The Blueprint Fitness Blog

If, like me, you don’t keep bread in your house, then I have some bad news. You and I may be suffering from a mental disorder, called orthorexia. That’s at least accordingly to a piece of journalism that appeared in the Observer recently. The article talks of a new medical diagnosis called orthorexia and how only eating ‘good’ foods can mean you end up malnourished.

While I don’t doubt that some individuals really do take their dietary needs and search for uniqueness too far (7-stone vegans, I’m looking in your direction), the paper seems intent on labelling anyone who is selective in their food as someone suffering from a medical problem. Don’t drink the milk of another species? You’re orthorexic. Prefer to avoid synthetic colourants and chemical? Another sign of orthorexia. Don’t eat wheat? You’re a confirmed orthorexic. At least according to Amelia Hill, the journalist who put together the article, who says that “refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions”. She did not comment on whether she considers our pre-agricultural ancestors orthorexic.

The term orthorexia was first coined in 1997 to describe disturbed individuals whose fixation with what they perceive as healthy eating restricts their diet in a way that harms their health. Dr Steven Bratman, who invented the term, speaks of individuals who only eat raw food, exclude all fats or only eat yellow food. To try and stretch this term to include those that choose a good quality chicken salad over low-fat cereal bars and a vodka seems a little contrived.

I can’t help but detect the scent of Big Food politics. That, mixed in with the journalistic need to misinform. The more you read articles like this, the more complicated the message becomes. It seems the Observer can’t decide what healthy eating is or even what orthorexia is; they are reduced into offering token quotes from so-called experts who also can’t decide what healthing eating is or even what orthorexia is. However, they stay true to the basic message: just be ‘normal’ and eat junk food.

Here’s a my summary: if you eat a nutrient-rich diet that reflects both your evolutionary needs, enjoy the odd deviation and generally feel really good, you are not suffering from any disease. If you are surviving on a diet of just sprouts, eat no protein, feel wheezy at the site of barbequed meat and are constantly at doctors complaining of your latest ailment, maybe you should reconsider your approach.

Original article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/16/orthorexia-mental-health-eating-disorder

The end of breast cancer is within sight, at least according to some of the headlines that have shot to prominence this week. The stories follow the conclusion of a the study examining two groups of mice that were genetically bred to be at high risk of developing breast cancer. Six were given an experimental vaccine that targeted alpha-lactalbumin, a protein often found in tumours, while the other six were not; after 10 months, all of the control group had developed cancer whilst those that received the vaccine were clear. As study outcomes go, it is very promising.

However, the industry-friendly headlines did not seem keen to ask whether this vaccine was simply delaying the development of tumours instead of actually inhibiting it, and none considered how an experiment that achieved a result with six rats might relate to the human population. On a more negative level, the Scott Reuben scandal taught us a lot about the value of medical science.

Meanwhile, the prevention of cancer through natural approaches remains sidelined. The powerful effects of Vitamin D in cancer prevention are not just ignored but often suppressed by the mainstream institutions. The big cancer charities rarely deviate from their position on avoidance of the sun, use of carcinogenic sunscreens and all-out opposition of any nutritional strategy. Sensational headlines reporting countless breakthrough studies has been the modus operandi for the last four decades; but there is close to zero progress to show for this. Despite billions spent in corporate research, the results pail in comparison to the natural methods used by doctors like Gonzalez, Burzynski and Burton.

The Cleveland Clinic, which was involved in the the Vioxx scandal of 2005, accepts that many of the doctors that conduct research there also consult privately for drug companies. A list of sponsors for the Cleveland Clinic’s upcoming Medical Innovation Summit reads like a who’s who of the pharmaceutical industry, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer. While there is no suggestion that a conflict of interest occurred in the headline-grabbing research, history tells us that the pull of the pharmaceutical dollar is often the biggest factor in study outcomes.

Reference:
“An autoimmune-mediated strategy for prophylactic breast cancer vaccination.” Ritika Jaini, Pavani Kesaraju, Justin M Johnson, Cengiz Z Altuntas, Daniel Jane-wit & Vincent K Tuohy. Nature Medicine, Published online: 30 May 2010.

We hear a lot about our food choices and how they affect our health. What we don’t hear so much of is how our food choices are being restricted by unelected public health officials who prioritise commercial interests above the health of individuals.

In recent weeks, arguments surrounding the availabilty of raw milk in the USA have continued to rage, with the draconian Food and Drug Administration continuing it’s attempts to restrict consumer’s access to this particular food. Specifically, The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defence Fund (FTCLDF) an organisation set up ‘to defend the rights and broaden the freedoms of family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods’, have recently issued a legal challenge to the FDA on the basis of it’s ban on the interstate sale of raw milk. An episode such as this, which pits the corporation-friendly FDA against organisations that promote healthy foods, is hardly new. What has made waves is the revelation of the FDA’s policy on food freedom that has come as a result.

The lawsuit filed by the FRCLDF highlighted two key phrases in the FDA dictat: “There is no ‘deep rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds” [p26]… “Plantiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p.26].

In black and white, the FDA have actually aired the views that they have been suspected of holding for a long time: you do not have the right to eat what you want, you only have the right to eat what they want you to eat. And the FDA policies, influenced only by corporate profit rather than consumer health, are a sure-fire way of ending up as fat and unhealthy as the people who work there.

Do we have a fundamental right to our own bodily and physical health? Not according to the FDA, who say that this assertion is ‘unavailing’. Put another way, the state reserves the right to ban any food, herb or nutrient that interferes with the interests of big business; raw milk being just the latest example. It seems the one thing they cannot tolerate is free people buying, selling and consuming on the free market, especially if it improves their health.

The sale of raw milk in the USA is allowed in some states but banned in many others. Lots of health-conscious US consumers get round the law by buying to cow-share clubs, although the FDA is openly attempting to destroy these organisations. In the United Kingdom, the sale of any raw milk has already been banned. Without a hint of irony, authorities on both sides of the pond still maintain the crackdown is based on ‘consumer safety’ (despite their official line, a Weston A Price Foundation report found that, between 1980 and 2005, pasteurized milk was ten times more likely than raw milk to cause illness).

Raw milk does contain unnatured proteins, enzymes and beneficial bacteria. Pasteurisation destroys these things. Whilst raw milk would not necessarily feature in the diet plans that I create – there remains both good point and bad points about raw milk, and I prefer to use kefir-fermented coconut milk – it is undoubtedly a nutrient-dense food with the ability to improve health in a great many people. However, it seems the FDA, and the powers that line the pockets of those that work there, will do anything they can to stop you from consuming it.

If you wanted to make some chicken wings, what would your recipe look like? I’m thinking chicken would be the main ingredient, followed by salt, pepper, and maybe some paprika, or jamaican jerk. Clearly, the ‘chefs’ at KFC have other ideas…

Mike Adams at NaturalNews recently exposed the ingredients that go into a KFC Boneless Wing. They are: Wing Shaped White Chicken Fritter Pieces, Seasoning (Salt, Monosodium Glutamate, Garlic Powder, Spice Extractives, and Onion Powder), Soy Protein Concentrate, Rice Starch, Sodium Phosphates. Battered With: Water, Wheat Flour, Leavening (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Salt, Dextrose, and Monosodium Glutamate. Breaded With: Wheat Flour, Salt, Soy Flour, Leavening (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate and Sodium Bicarbonate), Monosodium Glutamate, Nonfat Dry Milk, Dextrose, Extractives of Tumeric and Extractives of Annatto. Predusted With: Wheat Flour, Wheat Gluten, Salt, Dried Egg Whites, Leavening (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, and Sodium Bicarbonate), Monosodium Glutamate and Spice, Breading set in Vegetable Oil.

He also shows that the KFC menu in general is loaded with:

• Partially hydrogenated soybean oil (contains trans fats)
• High-Fructose Corn Syrup (linked to diabetes)
• Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) (linked to cancer)
• Titanium Dioxide (used in sunscreen)
• Yellow #5 (chemical coloring)
• Propylene Glycol (used as antifreeze in RVs)
• Rendered Beef Fat (gross)
• Red #40 (another chemical coloring)
• Sodium nitrite (linked to pancreatic cancer)
• Soy Protein Concentrate (may be processed with hexane)
• Sugar (refined)
• Sodium Benzoate (chemical preservative)
• Hydrolyzed Corn, Soy and Wheat Protein (may contain hidden MSG)
• Beef Extract (eww)
• Corn Syrup Solids (more processed sugars)
• Liquid Margarine
• Sodium Caseinate
• Autolyzed Yeast Extract (another hidden source of MSG)

Nothing like a bit of good ol’ fashioned chicken, eh?

If you or I were to formulate a new drug for heart disease, it may seem obvious to compare its effectiveness to compounds that already exist for the condition before making outlandish claims for its unparalleled potency. A natural substance that has been used for many centuries by a variety of civilisations would make an ideal candidate for comparison. However, making a direct comparison like this is the last thing Big Pharma ever want to do, and executives spend their time and influence ensuring that the only trials ever conducted pit their new product against other useless drugs or, if they cannot stop a trial involving a natural compound, ensure that the nutrient or herb in question is used at tiny doses that cannot show a positive effect. This has been the de facto method for testing ‘effectiveness’ for decades.

However, some trials still slip through the net. And that’s exactly what happened recently, when The New England Journal of Medicine published a study that compared a genuine therapeutic dose of Niacin against a celebrated statin drug, ezitimibe (trade name Zetia) in 363 individuals. And after 14 months of double-blind study, what was the verdict? Niacin trounced the Merck drug. In fact, the trial was stopped early; the enormous gulf in effectiveness between the two compounds meant that continuing the trial would have been ‘unethical’.

Patients who took 2000mg/day of Niacin (vitamin B3) showed a ’significant shrinkage’ of arterial wall thickness. Their HDL (good cholesterol) was increased and their LDL (bad cholesterol) was reduced. Patients who took Zetia did not receive these benefits, and were five times more likely to suffer a heart attack over the course of the study than their Niacin-supplemented counterparts.

At around £3 per pill, Zetia is around 5000% more expensive than Niacin. It is associated with a host of side effects, from liver damage to muscular weakness. And now a study proves that, despite the added cost and damaging effects on health, it hasn’t got a patch on the B vitamin.

Of course, this is not new knowledge. Natural practitioners have long observed the long list of complaints experienced by many statin users and are well aware that no long-term studies on humans exist, even to this day. The only trial we have in regards to the long-term effect of statins are currently being observed in the human race and, as it stands, the results are not looking good.

Not that this will cause any pharmaceutical executives to change their perspective. Business as usual for them means using their influence of the mainstream media to suppress unfavourable trial data, driving our their lobbyist army to ensure control of the FDA and continuing to manipulate the prescribing habits of doctors through any means necessarily (which, according to this recent study, doesn’t actually take too much effort).

Clearly the drug companies would rather keep the results of this research out of the public eye. But will the regulators take note of this research? Will the General Medical Council accept that statin therapy is, rather than necessary, at best ineffective and more likely dangerous? Will a newspaper report this news? Probably not. If previous form is anything to go by, the establishment will have mentally buried this study faster than you can wave a Big Pharma chequebook.

References:
Taylor AJ et al (2009). Extended-Release Niacin or Ezetimibe and Carotid Intima-Media Thickness. New England Journal of Medicine, 361:2113-2122.