Pollution of lakes, rivers, streams, oceans: it’s a problem many of us are aware of and concerned about. The good news is that today, the actions of individuals can have a large impact on the quality of our waters. Yes, each one of us can help keep our water clean. The key phrase is “non-point source pollution.”

Many of us still think that water pollution originates from large pipes protruding from factories and extending out into a nearby pond, stream, river, or lake. Years ago, this image of water pollution was accurate. Sewage, wastes, and polluted water often flowed directly from such pipes into surface waters. This type of pollution is known as “source point” pollution, by virtue of the fact that it comes from a localized and clearly identifiable source. Decades ago, such scenes were not uncommon. Today, however, thanks in large part to legislation, regulation, and public pressure, most source points have been sharply reduced or eliminated. Today, the water that comes from factories or sewage treatment plants must meet stringent standards for pollutant levels, and violators of those standards are subject to stiff fines. No longer, then, is local industry the main source of surface water pollution. Instead, the major source of today’s water pollution is much more widespread and less site-specific. Thus it is termed non-point source pollution. Where does non-point source pollution come from? From me and you.

One way to understand why non-point source pollution is a problem is to realize that normal, everyday human activities have a significant impact on the water quality of lakes, streams, and rivers. Bodies of water do change over time even in the absence of human activity. Gradually, streams fill with sediment, rivers change course, and lakes eutrophy (or age) over time. But, as is true of human interaction with the environment in so many ways, our activity has greatly accelerated these natural processes, so that it threatens the viability of aquatic life and the future of water quality.

It stands to reason, however, that if we humans are such contributors to surface water pollution, we might also be able to alleviate much of the damage by changing our activity.

To understand how surface waters are polluted, we need to look at what seems to be a harmless part of nature: the raindrop. Usually it’s not the raindrops themselves that pollute the water (although some contaminants are carried from the sky via raindrops–acid rain is one example), but what the raindrops pick up as they move toward surface waters. When much of our landscape was undisturbed by human development–both rural and urban, most rain would fall on vegetation, or on forest or prairie floors which were covered with organic matter and had deep and stable soil. Generally speaking, then, this rain (now “run-off”) would be soaked up by the vegetation, organic matter, and soil, or–at the very least–filtered and slowed in its movement.

Let’s fast forward to present time, when agriculture and urban development cover a large portion of our globe. Now, rainwater lands on a much altered surface. In rural areas, of course, much of the native vegetation has been cleared for agricultural development. Most conventional farming today involves extensive tilling of soil and the use of heavy machinery over large areas in the production of monocultural, annual row crops, which often leaves soil exposed. Picture that rain drop again, and see it fall on to bare soil with an impact capable of disturbing, picking up, and quickly carrying away particles of soil (since there is no vegetation to slow it down or filter it along the way) to the nearest ditch or gully, where it joins other raindrops also carrying soil, rushing forth to the nearest body of water. (To make matters worse, these drops of water falling over agricultural areas also pick up fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and animal manure–all of which end up polluting surface waters.)

But one can’t blame non-point source pollution on farmers alone. In recent decades, farmers have learned a great deal about managing manure, keeping cattle out of streambeds, conserving soil, and generally reducing or filtering run-off in recent decades. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service sees to it that for farmers to be eligible for government programs, they must file soil conservation plans. But the best reason for farmers to protect their soil is that without it, they would eventually be out of business. Fertile, productive farms need good soil. So farmers have learned that when they contour strips for crops, or puts grass buffers between fields, it’s not only good for the environment, it’s good for the crops.

Today, according to the University of Wisconsin Extension, agricultural run-off actually carries less sediment (per acre) into surface waters than urban areas. To understand this, let’s go back to the raindrop. This time, picture it falling in an area of urban development. Where, before, the raindrop fell on thick native vegetation, it now falls on rooftops, lawns, driveways, parking lots, and highways. And once again we have the same problem–little opportunity for that raindrop to be absorbed, filtered, or slowed by vegetation. Instead, it goes rushing (probably faster than that raindrop out in the country) across pavement, into the gutters, down storm sewers, and into the stormwater system, before finally flowing into a lake, stream, or river. (Although many people think that the water which runs down the gutters is sent to a sewage treatment center, that is very rarely the case. Most often, the water you see rushing down the storm sewer–and all the pollution it picks up along the way–goes straight into the nearest surface water without any cleaning or “treatment.”) The vast majority of surfaces in our urban areas, which were covered previously by vegetation and thick, porous soil, are now impervious to water. Thus those paved areas compound the problem: not only are there more contaminants to pollute the water, but at the same time there is less porous area to absorb, filter, or slow it down.

What does this urban raindrop carry into the surface waters? A study conducted for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources found significant amounts of sediment, nutrients, metals, pesticides, and other chemicals. Where do these pollutants come from? From you and me–from everyday human activity. Let’s start at home. If you live in a typical suburban house, your home is one source of run-off. The gutters and downspouts that collect the rainfall from your roof are major sources of run-off. This water, which is typically flowing quickly and concentrated into a small area, picks up loose soil particles, grass clippings, leaves, pet waste, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and whatever else may be on your lawn, sidewalk, or driveway.

What does this mean for the surface water in your area? The soil particles (or sediment) cloud the water, cover fish spawning areas, and fill in waterways and bodies of water, causing the temperature of the water to rise. Grass clippings, leaves, pet waste, and other organic matter are swept into the water where they begin to decay and to provide food for bacteria and algae, which multiply, blocking light for bottom plants.

The bacteria then use up oxygen (which is essential for fish), and their decay produces ammonia which can poison fish and other aquatic life. The fertilizers (many of which contain pesticides and herbicides) feed algae and weed growth, further contributing to the process described above. Pesticide and herbicide poisons often find their way into the fish and the birds which feed on those fish, where they build up over time. Overall, the effect is cumulative, giving rise to significant contamination and degradation.

Of course, the water pollution that results from any one home is relatively minor, but, added up, residential homes, lawns, and paved areas are major contributors to surface water pollution. If we avoid the attitude which is embodied in phrases such as “What difference can one pile of leaves or one application of fertilizer and weed-killer make?” we will discover that one person can in fact make a difference. The automobile is another significant contributor to non-point source pollution. Not only does the automobile itself yield dangerous pollutants, but roads and highways act as highly efficient pathways to carry those pollutants directly into our surface waters. Have you ever seen streets swollen with the rain water of a powerful summer storm? Those rivers of water flow down the storm sewer system to–you guessed it–surface waters. And they pick up the waste particles from automobiles along the way. (Moreover, it doesn’t take a huge downpour to pick up and move these water contaminants–even a small shower will do it, it’s just harder for us to see.)

Perhaps you’re surprised to learn that your car or truck contributes to water pollution. Nevertheless, your vehicle leaves behind chemicals such as lead, zinc, cadmium, and chromium, in the form of paint pieces, metal pieces, exhaust solids, as well as leaked coolant, oil, windshield washer and other fluids. Once again it’s a matter of numbers. One car alone won’t pollute a river, but tens of thousands will and do.

In addition to the waste that comes directly from the automobile, streets and highways contribute to water pollution in other ways. Do you live in an area where snow and ice affect winter driving? If so, chances are that salt and sand are used on those roadways. Guess where it all goes when the snow melts? And all the litter–from cigarette butts to empty soda cans–goes with it.

Where else does non-point source pollution come from? There are numerous other sources, too many to mention here. But a very significant source is construction. In the construction of a new road, house, or industrial park, soil is exposed, disturbed, and often moved in large quantities. As you know, such exposed soil is extremely subject to erosion. Studies of areas under development have shown that more than two dump -truck loads of soil can be washed away from one acre of development. Today, developers are required to employ practices which reduce the soil run-off by placing silt barriers such as fabric or straw bales around the perimeter of the area.

Reducing non-point source pollution does require the investment of effort and money (although a great deal of contamination can be avoided merely by changing our practices). But the cost of not taking action is even higher. Consider the use we (and the other life that shares our planet) make of our surface water resources. Recreation is an obvious example. We use our lakes, streams, and rivers for fishing, swimming, and boating. And often, we visit bodies of water for the aesthetic pleasure afforded by moving water–the sound and smell of ocean surf, or the sight of moonlight reflected in the waters of a lake.

We also use surface waters for our sustenance. Cities such as Milwaukee or Chicago, for example, obtain their drinking water from Lake Michigan. Much of the western U.S. obtains water from dammed rivers and man-made reservoirs. And even though municipal water is often cleaned and filtered, such processes are expensive and less than one hundred- percent effective. If that were not reason enough to be concerned about non-point pollution, there is some evidence that below-ground sources of water are also subject to contamination from non-point sources.

Perhaps the most profound reason for reducing water pollution is that, since it is the source of so much of environmental degradation, we must take responsibility for cleaning up our own mess. If we are indeed stewards or caretakers of the land (and water), we must see to it that the impact of our actions is minimized. This obligation extends not only to our co-habitants in the planet and to the animal kingdoms, but to future generations of humans. Fortunately, non-point source pollution is one aspect of human impact which we can reduce.

Article Categories: Nutrition & Wellness

The post Water Pollution Today appeared first on AFPA.

“It is a laughable sight, to see those guilds of cobblers and tailors… when they march in procession.. stopping, round shouldered, limping men, swaying from side to side. They look as though they had all been carefully selected for an exhibition of their infirmities.” Bermadino Ramazzo 1700.

Introduction

Physicians and health care professionals have recommended increased physical activity as a means of improving the health of sedentary workers for the past 300 years.

As continued progress in industrial mechanization during the later half of the twentieth century continues, health problems at the work site have increased dramatically. This has been proven as a direct result of a lack, rather than an excess, of physical activity. With the decline in physical activity, there has been a dramatic increase to exploit the very limits of human mental performance, with a resultant increase in stress levels.

Counting the Costs of Poor Fitness in the Workplace

The numbers are striking. American Industry loses $32 billion dollars and 132 million work days lost every year because of employee’s premature deaths that are associated with cardio-vascular disease (high blood pressure, heart stroke, diabetes, and obesity).

Billions more are lost as a result of lowered productivity as a result of sickness and disability. The National Safety Council stated that in 1999 backaches alone cost industry over $1.2 billion dollars in production and services, and 275 million more in workers compensation.

Corporate Fitness and wellness concepts have become a management tool for many industries, including Johnson & Johnson, Xerox, and General Motors are a few examples of companies that incorporate fitness in the workplace. It is a known fact that to a large degree heart disease as we as other degenerative diseases can be prevented through dietary modifications and cardiovascular exercise. There is a direct correlation between the neglect or our body and the increased incidence of heart disease.

A Healthy Worker is a Happy Worker

How might an exercise program improve the health and job satisfaction of a worker? The psychological and physiological benefits of exercise and vigorous leisure are well documented. The key factor for good health are regular and frequent bouts of exercise.

An example would be exercise sessions that last a minimum of 30 minutes, three times per week of cardiovascular exercise (stair-climbing, walking briskly, bike or rowing). Research has clearly demonstrated when people exercise regularly, they live longer and feel better. People notice better sleep patterns, and that they cope more effectively with stress while maintaining a higher level of stamina and energy as a direct result of exercise.

Studies have shown that people who are motivated properly assume more responsibility for their own health when they are engaged in an exercise program.

A report that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987 reported that a vigorous bout of exercise in the middle of the day improved mental alertness and productivity for 4 to 5 hours afterwards.

What is the Motivation for the Employee?

How might an exercise program improve the health and job satisfaction of a worker?

A deliberate exercise program that is designed more towards the needs of employees can help counter boredom and job dissatisfaction especially if the worker is mentally under-stressed.

Participation in a fitness/life-style program has many times been found to encourage an adoption of other healthy forms of behavior, such as cessation of smoking or weight reduction.

Additionally, benefits can include improvement of the company image and the facilitation of recruitment, gains in productivity, a better quality of work, less absenteeism, reduced health care costs and fewer on the job injuries. Johnson & Johnson reported that employee’s had taken 13% fewer sick days the first year of their involvement in an organized exercise program and fewer sick days by the second year.

Other studies have found similar decreases in absenteeism either in the company as a whole or in program participants after the introduction of sports and fitness programs.

Absenteeism alone can cause a loss in production of about 6 days per worker per year in nonunion operations and 10 to 14 days per worker per year in union operations. As company policy becomes more fitness oriented there may be further selective recruitment of employees and a positive self-image.

Fit individuals tend to be high achievers and are therefore recruits for executive positions. One can easily imagine a fitness program reducing stress or improving perceived health to the point at which an employee can cope.

Employee Turnover

One, a perceived lack of management interest in the worker and two, a mismatch between the optimum physical or mental loading for the individual and the actual demands of the workplace. Workers reactions to the offer of membership in a fitness facility will vary with each individual company.

However, many companies face serious fiscal concern when turnover occurs; especially if large sums of money have been invested in education the attitude of the employee toward exercise.

The individual with a positive attitude might view the offer as an expression of management concern for personal well-being, as a token of stable employment, or as a valuable fringe benefit.

The result could be a more stable, satisfied labor force, with some reduction in workplace stress. Employee turnover was demonstrated to drop from 18% to 7% after a corporate fitness program was offered to several large Canadian corporations.

The Role of the Personal Trainer

A qualified fitness trainer combines the best of well known techniques, providing the member with an array of health and personal benefits.

There is no need for a member to spend hours of their time lifting heavy weights or running long distances to receive the type of conditioning results they desire.

An informed personal trainer provides insights for significant strength, flexibility and endurance improvements which manifest themselves in improved personal appearance, self confidence and consequently improved performance at work and leisure.

Each program is designed by someone qualified in the field of exercise.

After initial screening which includes:

1. Blood pressure
2. Body fat percentage
3. Personal physical history
4. Realistic goals and needs The client is then placed on a program to condition the entire body. The session should begin and conclude with cardiovascular training, including a warm-up 5-8 minutes) and cool-down (5 minutes).

During the core of the workout, each member will perform a series of exercises with resistance equipment designed to increase muscular strength and coordination.

Each major muscle group will be worked to increase muscular tone without placing undue stress on the joints and tendons. Noticeable results are usually seen in the second to third week.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Craiz Wright, M.D.Cost Containment Through Health Promotion Programs, Xerox Corporation Fitness Program, J of Occupational Medicine, vol 24,#12, Dec. 82, pp 965-968.
2. Colacino Dennis, A Fitness Porogram that was Designed to Fit, Business and Health Magazine, Dec. 83, pp23-25.

3. Goldberg Rob, Working Out at Work, Savvy Magazine, 83,pp 54-59.

4. Buley, M. Todays Hottest Perk: Fitness in the Workplace, Dynamic Years Mag, Feb. 84, pp12-16.

5. Fielding J. Effectiveness of Employee Health Improvement Programs, J. Of Occupational Medicine, vol. 24 #1 Nov. 82, pp907-915.

6. Kuzela, C. Taking a Scapel to Health Care Costs, Industrial Week magazine, Aug. 83, pp45-51.

7. Gertz N. Organizational and Individual Benefits Associated with health Promotion at the Worksite. 1991.

8. Fichs V. Setting priorities in Health Education and Promotion, Who Shall Have: health, Economics, and Social Choice, 1974.

9. Strategies for Disease Prevention and health Promotion in the Department of health and Human Services, Oct.81, pp589-598.

10. Donaghue, S.Correlation Between Physical Fitness Absenteeism and Work Performance, Public Health, vol. 95, pp109-118.

11. Horne W.M., Effects of a Physical Activity Program on Middle Aged, Sedentary Corporation Executives, American Industry and health.

Article Categories: Business & Management

The post Fitness Programs & Workplace Stress appeared first on AFPA.

Now more than ever, we in the fitness industry have a moral obligation to help those who are in desperate need of our help. We, in fact, have a responsibility to sell solutions to the problems associated with a sedentary lifestyle.

Therefore, as a fitness professional you need to understand something very clearly knowing how to sell is not only necessary for financial success, but it’s also allows you to fulfill your moral obligation to others. Many personal trainers despise having anything to do with the word sales.

They don’t want to have to worry about selling anything.
All they want to do is train people. While there is nothing wrong with wanting to help people, there is also nothing wrong with selling people.

Not when the result of the money the client spent is a new body, outlook and lease on life. How do you put a dollar value on that? Personally, I don’t think you can. And I highly recommend if you want to become a leader in this industry, or even merely survive in it, you instill the same belief in yourself that regardless of what you charge for personal training costs, clients simply can never pay enough for the end result.

Your belief must be concrete. Now don’t get me wrong.
I don’t mean to tell you that you should start to charge obscene amounts of money for personal training.

And obviously, you must be able to deliver results. The point I’m trying to get across is it’s not easy to sell something you don’t believe is valuable. And since fitness comes so easily to personal trainers, many have a hard time asking for money (selling) due to the fact they cannot understand why others would pay for such a service.

Trainers need to take a step back and really look at the value of the service they provide. Often when that step back is taken the benefits to your clients becomes not only more obvious, but a selling point. Here’s the tricky part. Promoting benefits makes for great marketing, but not great selling.

Do you really believe in this day and age people don’t know being more physically fit would benefit their health? Please. Instead of trying to sell the benefits of fitness, you should be trying to find the pain of prospective clients.

What I mean by pain is the emotional reason why a prospective client would hire you. People almost always buy for emotional reasons, not logical ones.

Don’t believe me? Why do people spend $100,000 on a car when they could purchase one that performs the same basic functions at a fraction of the cost? Have you ever spent twice as much for clothing you would have spent elsewhere just so you could have a certain name brand? Is either of these examples of logical decisions?

No. They are both emotional choices. People make them all the time. Maybe not for a six-figure car, but emotional buying occurs often because in reality people buy things they want much more than things they need. When you realize this phenomenon selling becomes even easier.

If a prospect doesn’t want to hire a personal trainer then don’t bother trying to sell them training services.

It’s practically impossible to convince someone to buy something they don’t want even if they desperately need it. This makes for no-pressure selling. You see, professional selling is about closing every sale you should.

It’s not about pressuring people into forking over their money. Prospects must convince themselves they need to hire a fitness professional.

As a trainer you don’t really need to do much more than listen and assure the person that you are capable of relieving their pain. And who knows what their pain is? It could be anything. People buy for the strangest reasons.

However, they always buy for their reasons and not yours. Selling is about listening, not talking. The prospect should be talking approximately 70% of the time so you can find those reasons. You need to be listening for pain cues from prospects.

Words such as: distraught, confused, frustrated, upset, concerned these are the types of things prospective training clients say about their lack of results. And these are exactly the type of people who are ready to work for results. They don’t need results, they want results.

Remember, everyone needs to live a fit lifestyle. But unless someone wants to they will continue to sit on their couch and stuff their face. It’s only when we find the prospects who want results do we have a realistic opportunity to sell them personal training services.

And even then it probably won’t be until they’ve exhausted less expensive options. But believe me, there are plenty of those prospects out there.

Jim Labadie is a fitness entrepreneur, sales expert and speaker. To sign up for his FREE mini-course on sales for fitness professionals please visit: http://www.howtogetmoreclients.com/

Article Categories: Business & Management

The post The Psychology of Selling Why People Hire Fitness Professionals appeared first on AFPA.

By: Dr. Bill Misner Ph.D.
Eavesdropping…Ultra heroes and heroines of the 15th Marathon de Sables murmured without shame, “What have I done to myself”…,”It is totally fricken’ loony out there…,” “I couldn’t breathe, you have to live to race another day, it’s not worth dying over”…, or as one summarized it all…”I just went to hell and back!” There is a reason why they call it “the world’s toughest footrace.” The blisters on top of blisters, sunburn, windburn, sand blaststing, sore aching muscles, swollen feet fingers, and puffy faces, sunken eyelids, peeling-flaking skin, raw ruby-red rash on body parts too private to mention on the family channel are unwanted trauma troupers which will only be only a fading memoir in 3-5 days.

But the worst malaise from a 140-mile 6-day desert outing are yet come, the “AWFUL AFTERS”, a consortium of ultra-lingering “LOWS” resulting from extraordinary cellular-substrate metabolic stress from hyperthermic exposure. The mood-altering depression seems to cling
without thought of dissipating for days and weeks.

Ultramarathon Runners call this phenomena the “Post-Race Marathon Blues”. The “Lucky” ones may be those whose race experience ended prematurely. Lisa Smith’s saddening drop-out due to an asthmatic reaction, probably from breathing too many airborne allergens in the great dunes sandstorm, intensified by exercise -induced stress to her immune system, will likely be training again within 7-10 days after she gets home. Quokka Sport’s Felicia Wilkerson’s ITB-disabling knee pain, resulting in race organizers pulling her from the race may take only 21-42 days physical therapy, rest, stretching, and anti-inflammatory medications, before she returns to pain-free running, but those who actually finish the race today, in fact, may actually be the most traumatized of all. The glory of the moment, the hurrahs, the whoop la, and yes, elevated exercise-induced endorphins and other circulating hormonal metabolites creating a temporary “High” that lull race finishers into forgetting the hurt, pain, and agony their bodies have survived.For them, complete recovery after ultramarathon events and the like exacts a price tag worth review.

COMPLETE RECOVERY IS ONLY 72.5 DAYS AWAY…ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Is having the “Blues” after such an event for real or just a let down from being out of the limelight away from the reveling generated by a race environment? No, it is for real, comparable to having been dismembered, losing a body part. During the 7-day ultramarathon ordeal, an average runner’s conservative macronutrient estimate expense is at least 15,000 calories, 9000 from body fat stores[nearly 2.5 pounds of body fat], 4500 calories from muscle and liver glycogen stores[1.33 pounds], and 1500 calories recruited from lean muscle mass amino acid pools[nearly 1/2 pound of muscle]. Imagine losing a hand, foot, or any body part weighing 4.33 pounds, predictably it follows that one naturally grieves over loss of a body part literally for months after such a loss.
This solid weight loss does not account for a 5-12 lbs. water weight daily fluctuation in the typical 70 kg. runner each racing day. What then is the difference between losing a 4-5 pound body part in 6 milliseconds or 6 days?

At each day’s stage end, each ultrarunner attempts to recompense their losses by aggressively force-feeding, rehydrating, taking electrolytes, supplements, and medications. Approximately 70%-85% of the fat stores, muscle glycogen, fluid levels, and electrolytes lost, are restored in the 24-hours time-lapse between stages. Complete lean muscle mass amino acid resynthesis and several micro-metabolites are not completely restored, tending to specific store depletion proportionate to duration, distance and/or intensity. It has been suggested that one day rest is required for each mile raced for complete cyclic recovery prior to full-course training. Whoa, that is 145 days or so!

Perhaps not quite that long, since each stage imposes a daily mandatory “rest” break, a divisive factor of 2 lowers the 145 day figure to 72.5 days, assuming each runner does not return to arduous training prematurely before down-deep cellular recovery is complete.
But why does it take so long to recover from an event lasting only SIX DAYS?

PROTEIN RESYNTHESIS IS A KEY TO UNLOCKING POST-RACE DEPRESSION

Every 180 days, 98% of all human soft tissue structures are replaced during the extremely complex DNA-RNA replication process, exchanging aged cellular structures for brand new ones! Depression or negative mood-swings may occur during “Normal” periodic amino acid depletion recycling, much less when one has superimposed a 6-day 140-mile run in a furnace. Two major neurotransmitters are involved in preventing depression, serotonin, which is converted from the amino acid L-tryptophan and norepinephrine, which is converted from the amino acids L-phenylalanine and L-tyrosine. With inadequate amino-acid conversion, neurotransmitters are no longer produced in sufficient amounts, a deficiency that causes “emotional” symptoms, such as severe depression. During each and every mile run 10-15 amino acid calories are recruited for the energy cycle. Taking away 1450-2200 lean muscle amino calories in 6 days will dramatically stress the amino acid pool by which most of us avoid “The Blues”.

Even by taking daily amino-acid supplements for resupplying our regenerating amino-neurotransmitter
precursors, time is required proportionate to depletion effort, age, gender, fitness levels, and familial genetic gifting.
Hormones imbalances related to amino acid loss “take a beating” as well. Extreme endurance training stress elevates specific hormonal levels before an event, anticipating their expected demise during a prolonged endurance event.

The baseline hormonal state in 1000 kilometer ultramarathoners is quite different from normal athletes. Resting serum conjugated catecholamines–epinephrine(E), norepinephrine(NE), dopamine(D), free E and free D, Adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH)–have been reported to be significantly ELEVATED above the norms. What happens after the race begins?
The effect of the racing on serum catecholamine levels elevates further free and conjugated norepinephrine (NE).
Other catecholamines, free and conjugated, also remained seen to be elevated above the normal means. Adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) remains elevated, but IR-beta EP within the normal range, without significant change. A significant increase in
growth hormone (GH), prolactin (PRL), and cortisol also occurs.[1]

As a model of chronic physical stress, ultramarathon runners demonstrate a significantly altered baseline hormonal state as reflected in the primary mediators of the stress response, the catecholamines and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.
Their response to severe exercise is distinct from that of untrained individuals in whom conjugated catecholamines decrease and ACTH increase. This may represent a prolonged hormonal adaptation from prolonged stress related to depression as linked to depleted muscle amino acid pool loss. While this is merely my own theory at this point in time, since little has been demonstrably concluded regarding the biomechanics of lonely long-distance ultramarathoners biochemistry. It appears that what dramatically reduces in short order our blood biochemistry hormones and lean muscle amino acids pools may be the basis for the time-required rebound from such extreme exposure to a traumatic event.

BUT THEY LOOK HEALTHY ON THE OUTSIDE…INSIDE IT IS A MAJOR CELLULAR DISASTER!

After a 1600-kilometer Ultramarathon, biochemical changes related to muscle breakdown, hepatic damage, hyponatraemia, and a number of other variables in the blood serum of ultramarathon runners was analyzed. Significant DECREASES were found during or at the conclusion of the event: globulin, uric acid, and cholesterol. Significant INCREASES were found during or at the conclusion of the event in plasma volume, sodium, chloride, urea, alkaline phosphatase, gamma-glutamyltransferase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, bilirubin, total protein, albumin, glucose, calcium, and phosphate.[2]

Previous research of blood profile changes from ultramarathon running, these researchers reported, changes in haematological parameters and iron metabolism observed during a 1600-kilometer ultramarathon. DECREASES in haemoglobin, packed cell volume, mean red cell volume, percentage lymphocytes, percentage monocytes, serum iron, total iron binding capacity, and percentage transferrin saturation occurred, while INCREASES were found in plasma volume, total red cell count (day 4 only), total white cell count, percentage and absolute numbers of neutrophils and reticulocytes, absolute numbers of lymphocytes and monocytes(day 4 only), absolute numbers of eosinophils (day 11 and race end), absolute numbers of basophils (race end only), platelets, ferritin, haptoglobin, and bilirubin (day 4 only).[3]

It is reported that after 12.6 miles of racing, athletes produce more C-reactive protein levels than it can metabolize. Prior to 12.6 miles, no increased serum C-reactive protein[CRP] levels is observed, while CRP increases proportionately to duration and distances run.[4] C-reactive protein increase is also reported excessive during minor heart attacks and in certain muscle cell death[disease disorders]. With all these biochemical and hormonal markers in stress, what should an ultramarathoner do to enhance complete full recovery for return to training?

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS FOR ENHANCING RECOVERY AFTER EXTREME ENDURANCE EVENTS

[A]-Consume 1.4-1.7 grams COMPLETE PROTEINS per kilogram bodyweight from Whey Protein, Soy Protein, Egg-White Protein, or a combination of grain, vegetable, seed, and nut protein ideally from raw food sources.

[B]-Supplementing GLUTAMINE[2000 grams] or APGL[Arginine-Pyroglutamte-Lysine][2400 grams] on an empty stomach early in the day has been shown to enhance human Growth Hormone release from 420% to 700% above baseline.

[C]-DIETARY FIBER taken in either supplemental form or from soluble fiber found in raw fruits and vegetables ranging from 35-60 grams per day with 100-120 fluid ounces of distilled water, or raw fruit juices may enhance the toxins excretory removal process.

[D]-ANTIOXIDANTS such as alpha-Lipoic Acid, Vitamins C, E, Gingko Biloba, Glutathione, N-Acetyl Cysteine, in bowel – tolerance high dosage 30-40 days post-race may enhance recovery significantly.

[E]-HOT BATHS with 8-10 ounces of food-grade H2O2 well-mixed in a hot-as-you can-stand-it soaking bath at the end of the day, followed by a full body deep-tissue MASSAGE may help your body physically remove free radical build-up, enhancing the cellular environment significantly.

[F]-SLEEP may be enhanced by taking a total of 200-400 mg. of Kava-Kava with 3-10 mg. melatonin 1-2 hours prior to bedtime. Dividing this total dose for each of 2 hours prior bedtime appears to work well for most athletes.

[G]-EXERCISE NO eccentric running during the first week after an event-[will hinder the recovery process dramatically]. Loosen up by doing concentric exercise in a pool or on a bike, workout lightly an hour, break into a light sweat, then after 7-10 days, begin short 30-60 minute jogs on a flat course every other day for 2 weeks, then 3-weeks post-race return to every day running at no more than half the weekly training pre-race mileage.

[H]-FOOD: AVOID–>Processed foods, high-sugar foods, high-fat foods, alcohol, dairy byproducts, red meat, poultry, high-sodium foods, diet products including all high-phosphorus carbonated beverages. If you cannot avoid these nutrient-empty
macro-calories, limiting to once per week. This choice will significantly increase rate of recovery, when 6/7th of the weekly dietary choices are rich in whole raw fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, seeds, and organic cereals.[5]

As recovery and the hoped-for return to “Normal” transpires in time, with it some may birth the thought of return to the 16th running of the 2001 Marathon de Sables. For others perhaps this is neither a simple nor a foregone conclusion. Lisa Smith’s asthmatic reaction, creating a distinct lack of life-giving air, though a very unpleasant memory, or, Felicia Wilkerson’s disabling knee problem causing her to drag her leg like a limp tail is much more than a favorite meditation; but each of these reflections are but flaming embers, fanning the desire to tame the desert beast which has coerced today’s finishers to postpone “Counting the Cost”, facing repairs untold from the “Damages” unknown, perhaps they too will rebound in hope for another six days in the desert sun.

REFERENCES

[1]-Biochemical and hormonal changes during a 1000 km ultramarathon. Pestell RG, Hurley DM, Vandongen R,
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 1989 May 16:5 353-61.
[2]-The biochemistry of runners in a 1600 km ultramarathon. Fallon KE, Sivyer G, Sivyer K, Dare A, Br J Sports Med 1999 Aug 33:4 264-9.
[3]-Changes in haematological parameters and iron metabolism associated with a 1600 kilometre ultramarathon. Fallon KE, Sivyer G, Sivyer K, Dare A, Br J Sports Med 1999 Feb 33:1 27-31; discussion 32.
[4]-Structural and ultrastructural changes inskeletal muscle associated with long-distance training and running. Kuipers H, Janssen GME, Boseman F, Frederik PM, Int J Sports Med 1989; 10:S156-S159.
[5]-Prior to employing any of these practical suggestions, athletes taking medications should always consult their licensed medical practitioner.

Dr. Bill Misner, Ph.D. is the full time Nutritionist for E-CAPS INC. & HAMMER NUTRITION, Author of NUTRITION FOR ENDURANCE: FINDING ANOTHER GEAR, Dolezal & Associates Publishing, Livermore, California, 1998. He is a former 2-time U.S.A. 50-Mile National Masters Champion. In 1998-1999, he established two “World Records” completing the first-ever 10,000 miles and 20,000 kilometers ever run in an organized footrace.

This article is reprinted by permission:
E-CAPS INC. & HAMMER NUTRITION LTD.
[REPRINTED BY PERMISSION]
COPYRIGHT E-CAPS INC. & HAMMER NUTRITION LTD. © 2000
Dr. Bill Misner, Ph.D.
[REPRINTED BY PERMISSION]
COPYRIGHT E-CAPS INC. & HAMMER NUTRITION LTD. © 2000
http://www.hammernutrition.com/
http://www.e-caps.com/

Article Categories: Exercise Program Design

The post Muscle Recovery After Ultra Marathon & Endurance Events appeared first on AFPA.

Admit it. When the going gets tough at home, we’ve all plopped the kids in front of the television and breathed a sigh of relief. Finally, we can get started on dinner, maybe check email or sort that massive pile of laundry. But when your five-year old yells at you “Mom, Kids Rule!” or your ten-year old horrifies you with language that would make a sailor blush, you realize there must be something amiss with what these “family programs” really teach our kids.

And sadly, its happening all over the media today, from sports to cartoons, and our children are learning things that we, as parents, vowed we would never teach them.
Old fashioned values like respect and self-discipline, seems to have been forgotten, replaced by the dreaded “bling bling” pop culture of today. Just the thought of your angelic three-year old morphing into a designer-clad, smart-mouthed, money-worshipping, me-obsessed, lay-about is enough to make any parent consider that threatening military school brochure, but there is a solution out there to consider.

Martial Arts training. From Ninja Turtles to The Karate Kid You and your kids have all seen the flying kicks, battle cries and mighty chops of their favorite TV characters, as they beat the bad guys to submission — but, you may ask, how on earth can these acts of violence teach my child anything worthwhile? First, know that what you see on television (save perhaps the Karate Kid) is a far cry from what real martial arts are all about.

The fact is, martial arts training is based on non-violence. Originating in Asia (mainly Japan, China and Korea, although Thailand and Vietnam have their own practices as well), martial arts range from a variety of types and styles, all of which are based on well-rounded, moral teachings.
The beauty of learning martial arts is that it encompasses not just the physical aspect of the “sport”, but mental and emotional lessons as well.

Comparing that to other kid’s activities and sports, where fierce competitiveness and “winning at all costs” seems to be the order of the day, it’s not surprising that many children grapple with issues of self-esteem and misplaced aggression. Now imagine your child actually learning valuable life lessons, skills that he will take throughout life, laying the foundation for a happy, well-adjusted and fulfilled adult life.

If only karate for kids was popular in the 70’s, when I was growing up! The Advantages Karate, and other martial arts for kids, builds confidence and self-esteem as well as self-discipline, respect, concentration and courtesy.

• Many martial arts schools also offer leadership courses for kids, in conjunction with their karate for kids programs, or similar lessons.
• Martial Arts is ideal for children who do not do well in team sports, giving them the ability to flourish this activity, while combining physical and mental practices.
• Many do not realize this, but it is a fact that martial arts training are safer than most school sports.
• Children with special needs, such as ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), learning difficulties and hyperactivity are often recommended to participate in martial arts for kids because of the clear benefits in its structured training techniques.

Kung-Fu Master or Ninja Warrior? Before you sign up Junior for the first martial arts class you see, take some time to check out the different methods available, and match it with what you know would suit your child best. This is a good way to avoid any problems that may sprout from a conflict of your child’s personality and the training techniques. Is your little Zach a sensitive soul?

Then maybe a class that doesn’t center on sparring (full-on kicks and punches training) but rather, slower, defensive maneuvers would fare better for him. Kids with an aggressive streak, however, may prefer the more forceful moves and thrive in competitive sparring. Here’s a quick primer on the kid-friendly martial arts training you’re likely to find:

Martial Arts From Japan Karate

• Uses defensive and aggressive moves
• Centers on building strength and endurance
• Involves chops, punches, kicks, strikes, blocking and sparring
• May use weapons Jujitsu
• Uses defensive and aggressive moves
• Involves lots of sparring
• Teaches a fair amount of weapons training Aikido
• Uses a more “spiritual” and harmonious style in redirecting the aggression of the attacker as the form of defense, using throws, pins, rolls etc.
• Taught on the premise of disabling an aggressor without attacking, through your individual inner energy
• Does not involve sparring or competitions Judo • Uses gentle, “wrestling-like” movements
• Considered one of the safest methods of martial arts
• Emphasizes physical control as well as mental development
• Engages in competitions Martial Arts From China Kung-Fu
• The generic term referring to Chinese martial arts with a variety of styles
• Involves attack movements as well as defensive techniques
• Teaches kicks, punches, chops, throws, falls, grappling, katas, leg sweeps and blows among others.
• Engages in sparring competitions Martial Arts From Korea Taekwondo
• Competitive in nature, involves techniques using elaborate footwork and unique high kicks.
• Emphasizes strength, force and attack methods.
• Engages in lots of sparring and competitions.

Choosing The Right Instruction If you have an idea of the type of martial arts class you’d like your child to participate in, the next step would be to find the right school. Finding the right class that not only matches your child’s and your needs, in terms of teachers you feel comfortable with, the price, facilities and so on, are all important factors. Say you’ve found a local place that specializes in Karate for Kids.

What are the things you should look for?

1. Good Instructors Check out their qualifications, teaching methods and watch carefully how they interact with the other children. It should be a fun learning experience!

2. Space and Safety Obviously you would want to entrust your child in as establishment that is safe, well-maintained, and clean with ample space as well as decent facilities and equipment.

3. School Values Different martial arts schools inevitably go by different values, for instance, one kid’s karate class may handle aggression in one way, while a judo class would have a different approach. Take some time to observe which school’s ideals match your family’s principles.

4. Prices and Schedules Prices for martial arts training can vary according to school and location, so make sure you the instruction you choose represents fair value. Finding the most effective way to fit martial arts training into your family’s lifestyle is also essential, knowing what works best with your schedule and other activities.

Baby Blackbelts Starting your child young in karate training is ideal (children as young as the age of four are usually accepted, as it is also a good way to hone fine motor skills), and lots of parents have found that in as little as a year, their children who were involved in martial arts had noticeably gained positive traits such as increased self-esteem, respect and overall physical fitness.

Many parents also opt to join a martial arts training program themselves, making it a great bonding experience for the entire family.

About the author: Laura Saunders is a successful freelance writer, mother of two and a martial arts practitioner who has written articles for http://www.best-karate-equipment.com/ your online guide to Karate uniforms, martial arts sparring gear , and martial arts training equipment.

Copyright 2005 Best-Karate-Equipment.com Permission is granted to publish this article on your site.

Article Categories: Martial Arts/kickboxing

The post Benefits of Martial Arts Training For Kids appeared first on AFPA.

By Pat Necerato

Mistake 1: Trainers Not Properly Dealing With Procrastination

The biggest mistake personal trainers make is that they don’t properly deal with procrastination with each and every prospect. Procrastination is the reason why your prospects don’t buy your Training services.

Notice I didn’t say its most likely the reason they don’t buy or “one” of the reasons they don’t buy…procrastination is the only reason they don’t buy. “Oh but Pat you don’t understand, this person really didn’t have the time they have a packed schedule”, or, “Pat this person is different you see, they wanted to buy Training from me but right now they have a lot going on in their life…”..don’t worry, this happened to me all of the time as a trainer until I came up with a complete system that showed me how to destroy procrastination forever, and to get almost every qualified prospect to purchase my personal Training services from me that day.

Needless to say, for you to become financially successful as a personal trainer you need to learn to properly address, attack, and destroy procrastination during every sales presentation with every prospect and its not going to happen by saying one or two neat phrases or rebuttals.

That’s one of the reasons I created ultimatepersonaltrainingsalestool.com and the CAF Manual. One of the things it does is explains the complete system that I used to literally destroy procrastination in thousands of different prospects and to sell thousands of personal training sessions. I hate procrastination.

Its deceptive its sneaky, its disgusting and its probably costing you thousands of dollars in personal sales each month like it was me. For time purposes, I cant give you the entire system here but again I completely explain this technique in the ultimate personal training sales tool the CAF manual, but I can give you 2 elements of the technique right here and now.

First, You must be willing to attack procrastination head on with each and every prospect, that’s right, every prospect. You cant be fooled by enthusiastic prospects who swear they’re going to buy today, then in the end give you a boat load of excuses and put off their buying decision.

Don’t fool yourself by thinking, “I don’t have to worry about this prospect procrastinating, they told me there was nothing stopping them from buying plus they practically told me they’re definitely buying today! So remember, you must address procrastination and overcome with every prospect. Secondly, you must outright tell your prospect that the reason they wont buy training today (if any) is not going to be because of the time, its not going to be because of the money, the only reason people don’t get into the shape they want to be in is because of procrastination.

Tell your prospect that regardless of how important their goals are and regardless of how great of a trainer you are, you- nor anyone else-will be able to help them unless they stop procrastinating and make the commitment.

Now, before you can speak candidly with your prospect about procrastination you must take several other steps and then you must convincingly present the subject of procrastination with tact and skill. In the ultimate personal training sales tool the CAF manual, I show you completely how to do this and apply it to your personal situation so you can detect, destroy and overcome procrastination with practically every prospect.

Mistake 2: Trainers “Not” Refusing Clients

Why in the world would I want to teach you how to refuse clients? Refusing clients is the most effective way to sell personal training. Are you confused yet? Don’t be. Refusing clients is not what you think. Its not some prospect coming to you, wanting to purchase your personal training services and you refusing to sell them training.

Refusing clients has to do with the style of selling that will consistently pack your schedule with an endless stream of new clients. Refusing clients is partially an attitude that financially successful trainers possess which magnetically draws prospects into their sales presentation and opens the door of their emotions and true fitness goals.

I discovered this when I first started using the CAF techniques described at www.ultimatepersonaltrainingsalestool.com . The CAF actual stands for a form called the client analysis form. When I first started using the CAF and the techniques associated with it I couldn’t believe how fast and effectively I was selling personal training sessions.

So fast, that I didn’t want to ever sell without the CAF techniques and that’s how I learned about the power of refusing clients! I made a commitment that I would never try to sell another client for the rest of my life unless I used the CAF and all the other techniques described in the Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool One time someone wanted me to give them my personal training rates without going through the CAF process.

I had to refuse. I told them that I don’t advertise my rates and only after I spend time with the potential client to find out if they have a purpose in buying personal training will I take their time to review my rates. In other words (I said) I only consider training those people that are willing to spend 15-20 minutes to go through my Personal analysis process (which happens to be part of the CAF process.)

If someone cant do that I typically refuse them as clients.
The person was perplexed, they said, “You mean to tell me that you’ll only give me your rate package if I spend time going through your personal analysis process?” I said, “that’s exactly right it only take 15 minutes, if your truly ready to get into the best shape of your life, 15 minutes isn’t going to matter.”

He finally agreed, spend the time with me going over the process and after 15 minutes wrote me a check for $650 for ten training sessions. Now, don’t you agree that if you had a tool like that you would want to use it with every prospect too?

Of course you would. If you’re not using a strategic, mesmerizing, emotion building, excitement generating process like the CAF, or if your laboring through your sales presentations and not selling at least 90% of the prospects you see on a regular basis, then the ultimate personal training sales tool will add dozens of new clients to your business within a very short period of time.

Why? When you have the Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool you’ll want to make sure you use it with as many prospects as possible. You’ll want everyone to go through the process because you’ll know the ones that do, will end up buying that day.

Unfortunately some trainers are too anxious to give their rates hoping people will see them and buy right away. As a matter of fact, its exactly the opposite. When people see your rates it make them think.

Thinking usually means procrastination. However, when you use the ultimate personal training sales tool, you get the prospect so mesmerized and excited that by the time they see your rates, they are unable to say no regardless of your prices.

Mistake 3: Trainers “Not” Dealing With Objections

In order to sell personal training you must be willing to deal with objections during your sales presentation. You have a choice when you hear an objection from your prospect, you can either ignore the objection and hope it doesn’t get mentioned again, or you can deal with the objection head on.

For sure, dealing with the objection head on will be uncomfortable, and you may need to do that sometimes, but what if there was a way to deal with the objection before it happens so it never comes up at all!! There is a way to do this with every objection. One of the reasons I created the Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool is because it allows trainers to deal effectively with objections before they happen. Imagine if price, procrastination, money, time, and other objections practically disappeared from your prospects vocabulary, obviously your closing percentage would go through the roof! That’s exactly what will happen when you use Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool…objections will be history and your personal training business will grow like crazy.

Through its mesmerizing (almost hypnotic) questioning process, the Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool will eliminate your prospects objections and allow you to close the sale much faster and easier. Before I used the Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool I used to miss many sales due to objections such as I’m not sure if I can afford personal training, or I’m not sure if I’m ready to make the commitment.

Some prospects would promise me they would be back to sign up tomorrow and then I’d never see them again.

The Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool eliminates all this. Your prospect will not be able to give you any objection, and if they try, they’ll sound silly because the Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool allows prospects to answer their own objections before they even happen, it works almost magically. How much money are objections costing you?

What if you were able to handle and eliminate every prospect objection just from the prospects you spoke to last week? Maybe you cant relate to any of this because maybe you don’t even hear objections because you really don’t have an effective sales presentation.

If so, I understand, I tried selling training the same way when I first started. I though just because I was in great shape and because I had lots of certification that people would immediately sign up with me. Boy was I misled.

That’s when I developed the Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool. Not only does it eliminate objections but it also is a step-by-step systematic personal training sales approach that only takes 15 minutes to use with prospects and will have 6 out of 10 people paying for your services.

Veteran personal trainers have doubled their sales by throwing away their old way of selling using the Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool.

See a complete description of the Ultimate Personal Training Sales Tool by going to http://www.ultimatepersonaltrainingsalestool.com (You can get a FREE Audio version of this article by going to www.ultimatepersonaltrainingsalestool.com

Article Categories: Business & Management

The post How to Avoid the 3 Worst Personal Training Mistakes appeared first on AFPA.

Research by Dr. Gilbert Forbes, of the University of Rochester School of Medicine, shows that the average man loses about a half-pound of muscle per year after the age of 20. This average man is one who does not engage in total body conditioning. At the age of 50, his body weight is 15 pounds less muscular than at age 20. ”The more muscles you involve in an exercise program, the greater the demand placed on the heart, circulatory and musculoskeletal systems. And, of course, the greater the benefit from the exercise.

Total body conditioning can do more to ensure a long, healthy life than just about anything else known to the medical community today. It’s never too late to start a fitness program, but ideally, you should build strong muscles and a strong cardiovascular system and enter the later years with your physical potential at its maximum. The lean look of the runner or swimmer grew out of the aerobics boom of the 1970’s. Not only did ordinary people get caught up in the aerobics movement, but even the experts trumpeted the benefits of aerobic activity. There was an elitist view in the medical community of aerobic exercise versus strength training.

“Such thinking has come full circle – lean runners and other aerobicizers are still the majority of exercisers, but experts maintain that an either/or approach to conditioning is no longer in a person’s best interest. Today’s fitness conscious adult needs to do both aerobic and strengthening exercises.”

In keeping with this thinking, fitness authorities, such as the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), have recently amended their fitness recommendations, pointing out the need to add strength training to aerobic exercises. In 1978, the ACSM released fitness guidelines calling for three to five days a week of aerobic exercise for 20 to 60 minutes per session.

In their revised guidelines, the ACSM still recommends that we do aerobic exercise three to five sessions a week for 20 to 60 minutes. However, it says that “strength training of moderate intensity, sufficient to develop and maintain fat-free weight, should be an integral part of an adult fitness program. One set of eight to 12 repetitions of eight to 10 exercises that strengthen the major muscle groups, at least two days a week, is the recommended minimum.“

The primary reason we need to do resistance training is to build muscle and maintain muscular strength. As we grow older, we lose muscle which can lead to a host of functional disabilities ranging from lack of ability to carry out activities of daily living, to low back problems. Prevention of osteoporosis is another reason that women – and men – need to strength train. Research has shown that bone loss slows and bone density increases among individuals who participate in strength training programs and correct the diet.

The combination of resistance training with aerobic activities may be the best adjunct to a weight management program. Aerobic exercise is good for burning calories during the activity, but the more muscle mass you build (or maintain), the more calories you burn on a 24 hour basis. Fat cells are not very metabolically active, but muscle mass counts a lot, since muscle cells are metabolically active even when you are not exercising.

Your resting metabolic rate declines by about two percent every 10 years after the age of 20. This means that every 10 years, you need to eat about 100 fewer calories per day to maintain your body weight. Some decline is inevitable, but strength training and cardiovascular exercise may at least slow this process.

So where does all this leave us?

The bad news is that research verifies what we already know. As we age, we experience a gradual decline in endurance, physical capacity, muscular strength, muscular mass and metabolic rate. These changes increase our risk of cardiovascular disease and various degenerative disorders. The good news is that regardless of age or sex, with regular aerobic exercise and strength training, we can reverse these insidious processes and delay the effects of aging.

The research is in:

To guarantee overall fitness and health, you must maintain an exercise regimen that combines both aerobic and strength training activities. Considering the relatively low investment in time and the high dividends in physical fitness, we should all be participating regularly in appropriate levels of aerobic and strength training. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) offers these guidelines for cardiovascular fitness: Three to five days a week for 20 to 60 minutes per session. Continuous aerobic exercise using large muscle groups such as walking, cycling, running, swimming, cross-country skiing and aerobic dance. The intensity of the exercise should reach 60 to 85 percent of maximum heart rate.

These are the ACSM guidelines for strength-training workouts:

Strength train at least twice but no more than three times per week PER BODYPART. Complete eight to 10 exercises that work all the major muscle groups. Complete at least one set of each exercise. Complete eight to 12 repetitions within each set while taking the muscles to near exhaustion.

Article Categories: Strength Training

The post Total Body Conditioning appeared first on AFPA.

By: Mark J. Occhipinti, M.S. , Ph.D, NDc.

It is a documented fact that consumption of dairy products can lead to the development of atherosclerosis, heart attack and strokes, and that high fat dairy products contain unsafe levels of environmental contaminants, including pesticide residues, antibiotics and estrogen steroids. 1,2 In addition, research has demonstrated a “calcium wash” along with other critical minerals (potassium, magnesium, and iron ) from the blood stream, causing a negative calcium balance which will result with an intake of only 24 ounces of dairy products daily. 3

Low animal protein diets create a positive calcium balance, meaning bones are not losing calcium; and high animal protein diets create a negative calcium balance, meaning osteoporosis is developing. As a result of this research data, low fat dairy products are now in vogue with many people assuming this to be a health advantage. However, as a result of their higher protein concentrations, low, especially nonfat dairy products, have been shown to make a greater contribution to osteoporosis, kidney problems and certain forms of cancers. 4

Dairy products are the leading culprit in food allergies. Low fat varieties are actually more allergenic due higher protein concentration. 5 In addition, it has been stated that dairy products cause a miraid of problems within the small intestines by interfering with intestinal permeability, thereby allowing large fragments of proteins to enter into the blood stream. This is also known as “leaky gut syndrome”. This can lead to a host of physical problems, including irritable bowel syndrome, malabsorption of nutrients, and obesity, mineral and amino acid deficiencies. 6

A STARTING POINT

A mother produces breastmilk containing antibodies to infectious agents that a newborn might be exposed to. If a mother breast feeds her newborn, a process known as diathelic immunity takes place, in which the baby receives the necessary antibodies to fight infection. 7 During the first 72-96 hours after childbirth, breastmilk contains colostrum, which carries immunoglobulins that greatly enhance the newborn’s immunity against disease. Babies deprived of colostrum have considerably higher rates of viral and bacterial infections. 8

During the first 6 months of life, a babies small intestines are highly permeable, to allow the maximum absorption of breastmilk, and antibodies. During this “leaky gut” period, the baby is most vulnerable to developing allergies. 9 An abundance of articles have pinpointed that allergies to dairy products begin in a new born’s small intestines as a result of bottle feeding (either cow’s milk directly or formula. Bottle fed babies suffer more of the following: pneumonia, middle-ear infections, respiratory infections, bacterial meningitis, neo-natal septicemia, thrush, and viral illnesses, including polio and herpes simplex. 10,19,20

In fact, the risk of influenza and spinal meningitis for bottle fed babies is as much as sixteen times greater than the risk for breastfed babies. 11 Recent, comprehensive studies involving thousands of babies bottle feed found a direct correlation with the development of immune system disorders, including diabetes, chronic liver disease, ulcerative colitis, celiac disease, spastic bowel disease, food allergies, obesity, coronary heart disease, and multiple sclerosis. 12

THE DECEPTION

The medical profession and the media encourage the public to drink milk and eat dairy products because “it does the body good”. Nothing could be further from the truth! Higher calcium and protein intake is proported to lower the incidence of osteoporosis according to the Dairy Council and the dietitians that refuse to study the medical literature that is not in accordance with the Dairy Industry Commandments. Dr. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., professor of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, is the Director of the China-Oxford Cornell Study, the largest study of diet and disease in medical history. His findings: higher animal calcium and animal protein intake is the primary cause of degenerative disease. 13

In February, 1995, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) lodged a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, stating that ads for milk and milk products are deceptive in that they imply that calcium in milk is the answer to the bone loss caused by osteoporosis.

PCRM holds that while calcium intake is important during early childhood and does influence bone mass, there are alternative sources, besides animal products, such as fruits, vegetables and grains to achieve our necessary calcium requirements of usable organic calcium. According to the research conducted by PCRM, milk consumption later in life actually contributes to calcium loss.

Research has demonstrated in countries with a lower animal calcium intake ( 1,200 mgs/day.14 PCRM urges women to control calcium loss in adulthood by exercise, reducing meat intake, reducing sodium intake and limiting caffeine and tobacco use. 15 Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., president of PCRM, states that dairy ads give women a dangerously false sense of security”.

The PCRM further asseses that cow’s milk may cause diabetes, ovarian cancer, cataracts, iron deficiency, and allergies in both children & adults. Medical research also has made the association between cancer of the lymph system and the consumption of whole milk dairy products. 16,17 Whole milk and dairy products including milk, ice creasm, cheese contain fat soluble pesticides residues, sulfa drugs and antibiotics (the dairy industry labels this practice: BIO SECURITY) that have been linked to cancer in laboratory animals. 4,17,25

Milk Does Not Protect Women From Osteoporosis
Milk consumption does not protect against fractures, according to new data from the Harvard Nurses Study. The study recruited a group of 77,761 women who were between 34 and 59 years of age when the study began in 1980, and followed them for the next 12 years. 28 Those who drank three or more glasses of milk per day that is promoted by the Dairy industry had no reduction at all in the risk of hip or arm fractures compared to those women who did not consume any dairy products. Even after adjustments were made for weight, menopausal status, smoking and alcohol consumption and exercise levels.

In fact, but not surprisingly, the fracture rates were higher for those who consumed three plus servings (8 ounces per serving), compared to those who did not drink milk. 28

The findings resonate with international comparisons that show that fracture rates in Scandinavia, England, Canada, Denmark and other area where dairy consumption takes place is significantly higher than those countries were dairy consumption does not take place (Pacific Rim Nations, Africia, China).

The differences are the result of two other factors. First, in international studies, genetics play a role, with white women at higher risk than other groups. Second, other animal protein greatly increase calcium loss via the kidney.

Recognizing a dramatic rise in the number of Americans with osteoporosis (loss of bone mass, causing bone to become honeycombed, shrunken, brittle, and easily broken), the National Academy of Science, National Institutes of Health, and the USDA collaborated to raise the recommended daily calcium intake from 1000 mg. to 1500 mg. for kids over 10, women, and everyone past 50. And in 1993, the USDA allowed a bone-health claim for milk, reports Dr. Robert Heaney of Creighton University, Omaha. Dairy products are rich in calcium, to be sure; but they are also rich in protein. Dr. Vijaya Venkat of the Health Awareness Centre, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, India points out that nutritionists the world over believe that the Western diet provides too much protein. “There is too much protein in bovine milk, protein we do not need at all.” The particular proteins in milk (and other animal sources) “produce acidic ash in the blood. Since our blood has to be slightly alkaline all the time, the body withdraws calcium from the bones to neutralize this acid. Excess protein will weaken the bones,” Dr. Venkat writes. There are plenty of plant sources for calcium, researchers note. Citrus fruits, legumes, nuts, soy, and anything green. “Fruits and vegetables yield an alkaline ash, and don’t deplete calcium stores,” Alan Lamm reports. Citing research, he explains: “Meat, eggs, milk products, and fish are the most acid-forming foods. High protein diets lead to a gradual decrease in bone density.” Lamm, summarizing a study embraced by all the anti-milk journalists, reports that osteoporosis and its resulting bone fractures are most common in countries where dairy consumption is highest: Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Scandinavian countries. In an article in the August 28, 1997 News-Observer, Dr. Neal D. Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, writes: “The real causes of osteoporosis are the five factors that leach calcium from the bones: Animal protein, caffeine, sodium, tobacco, and sedentary lifestyle.” Dr. Venkat, states “(Osteoporosis) is a degenerative disease resulting from improper care of your body during younger and middle years.” The Harvard Nurses Study In recent writings, the research cited most often (by American writers, at least) is the Harvard Nurses Study, which investigated osteoporosis and bone loss in women. Dr. Robert M. Kradjian of Seton Medical Center at Daly City, Calif., explains, from 1980 to 1992 the Harvard Nurses Study followed 77,761 women between ages 34 and 59 to determine the relationship between milk consumption and osteoporosis. Dr. Kradjian and Dr. Bernard both report the bottom-line results of the study: “Those who drank three or more glasses of milk per day had no reduction in the risk of hip or arm fractures over the 12-year period, compared to women who drank little or no milk, even after adjustment for weight, menopausal status, smoking, and alcohol use.” Dr. Kradjian, adds “Fracture rates were higher for those who consumed three or more servings, compared to those who did not drink milk.” Milk: The Long White Trail Research, some of it done 30 years back and some reported only weeks ago, documents a long list of milk negatives. The thesis: Milk does a body harm. And milk’s adversaries, whose numbers are growing, have a boxcar load of studies to support them. Cow’s milk lacks essential fatty acids human infants need for neurological development. Babies drinking whole milk in their first two yearsdevelop allergies, colic, diabetes; milk causes internal bleeding in children, which contributes to anemia. Milk protein attacks the immune system. Cow’s milk contains “antibiotics (up to 84 different at last count), pesticides, chemicals, hormones(rBGH), blood, white cells (pus)(1/30 of every ounce), and bacteria from mastitis (udder infection)” which the USDA and FDA either do not test for (they do test for 4 of the up to 84 anti-biotics used), or which they allow to be present in unacceptably high levels. Various studies found “significant positive correlations” between milk intake and lung and ovarian cancers, leukemia, and Crohn’s disease. And, possibly, lung and prostrate cancers, Dr. Kradjian notes, but with reservations: “the weight of evidence” suggests it’s the animal fat in milk which triggers the growth of cancer cells. This implies that meat is equally damaging. “At least half of human adults” are lactose intolerant, which offers proof, according to Dr. Kradjian, that “cow’s milk was never intended for human consumption.” Milk consumption does not protect women fromosteoporosis; in fact, it may cause it. The body withdraws calcium from the bones to neutralize the proteins and lactic acids in milk. References:

1. Koop, E. The Surgeon’s General’s Report. Wash.Pub. No. 88-50210. 1988.
2. Werbach, R. Nutritional Influences on Illness.Tarz,Ca.1988.
3. Report of the Task Force on the Assessment of the Scientific Evidence Relating to Infant-Feeding Practices and Infant Health. Pediatrics, 74:579; 1984.
4. McDougall, J.M.D. Diet for A New America, 1992
5. .Welch,J. “Anti-Infective Properties of Breast Milk,” J. Of Pediatrics, 94:1, 1979.
6. “Allergy and Cot Death: With Special Focus on Allergic Sensitivity to Cow’s Milk Anaphylaxis,” Clin & Exp. Allergy, 20:359, 1990.
7. Goldman,A. “Host Resistance Factors in Human Milk,” J. Of Ped.82:1082; 1973.
8. Liebman, B. “Baby Formulas: Missing Key Fats?” Nutr. Action, October, 1990.
9. Ironside,A. “A Survey of Infantile Gastroenteritis,” British Med J, 3:20, 1907.
10. Robbins,J. May they All Be Fed. Chapter 6, 1992.
11. Erasmus Udo, Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill, 2nd Ed. 1993.
12. Kaplan, S,M.D. Diet for A New America, Chapter 4, 1991.
13. McDougall, J. Ibid.
14. Erasmus,U. Ibid.
15. Barnard,N. M.D., Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Conference, 1995.
16. Ursin, G. et. al. Milk Consumption & Cancer Incidence: A Norwegion Prospective Study. British J. of Cancer G1 no. 3, Mar. 1990, pp 456-459
17. Goldberg, Burton, The Group, Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide, Future Medicine Pub. 1996
18. Duggan, R. Dietary Intake of Pesticide chemicals in the United States, Pesticides Monitoring Journal, 2:140;1969
19. Bahna, S. Common Manifestations of Cow’s Milk Allergy in Children, Lancet, 1:304; 1978
20. Bahna, S. Cow’s Milk Allergy: Pathogenesis, Manifestations, Diagnosis, and Management, Advances In Pediatrics, 25:1; 1978
21. Eastham, E. Adverse Effects of Milk Formula Ingestion on the Gastrointestinal Tract-An Update, Gastroenterology, 76:365; 1979
22. Gerrard, J. Milk Allergy: Clinical Picture and Familial Incidence. Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, 97:780; 1967
23. Boat, T. Hyperactivity to cow’s Milk in Young Children: Journal of Pediatrics, 87:23; 1975
24. Jakobsson, I. Cow’s Milk Allergy as a Cause Of Infantile Colic, Australian Pediatric Journal, 13:276; 1977
25. Should Humans Drink Milk? Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Guide to Healthy Eating, Nov.-Dec., 1990, pp 10
26. Moll, L. FDA Milk Testing Is Not Enough, Vegetarian Times, April, 1991, pp16
27. Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs Report, 99th Congress, 1st Session (HR):99-461, 1985; testimony of Michael Jacobson
28. Feskanich, D., et al. Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12 year prospective study, Am J. Publ Health, 1997; 87:992-7

Robert M. Kradjian, M.D., a division chief at Seton Medical Centre, Daly City, Calif., http://www.afpafitness.com/MILKDOC.HTM
Dr. Vijaya Venkat of Health Awareness Centre, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, India, http://www.internetindia.com/health/health.htm
Alan Lamm, author and Kinesiologist/Homoeopath, http://www.alanlam.demon.co.uk/dyk3.htm
Neal D. Barnard, M.D., president, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C., http://www.sai.com/pcrm

Article Categories: Nutrition & Wellness

The post Calcium and Protein: A Mixture For Disaster appeared first on AFPA.

Athletes are quite familiar with localized fatigue. This can be observed during any weight training session when an exercise is taken to failure or during an endurance event when one body part fatigues before others. This localized fatigue occurs within the muscle itself and can be caused by the depletion of phosphocreatine, decreased neural stimulus to the muscle at the motor end plate,
disruption of calcium release and uptake within the sarcoplasmic reticulum (1), and the accumulation of metabolic byproducts such as lactate and ammonia (2).

While this kind of fatigue presents itself as sheer pain, another form of fatigue is central fatigue, which results from alterations in the central nervous system (CNS).

Central fatigue is critical to exercise performance since the lack of adequate CNS drive to the working muscles is the most likely explanation of fatigue in most people during normal activities (1). It is believed that central fatigue is the result of numerous physiological changes including decreased glycogen stores, decreased branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) concentrations, and increased
blood levels of free fatty acids (FFA), free tryptophan (fTryp), and serotonin (tryptophan is the precursor to serotonin).

It’s well established that when glycogen stores are depleted there is an increased utilization of FFA and BCAA as an energy source. Because FFA and tryptophan are transported in the blood attached to the same carrier (albumin), increased FFA levels will displace albumin-bound tryptophan and increase the concentration of fTryp. In turn, this leads to much larger concentrations of fTryp
in the blood. Concurrently, the increased utilization of BCAA (leucine, isoleucine, and valine) decreases the BCAA content of the blood. This is deleterious since fTryp and BCAA compete for the same transporter into the brain. Hence, when there is a decrease in BCAA concentrations, fTryp crosses the blood-brain barrier at a much higher rate leading to increased production of serotonin. As a result, the increased serotonin causes lethargy, depresses motor neuron excitability, alters autonomic and endocrine functions, decreases muscular contraction (3), and may impair judgement.

Nutritional Considerations to Delay Central Fatigue

Since glycogen stores and optimal concentrations of BCAA play such important roles in central fatigue, studies have been performed to determine if nutritional intervention can delay this process. These studies have focused on carbohydrate supplementation, BCAA supplementation, and carbohydrate combined with BCAA supplementation. The theories behind these nutritional interventions are that: (a) increasing blood glucose, and therefore decreasing glycogen depletion,
should decrease FFA utilization and prevent increased levels of fTryp and serotonin; (b) impeding the depletion of BCAA will decrease the fTryp/BCAA ratio, therefore decreasing fTryp from crossing the blood-brain barrier at an excessive rate; and (c) combining these two nutritional interventions should help prevent central fatigue via both mechanisms previously described. Detailed
descriptions of these studies are beyond the scope of this article. However, an excellent review of these three nutritional interventions can be found in reference 3.

Although the above theories are scientifically sound, findings are inconclusive, at least with regard to BCAA supplementation. Studies generally find that supplementation with glucose in the form of a sports drink (6-12% glucose-electrolyte solution) decreases the utilization of FFA as fuel and fTryp
concentrations (4), attenuates the depletion of BCAA and ammonia synthesis (5), and increases performance (6). In contrast, studies are mixed with regard to BCAA supplementation. Some studies show increases in plasma ammonia (7) and no benefits on cycling times to exhaustion or perceived exertion (8). However, other studies show that supplementation with BCAA (up to 10 g/hr) with or without carbohydrate minimize increases in the fTryp/BCAA ratio, decrease muscle protein breakdown, improve mental performance following exercise, and increase power output (3). Finally, researchers are mixed on the possibilities of gastrointestinal distress and toxic ammonia levels from supplementing with large doses of BCAA (1, 3). However, it should be noted that in solution, 7g/L of BCAA have been used safely (9).

Recommendations

Since adequate carbohydrate is essential for peak athletic performance, it is recommended that a high-carbohydrate diet be maintained (50-65% carbohydrate) and that a light carbohydrate-protein meal (30-50g carbohydrate and 5-10g protein) be consumed ~60 min prior to exercise to ensure adequate glycogen and amino acids levels (3). Although performance benefits of BCAA
mixed with a glucose solution are equivocal, the addition of BCAA (2-10g/hr) to a glucose solution during prolonged exercise bouts may help to decrease the fTryp/BCAA ratio and muscle protein breakdown, therefore decreasing fatigue and increasing recovery. Also, if carbohydrate nutrition is inadequate, BCAA supplementation may be helpful (9). Future studies will hopefully elucidate the
nutritional possibilities for delaying central fatigue.
References

1. Davis, JM (1996). Carbohydrates, branched-chain amino acids and endurance: The central fatigue hypothesis. Sports Science Exchange #61, 9 (2).
2. Volek, JS (1997). Energy metabolism and high intensity exercise: Dietary concerns for optimal recovery. Strength and Conditioning, October, pp. 26-37.
3. Kreider, RB (1998). Central fatigue hypothesis and overtraining. In RB Kreider, AC Fry, & ML O-Toole (Eds.), Overtraining in Sport (pp. 309-331). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
4. Davis, JM, Bailey SP, Woods, JA, Galiano, FJ, Hamilton, MT, & Bartoli, WP (1992). Effects of carbohydrate feedings on plasma free tryptophan and branched-chain amino acids during prolonged cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 65, 513-519.
5. Greenhaff, PL, Leiper, JP, Ball, D, & Maughan, RJ (1991). The influence of dietary manipulation on plasma ammonia accumulation during incremental exercise in man. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 63, 338-344.
6. Hargreaves, M (1997). Interaction between muscle glycogen and blood glucose during exercise. Exercise and Sport Sciences Review, 25, 21-39.
7. Vandewalle, L, Wagenmakers, AJM, Smets, K, Brouns, F, & Saris, WHM (1991). Effect of branched-chain amino acid supplements on exercise performance in glycogen depleted subjects. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23, S116.
8. Galiano, FJ, Davis, JM, Bailey, SP, Woods, JA, & Hamilton, M (1991). Physiologic, endocrine and performance effects of adding branched-chain amino acids to a 6% carbohydrate-electrolyte beverage during prolonged cycling. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23 (4), S14.
9. Williams, MH (1998). The ergogenics edge. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Article Categories: Athletes & Sports Conditioning

The post Nutrition and the Central Fatigue Hypothesis appeared first on AFPA.

By: Robert M. Kradjian, MD
Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery,
Seton Medical Centre #302 – 1800 Sullivan Ave.
Daly City, CA 94015 USA

“MILK”Just the word itself sounds comforting! “How about a nice cup of hot milk?” The last time you heard that question it was from someone who cared for you–and you appreciated their effort.

The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our mother’s milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother’s milk it was cow’s milk or soy milk “formula”–rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk.

Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged. We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and add to that many pounds of “dairy products” such as cheese, butter, and yogurt.

Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images of healthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hear messages that assure us that, “Milk is good for your body.” Our dieticians insist that: “You’ve got to have milk, or where will you get your calcium?” School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal will have milk added. And if that isn’t enough, our nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up an “essential food group.” Industry spokesmen made sure that colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other essential nutrients were made available at no cost for schools. Cow’s milk became “normal.”

You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow’s milk.
Further, most of them can’t drink milk because it makes them ill. There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader:

If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans–and then only a minority, principally Caucasians–continue to drink milk beyond babyhood. “Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans–and then only a minority, principally Caucasians–continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are they simply repeating what their professors learned years ago? What about the new voices urging caution? I believe that there are three reliable sources of information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of nature. The second is to study the history of our own species. Finally we need to look at the world’s scientific literature on the subject of milk.

Let’s look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in the “Medicine” archives. Fifteen hundred of theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is no lack of scientific information on this subject. I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and inconclusive studies.

How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow’s milk as an excellent food, free of side effects and the “perfect food” as we have been led to believe by the industry. The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in infants and children as well as infections such as salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia, lymphoma and cancer.

I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration of what occurs in nature – what happens with free living mammals and what happens with human groups living in close to a natural state as “hunter-gatherers”.

Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting group to study. Here we are limited to speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this), and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel that these people are not important for us to study, consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.

WHAT IS MILK?

Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less. Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the time comes for “weaning”, the young offspring is introduced to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not possible for animals living in a natural state to continue with the drinking of milk after weaning.

IS ALL MILK THE SAME?

Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size, and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems “normal” and blessed by nature, our culture, and our customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of another species of mammal?

Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a mammal other than a cow, let’s say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I’m not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is for human infants, dogs’ milk is for pups, cows’ milk is for calves, cats’ milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good judgement on this one.

Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of that animal.
For example, cows’ milk is very much richer in protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers’ milk. Mothers’ milk has six to ten times as much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid. (Incidentally, skimmed cow’s milk has no linoleic acid). It simply is not designed for humans.

Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative composition that is critical for the very best in health and growth. Biochemists and physiologists – and rarely medical doctors – are gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop its unique specializations.

Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow’s hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.

Can mother’s milk increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992 (Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group received human breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why wouldn’t the correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?

In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid – just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the neurological disorders cleared.

In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding. In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem. Essential fatty acids are just that and cows’ milk is markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.

WELL, AT LEAST COW’S MILK IS PURE

Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000 pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000 pounds!
How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics, hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding; that’s how.

The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to Monsanto, the hormone’s manufacturer, does not affect the milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there have been no long-term studies on the hormone’s effect on the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns.

One of the problems with adding molecules to a milk cows’ body is that the molecules usually come out in the milk. I don’t know how you feel, but I don’t want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then, requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the antibiotics appear in the milk.

It seems that the public is uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk. A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling would create an “artificial distinction”. The country is awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can consume. Let’s not create storage costs and further taxpayer burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer Reports, May 1992: 330-32).

Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones. Also, all cows’ milk contains blood! The inspectors are simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from one to one and a half million white blood cells per millilitre. (That’s only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don’t already know this, I’m sorry to tell you that another way to describe white cells where they don’t belong would be to call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only 4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.

As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation’s spokesman claims it’s perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, “I still think that milk is the safest product we have.”

Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate (Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).

What’s going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When they used the same criteria , the FDA data showed 51 percent of the milk samples showed drug traces.

Let’s focus in on this because it’s critical to our understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the relatively high level. A more powerful test called the “Charm II test” can detect 4o drugs down to 5 parts per billion.

One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are forever getting infections around the udder that require ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in “mastic milk”, milk from cows with infected udders.

An elaborate analysis of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff. Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, it’s in the study, all concealed with language such as “…macrophages containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles, etc.”

IT GETS WORSE

Well, at least human mothers’ milk is pure! Sorry. A huge study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the sources of the pesticides are meat and–you guessed it–dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are concentrated in fat and that’s what’s in these products. (Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had only half the levels of contamination).

A recent report showed an increased concentration of pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature describe problems. Just scan these titles:

1.”Cow’s Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.”Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906 3.”The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women’s Milk”, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15

There are many others. There are dozens of studies describing the prompt appearance of cows’ milk allergy in children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows’ milk allergens simply appear in the mother’s milk and are transmitted to the infant.

A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows’ milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation , cited the problems of occult gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk-borne infections and contaminants, and said:

Why give it at all – then or ever? In the face of uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn’t it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition to come to an end?

In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:

It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15 mg), occult gastrointiestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy. I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.

In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for the first two years of life. Here is his quotation: I want to pass on the word to parents that cows’ milk from the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important. I haven’t found such a study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or economic profit involved.

OTHER PROBLEMS

Let’s just mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want to go back to those times by insisting on raw milk on the basis that it’s “natural.” This is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to raw milk. That’ll be a way to revive good old brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is till consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association (251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk. This is despite safety precautions.

All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a “…significant positive correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data from various countries. Conversely a possible negative relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3 months and diabetes risk.”.

Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higher levels of serum antibodies to cows’ milk (Diabetes Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from this study: We infer that either the pattern of cows’ milk consumption is altered in children who will have insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to proteins in cows’ milk is enhanced, or the permeability of their intestines to cows’ milk protein is higher than normal.

The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the English group compared to children remaining in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase? The authors said that “the diet was unchanged in Great Britain. Do you believe that? Do you think that the availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the same products as food sources in Pakistan?

I don’t believe that for a minute. Remember, we’re not talking here about adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic predisposition. This study is a major blow to the “it’s all in your genes” crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the last article concluded that the cooler climate in England altered viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to do with the disease.

The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers. In Finland there is “…the world’s highest rate of dairy product consumption and the world’s highest rate of insulin dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States…. Antibodies produced against the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable.” “…142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear evidence that the children had a raging auto immune disorder.”

The team has now expanded the study to 400 children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive no dairy products during the first nine months of life. “The study may take 10 years, but we’ll get a definitive answer one way or the other,” according to one of the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the breast feeding mothers use on cows’ milk in their diets or the results will be confounded by the transmission of the cows’ milk protein in the mother’s breast milk…. Now what was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the association says: “It does not mean that children should stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good protein.” (Emphasis added) My God, it’s the “good protein” that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association in the past?

LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST–BRACE YOURSELF!

I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds. Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation–if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981; 213:1014).

This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of keeping the virus from infected cows’ milk from the rest of the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and Switzerland, have attempted to “cull” the infected cows from their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We are the worst in the world with the former exception of Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a Master’s degree in Public Health.

As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an accidental “cross connection” between raw and pasteurised milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed, killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this: “How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully active bovine leukemia viruses?” Further, it would be fascinating to know if a “cluster” of leukemia cases blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports of “leukemia clusters” elsewhere, one of them mentioned in the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving No. California.

What happens to other species of mammals when they are exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It’s a fair question and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep, goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion (both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing. How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured particles?

If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so? Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the intestinal wall.

An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance of one’s perspective. Since they are concerned with the economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis (increased white blood cell count), the production fell off. They suggested “…a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry”. Does this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can keep it under control? You can get the details on this business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989.

I added emphasis and am insulted that a university department feels that this is an economic and not a human health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the political pressures are too great. You’re on you own.

What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:

1.”Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human Leukemia in Iowa”. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980): 80
2.”Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus”. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.”Beware of the Cow”. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30
4.”Is Bovine Milk A Health Hazard?”. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant. 75:182-186; 1985

In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had 3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.

One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled, “Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption”. Many people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956., in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were highest in that order.

The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this, confirming the lack of “genetic protection” seen in migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to the USA)!

An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.

Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his article follow:

The average intake of protein in many countries is far in excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner. Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous membrane.

This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to which these fragments gain access…Chronic immunological stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men…The gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows’ milk can produce generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released by the normal digestion of cows’ milk which evoke production of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized, killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause disease.

Here’s more. A large prospective study from Norway was reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years). For most cancers there was no association between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma, there was a strong positive association. If one drank two glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products), the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.

There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man. The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and causes cavities in the animal’s brain. Sheep have long been known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept Britain.

The disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are reported as infected each month. The British public is concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob-Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that transmission of BSE to humans is “remote.”

The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the disease does not exist in the United States. However, there may be a problem. “Downer cows” are animals who arrive at auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated, dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to walk. Thus they are “down.” If they cannot respond to electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they are not already dead, they are killed.

Even a “humane” death is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that have been fed this protein have developed a fatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire colonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the ill “downer cows.”

The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically entitled “How Now Mad Cow?” (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929-30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They say. “The result of this experiment is awaited.” As the incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must.

The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the virus among American herds is said to be “widespread”. (The USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare) strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993.

A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research , October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to “stay” in the animal kingdom.

OTHER CANCERS–DOES IT GET WORSE?

Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer–a particularly nasty tumour–was associated with milk consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users. They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by numerous investigators.

Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the 1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption. These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the lactose (lactose persistence) – a little different emphasis, but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles come from two of the country’s leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.

Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion? The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never drinking whole milk.

For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feel that the total fat intake is the difference.

There are not many reports studying an association between milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer patients and comparable control subjects:

Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who reported never drinking whole milk…the weight of the evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.

WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows’ milk? It’s hard for me to come up with even one good reason other than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion, these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and it’s a source of amino acids (proteins).

Let’s look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. Hegsted in England has been writing for years about the geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the countries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given below.

Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most important such article appeared recently in the British Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry can’t reach. Another study in the United States actually showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows’ milk per day. (Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in particular protein intake, are critically important. Another observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium among people living on a natural diet without milk.

For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, don’t look at calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent protein diet , mostly plant protein, and only 200 to 350 mg/day of calcium, about half our women’s intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African women immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic difference that is modified by diet.

To answer the obvious question, “Well, where do you get your calcium?” The answer is: “From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the ground,” mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all of earth’s mammals do well if they live in harmony with their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.

If animal references do not convince you, think of the several billion humans on this earth who have never seen cows’ milk. Wouldn’t you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far less than that seen in the countries where dairy products are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper, but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a deterrent to good bone health.

THE PROTEIN MYTH

Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to “make sure you get plenty of good protein”. Protein was the nutritional “good guy” when I was young. And of course milk is fitted right in. As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein–”liquid meat,” remember? However that isn’t necessarily what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty. Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.

For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth, 1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the “Recommended Dietary Allowances” produced by the National Research Council. OF interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr. Richard Havel of the University of California in San Francisco. First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadily revised downward in successive editions. The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19 through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA’s are calculated with large safety allowances in case you’re the type that wants to add some more to “be sure.”) You can “get by” on 28 to 30 grams a day if necessary!

Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That’s an ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.) Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has serious consequences when maintained over decades. The problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis, atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you should know that the protein content of human milk is amount the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.

IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?

Sorry, there’s more. Remember lactose? This is the principal carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new-borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose, but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.

What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed into the blood stream without first being broken down into monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes to break down the galactose into glucose.

Let’s think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent introduction of dairy herding and the ability to “borrow” milk from another group of mammals that the survival advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be advantageous to drink cows’ milk? After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. And further, why was it just the white or light skinned humans who retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to lose it?

Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old.
It clearly has to do with the Northward migration of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant calcium in cows’ milk would give a survival advantage to humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned people.

How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults. Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)

What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).

One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of fibre content and that its habitual use will predispose to constipation and bowel disorders.

The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding, increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and vomiting in cows’ milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency of iron in the cows’ milk. Milk is also the leading cause of childhood allergy.

LOW FAT

One additional topic: the matter of “low fat” milk. A common and sincere question is: “Well, low fat milk is OK, isn’t it?”

The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn’t low fat. The term “low fat” is a marketing term used to gull the public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to weight. They don’t tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87% water!

“Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat milk!” I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern is: “What do you put on your cereal?) True, there is little or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys, and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute. If you’re still concerned about calcium, “Westsoy” is formulated to have the same calcium concentration as milk.

SUMMARY

To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use milk products. That is just because we simply want to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for us and provided milk in our earliest training and conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably the very best reason is…ICE CREAM! I’ve heard it described “…to die for”.

I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious vices. He didn’t smoke or drink, he didn’t eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day’s ration for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart – and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite some expected “middle age spread” when he had a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional strokes and died several years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit. Was he old? I don’t think so. He was in his 50s.

So don’t drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight of the scientific evidence that it does not “do a body good.” Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet’s nutritional value and safety. Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully without cows’ milk. You can too. It will be difficult to change; we’ve been conditioned since childhood to think of milk as “nature’s most perfect food.” I’ll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health and it won’t cost anything. What can you lose?

Article Categories: Nutrition & Wellness

The post NUTRITION & WELLNESS appeared first on AFPA.