Hello readers! Yes, I’m back and excited to share news of more guest posts with you. I have been busy working on finding bloggers out there that have valuable and credible information to share with my readers.  This is an article I hope will benefit everyone curious about consuming multi-vitamins. I know I’ve been contemplating whether I need them.

By: Dr. Mercola

About half the country takes nutritional supplements, and I suspect the percentage is considerably higher for readers of this newsletter. Supplements can compensate for some of the damage we do to ourselves. However, my experience is that many people, if not most, take supplements to justify their poor food choices. This makes as much sense as building a boat with rotten wood and using the best screws in the world to fasten them together. The boat may hold together, but it will leak everywhere. The boards in the boat are like the macronutrients in our body – the protein, carbohydrates and fats that we consume. If we make poor choices there, the screws — the vitamin supplements — we use are irrelevant.

Most vitamins serve as catalysts for reactions to occur in our body. While we need catalysts, it is more important to obtain good fuel for the reactions to properly occur. Also, a funny thing happens when you start out with good fuel (raw organic food): it has most of the vitamins and minerals you need packed right inside and at no extra charge. Amazing.

Most of the new patients I see are spending more than $100 a month on supplements, with some significantly higher than that. But supplements will not compensate for improper eating. Use the right food as your supplement and you will be much healthier.

That said, there are certain clinical conditions that do warrant the use of nutrients and supplements as drug alternatives, and I use this approach frequently. My key, though, is to minimize the long-term use of supplements. And I really don’t think healthy patients should be on more than five supplements a day.

On supplement I do advise for most new patients is probiotics, to optimize their gut flora. While most people seem to benefit from this periodically, I generally don’t believe it is necessary to remain on it indefinitely.

Another supplement that is near critical for some patients, particularly those who avoid eating animal protein, is vitamin B12. I don’t advocate avoiding all meat, but it is, nevertheless, a common approach among patients. The human body is quite forgiving and can tolerate the associated abuse – highly insufficient B12 intake — for about 7 years, as it utilized the liver reserves of B12. But after those 7 years, the B12 deficiency frequently causes irreversible brain damage.

People sometimes ask me if they should consume natural sugars or substitute for artificial sweeteners when dieting. So I found the following article to address the concern.

Original Source: Nutrition Data Blog

Do artificial sweeteners lead to weight gain? A lot of people rushed to judgment against artificial sweeteners based on preliminary evidence that they might increase appetite or sugar cravings, or even cause elevated blood sugar levels. But the ensuing research has failed to deliver a definitive indictment.

Although there seems to be a correlation between diet soda consumption and weight gain, it is hard to say whether this is a biochemical effect. It could just be that people prone to weight gain are more likely to choose sugar-free foods in an (apparently ineffective) attempt to stem the tide.

I’ve also always suspected a behavioral component. Maybe people unconsciously over-compensate for the calories they save with the diet soda. (”I’m having a diet soda so maybe I can afford to have dessert.”)

Last summer, a large study found that artificially-sweetened foods appeared to be helpful for weight loss. But artificial sweeteners were just one of many tools that the successful dieters used to manage their calorie intake. What the study really shows is that those who employ the most weight management strategies are the most successful.  In other words, for those who are not fully committed to dietary restraint across the board, artificially-sweetened foods probably don’t lead to weight loss.

Meanwhile, other researchers have been trying to pin down the biochemical aspects. For example, studies in rodents showed that sucralose (Splenda) speeds the uptake of glucose eaten at the same meal–leading to a sharper rise in blood sugar. That’s not good.  At the same time, this rise in blood sugar also appeared to trigger release of a hormone that signals fullness.  That could be helpful.

Whether the upshot of all that ends up being positive or negative for weight loss turns out to be moot. The latest study indicates that sucralose doesn’t seem to have the same effect on blood sugar uptake or appetite-regulating hormones in humans as it does in mice.

Clearly, we don’t have the final answer on how artificial sweeteners might support or sabotage weight loss. According to the research, artificially sweetened foods appear to be a helpful tool for some; less so for others. But I think the effects (both biochemical and psychological) vary greatly from individual to individual.

Ultimately, however, my bias towards less-processed foods makes me suspect that we’d really be better off without them.

I’m not sure if this is an achievement, but at least rates are stabilizing. Now we need to see these rates decline, which may be realistic as more Americans are becoming health conscious and  obesity-prevention initiatives are being funded…thank you Michelle Obama.

Original Post

(source: USA Today)

•32.2% of men are obese, up from 27% in 1999, but it has been at the current level since 2003.

•35.5% of women are obese compared with 33.4% in 1999, a slight increase that is not statistically significant.

•Overall, about 31.7% of kids are obese or overweight, compared with 29% in 1999, also not a statistically significant difference.

I found the idea of “medical homes,” in Canada, to be a very interesting strategy for providing health care.

Original Post

(source: New England Journal of Medicine)

As the United States debates health care reform, the concept of “patient-centered medical homes” is receiving increasing attention.1 Many experts believe that medical homes with multidisciplinary teams and financial incentives
for providing comprehensive care will lead to improvements in health, increase efficiency, and reduce costs of care while making practice more attractive for primary care physicians. Lessons regarding the implementation of medical homes and their ability to accomplish these goals can be gleaned from Ontario’s experience with Family Health
Teams (FHTs).

Original Article

(source: NY Times)

With AIDS, malaria and other diseases costing millions of lives every year, worrying about the vision of people in the developing world may seem like an indulgence.

But for the world’s poor, eyeglasses are probably one of the most valuable investments around. Anywhere from hundreds of millions to a couple of billion people do not have the corrective lenses that would allow them to lead better, more productive lives. Tackling vision problems early, moreover, can help prevent later blindness. A study published in a World Health Organization journal in June estimated that certain types of vision impairment resulted in lost output of $269 billion a year.