David Bunnell

Test Yourself for Age-Related Macular Degeneration

AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION (AMD) strikes at the macula, the heart of the eye’s vision center. This small part of the retina, which measures only about 3 by 5 millimeters (less than one-quarter-inch square), is responsible for sharp, central vision. People with AMD often develop blurred or distorted vision and cannot clearly see objects directly in front of them.

Eventually they may develop a blind spot in the middle of their field of vision that increases in size as the disease progresses.

Although the disorder eventually can become debilitating, in the earliest stages of AMD there often are no warning symptoms. If the condition progresses to intermediate AMD, some people begin to notice blurring in the center of their vision.

At the advanced stage, the blurred area increases, making it hard to read or even recognize people. About eight million Americans have early or intermediate AMD, and more than two million people ages 50 and older have an advanced form that is characterized by severe vision problems.

How To Test Yourself With the Amsler Grid

An Amsler grid test (above..click to enlarge) can help to identify the distorted vision typical of AMD.  This test is by no means a replacement for having your eyes examined by and Ophthalmologist or Optometrist.

If you need reading glasses, please wear them while you use the Amsler grid. The grid should be at about the same distance from your eyes that any other reading material would be.

Cover one eye, then focus on the dot in the center.

• Do any of the lines look wavy, blurred or distorted? (All lines should be straight, all intersections should form right angles and all squares should be the same size.)
• Are there any missing areas or dark areas in the grid?
• Can you see all corners and sides of the grid?
• Don't forget to test both eyes.

Report any irregularity to your eye doctor immediately. 

Treating AMD

Currently, the only treatment for dry AMD is vitamin supplementation combined with a well-balanced diet that includes leafy green vegetables and several servings of fish per week. However, success in the treatment of wet AMD has led to increased efforts in the prevention and treatment of dry AMD. Several innovative approaches are being evaluated, and while the results won’t be available for several years, there is hope for the future. You can search online for a listing of clinical trials evaluating such treatments at www. clinicaltrials.gov, or ask your doctor.

The federally funded Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) found that high doses of particular supplements can slow (and sometimes even prevent) progression from intermediate to advanced AMD, thereby preserving vision in many people. A follow-up study, AREDS2, will determine whether adding additional supplements—lutein and zeaxanthin (found naturally in plants) and the omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA (found in fatty fish)—will further slow the progression to advanced AMD.

Editor's note: Information in this article was based on "The Aging Eye: Preventing and treating eye disease," a Harvard Medical School Special Health Report.

Go Ahead Eat ALL the FISH You WANT!

Toenail Study Finds No Heart Risk from Mercury in Fish

Thousands of people who donated their toenail clippings for science may have helped resolve the vexing question of whether the heart-health advantages of eating fish outweigh the risks of mercury in fish. Harvard scientists analyzing mercury in toenails - a more accurate measure of long-term exposure than blood testing - report no link between even the highest levels of mercury and increased risk of heart disease or stroke. In fact, they found a slight protective association, probably because of other nutritional benefits of fish, even varieties higher in mercury such as shark and swordfish. Researchers identified 3,500 participants (from among 170,000 in two large studies of health professionals) who had suffered strokes or developed heart disease over an average 11 years. They then compared those participants' mercury levels with an equal number of people who didn't develop heart disease or suffer strokes. Scientists cautioned that pregnant and nursing women and children should still exercise caution about exposure to mercury from fish, but everyone else can eat fish worry-free. - New England Journal of Medicine

Seth Godin: Eight Lessons from the life and work of Jack LaLanne

1. He bootstrapped himself. A scrawny little kid at 15, he decided to change who he was and how he was perceived, and then he did. The deciding was as important as the doing.

2. He went to the edges. He didn't merely open a small gym, a more pleasant version of a boxing gym, for instance. Instead, he created the entire idea of a health club, including the juice bar. He did this 70 years ago.

3. He started small. No venture money, no big media partners.

4. He understood the power of the media. If it weren't for TV, we never would have heard of Jack. Jack used access to the media to earn trust and to teach. And most of what Jack had to offer he offered for free. He understood the value of attention.

5. He was willing to avoid prime time. Jack never had a variety show on CBS. He was able to change the culture from the fringes of TV.

6. He owned the rights. 3,000 shows worth.

7. He stuck with the brand. He didn't worry about it getting stale or having to reinvent it into something fresh. Jack stood for something, which is rare, and he was smart enough to keep standing for it.

8. Jack lived the story. He followed his own regimen, even when no one was watching. In his words, “I can’t die, it would ruin my image.”

He died last week at 96. I don't think he has to worry about ruining his image, though.

editor's note: orginally published in Seth Godin's Blog

Jack LaLanne and his HOT Red Corvette

When I interviewed Jack LaLanne he had just bought a Red Corvette. He told me "this baby will top 140, easy!" Jack was 92 at the time. To read my interview with Jack and his wife, Elaine, click here.

My Interview with Jack LaLanne and His Wife Elaine

I interviewed Jack LaLanne and his beautiful wife, Elaine, in February, 2007, for an article in ELDR magazine. Jack was then 92 and Elaine 81. In honor of Jack LaLanne, who died at his home on Sunday at age 96, I am republishing my interview. To me, Jack was one a truly great American and I'm am honored to have known him.

Meet Fitness Legends Jack and Elaine LaLanne

Elaine and Jack recently appeared in Times Square to celebrate Jack’s 92nd birthday. They were set up for three hours outside ABC’s studio under the giant Jumbotron, which was airing their juicer infomercial. People enjoyed samples of juices which were made with Jack LaLanne’s Power Juicer. The LaLannes also gave away books and signed autographs as people lined up for blocks waiting for a chance to see them.

For 34 years, Jack and Elaine appeared five days a week on The Jack LaLanne Show, where they convinced millions of people to join the fitness craze by exercising and eating a healthy diet based on fresh fruits and vegetables. In 1936, Jack opened America’s first health club in Oakland, California, called the “Jack LaLanne Physical Culture Studio.”

Over the years, he invented many of the exercise machines that are common in today’s clubs, including the leg extension machine and the machines using cables. Through television shows, public appearances, and books—and by selling health-related products—they have been the most vocal and effective evangelists for preventive health the world has ever known.

There is little doubt that obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer rates, though alarming, would be even higher today if not for the Herculean efforts of Jack and Elaine LaLanne. Amazingly, at their “advanced” ages, they are now experiencing their most effective and successful time of life.

“This is the best year we’ve ever had,” Jack begins. “At 92, everyone wants us, they turn the crowds away and we always get standing ovations.”

“We work together so we can be together,” Elaine adds.

“We work together so we can play together,” Jack corrects her.

ELDR: You both have a lot of fun in your lives. Is that true?
“Oh yes,” Elaine says.

“If you go through life,” Jack says, “and you can’t have a little fun, then you’re sick.”

“Our secret,” Elaine confides, “is you have to have a friend.” She looks over to Jack and says, “Your wife is your friend, right?”

“Yeah,” Jack replies, “and don’t try to change each other.”

“That’s right,” Elaine says. “The trouble is too many people want to change the other person into what they are and you can’t do this. No two people are the same, just as no two leaves on a tree are alike. We are all individuals and we have to understand each other as such.”

“People don’t change, let me tell you,” Jacks says. “Everyone can’t be perfect like my wife.”

Can I ask you how you met?

Jack, who seems to be always quick with the one-liners, snaps back at me, “That’s none of your business.” Then he laughs.

“We met at KGO TV in San Francisco when I was co-host of the Les Malloy Show, a live 90 minute daily interview show with a 12 piece orchestra.

I did all the bookings and also appeared on the show. “I got a call from Oakland one day,” she continues, “and the person on the line said, ‘We’ve got this guy over here who can do pushups during your whole show,’ so I booked Jack on the program.”

When were you married?
Jack once again gets in the first response. “Forever. We’ve been together for 53 years. How do you like that?”

“Yeah, but we haven’t been married that long, I left Les Malloy and went with Jack in 1956,” Elaine volunteers, “and we were married in Las Vegas shortly thereafter.”

Do you guys still work out?
This time Elaine gets the first jab. “He rolls out and I roll over!”

“Elaine works out,” Jack replies, “but I work out eight days a week. I spend an hour and a half in the gym, and then a half hour in the pool, and I change my routine every 30 days completely.”

“You’ve got to go at it hard and work on different muscles,” he continues.
“You know how you stay young, don’t you? You work your butt off. Anything you do in life that’s worthwhile, there’s a price to pay.”

Jack is on a roll now, and he changes the topic:

“I’ve never thought about making money. I only think about how can I help that lady, that old man...look at that fat person. How can I get him to start exercising and eating right? I’m really here to help people; I’m their salvation.”

“Any stupid ass can make money, but can you make money and help
people doing it?”

“I just bought a new Corvette. Would I put water in the gas tank? Of course not! You put junk into the human machine and it doesn’t run very good. First thing you know, you’re in the ol’ grave. Living is like training for an athletic event. You have to have goals and challenges; you need to exercise and eat right.”

“Isn’t he enthusiastic?” Elaine chimes in. “Have you ever seen anyone so enthusiastic? And I have to live with him.”

Elaine’s intervention gives me a chance to get a word in. I still want to know about Elaine’s exercise program.” “I work out in the gym and in the pool just like Jack,” she says. “I also work out in the hot tub doing hydronastics, which are aerobic water exercises Jack created.”

“We have a new pool,” she continues, “called the ‘River Pool,’ which is
a resistance pool. “We both work out every day,” she says. “Jack even has a series of exercises we do in our hotel room when we’re traveling.”

Do you still dance?
“Not regularly,” she replies, “but l still play golf and at the country club the other night Jack and I danced a few jitterbugs.”

At this point in the conversation, Jack breaks out singing a song to Elaine.

“You know what, Elaine? I’m writing you a song,” he sings. “I’m dancing with tears in my eyes, I’m dancing with you, Elaine, I’m dancing with you.”

“Oh, come on Jack,” Elaine says in a mildly chiding voice.

“Come on, Elaine,” he replies.

“What’s the matter with you? We do have a lot of fun in our lives, right?”

“Oh, yeah,” says Elaine.

You don’t have to answer this, but when I first met you, you were dancing at the Clairemont Hotel in Berkeley, and you were only 89 then. You told me you still had sex nearly every day.

Jack responds, “Nearly on Monday, nearly on Tuesday, nearly on
Wednesday.”

“I don’t think he said ‘every day,’” Elaine comments.

I swear he said that. He must have had two glasses of wine that night.

“Yeah, he must have,” replies Elaine. “We were on the Howard Stern show and I said, ‘nearly every day,’ and Jack came back with ‘nearly Monday, nearly Tuesday, etc.’—that’s where that came from.”

“Then Howard says,” Jack joins in, “what are you trying to do, steal my show, Jack? “I love his show and when nobody else would go on because he was so
controversial I went on and he’s never forgotten it,” Jack continues. “He works out every day.”

Does he really?
“Yeah, but he doesn’t know how to be funny.”

Is there anything you’d like to say about how the world is today?
Jack answers, “There is much to be done today. There are more overweight and sick people in America than ever before; it’s an epidemic. Anything in life is possible if you make it happen. It’s all up to you.”

“My dad died at 50 from a heart attack because he didn’t eat right, he didn’t exercise, he got fat…all that junk food and Jack couldn’t talk to him about this,”

Elaine adds. “His mother lived into her 90s because Jack was able to talk to her and get her into the gym.”

Do you have children?
“We have three one of each,” Jack jokes. “They’re all terrific because they don’t take after their dad; they take after Elaine.”

“We have two sons and a daughter, plus another daughter who died at age 21 from an automobile accident,”

Elaine says. “She looks down upon us and is always with us.”

“Our daughter is a chiropractor, one son is a terrific photographer and the other makes surfboards,” Jack continues.

Where are you two going to retire?
That is retiring,” Jack replies. “You’ve got to work at living. Do something you enjoy where you can help people.”

“If some of the older people have to retire from their jobs,” Elaine says, “they shouldn’t sit around the house and do nothing. They should get some interest or hobby to keep active, get out and be involved in the world.”

Dr. Mercola: New Vitamin D Recommendations Spell Disaster for Your Health

On November 30, 2010, the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) released their updated recommendations for vitamin D (and calcium), which has sent shockwaves of disappointment through natural health community.

According to the FNB, the new recommended daily allowance (RDA) for pregnant women and adults up to 70 years of age is the same as that for infants and children – a measly 600 IU's. This despite the overwhelming evidence showing that vitamin D is extremely important for a wide variety of health conditions besides bone health, and that most people need about ten times this amount or more.

In this interview, Dr. Cannell, founder of the Vitamin D Council, and Carole Baggerly, founder of GrassrootsHealth, share their concerns about this recent development.

Sources:

  The Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board November 30, 2010

  Heike Bischoff-Ferrari and Walter Willett Comment on the IOM recommendations released on November 30th 2010[1]: For adult bone health, low on Vitamin

  Video Transcript - Interview with Dr. John Cannell

  Video Transcript - Interview with Carole Baggerly

  The Alliance for Natural Health December 7, 2010

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

In their latest vitamin D report, the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) claims the only evidence for the benefit of vitamin D they could document was the improvement of bone health.

How they could come to this conclusion is truly beyond belief, because there are literally hundreds if not thousands of studies showing that it benefits dozens if not hundreds of clinical conditions.

Based on their limited findings, the FNB's updated recommended daily allowance (RDA) for vitamin D is as follows:

Infants 0-12 months	0 IU/day
1-18 years	600 IU/day
19-50	600 IU/day
51-70	600 IU/day
Over 70 years old	800 IU/day
Pregnant women aged 14-50	600 IU/day

 

As Dr. Cannell points out in our interview, these recommendations do not take into account the amount of vitamin D you need to prevent influenza, heart- or liver- disease, respiratory infections, cancer, or any of the numerous diseases that have a clearly documented link to vitamin D deficiency.

Why should we care about the IOM's recommendations?

Well, as the Alliance for Natural Health states:

"Unless these findings are challenged, the public will accept it as true. Doctors, medical institutions, the media, and governmental agencies will all parrot these ultra-low recommendations on vitamin D dosage, pooh-poohing its important therapeutic benefits, and keeping the American public dangerously deficient in the vitamin.

This will mean more colds, more flu, greater dependence on dangerous flu shots and antibiotics, more illness in general, more weak bones, more cancer, and many more deaths. Some experts calculate that proper vitamin D supplementation could save Americans $4.4 trillion over a decade—about $1,346 per person every year."

Scientific Evidence Supports FAR Higher RDA for All Age Groups

Dr. Heaney is widely believed to be one of the most prominent and well respected researchers on vitamin D. He's authored more than 400 vitamin D papers in his lifetime, including the 2007 cancer study that showed a full 77 percent of all cancers could be prevented with a vitamin D level of at least 40 ng/ml. 

Dr. Heaney was also part of the previous FNB vitamin D panel (but not this one as previous panel members are excluded from future panels). Here's what he had to say about the latest IOM/FNB recommendations:

"There is an impressive body of scientific evidence supporting levels higher than the Institute of Medicine panel is currently recommending. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the panel has discounted that evidence.

The public needs to know that evidence exist so that they can make up their own minds. It is helpful in making those decisions to know that intakes higher than the recommendations are safe.

For me that decision is easy even if the evidence for higher intake were uncertain. And I don't believe it is. Intakes two to five times their recommendations would carry a good chance for benefit at essentially no cost and no risk.

… Finally, I believe that the presumption of adequacy should rest with vitamin D intakes needed to achieve the serum levels (40–60 ng/mL) that prevailed during the evolution of human physiology.

Correspondingly, the burden of proof should fall on those maintaining that there is no preventable disease or dysfunction at lower levels. The IOM has not met that standard."

Clearly, the FNB moved their recommendations in the right direction. As Dr. Cannell points out, the recommended dose for infants, children and pregnant women was tripled, from 200 units to 600 units, and the dose for older people was increased by about 33 percent. The upper limits were also doubled.

However, these recommendations still leave a lot to be desired.

"What's shocking to me is that the levels they are recommending will not even approximate what you would get if you were exposed to healthy levels of sunshine," Dr. Cannell says.

A more appropriate way to analyze vitamin D requirements would indeed be to look at the vitamin D levels of early man. Those are the levels we want to have, because that's what the human genome is designed for, or used to, from an evolutionary perspective.

"One thing that did concern me is they have 15 vitamin D experts to review their report before they released it. But they refuse to let anybody look at the vitamin D experts' opinions about their reports," Cannell says.

" Yesterday, we instructed our attorney to try to obtain them under the Freedom of Information Act."

Time will tell whether or not that documentation will be released. I too am very curious to see what the vitamin D experts' opinions were about the FNB's conclusions…

Officially Sanctioned or Not, Higher Vitamin D Levels ARE Beneficial to Your Health

Please remember that you have the freedom to do your own research and are not obligated in any way to adhere to "government sanctioned" nutrient recommendations.

In this case, conventional medicine is still lagging far behind in their implementation of what the science shows about vitamin D.

"[P]eople need to remember about this report is that these are recommendations for those who want to proceed on their own without a doctor's advice," Cannell says.

"If you're under the care of a physician, this report is almost meaningless… It doesn't in any way preclude a physician from prescribing the usual dosages that they do; the 50,000 units once or twice a week. [The report] is not designed to prevent that."

So, if what the Vitamin D Council and I have been posting about the health benefits of vitamin D and the optimal vitamin D levels make sense to you, then you can choose to flat out ignore this new recommendation from the Institute of Medicine.

As Carole Baggerly points out in the interview above, the FNB is recommending a vitamin D blood serum level of just 20 ng/ml, which, based on more appropriate parameters for optimal health, signifies a state of severe deficiency!

To me, it borders on criminal negligent malpractice to ignore the abundance of scientific evidence that suggest that the deficiency levels are far above 20 ng/ml.

This serum level may not even be sufficient to maintain bone health, as the IOM/FNB claims.

According to a statement issued by Dr. Heaney:

"The statement by the IOM that skeletal health can be maintained at serum 25(OH)D levels of 20 ng/ml is incorrect. 30 ng/ml should be looked at as the lower end of the acceptable range for bone health.

There have been randomized controlled trials showing major reductions in fractures by getting the serum level to 29 ng/ml. Fracture reduction does not reliably occur at levels less than 30 ng/ml and in some cases as high as 40 ng/ml.

Osteoid seam width, a measure of vitamin D deficiency, only reaches normal values when the level is above 30 ng/ml. There is significant evidence above the IOM panel's "adequate" level of 20 ng/ml."

This is further supported by Drs. Heike Bischoff-Ferrari and Walter Willett. You can read their entire critique of the IOM recommendations here.

Negative Vitamin D Results Frequently Due to Vitamin A in Cod Liver Oil

Dr. Cannell brings up additional food for thought with regards to some of the studies that suggest detrimental effects from vitamin D.

"It's important for people to realize that of the several hundred studies that have come out in the last couple of years, not all of them are positive, for reasons that I believe has to do with vitamin A.

There is a U-shaped curve in some of the studies, especially the ones that come from Scandinavian countries… Most of the cohorts that were studied in these papers had their dietary information taken in the 80s and 90s and their blood drawn at that time. The intake of cod liver oil especially in the Scandinavian countries in that time was substantial.

When you take cod liver oil, you'll increase your vitamin D level but with it you'll get toxic amounts of vitamin A. There are a number of studies that shows that vitamin A is not a good thing to have an excess of."

That said, the randomized control trials that have been done have not shown any damage or any danger from high amounts of vitamin D. In fact, most studies that are now using higher vitamin D dosages are showing significant, positive treatment effects.

The Latest Vitamin D Studies Find Even More Health Benefits… 

Dr. Cannell's passion is to carefully review the medical literature on vitamin D, and there's no shortage of vitamin D studies showing its benefits. One of the latest studies to be published on vitamin D found that it is also linked to your risk of developing macular degeneration, which many have mistakenly attributed to 'normal aging,' as well as cataracts.

Dr. Cannell says:

"It turns out that the higher your vitamin D level the less likely it is for that [macular degeneration] to happen. There is even a cross-sectional study that indicates that the lower your vitamin D level the more likely you are to get cataracts (and one of the reasons you've always been told to stay out of the sun is because you'll get cataracts)."

There is also an interesting new paper about Parkinsonism that suggests that low vitamin D levels exacerbate the disease.

"So if you know of anyone with Parkinsonism make sure their vitamin D levels are in the high range; higher than normal, between 50-80 ng/ml," Cannell suggests.

This would also hold true for other chronic neurological diseases, such as Alzheimer's.

"That's a really important point," Cannell says. "People are asking me, "What's the right vitamin D level?"

 If you're otherwise perfectly healthy, then a level of around 50 is fine… But many people who have heart disease, Parkinsonism, Alzheimer's, emphysema, or cancer… It's my opinion that [those] people should get their levels up into the high range of normal.

The rationale for that is that there are a number of studies with cancer now that show that the blood level of vitamin D you have at the time you're diagnosed with cancer predicts how long you're going to live. That is, high vitamin D levels at the time of diagnosis prolongs life.

… [I]f you're sick, you want to keep your levels at 80-90 ng/ml."

Why Pregnant Women Need to Take IOM's Recommendations with a Grain of Salt

Likewise, there's very compelling evidence backing up the advice that pregnant women should optimize their vitamin D levels prior to and during pregnancy to prevent neurological problems, such as autism, in their children.

There's even evidence suggesting the child is significantly protected from type 1 diabetes if the mother has sufficient vitamin D levels during gestation, and/or if the infant receives sufficient amounts of vitamin D.

Vitamin D deficiency may also contribute to infertility.

From my perspective, with the mountain of scientific evidence we now have on the benefits of optimal vitamin D levels in pregnancy it is reprehensible malpractice to not routinely check a pregnant woman's vitamin D level during the pregnancy.

Of course, it is still not the "standard of care" at this point and no physician will lose his or her license for failing to do this check.

According to Dr. Cannell:

"[I]f you're thinking of having a child, both parents should take the steps necessary to be vitamin D sufficient. Once a woman is pregnant, she's going to need probably 7,000-8,000 IU's a day while she's pregnant and lactating. And then when the infant is off breast milk, the infant needs an independent source of vitamin D.

The Food and Nutrition Board now say 400 IU is adequate [for pregnant/lactating women]. Four hundred is pretty good, but 1,000 IU's is better."

Is there a Hidden Agenda?

Interestingly enough, while the importance of sunlight and oral vitamin D supplements are being suppressed, a patentable vitamin D drug is currently in the works, the Alliance for Natural Health reports

"A pharmaceutical company is developing a patentable man-made vitamin D analog—yes, a synthetic drug version of vitamin D. And Glenville Jones, PhD, one of the committee members who determined the new vitamin D guidelines and who is quoted as saying that under these guidelines, most people "probably don't have vitamin D deficiency" and "We think there has been an exaggeration of the public's interest in vitamin D deficiency," is an advisor for that same pharmaceutical company."

Might this have anything to do with the IOM's blatant disregard for the evidence at hand?

Carole Baggerly's Take on the IOM/FNB Recommendations

The second part of the video above features Carole Baggerly, the founder of GrassrootsHealth. She has been instrumental in managing and implementing a massive effort to educate Americans and Canadians about the importance of vitamin D, both on a consumer and government level.

For example, she was a primary force behind getting Canadian health authorities to investigate the use of vitamin D against the swine flu last year.

She brings up several shocking facts about the manner in which the IOM/FNB came to their final conclusions. According to Baggerly, the panel carefully selected the type of data they wanted to review, and excluded a wide variety of important data.

"They did not look at epidemiological data at all," she says, "of which there are decades of research substantiating that people die of all kinds of diseases that are impacted by vitamin D.

… They excluded all kinds of data that would be, in the public health field, considered very relevant data.

… [T]he agenda was very clearly set from the very beginning, and those of us who looked to see what kind of data they were choosing to include… knew the outcome would not be favorable for the implementation of vitamin D health."

Exactly who set this agenda is still unclear. What is clear is that the IOM/FNB decided to ignore certain sets of pertinent data. Clearly, had it been included, it would have been impossible to justify their current position.

Canadian Developments

Carol has been working as a consultant to the Ontario government, primarily pertaining to what they should do about their vitamin D testing. They have, as of December 1, "de-listed" vitamin D, which means the government will no longer include payments for vitamin D testing as part of their health insurance.

This is a major setback. However, Canadians can still purchase vitamin D tests on their own. And Grassroots Health has initiated several vitamin D initiatives to help Canadians get their tests at a reduced cost, by enrolling them in a Grassroots Health vitamin D study.

The Canadian government may use the latest IOM/FNB recommendations as justification for taking out vitamin D testing.

However, there's still some good news.

Heather Chappell of the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS) has stated that the organization will not lower their recommendations -- which is currently 1,000 IUs per day, based on the vitamin D cancer research done by Dr. Heaney and Lappe – because the IOM recommendations cover bone health only. And the CCS is still concerned about vitamin D deficiency and cancer.

The:Expert: Vitamin D Panel is Not Even Made Up of Vitamin D Experts

So, just who's on the IOM's vitamin D panel?

Contrary to common sense, the panel did not consist primarily of vitamin D experts.

According to Carol:

"They did have a few people on the panel with a little bit of vitamin D experience but not much. (The full list of panel members is available on www.IOM.edu.)

Their experience certainly was not in the epidemiological realm at all like Dr. Garland.

What was disturbing to some of our panel, the vitamin D researchers, was that a number of them have been recommended or volunteered previously on the panel and they were explicitly rejected.

That is disturbing."

Final Thoughts

Again, the position of the Vitamin D Council, GrassrootsHealth and myself is that you need to adhere to the scientific vitamin D panel recommendation, which is a vitamin D level of 40 ng/ml at minimum.

In my view, many people still would not be able to reach a therapeutically healthy range taking 4,000 IUs of vitamin D a day, which is the maximum dosage now recommended by the IOM. I've seen people who need double that, or more, to get to a level that's going to make a difference in their health.

How Much Vitamin D Must You Take to Reach Therapeutically Healthy Levels?

Dr. Hollis has released preliminary findings of a brand new study that has not yet been formally published. In the interview above, Carol shares some of those details:

"One of the most significant findings is how much intake it takes to get to these higher levels.

For example, there has been a rule of thumb that for each 1,000 IUs of vitamin D you take you would get a serum level rise of about 10 ng/mL…

Well, it doesn't work that way.

What we are finding is that once you get above the age of 30, the amount of rise that you get for each dosage [of oral vitamin D] is considerably less than that.

For example, between the age of 40 and 50, you'd have to take about 2,000 IU to reach a serum level of 10 ng/ml. You only get a 5 ng/mL rise for each 1,000 IU, not 10 ng/ml.

… What this means is that people have to take a lot more. It's going to take about 6,000 IU a day to get about 90-95 percent of the population above 40 ng/mL."

Some people will clearly need more.

Improve Your Health and be Part of Worldwide Public Health Campaign

D*Action is a worldwide public health campaign created by GrassrootsHealth, aiming to solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic in one year through focus on testing, education, and grassroots word of mouth.

You can participate in the D*action study, if you like! Best of all, Mercola subscribers will receive a 15 percent discount on the 5-year sponsorship.

To sign up, and get your discount, follow these instructions:

When you sign up, at the beginning of the Payment Options (The area where it says "Please input any CLINIC ID or COUPON CODE assigned to your organization and click Apply:") on the Order form, please enter 'Mercola.' Then continue with your payment process.

When you join D*action, you agree to test your vitamin D levels twice a year during a 5 year program, and share your health status to demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient.

There is a $60 fee for every 6 months for your sponsorship of the project (Mercola sponsors get a 15 percent discount), which includes a complete new test kit to be used at home (except in the state of New York), and electronic reports on your ongoing progress.

When you finish the questionnaire, you can choose your subscription option. You will get a follow up email every 6 months reminding you "it's time for your next test and health survey."

To join now, please follow this link to the sign up form.

I, along with GrassrootsHealth, expect this study will demonstrate the real significance of this nutrient on your health and, of course, its value in the prevention of many diseases. So please sign up today so you can be part of a team of Mercola subscribers setting out to demonstrate that PREVENTION WORKS!

 

 

Bill Andrews: Save Sierra Sciences! Help us cure aging.

 
(The following letter is from Dr. William Andrews, the founder of Sierra Sciences, a company that has been searching for telomerase activators and which has actually found 858 of them so far. This is an amazing company, completely serious and really on to something. An investment in them could pay off in a huge way. Please respond to Dr. Andrews if you are interested, and otherwise pass his letter on to someone else who might be. Thanks--David Bunnell.)

Dear Friends:

I am writing you because Sierra Sciences has suffered a sudden and unexpected loss of funding. We need $200,000 per month to keep the company operating until mid-2011, when we expect to become self-sufficient with revenue from product sales.

Sierra Sciences is poised to make world-altering breakthroughs in anti-aging medicine. It is no exaggeration to say that we are on the brink of actually curing the disease we call aging! Unfortunately, our current investors were both hit hard by the financial crisis. They can no longer maintain the funding that drives Sierra Sciences’ research.

Looking ahead, Sierra Sciences’ management realizes that in the current economic climate we will have to generate our funding ourselves. To this end, we have formed an alliance with a well-known and very successful manufacturer and retailer of natural products. They will be marketing our discoveries as anti-aging nutraceuticals. This alliance is expected to bring us enough revenue to support further nutraceutical research by mid-2011, and to support pharmaceutical research by mid-2012.

Yesterday, Sierra Sciences’ two investors informed me that they will soon cease all funding of the company. Without interim funding, we will lose not only our opportunity to profit from the nutraceutical market, but also our opportunity to develop our pharmaceutical discoveries into a cure for aging. This would be a tragedy for humanity, as well as a missed opportunity to create a multi-billion dollar industry.

The bottom line is that Sierra Sciences needs $200,000 per month as soon as possible. We will need this interim funding for 6-12 months, at which time we expect to become self-sufficient from nutraceutical sales. This investment would buy the investor significant ownership of the company.

My current investors have also mentioned that they would consider selling some or all of their equity stake in Sierra Sciences. They are still very interested in curing aging and still strongly believe in Sierra Sciences’ path. Together, they have invested just over $20 million and own a controlling interest in the company. They would welcome a conversation on this subject.

Please contact me if you would like to learn more about our situation. All my contact information is included with my signature below. Under my signature are links to various documents that go into more detail about the background of the science and Sierra Sciences’ progress towards a cure for aging.

Thanks,

Bill

William H. Andrews, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Sierra Sciences, LLC
“Cure Aging or Die Trying”
ph: 775-856-9500, ext. 108
fax: 775-856-9510
cell and text: 775-530-1516
e-mail: bandrews@sierrasci.com
web: http://www.sierrasci.com
Where’s Bill? http://www.sierrasci.com/Travel_Schedule.html

Can We CURE Aging by 2024. Depends on how OLD your Futurist is!

Scientists at a "longevity conference" I attended recently kept saying their goal was to "cure aging" by the year 2024. I remember thinking that this seemed rather ambitious and unrealistic and wondered what the rush was all about. Thanks to the following cartoon by Zach Weiner, I now fully understand (this is so true):

Meet Bill Andrews: The Man Who would be Immortal

Dr. Bill Andrews is deadly serious. He wants to live forever, and he's definitely not crazy. The more you know about him and his quest the more you realize he's actually on to something really big.

The founder of a research company in Reno, Nevada, called Sierra Sciences, Andrews has a Ph.D. in Molecular and Population Genetics. He's been in the biotechnology industry for 28 years, and as Director of Molecular Biology at the Geron Corporation from 1992 to 1997, he was one of the principal discoverers of the components of human telomerase, an enzyme that makes telomeres grow.  In 1977, Andrews was awarded 2nd place as "National Inventor of the Year" and he is the named inventor on 35 U.S. issued patents related to telomerase.

To understand why Andrews should be taken seriously, you first need to know a few basics about telomeres.  Once considered nothing more than a relatively long strand of "junk" DNA at both ends of every chromosome in the human body, we now know telomeres are vitally important. When chromosomes divide and multiply, instead of losing DNA that matters, chromosomes only lose some of the telomere's DNA.

With each and every replication of our DNA, part of the telomere sequence is chopped off. This is how nature protects the DNA in a chromosome. Today, scientists can measure the age of cells by the length of the telomere--the cells in infants have long telomeres, the cells in adults have shorter telomeres. When telomeres become too short (less than 5,000 "base pairs") cells can no longer divide. Then one of two things happens; the cell either enters a state of paralysis called "senescence" or it simple commits suicide (apoptosis) and dies.

Thus, telomeres are the biological clocks of aging. Because they get shorter and shorter as cells divide, people cannot live beyond a theoretical limit of 125 years.  No matter how well you take care of yourself, what you eat, how great your genes are, or how lucky you may be--it is thought impossible to live longer. Indeed, the longest "confirmed" human life span in history belongs to a woman named Jeanne Calment (pictured here) who died on August 4, 1997, at the age of 122 years, 164 days.

Bill Andrews, and many other biologists and gerontologists, however, beg to differ. They point out that the telomeres in our reproductive cells don't get shorter, because if they did, they would yield embryos as old as we are. So much cell division takes places in the womb, our children would be born much older than us. However, reproductive cells are essential immortal. Their telomeres remain nice and long.

The reason reproductive cells are immortal is they produce the telomerase enzyme which in turns lengthens telomeres as soon as they are shortened; it's as though every time the "telomere clock" inside reproductive cells ticks once, telomerase pushed the hands of the clock back one tick.

It turns out that all of our cells have the potential to produce telomerase, it's just that the genetic code for doing so is repressed. If we could find a way to turn this gene on, then the telomeres of all our cells would grow and we could live much longer than 125 years. We could even theoretically become younger again.

Sierra Sciences, which Andrew started 11 years ago, is on a mission to find what he calls "telomerase inducers," chemicals or drugs that activate the telomerase gene. As of this writing, the company has screened over 240,000 compounds and actually found 813 telomerase inducers. None of them are yet powerful enough to make telomeres grow at a rate which would reverse the age of cells, but Sierra Sciences is currently screening 4,000 compounds a week. It seems quite possible they will find the one they are looking for or they will find a why to boost the potency of one of the inducers they've already found.

Andrews, himself, is on a personal mission to live for a very long time, if not forever. He knows the day is coming when we can actually stop the aging process and even reverse it (the age of human stem cells have already been reverse in a test tube) but he doesn't know exactly when this will occur. It could be ten years from now or up to fifty years. Therefore, he is doing everything he can to stay as healthy as possible for as long as possible. This includes a special diet, taking supplements, daily meditation, and exercise, a lot of exercise. An experienced ultra-marathon runner, Andrews has run in over 100 races 50 miles of longer.

If it is possible for people to break through the 125 year barrier and live an indefinitely long life, I'm betting on Bill Andrews to be the first person to do this.  To find out more, I recently drove from my home in Berkeley, California, to Reno where I visited the Sierra Sciences headquarters (picture here), talked to the people in labs and interviewed Dr. Andrews, which turned out to be one of the most fascinating interviews I've ever conducted.

The highlights of the interview with Bill Andrews, conducted on June 8, 2010, follow (questions in italics):

What came first, Dr. Andrews, your interest in telomeres or your interest in anti-aging?

I can remember when I was around 10 years old, my father, who realized I was very interested in science, said, "when you grown up why don't you become a doctor and cure aging?" He used to tell me all the time he doesn't understand why "no one has cured aging yet" and you know, I automatically thought of aging as a disease. (Bill is pictured here with his dad, Ralph, who is 83)

I became obsessed with this idea of curing aging and all through high school, college, graduate school everyone knew that that was my mission in life.  It was only after I got into anti-aging research that I found out the whole idea of aging as a disease is a concept that very few people understand. 

You had quite a career going at the biotechnology company, Geron Corporation. You were one of the inventors of the year and you had quite a lot of patents. So why did you leave and start Sierra Sciences?

I was afraid I would wake up 20 years from now and nobody did this.  I went to Geron because their mission was to find a way to turn on telomerase to expand lifespan.  After we cloned the telomerase gene, we did 2 experiments. We put it into normal cells and showed it could stop the aging process but we also took the anti-sense of telomerase and showed it could kill cancer cells, very quickly.

So Geron, even though their name comes from the word "gerontology" chose to go after cancer because the investors realized, and they were correct in this, there was a quicker return on investments doing cancer research.

I was a little stunned by, a little upset about it. I'm very interested in cancer research but it seemed like enough people were already doing cancer research and not enough people focused on aging. So I left and created Sierra Sciences to continue the work on telomere biology and telomerase to control the aging process.

My big fear was, if I didn't, as I said before, I'd wake up 20 years from now and find out that nobody even tried.

What lead you to believe telomeres are the key to all this? Some people say, 'sure, they are biomarkers of aging, but they probably don't cause aging.'

As long as I've been interested in aging I've been wondering why would environmental effects cause aging? I'm sure they do play a role in aging but if they were the only thing or the main thing causing aging we would see people in different environments aging at different rates. This told me there is some kind of clock ticking inside of our cells and what was that, what possible clock do we have and what kind of clock could explain why cats have a maximum lifespan very different from humans?

I was baffled by this for many years. I started attending anti-aging conferences, always keeping an eye out for something that could be this clock.

And then, about 15 years ago, I listened to Calvin Harley, the Chief Scientific Officer of Geron Corporation speak at a conference in Tahoe City at the Granlibakken Resort. He started explaining how telomeres shorten when cells divide and how there was a correlation between the telomere length and the age of a person. 

I found myself sitting there nodding my head, thinking "this is it. This guy has figured it out." Of course, other people working with Cal figured it out too including Nobel Prize winners Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider, but then it was all new to me.

I made an effort to meet Calvin as he was walking off the stage after his talk and simply said to him, "Calvin, I want to work with you. This is what I want to do."

Two weeks later I was working at Geron Corporation on this mission.

Amazing, and you've been at it ever since.

Yes, indeed I have, and to get back to answering your question, why do I believe telomeres are the key to aging. At that time it was the only explanation that I could come up with. I just knew this was it, but of course since then there has been an overwhelming amount of research showing that telomeres play a role in aging. And ever since we lengthened telomeres by putting telomerase into cells, that's been the real coup de grâce. We proved that by lengthening telomeres, we can actually make cells younger.

There is some concern that in lengthening telomeres you might also cause people to get cancer. Or suppose somebody already has cancerous cells, wouldn't you be inducing the telomeres of the cancer cells to grow as well as the normal cells?

That's a very good question. Nobody has shown today whether telomerase increases or decreases the risk of cancer. I think there is overwhelming data showing it is actually going to decrease the risk of cancer. There are still people who believe the opposite, for legitimate reasons, but I think they are getting fewer and fewer.

But you didn't say, "Will telomerase cause cancer," you said, "Will longer telomeres cause cancer," and I don't think most people believe that. I believe if you make telomeres long that will decrease the risk of cancer and just about everything else, everything bad for you.

Short telomeres are bad. Short telomeres will cause cancer, so keeping the telomeres long will prevent that cell from becoming a cancer. It is well known that a cell requires 8-to-10 mutations before it can become a cancer. I believe that most of those mutation are induced by short telomeres. So keeping telomeres long is a way to prevent cancer, and it can also help fight the cancer.

Another thing some people are saying is that moles and polyps increase the risk of cancer. They are precancerous but when you look at the size of a polyp or mole you can estimate it to be approximately 10-to-the-7th cells (10⁷) . It takes about 30 cells divisions to make cells this big. So, if you have a single cell that has lost growth control but still is not yet a cancer, the telomeres will get really short because of all the cell division.

The reason moles and polyps are precancerous is because of their short telomeres. By turning on telomerase, you can lengthen those telomeres and therefore decrease the odds that they are going to cause the other mutations that cause cancer. By having a telomerase inducer, moles and polyps can grow and keep their telomeres long.

There are studies that show telomeres in polyps and moles are long but someone as experiences as me in measuring telomere length knows it is very difficult to do this accurately.  A lot of time in these papers I believe people really didn't have a good way of measuring telomere length.  And the same thing goes true for measuring telomerase activity.  Now then if a mole or polyp already has telomerase activity then an inducers is not going to effect that cell in any way.

There is at least one paper that came out in 2002 suggesting telomerase can cause other activities like transformation of cancer into tumorigentic cells but I think they didn't have the whole story--there are a lot of missing links here. So right now if I had cancer I would be taking as much telomerase inducer as possible.

I believe a telomerase inducer will help you fight cancer. If you already have a cancer, taking a telomerase inducer it's is not going to help your cancer cells stay immortal, but it will boost your immune system. When the telomeres in immune cells get really short they loose the ability to fight. But if you take a telomerase inducer, you can keep the telomeres in your immune cells long and maintain the ability of your immune cells to fight the cancer.

The immune sytem is actually pretty effective at fighting cancers. This is one of the reasons cancers are a lot more prevalent in the elderly because older people have shorter telomeres in their immune cells.

(editor's note: New study published in JAMA validates some of the points Dr. Andrews makes above concerning telomere length and cancer. Click here to see the JAMA article.)

At Sierra Sciences you've screened hundred of thousands of compounds looking for telomerase inducers, and you've found quite a few of them. But you haven't yet found one that is powerful enough to induce immortality and achieve what you are really looking for. What happens next if you find the compound that will cause cells to actually become immortal? 

Years ago people were telling us it is impossible to find a telomerase inducer and I think that is part of the reason we have no competition. Nobody else has decided to make the effort to look for a telomerase inducer.

We found our first drug to induce telomerses 2 1/2 years ago and we sent it to all the people who had told us it was impossible and had them test it. Sure enough, they all came back and said "Wow, it works!" They didn't understand why it works but it does work.

Since then we have gotten up to 39 different families of drugs or chemicals that induce telomerase and we're up to about 12% of what we need, or think we need, to make human cells immortal. And actually that is pretty high because we think it won't be too much harder, using structure activity material relationship activities and learning the mechanisms of action of these drugs, to figure out ways to make these chemicals more potent. But at that point we then have to go through FDA trials and that is going to require up to 12 years to get something to the market.

We think we can get this into the pet market earlier.

Oh really, amazing.

Our colleagues at the University of Texas at Southwestern and the University of Edinburgh have found cats, dogs and horses all age by telomere shortening, even though mice don't and other rodents don't. We think we can sell our telomerase inducers to the cat, dog and horse markets.  Many of the owners will buy a lot of it to extend the lifespan and the healthspan of their pets. Unfortunately the people who love their mice and their rabbits won't benefit because these animals age by different mechanisms.

We also see earlier opportunities in the stem cell market. Recently, we coauthored a paper with Mike West at BioTime Corporation showing that induced pluripotent stem cells have shorter telomeres than you would like. So, let's say you want to take cells from an elderly person and induce them to become pluripotent stem cells and then put them back into a person. Well, they are not  going be as effective because the telomeres in older stem cells are short. So, I think a telomerase inducers is going to be very, very useful for that whole market.

And there's a few other research markets where telomerase inducers will be useful, but even more exciting is the possibility of fighting life threatening diseases, some of which could be FDA fast tracked. For sure, this would include progeria, a disease where kids age very rapidly age and die before they are 20. Our company is very interested in that disease even though we don't see it ever making us any money. I can tell you every employee here would feel great self-satisfaction knowing we'd come up with a way of helping these kids even though there is only 15  in the world at any one time. Helping them to live a normal life would be wonderful.

There's also the immune systems of AIDS patents. When a person first gets infected with the AIDS virus the immune systems puts up a pretty big fight. Ultimately though it is unsuccessfully because of the fact the AIDS virus is pretty much inside the immune cells. So in this effort to fight off the virus the telomeres of the immune cells get really short. This is why back in the early 80's when AIDS was first discovered doctors were surprise to find these AIDS patents had no T cells. It's because the telomeres got short and essentially the immune cells died of old age. 

We believe a telomerase inducer will keep the immune system alive. Rita Effros, the UCLA immunologist, is doing work right now with some of Geron's telomerase inducing compounds to actually follow through on this possibility. So that's another market where I think we can probably get fast tracked by the FDA.

So there is a lot more to your efforts than just the single goal of immortality?

The goal is not to just make us older, the goal is to make us healthier. When I'm 140 years old, I want to look and feel like a 24 year old. The goal is not to extend lifespan, the goal is to extend healthspan. 

I keep a list of all the different diseases related to telomere shortening and this list has gotten to way over 100 different diseases that humans suffer from that are controlled by telomere length. That includes cardiovascular disease, cancer, which we just discussed, macular degeneration, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and some more recent data is showing a big correlation between Alzheimer's disease and telomere length. Keeping telomeres long could prevent Alzheimer's or could stop the progression of Alzheimer's if a person is diagnosed with it.

Even if telomeres didn't have anything to do with lifespan people would live longer because the number one cause of death is heart disease and cancer. If we can decrease that significantly we are going to increase the average lifespan and healthspan of humans.

When you are a centenarian, you obviously plan to be different from today's centenarians. You say you want to run a 7-minute mile when you are 130 years old.

I'm an ultramarathon runner. I've been running ultramarathons since 1986 and almost all ultramarathon runners have their biography written to a website, run110.com. If you read my bio, which has been there unchanged since 1997, it says my ultimate goal is to run the Western States 100 mile race when I'm 100 years old and I plan on have my father, who will be 125 at the time, crew for me. (link to Bill's bio)

That was my first bold statement. And yes, my most recent bold statement is I'm going to feel like we succeeded in what we are doing when I run a 7-minute mile when I'm 130 years old or when somebody else does before me.

Is there an existing record for 100-year-olds running the mile or a marathon?

I know there have been 90-year-olds who have run a marathon, but I don't think there is a record for the marathon at 100.  But I think it will happen before I get a shot at it because there are number of older athletes doing supper well running ultramarathans and marathons.

You invest a lot of time running and working out and I know you also invest a lot of time in your scientific pursuits and running this company. So, I'm wondering how do you manage your time?

That's a very tough thing to do. I am very eager to live forever and I have to really exercise a lot of discipline in order to do that. I sacrifice my social life but I feel that what I lose in a social life right now I'm going to make up 10 fold more after I have a cure for aging and figure out a way to extend my lifespan.

I think when you are 130 and can run the mile in 7 minutes, you'll have a lot of friends and fans. Can you imagine? (laughter).

Yes, I can imagine.  As I said, I'm eager to live forever and I know I'm never going to live forever, I'm going to die early, if I don't keep fit and stay in shape. There is a lot of supporting data that has come out in just the last couple years showing that good health, physical and mental health help keep your telomeres long.

Put differently, being unhealthy both physically and mentally accelerates telomere shortening by creating stress inducing free radicals.  Free radicals actually clip DNA telomeres making them shorter and also causing tissue damage thereby inducing cell division to repair that damage. Whenever you induce cell division you get telomere shortening.

Studies have been published in two major publications in the last year showing endurance athletes have longer telomeres than people who aren't as athletic or who are sedentary. Obesity has been shown to affect telomere length and lack of omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D have been shown to affect telomere length.

Everytime I hear or read about something new I include that in my regimen.  I exercise, try not to get obese, and take my omega-3 and vitamin D. 

But then on the mental side it has been shown that people who have a lot of mental stress have shorter telomeres. Elizabether Blackburn has published some great papers finding people who are caregivers for Alzheimer's patients have shorter telomeres because they are clearly under a lot of stress. So meditation might be something that can prevent telomere shortening.

Even pessimism, people who are pessimistic have been shown to have shorter telomeres. If you ask a person a question like do you think you will live to be 100 and they say "no" they probably won't because thier telomeres are going to be shorter. But if they answer "yes" the probably will because their telomeres are going to be longer.

So, I try to be very opltimistic, not pessimistic. I try to cause everybody else to have stress, not me.

Do you meditate and if so, how often?

Yeah, I meditate ... I've gone to meditation people and they tell me I already meditate.

From the running?

Well, running and I learned a long, long time ago, maybe when I was back in high school, I just go into a self meditation type mode and it helps a lot. Every time I get on an airplane as soon as I'm sitting in the plane, everything is ready and the plane starts to move, I always fall asleep and I usually sleep through the whole flight.

What's more important, diet or exercise?

Clearly exercise. I'm trying to figure out if there is a diet that could keep your cardiovascular system strong without exercise. However, I think you cannot separate one from another because if you ate at Burger King three meals a day and ran 10 miles a day you are still going to get cardiovascular disease and die.

Nobody has ever asked me that question. One thing I will mention is antioxidants clearly prevent telomere damage. A lot of fruits, particularly blueberries, contain a lot of antioxidants.

Is there anything else you'd like to include in this inteview?

Just that bad things happen when telomeres get short and so, let's keep them long.

9 Tips to Optimize Your Glutathione Level--

Glutathione has been called "the mother of all antioxidants," because it is a master detoxifier and because it has great power to reinforce your immune system. Some say it is the secret to prevent aging, cancer, heart disease, dementia and pretty much whatever else might ail you.

Your body produces its own glutathione, but most people still are deficient because it is depleted by poor diet, stress, toxins, pollution, etc. Unless you take glutathione intravenously, as a supplement, is doesn't absorb into the body.  In other words, you can't just take a pills.

But, there are some things you can do. Here's a list from Dr. Mark Hyman, M.D.--

9 Tips to Optimize your Glutathione Levels

These 9 tips will help you improve your glutathione levels, improve your health, optimize your performance and live a long, healthy life.

Eat Foods that Support Glutathione Production

1. Consume sulfur-rich foods. The main ones in the diet are garlic, onions and the cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, kale, collards, cabbage, cauliflower, watercress, etc.).

2. Try bioactive whey protein. This is great source of cysteine and the amino acid building blocks for glutathione synthesis. As you know, I am not a big fan of dairy.  But this is an exception -- with a few warnings. The whey protein MUST be bioactive and made from non-denatured proteins ("denaturing" refers to the breakdown of the normal protein structure). Choose non-pasteurized and non-industrially produced milk that contains no pesticides, hormones, or antibiotics. Immunocal is a prescription bioactive non-denatured whey protein that is even listed in the Physician's Desk Reference.

Exercise for Your Way to More Glutathione

3. Exercise boosts your glutathione levels and thereby helps boost your immune system, improve detoxification and enhance your body's own antioxidant defenses. Start slow and build up to 30 minutes a day of vigorous aerobic exercise like walking or jogging, or play various sports. Strength training for 20 minutes 3 times a week is also helpful.

Take Glutathione Supporting Supplements

One would think it would be easy just to take glutathione as a pill, but the body digests protein -- so you wouldn't get the benefits if you did it this way. However, the production and recycling of glutathione in the body requires many different nutrients and you CAN take these. Here are the main supplements that need to be taken consistently to boost glutathione. Besides taking a multivitamin and fish oil, supporting my glutathione levels with these supplements is the most important thing I do every day for my personal health.

4. N-acetyl-cysteine. This has been used for years to help treat asthma and lung disease and to treat people with life-threatening liver failure from Tylenol overdose. In fact, I first learned about it in medical school while working in the emergency room. It is even given to prevent kidney damage from dyes used during x-ray studies.

5. Alpha lipoic acid. This is a close second to glutathione in importance in our cells and is involved in energy production, blood sugar control, brain health, and detoxification. The body usually makes it, but given all the stresses we are under, we often become depleted.

6. Methylation nutrients (folate and vitamins B6 and B12). These are perhaps the most critical to keep the body producing glutathione. Methylation and the production and recycling of glutathione are the two most important biochemical functions in your body. Take folate (especially in the active form of 5 methyltetrahydrofolate), B6 (in active form of P5P) and B12 (in the active form of methylcobalamin).

7. Selenium. This important mineral helps the body recycle and produce more glutathione.

8. A family of antioxidants including vitamins C and E (in the form of mixed tocopherols), work together to recycle glutathione.

9. Milk thistle (silymarin) has long been used in liver disease and helps boost glutathione levels.

Email from Steve Jobs: "Life is Fragile"

Still Think We Shouldn't TAX Soda? Check the Data!

Americans drink 13 billion gallons of soda per year, more than twice the amount of any other country.  21% of all the sugar in the average American's diet comes from soft drinks.

Drinking just one soda per day increases a child's risk of being obese by a whopping 60%.

What do you suppose drinking only two sodas per week does?  It increases your risk of pancreatic cancer by 87%!

A measly 1 penny tax per ounce tax on soda would raise $15 billion per year. Not enough to offset the tremendous damage this product does to the health of millions, but it would be a start.  Plus, studies show that raising the price of soda will actually reduce consumption.

Check out this chart:

Via: Online Schools

Why Do Women Live LONGER Than Men?

In the industrialized world, 85% of people over 100 years old are women. On average, women live 5-to-10 years longer than men.  There are many theories about why this is including the theory that cardiovascular disease doesn't affect women until they are older, compared to men.  This might possibly be because women are relatively iron-deficient and too much iron plays a role in the production of free radicals.  

Cardiovascular disease is indeed one of the reasons but hardly the only one.  Dr. Marianne Legato, Professor of Clinical Medicine at Columbia University, explains in the following video: 

The Myth of Overpopulation

People like to argue with me that efforts to extend life are unethical and selfish because of overpopulation.  I usually counter that by adding years to the average lifespan we will drastically reduce the amount of age-related diseases including cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes and heart disease.  In turn, we'll reduce medically costs and have resources to spend elsewhere.  However, perhaps a better argument is overpopulation is a myth.  What do you think?  See the video: 

My Wellness Coach: Take a DEEP Breath & Live a LONG Life

This past weekend I joined 1,200 people in a climb up the stairwell of San Francisco's Bank of America building to the highest point in the downtown area.  I didn't think 1,197 steps was all the much until I got to the 30th floor and then I began to wonder, just how many floors is this building? 

Turned out, whew, it was only 52 floors.  As usually I didn't pay too much attention to the details when I signed up for this fundraiser, sponsored by the American Lung Association.  It could have been 70 floors or even a 100. 

So, just in case, I quit climbing two stairs at a time, and slowed down to a bit more reasonable pace.  As I went up floor by floor though I kept passing San Francisco firemen who were climbing with their protective suits and oxygen masks.  Yeah, sure they had 70 extra pounds, but they're much younger than me. As firemen you'd think they would be in excellent condition. 

Should I be proud that I so easily passed them by, or worried?  If the building was burning, I thought, by the time these doofuses get to the top everyone will be dead from smoke inhalation.

What's the point?  Besides supporting a good cause (we collectively raised over $300,000) for me it all about lung capacity and the fact it declines in most people as they age.  According to the findings of the famous Framingham Heart Study, the "bigger your lungs are, the longer your life will be."

Though I've never had my lung capacity measured by a "spirometer" I'm sure I'm way ahead of most people my age, and if anything the capacity, or more accurately, the efficiency of my lungs is increasing, not declining.  I know this because just like you might exercise your biceps I exercise my lungs on a nearly every day basis.

How do I do this?  When I swim, I take a breath at the beginning of a lap and hold it until I get to the end of the 50-foot pool.  My first lap is under water, and my subsequent laps are all above water--swimming the crawl as fast as I possible can.  It's what some people called "interval training" and theoretically in addition to improving my lung capacity, this type of exercise also releases growth hormones, which is probably why at age 62 my legs are getting way hairier!

In little ways, I also train my lungs by holding my breath whenever I have to walk by someone who is smoking a cigarette or when I'm near a car with a faulty exhaust.  I avoid breathing in toxic fumes as much as possible.

Am I obsessive about breathing?  Maybe a little bit but not nearly as much as David Blaine, who can hold his breath for 17 minutes.  There's no way I could ever do this, nor do I care to. 

Once I reached the top of the stairs, I drank a bottle of water and was pretty much ready to get on with my day.  There were lots of people up there and a live band and mind boggling as it might seem, a full bar!  However, I was really hungery and had something very specific on my mind.

I hungered for the sea food salad at MOCCA, the classic Italian deli on Maiden Lane where you can sit outside on the pedestrian-only street looking out on Union Square.  On my way, I passed by the opera singer Robert Close who's been singing at the Stockton entrance to Maiden Lane for nearly 20 years.  He's a beautiful singer who once sang in the SF production of Phantom of the Opera.

I imagine Mr. Close, though he is a very large man, has way better lung capacity than I have!  Outside of swimming or running, singing is probably the best lung exercise you can do.

My salad a MOCCA was totally satisfying.  Consisting of incredible fresh, cold marinated shrimp, calamari and scallops mixed with finely chopped celery, peppers, chives, etc., on a bed of lettuce, it provided the perfect protein and otherwise nutritious boost I needed after climbing up all those stairs.

Will I do this again next year?  Maybe, but to be perfectly honest with you, I could have climbed 100 floors.  At the end of the day, it wasn't that big of deal. 

Keep on breathing!

What's a Telomere?

Keeping your telomeres long may be the key to living a longer life.  Learn more from this video from Sierra Science founder Dr. Bill Andrews.