people, some nutrients may be harmful or wasteful. To others, it can be life saving or dramatically life enhancing. What you need to do is to laboratory testing to determine what you really need.
In my 20+ years of reviewing lab test data, I have yet to see two sets of results that are the same. Fifty thousand tests in the bag and still no two people who are alike. I have seen people who have taken too many supplements, the wrong array and many who don’t have adequate intake of essential nutrients to stay healthy. If we can only get researchers to adopt a new paridigm and look at individuals instead of populations, we might, just might get better health care and a real improvement in the quality of our lives.
In research done by Professor Peter Piper at Sheffield University, the common preservative, Sodium Benzoate, may wreck havoc on your DNA. In an interview with the British newspaper The Independent, Dr. Piper tested the effect of the preservative found in most soft drinks on the DNA of yeast. What he found shocked him. “These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether.The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it – as happens in a number if diseased states – then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA – Parkinson’s and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing.”
While the food industry will undoubtedly come out and tell you that sodium benzoate is safe and has been tested for years, what they won’t tell you is that they have not tested any of these additives when it comes to their affect on DNA. This type of testing is available using microarray technology but I can guarantee unless they are forced to do so via pressure from the government, it won’t be done.
So what’s a person to do? First you can test your levels of benzoic acid through a urine organic acid test available from US Biotek or Metametrix (make sure they have benzoate as not all their panels contain it). You will need a doctor’s signature for that but if they are unwilling, you can buy the test from Direct Lab Services and their physician will sing the form for you. Don’t forget to ask for the Bio-Clarity Report in order to get a more complete picture of your test results.
One thing you can do safely is to take one gram of the amino acid glycine twice a day (unless you have Parkinson’s disease). That will bind up the glycine, create hippuric acid which then gets urinated out.
In a past blog I mention that giving a developing fetus the best opportunity for a healthy life started with the parents making sure that they were as environmentally healthy as possible. In lectures I have given around the world, there is one test I adamantly propose as a must for both men and women who are contemplating having children and that is the Environmental Pollutants panel from US Biotek in Seattle, Washington.
This test looks at excretion levels of the following chemicals, some of which are carcinogenic and can disrupt hormonal levels in the developing child. These chemicals include benzene, trimethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, xylene, parabens and phthalates. The last one, phthalates, has been shown to affect male children especially, making them more feminine structurally as well as shortening pregnancy by up to two weeks which has been shown to have a negative long-term health effect on children.
My friend James Larsen sent me a article from the HealthDay website which reports that where you live may have an impact on the chance of having a heart attack. Coming from the February 16th, 2007 issue of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, researchers looking at the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found that living in West Virginia had a three-fold higher rate of heart attacks than living in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Other findings included:
While not earth shattering news, hopefully this data will help public health officials focus on heart health issues in those states with the highest incidence. Another real good idea to lower someones risk is to get checked out by you physician or if you are up to it, get a cardiovascular risk assessment done through Direct Lab Services. Ask them for the LabAssist Interpretive report as well to get the most information possible. Bottom line though, take an active role in your health and you’ll live a happier and healthier life.