The WELLth Coach

Why Drinking Too Much Water Is Dangerous

Why Drinking Too Much Water Is Dangerous

By Dr. Ben Kim on March 04, 2007

On January 12, 2007, a 28-year old Californian wife and mother of three children died from drinking too much water. Her body was found in her home shortly after she took part in a water-drinking contest that was sponsored by a local radio show. Entitled "Hold Your Wee For A Wii," the contest promoters promised a free Wii video game machine to the contestant who drank the most water without urinating.

It is estimated that the woman who died drank approximately 2 gallons of water during the contest. When she and other contestants complained of discomfort and showed visible signs of distress, they were laughed at by the promoters and even heckled.

This tragic news story highlights the importance of understanding why drinking too much water can be dangerous to your health.

Whenever you disregard your sense of thirst and strive to ingest several glasses of water a day just because you have been told that doing so is good for your health, you actually put unnecessary strain on your body in two major ways:

Ingesting more water than you need can increase your total blood volume. And since your blood volume exists within a closed system - your blood circulatory system - needlessly increasing your blood volume on a regular basis puts unnecessary burden on your heart and blood vessels.

Your kidneys must work overtime to filter excess water out of your blood circulatory system. Your kidneys are not the equivalent of a pair of plumbing pipes whereby the more water you flush through your kidneys, the cleaner they become; rather, the filtration system that exists in your kidneys is composed in part by a series of specialized capillary beds called glomeruli. Your glomeruli can get damaged by unnecessary wear and tear over time, and drowning your system with large amounts of water is one of many potential causes of said damage.

Putting unnecessary burden on your cardiovascular system and your kidneys by ingesting unnecessary water is a subtle process. For the average person, it is virtually impossible to know that this burden exists, as there are usually no obvious symptoms on a moment-to-moment basis. But make no mistake about it: this burden is real and can hurt your health over the long term.

Forcing your body to accept a large amount of water within a short period of time - say, an hour or two - as several contestants did during the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest can be fatally dangerous to your health. Here's why:

If you force large amounts of water into your system over a short period of time, your kidneys will struggle to eliminate enough water from your system to keep the overall amount at a safe level.

As your blood circulatory system becomes diluted with excess water, the concentration of electrolytes in your blood will drop relative to the concentration of electrolytes in your cells. In an effort to maintain an equal balance of electrolytes between your blood and your cells, water will seep into your cells from your blood, causing your cells to swell.

If this swelling occurs in your brain, the bones that make up your skull hardly budge. The result is an increase in intracranial pressure i.e. your brain gets squeezed. Depending on how much water your drink in a short period of time, you could experience a wide variety of symptoms, ranging from a mild headache to impaired breathing. And as occurred recently in the tragic water-drinking contest, it is quite possible to die if you drink enough water in a short enough period of time.

This information is particularly important for parents to pass on to their children. Foolish water-drinking contests are not uncommon among high school and university students, especially while playing cards.

So how much water should you drink to best support your health?

The answer to this question depends on your unique circumstances, including your diet, exercise habits, and environment.

If you eat plenty of foods that are naturally rich in water, such as vegetables, fruits, and cooked legumes and whole grains, you may not need to drink very much water at all. If you do not use much or any salt and other seasonings, your need for drinking water goes down even further.

Conversely, if you do not eat a lot of plant foods and/or you add substantial salt and spices to your meals, you may need to drink several glasses of water every day.

Regardless of what your diet looks like, if you sweat on a regular basis because of exercise or a warm climate, you will need to supply your body with more water (through food and/or liquids) than someone who does not sweat regularly.

Ultimately, the best guidance I can provide on this issue is to follow your sense of thirst. Some people believe that thirst is not a reliable indicator of how much water you need, since many people suffer with symptoms related to dehydration and don't seem to feel a need to drink water on a regular basis. My experience has been that most people who are chronically dehydrated have learned to ignore a parched mouth. If you ask such people if they are thirsty and would like a piece of fruit or a glass of water, they will almost always realize that they are indeed thirsty.

Some people suggest observing the color of your urine as a way of looking out for dehydration. The idea is that clear urine indicates that you are well hydrated, while yellow urine indicates that you need more water in your system. While this advice is somewhat useful, it is important to remember that some chemicals (like synthetic vitamins) and heavily pigmented foods (like red beets) can add substantial color to your urine. Thumbs down for synthetic vitamins, and thumbs up for red beets and other richly colored vegetables and fruits.

The main idea that I wish to share through this article is to beware of mindlessly drinking several glasses of water per day without considering your diet, exercise habits, climate, and sense of thirst. And when you do find yourself in need of water, remember that you can get it from liquids and/or whole foods.

CANCER: HOW DANGEROUS ARE OUR COSMETICS?

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #895

"Environment, health, jobs and justice--Who gets to decide?"

Thursday, February 22, 2007.............Printer-friendly version

www.rachel.org

CANCER: HOW DANGEROUS ARE OUR COSMETICS?

By Devra Davis

We know that children are not simply little adults. With their quick

heartbeats, fast-growing organs and enviable metabolism, the young

absorb proportionally more pollutants than those who are older.

Exposures to minute amounts of hormones, environmental tobacco smoke

or pollutants early in the life of an animal or human embryo can

deform reproductive tracts, lower birth weight and increase the chance

of developing cancer. And yet results from an independent chemical

testing laboratory released last week found a probable human

carcinogen, 1,4-dioxane (also known as para-dioxane), in some common

children's shampoos at levels higher than those recommended by the

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Environmental Working

Group, a research and advocacy organization that ran the study,

estimates that more than a quarter of all personal-care products sold

in the 
United States may contain this cancer-causing agent.

The presence of a cancerous agent at levels above those suggested by

the FDA is disturbing enough. The idea that such a compound exists at

any amount in products that can be in regular contact with babies'

skin is even more disconcerting. Scientists have long known that

certain chemicals like para-dioxane can cause cancer. (The World

Health Organization considers para-dioxane a probable human carcinogen

because it is proven to cause cancer in male and female mice and

rats.) Now we're beginning to realize that the sum total of a person's

exposure to all the little amounts of cancerous agents in the

environment may be just as harmful as big doses of a few well-known

carcinogens. Over a lifetime, cigarettes deliver massive quantities of

carcinogens that increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Our

chances of getting cancer reflect the full gamut of carcinogens we're

exposed to each day -- in air, water and food pollution and in

cancerous ingredients or contaminants in household cleaners, clothing,

furniture and the dozens of personal-care products many of us use

daily.

Of the many cancer risks we face, shampoos and bubble baths should not

be among them. The risks of para-dioxane in American baby soaps, for

instance, could be completely eliminated through simple manufacturing

changes -- as they are in 
Europe. To remove such carcinogens, however,

would require intervention by the federal government, but the federal

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act allows the industry to police itself.

Europe has banned the use of para-dioxane in all personal-care

products and recently initiated a recall of any contaminated products.

There's a problem with the way the 
United States and other countries

look at toxicity in commercial agents. Regulators nowadays often won't

take action until enough people have already complained of harm. This

makes little sense. Scientists can seldom discern how the myriad

substances, both good and bad, that we encounter in our lives

precisely affect our health. We need to be smarter about using

experimental evidence to predict and therefore prevent harm from

happening. A few decades ago, people accepted the fact that cigarette

smoking was harmful, even though no scientist could explain precisely

how this happened in any particular cancer patient. If we had insisted

in having perfect proof of how smoking damaged the lungs before acting

to discourage this unhealthy practice, we would still be questioning

what to do. By the same token, we now have to get used to the idea

that scientists are unlikely to be able to say with certainty that a

trace chemical in shampoo accounts for a specific disease in a given

child. But if we're to reduce our cancer risk, we need to lower our

exposures to those agents that can be avoided and find safer

substitutes for those that can't.

Scientists don't experiment on humans, for obvious reasons, but we

have found some clues from lab and wildlife studies. Medical

researchers have demonstrated that trace chemicals of some widely used

synthetic organic materials can damage cultured human tissue. The

effects don't just accumulate, they mushroom. UC Berkeley Professor

Tyrone Hayes has shown that very low levels of pesticide residues in

Nebraska cornfields can combine to create male frogs with female

features that are vulnerable to infection and can't reproduce.

Should we wait for these same things to happen to baby boys before

acting to lower exposures? There's plenty of solid human evidence that

combined pollutants can cause more harm together than they do alone.

We are not surprised to hear that people who smoke, drink and work as

painters have much higher risks of kidney cancer than those who only

engage in one of these known cancer-causing practices. We also

understand that women who use hormone-replacement therapy and drink

more than two glasses of wine daily have higher risks of breast cancer

than those who engage in only one of these practices. This tells us

that other combinations of chemicals in the environment can also lead

to other cancers. One in five cases of lung cancer in women today -- a

disease that kills more women than ovarian, breast and uterine cancer

combined -- has no known history of active or passive smoking

exposure. Rates of non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other cancers not tied

with aging or improved screening have also increased in many

industrial countries. New cases of testicular cancer continue to rise

in most industrial countries. While still rare, childhood cancer is

more common today than in the past, and most cases occur in children

with no known inherited risk of the disease.

The problem, from a scientific standpoint, is that resolving the

effects of miniscule levels of chemicals we encounter throughout our

lives is part of a complicated puzzle for which many pieces are

missing. What scientists need is data -- lots of it. Manufacturers,

however, tend to hold the precise formulations of products as trade

secrets, and the law allows them to withhold much information about

carcinogens even if they are known to be present. Of course, we should

continue to collect information to advance our ability to prevent

cancer and other chronic diseases. But when a chemical causes cancers

in both sexes of two different species of animals, we shouldn't

arrogantly presume we will escape a similar fate. Recent work on the

human and animal genomes shows us that humans differ from frogs and

mice by fewer than 10 percent of genes. We should not let the absence

of specific information on the health consequences for our infants and

toddlers of single cancer-causing contaminants like para-dioxane

become a reason to delay getting rid of such hazards.

The goal of public-health policy is to prevent harm, not to prove that

it's already happened. The Center for Environmental Oncology at the

University
 of 
Pittsburgh Cancer
 Institute advises that personal-care

products that contain hormones may, in part, account for the

continuing and unexplained patterns of breast cancer in African-

Americans under age 40, and also may explain why more girls are

developing breasts at younger ages. The Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention found generally higher residues of some plastic

metabolites in African-American women, with children ages 6 to 11

having twice the levels of whites. Dr. Chandra Tiwary, a recently

retired military chief of pediatric endocrinology at Brooks Air Force

Base, found that African-American baby girls as young as 1 year old

developed breasts after their parents applied creams that they hadn't

realized contained estrogen to their scalps. When the creams were no

longer used, these infant breasts went away. Other work published

last week by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science,

shows similar effects in young boys who had been washed with some

hormone-mimicking soaps or oils. After their parents stopped applying

these products, their breasts also receded.

In light of the growing numbers of young girls with breasts, the

Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, the certifying board for

pediatric endocrinology, in 1999 changed the recommendation of what is

natural. We believe this would be a dangerous move. If we say that

it's now normal for African-American and white young girls to develop

breasts at ages 6 and 7, respectively, we will fail to pick up serious

diseases that could account for this. We will also lose the chance to

learn whether widely used agents in the environment, like those found

in personal-care products today or others that may enter the food

supply, lay behind some of these patterns.

It should not be the job of scientists, or of public-spirited leaders

or environmental groups, to find out what contaminants or ingredients

may be affecting the delicate endocrine systems of our children and

grandchildren. (The tests that found para-dioxane in shampoo were

funded privately by environmental journalist and activist David

Steinman, author of "Safe Journey to 
Eden.") Manufacturers have known

for years about how para-dioxane forms as a by-product of

manufacturing and how to get rid of it. Until now, they just haven't

need to do so. People have a right to know whether products they use

on themselves and their children contain compounds that increase their

risk of disease. They also have a right to expect that government will

prevent companies from selling products that are harmful to children.

To do otherwise is to treat our children like lab rats in a vast

uncontrollable experiment.

==============

Devra Davis is director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at

the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and is a professor of

epidemiology at the 
University of 
Pittsburgh's 
Graduate 
School of

Public Health. A National Book Award finalist for "When Smoke Ran

Like Water," she is completing "The Secret History of the War on

Cancer," from which this work is adapted, expected in October from

Basic Books.

Copyright 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

How to get rid of a tension headache

My first recommendation is to drink a pint of water FIRST, then if the headache still persists... try the information below:  Jan How To Get Rid of - And Prevent - A Tension Headache WITHOUT Taking Pain Pills
By: Doug Fogel Source: http://www.tensionheadaches.org February 25, 2007
How to Get Rid of - And Prevent - a Tension Headache WITHOUT Taking Pills By Doug Fogel SUMMARY: This article explains how to do some simple stretches that stop a developing tension headache dead in its tracks, and how to get rid of a tension headache (without drugs) in the workplace.  It's an excerpt from the author's "How to Get Permanent Relief From Chronic Tension Headaches" program. Most people can head off an oncoming tension headache if they react quickly enough to the first warning signal. And what is that? It's tightness in the neck - a sure sign that blood flow to the back of the head is being restricted due to tension, stress, or poor posture. Many people in today's workplace are predisposed to having muscle tightness in the neck because of the positioning their jobs place them in. This is especially true of people who hunch over a computer terminal all day. It's also true of those who work at factory jobs, or of executives and secretaries who slouch at their desks with a phone crooked between their neck and ear. People who practice such poor posture invariably find their neck, shoulders and upper back tightening up. Remaining in poor posture for extended periods puts a strain on already tense muscles. Fatigue sets in as blood flow decreases, resulting in knots and muscle spasms. This causes even tighter muscles and more severe symptoms, which cause tension headaches. Unless changes in posture are taken, the headaches will occur more often and become progressively worse. Fortunately, there are several simple steps that can be taken to help prevent this vicious circle: 1. Sit up straight and stand up straight. In other words, assume the military position: shoulders back, head up, chest out, stomach tight. 2. People who sit all day should get a chair with good back support. 3. Bring your work surface closer to you. For example, if your job involves stooping down to your work station, elevate it on a platform so you don't have to bend down so low. 4. Take several breaks during the day to perform a series of stretching and isometric exercises. These can be done sitting or standing. a. With your hands behind your back, gently pull your shoulders back and maintain this position for one to three minutes. b. Turn your head halfway to the right (or left). Then drop your head forward until you feel slight tension. Let the weight of your head gently stretch the neck muscles. Go slowly - no pain! Hold this position for up to two minutes, then turn to the opposite side and repeat. So what should be done if you already have a tension headache? 1. Perform the previously mentioned stretching exercise in 4a. 2. Apply moist heat on the neck and shoulders, a towel soaked in very warm water, for example. If moist heat is impractical or isn't available, use dry heat. 3. Get someone to give your neck and shoulders a deep tissue massage. These simple steps will help prevent tension headaches. If you suffer from chronic tension headaches, go to http://www.tensionheadaches.org for more information. About the Author: Doug Fogel is co-author of "How to Get Permanent Relief From Chronic Tension Headaches," a holistic program that he's used to help people from all over the world get rid of their tension headaches.

Drug Industry Single Greatest Threat to Health & Safety of American People

"The entire drug industry, including the monopolistic drug giants and their FDA co-conspirator, has clearly become the single greatest threat to the health and safety of the American people.       

http://www.newstarget.com/American_people.html

http://www.newstarget.com/021635.html– double the number from 1999 -- were from "other and unspecified drugs." http://www.newstarget.com/prescription_drug.html– including a nearly 90 percent jump for the late Baby Boomer generation (ages 45 to 54) and a more than 90 percent for people aged 55 to 64. Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate and outspoken critic of pharmaceutical companies, said that the drug industry is freely killing Americans. Americans.     http://www.newstarget.com/drug_industry.html entire drug industry, including the monopolistic drug giants and their FDA co-conspirator, has clearly become the single greatest threat to the health and safety of the American people.     http://www.newstarget.com/American_people.html

(NewsTarget) Poisoning from prescription drugs has risen to become the second-largest cause of unintentional deaths in the United States, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, researchers found that deaths from prescription drugs rose from 4.4 per 100,000 people in 1999 to 7.1 per 100,000 in 2004.

This increase represents a jump from 11,000 people to almost 20,000 in the span of five years.

Among the 20,000 that died, more than 8,500

Psychotherapeutic drugs, like antidepressants and sedatives, nearly doubled from 671 deaths to 1,300.

Age-wise, the biggest jump was among people aged 15 to 24, which the CDC report says relates to recreational   prescription drug use and a jump in cocaine use.

However, all other age groups except the elderly over-75 group saw increases of more than 35 percent on a per 100,000 scale in prescription drug deaths

"The

And yet   http://www.newstarget.com/the_FDA.html     the FDA continues to push more drugs onto more Americans than ever before, all while pretending these drugs are safe and effective when, in reality, they are neither. Today's pharmaceutical industry is a massive fraud being perpetrated against the American people, propped up by illegal trade practices, monopolistic behavior and outright criminal behavior on the part of the FDA." http://www.newstarget.com/suicides.html to be separated from other drug deaths, meaning there may be inherent errors because it was impossible to tell after death the intent or reason for a person's death from prescription drugs:  http://www.newstarget.com/prescription_drugs.htmlhttp://www.newstarget.com/suicide.html"suicide.org state that in 2001, nearly 5,200 deaths came from self-poisoning, which includes not only abusing prescription drugs but also overdosing on over-the-counter drugs and ingesting lethal chemicals. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5605a1.htm

One caveat of the report is that the data used did not allow suicides

"Some of these deaths might have been suicides, although not classified as such, and some deaths categorized as suicides or of undetermined intent might have been unintentional and therefore not analyzed in this study. The extent of this error is not known," the report states.

However, statistics from the web site   

The CDC report can be read in full 

"Organized war is not a human instinct. It is a highly planned and co-operative form of theft."

-Jacob Bronowski

A Raw Diabetes Story

From the Love_raw egroup 2-24-07:

The Raw Diabetes Story

Posted by: "Anne Kaspar" bodybybliss@gmail.com

Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:50 am ((PST))

Why One Woman Stopped Cooking: The Raw Story

Aimee Perrin

February 2007

As a type 1 interested in nature's ability to heal, I ask, What is causing this so-called diabetes epidemic? Why is it expanding from Western countries to developing countries at the same rate that fast food and junk food are spreading?

The newly popularized raw-food diet is a diet of nutritionally dense plant foods that are naturally low in calories and low on the glycemic index

—

yet high in satisfaction. Many people following the raw-food diet can eat until well satisfied at every meal (as long as all of the food is raw), yet they still easily achieve their ideal weight and remain energetic.

A Popular Dietary Choice

Many people tout the virtues of eating a diet of uncooked and unprocessed fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and sprouted raw grains.

For baby boomers searching for improved health, the raw-food diet is becoming a popular choice.

The fundamental justification for eating a raw-food diet is the theory that food that has not been heated beyond 105 degrees retains all the enzymes that are naturally present in whole, unprocessed foods - enzymes that are destroyed during the cooking process.

Enzymes are the key to all bodily functions, and they exist in the body in a limited supply. If the body's enzymes are needed to process and metabolize foods that are enzyme-depleted through heating and processing, then there are fewer enzymes left for maintaining health.

Over time, this cycle leads to deteriorating health and, ultimately, disease.

Lowering My Insulin Requirements With a Raw Food Diet

While living with type 1 for 36 years, I tried many diets and natural treatments. Three years ago, I decided to try the raw-food diet. When I began the raw diet, I was taking 22 to 24 units of insulin daily, and I had good control on the low-carb/high-protein diet. I now need only six to eight daily units, with excellent control, and I am satisfied, free of cravings, energetic, and happy. Some may say the decreased need for insulin is a result of fewer calories, but the biggest change for me has been in long-acting insulin requirements, which demonstrates an overall improvement in the general diabetic condition.

Nutritionist Swears By Raw Food Diet

Fred Bisci, MD, a nutritionist from Staten Island, New York, has been a raw-food dieter for over 40 years and is now in his 70s. He still does nutritional counseling and takes 10-mile runs on the beach.

"Diabetes, as well as many other diseases, sees improvement on the raw-food diet," says Bisci. "The body shows many remedial capabilities and reversal of certain pathologies if the diet is done properly and under supervision."

Bisci is very cautious with his encouragement of the raw-food diet, understanding that it may not be for everyone.

"It is a commitment to a whole lifestyle change," he says. "The closer you get to the raw-food diet, the more dramatic the improvement."

On a raw-food diet, Bisci says, the body cleanses itself on a cellular level and is able to function better on fewer calories, garnering all needed nutrients from the nutrient-dense food. Bisci says that he has seen thousands of type 2s get off all medication by eating a diet that is 80 to 100 percent raw.

A Diet Still in Its Infancy

The raw-food movement among the diabetic community is still in its infancy. However, the promise that the raw-food lifestyle holds, though largely based on personal testimonials, is starting to be supported by a few studies (see below). There is no question that the raw-food diet warrants further investigation.

----------

From the March 28, 2006, issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine

A study was conducted by a team at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. Eighteen individuals who had been eating a strict raw-food diet for an average of 3.6 years were compared to 18 others who ate a more standard diet. The raw-food dieters' average body mass index was 20.5; the conventional dieters were a little overweight with an average BMI of 25. The vitamin D level of the raw-food dieters was "markedly higher." In addition, the level of the raw-food dieters' C-reactive protein ("an inflammatory molecule that is becoming linked with the risk of heart disease, diabetes and other chronic disease") was much lower.

----------

Sample Menu for one day of the Low-Glycemic Raw/Live Food Diet

Each menu item is followed by nutrition facts detailing the content of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and calories, with a percentage breakdown for each nutrient category. An overall daily breakdown follows the day's menu.

Note that although the overall fat content for the diet seems suspiciously high, the fats are all heart-healthy plant fats that have not been heated. The health-giving impact of live food can transcend the macronutrient content.

Both my husband and I are lean, fit, and muscular, with low body fat, excellent blood profiles, and superb energy despite the relatively high fat content of our diets. My most recent blood work was as

follows:

A1C: 5.8%

Total cholesterol: 169

HDL: 75

LDL: 82

Triglycerides: 88

----------

Breakfast: Low Glycemic Breakfast Cereal

Lunch: Very Large Garden Salad

Supper: Live Kale Salad

Low Glycemic Breakfast Cereal

1 T flax oil

1 T flax seeds

1 T hemp seeds

1 tsp maca powder

2 tsp shredded coconut, unsweetened

1 tsp raw cacao nibs

Salt & sweeten with stevia to taste, then mix thoroughly in bowl.

Protein 6 g; Carb 10.2 g; Fat 28.9 g; Calories 325

Very Large Garden Salad (Serves 2)

1 head dark green lettuce

1 large tomato

1 cup sprouts

½ red onion

2 ripe avocados

2 T olive oil

2 T apple cider vinegar

10 raw olives

Chop ingredients, then toss in large bowl. Season with salt and herbs to taste.

Per serving:

Protein 6.75 g; Carbs 26 g; Fat 39 g; Calories 482

Live Kale Salad (Serves 2)

(Modified from Chad Sarno's Vital Creations)

1 bunch kale

1 tomato, chopped

1 avocado, chopped

2 T olive oil

2 T lemon juice

2 T pine nuts

Blend by kneading with hands. Add salt and chipolte pepper to taste.

Per serving:

Protein 6 g; Carbs 24.5 g; Fat 29.2 g; Calories 385

----------

Daily Profile

Protein: 18.75 g (11%)

Carbs: 60.7 g (34%)

Fat: 97.1 g (55%)

Total calories: 1200

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aimee Perrin, a native of Tennessee, was brought up on the "Standard American Diet" until the age of 16, when she was diagnosed with type

1 diabetes. During the seventies, she became a vegetarian chef and began a quest for a nutritional solution for her diabetes. Through the use of whole foods, she was able to bring her daily dose of insulin from 36 units down to 24. Since 2003, she has eaten nothing but raw foods. She states that by doing so, she has succeeded in reducing her insulin dose down to only 8 to 12 units daily.

Table of Life

Posted by: "Anne Kaspar" bodybybliss@gmail.com

Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:33 pm ((PST))

'Table of Life' serves it up raw

By Christine Morente, STAFF WRITER

Inside Bay Area

SAN MATEO - WITH pursed lips, James Hall carefully places two dolmas stuffed with parsnip and currant onto a dill cream sauce.

He stands back and admires his raw food creation sitting pretty inside a bento box, a Japanese-style lunchbox.

"I'm impressed with myself

—

not really," said the 47-year-old San Mateo resident with a touch of self-deprecation.

But he is proud.

Hall had just spent the last 24 hours not cooking over a hot stove, but pureeing, blending and dehydrating food.

Nearby, his partner Clarina Bradshaw taste-tested a heaping spoonful of salad made of corn, Asian pears, jicama and cucumbers.

"Do you like it?" Hall asked.

"Winner," Bradshaw said with a thumbs up. "It's nice and savory."

Once a month, for the last three months, Hall and Bradshaw have opened up their San Mateo home to raw foodists

— many of them strangers who've seen his post on meetup.com —

to share in a potluck he's named the Table of Life.

None of the food he served Sunday was cooked above 118 degrees Fahrenheit, nor did it contain processed sugar, processed starch, dairy or meat. Raw food advocates say uncooked food carries live enzymes that help digest themselves and leaves the body's own enzymes to rest. Hall is taking the trend to the next level in San Mateo County and proving people can do a lot with raw food. He wants to strip away the belief that raw food is hippy food.

"They all seem to be Birkenstock or very vanilla when you go into (raw food restaurants)," he said. "I'm kind of looking at blowing people's minds a little bit. But in a good way."

Hence Sunday's international bento box theme, which also featured flaxseed tacos stuffed with guacamole, mango and jicama with a Mexican chili vinaigrette sour cream sauce. All the items were displayed on a

14-foot-long dining table with a checkerboard-style top.

Dinesh Hebbar of Santa Clara brought mango smoothie to the shindig.

The 27-year-old has maintained a raw foods diet for a year and a half.

"You eat guilt-free basically," said Hebbar, who used to eat rice, roti and curry. "The body becomes so natural. It instinctively knows if the food is right for the body or not. A lot of the senses get heightened and it increases sexual energy."

Lisa McCortney said she experiences a natural high when she eats raw food.

"I feel more positive and happier," the Los Altos resident said. "With cooked food, I'd feel weighed down."

A raw foodie for two years, McCortney said Hollywood has helped propel the movement.

"People say they become more beautiful and younger looking,"

McCortney said. "But mostly people want to heal themselves."

That was the attitude in the 1990s, when more people were looking to raw foods to find a therapeutic way of getting well.

As all diets go, nutritionist Nori Hudson of Radiant Vitality in Berkeley said there are pros and cons.

"The raw food diet is legitimate," she said. "We have a certain pool of enzymes in our pancreas and as we age, it doesn't seem to be as populated. When we eat raw foods, we give our pancreas a break."

But the lifestyle may not be right for those who have a weak digestive system and need cooked food. Much-needed nutrients such as zinc, vitamin B-12 and iron also are missing from the raw food diet.

"I'm of the school that people need to listen to their bodies,"

Hudson said. "No one diet is good for you all the time."

Hall was quick to enjoy eating raw foods, but found that Bradshaw's need to eat raw is limited. He first started preparing raw food in August, after she complained of sluggishness.

"She was getting tired of digesting food, basically," he said.

Hall decided to share his meals with others when it gave Bradshaw more energy. Last year, he sold his computer systems integration company. Before owning his business, he worked as a sous-chef at Le Papillon and La Foret, both in San Jose.

After six months of being in the raw foods world, he's found plenty of preparation is required.

"Most raw foodists are very simple in the way they eat," Hall said. "But if you eat the way I like to do it, which is a little bit more gourmand, you're always preparing for tomorrow. You have to use the dehydrator and think about the next day."

Today, Hall is figuring out if opening a raw foods restaurant or a to- go eatery would make sense in the county. So far, there is Que seRaw seRaw in Burlingame and Cafe Soulstice at the Equinox Fitness Club in San Mateo.

"What I'm finding out is that (opening a restaurant) would be costly because of the organic produce and nuts," said Hall, who spent $300 on the Sunday potluck.

"With the quality of food I like putting out, I'd have a difficult time making money out of it. I'm not saying 'no' to opening a restaurant," he said. "I'm still in the process of doing my research."

But for now, Hall will continue doing his potlucks and perhaps cater once a week. Basically, he said he just loves to cook.

"There's a spiritualness to it," Hall said. "That's what I love about being in the kitchen. I can pray over the food while I make it and give it a good vibration."

Staff writer Christine Morente can be reached at (650) 348-4333 or at cmorente@sanmateocountytimes.com.

Unzip A Banana Today!

After Reading this, you will NEVER look at a banana in the same way again!

Bananas contain three natural sugars - sucrose, fructose and glucose combined with fiber, a banana gives an instant, sustained and substantial boost of energy. Research has proven that just two bananas provide enough energy for a strenuous 90-minute workout. No wonder the banana is the number one fruit with the world's leading athletes.

But energy isn't the only way a banana can help us keep fit. It can also help overcome or prevent a substantial number of illnesses and conditions, maki ng it a must to add to our daily diet.

Depression:  According to a recent survey undertaken by MIND amongst people suffering from depression, many felt much better after eating a banana. This is because bananas contain tryptophan, a type of protein that the body converts into serotonin, known to make you relax, improve your mood and generally make you feel better.

PMS:  Forget the pills -- eat a banana. The vitamin B6 it contains regulates blood glucose levels, which can affect your mood.

Anemia:  High in iron, bananas can stimulate the production of hemoglobin in the blood and so helps in cases of anemia.

Blood Pressure:  This unique tropical fruit is extremely high in potassium yet low in salt, making it the perfect way to beat blood pressure. So much so, the US Food and Drug Administration has just allowed the banana industry to make official claims for the fruit's ability to reduce the risk of blood pressure and stroke.

Brain Power:  200 students at a Twickenham (Middlesex England ) school were helped through their exams this year by eating bananas at breakfast, break, and lunch in a bid to boost their brain power Research has shown that the potassium-packed fruit can assist learning by making pupils more alert.

Constipation:  High in fiber, including banan as in the diet can help restore normal bowel action, helping to overcome the problem without resorting to laxatives.

Hangovers:  One of the quickest ways of curing a hangover is to make a banana milkshake, sweetened with honey. The banana calms the stomach and, with the help of the honey, builds up depleted blood sugar levels, while the milk soothes and re-hydrates your system.

Heartburn:  Bananas have a natural antacid effect in the body, so if you suffer from heartburn, try eating a banana for soothing relief.

Morning Sickness:  Snacking on bananas between meals helps to keep blood sugar levels up and avoid morning sickness

Mosquito bites:  Before reaching for the insect bite cream, try rubbing the affected area with the inside of a banana skin. Many people find it amazingly successful at reducing swelling and irritation.

Nerves:  Bananas are high in B vitamins that help calm the nervous system.

Overweight and at work?  Studies at the Institute of Psychology in Austria found pressure at work  leads to gorging on comfort food like chocolate and chips. Looking at  5,000 hospital patients, researchers found the most obese were more likely to be in high-pressure jobs. The report concluded that, to avoid panic-induced food cravings, we need to control our blood sugar levels by snacking on high carbohydrate foods every two hours to keep levels steady.

Ulcers:  The banana is used as the dietary food against intestinal disorders because of its soft texture and smoothness. It is the only raw fruit that can be eaten without distress in over-chronicler cases. It also neutralizes over-acidity and reduces irritation by coating the lining of the stomach.

Temperature control:  Many other cultures see bananas as a "cooling" fruit that can lower both the physical and emotional temperature of expectant mothers. In Thailand , for example, pregnant women eat bananas to ensure their baby is born with  a cool temperature.

Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD): Bananas can help SAD sufferers because they contain the natural mood enhancer tryptophan.

Smoking:  Bananas can also help people trying to give up smoking. The B6 and B12  they contain, as well as the potassium and magnesium found in them, help the body recover from the effects of nicotine withdrawal.

Stress: Potassium is a vital mineral which helps normalize the heartbeat, sends  oxygen to the brain and regulates your body's water balance. When we are stressed, our metabolic rate rises, thereby reducing our potassium levels.  These can be rebalanced with the help of a high-potassium banana snack.

Strokes:  According to research in "The New England Journal of Medicine," eating  bananas as part of a regular diet can cut the risk of death from strokes  by as much as 40%!  So, a banana really is a natural remedy for many ills. When you compare it to an apple, it has four times the protein, twice the carbohydrates, three times the phosphorus, five times the vitamin A and iron, and twice the  other vitamins and minerals. It is also rich in potassium and is one of  the best value foods around. So maybe its time to change that well-known  phrase so that we say, "A banana a day keeps the doctor away!"

Footnote :  If your roses are covered with Aphids, drape banana skins over the  branches, I'ts amazing, but in a day or less, they are GONE! I've tried  it, and I couldn't believe it, no more aphids, as long as I save my banana skins for the rose bushes!

Impressed? Well then, PASS IT ON TO YOUR FRIENDS!

Unzip a BANANA today!

_____________________________________________________________

41% Percent of Your 2006 Taxes Go to War:

This chart shows FCNL's calculations of how much of your 2006 tax dollars

go to pay for current and past military activities.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2336&issue_id=18

_______________________________________________________

One minute each evening

Let’s give this idea a try.  Certainly can’t hurt.

In WWII there was an advisor to Churchill who organized a group of people who dropped what they were doing every night at a prescribed hour for one minute to collectively pray for the safety of

England

, its people and peace.

There is now a group of people organizing the same thing here in

America

.

If you would like to participate: Each evening at 9:00 PM Eastern Time (8:00 PM Central) (6:00 PM Pacific), stop whatever you are doing and spend one minute praying for the safety of the United States, our troops, our citizens, and for a Godly nation.

If you know anyone who would like to participate, please pass this along.
Someone said if Christians really understood the full extent of the power we have available through prayer, we might be speechless. Our prayers are the most powerful asset we have.

Together, we "CAN" make a difference!
Thank You, and God Bless

America

!

Mammograms Offer NO Health Benefits Whatsoever

Mammograms Offer No Health Benefits Whatsoever, Doctors Conclude
By: David Gutierrez Source: www.newstarget.com February 18, 2007
Mammograms offer no health benefits whatsoever, doctors conclude by David Gutierrez (NewsTarget) An increasing number of doctors are contesting the claim that annual mammograms decrease women's risk of dying from breast cancer. Danish researcher Dr. Peter Gotzsche first made this claim in a study published in "The Lancet" in October 2006. Gotzsche had re-analyzed the studies originally done on the benefits of mammograms and found them unconvincing. Since then, other doctors have begun to assert that in addition to failing to offer protection, mammograms — which involve exposing patients to radiation —may actually increase women's risk of cancer. "The latest evidence shifts the balance towards harm and away from benefits," said Dr. Michael Baum of University College in London . According to Canadian columnist Dr. W. Gifford -Jones, women between the ages of 40 and 49 who have regular mammograms are twice as likely to die from breast cancer as women who are not screened. "Experts say you have to screen 2,000 women for 10 years for one benefit," he wrote recently. Gifford-Jones also points to other risks, from the physical to the psychological. According to some authorities, the squeezing of women's breasts during mammograms may rupture blood vessels, causing cancer to spread to other parts of the body and actually increasing a patient's risk of death. He also pointed to the trauma suffered by women who receive false positives from their mammograms, and to the dangerous sense of security felt by those who receive false negatives. Studies show that mammograms fail to detect cancer 30 percent of the time in women aged 40 to 49. In addition, it can take eight years before a breast tumor is large enough to detect, by which time the cancer could have spread to other parts of the body. "Mammograms actually harm far more women than they help," said Mike Adams, author of "The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D," a free report that teaches prevention strategies for breast and prostate cancer. "They are used more as a recruiting tool to ensnare women into a system of medical control based on false diagnosis and fear tactics. Most women then give in to chemotherapy, surgery or radiation treatments that may ultimately harm them or even kill them." ###

CANCER: HOW DANGEROUS ARE OUR COSMETICS?

CANCER: HOW DANGEROUS ARE OUR COSMETICS?
By Devra Davis
Special to Newsweek
February 15, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17177813/site/newsweek/

Toxic chemicals don¹t just hurt us in big doses. An environmental oncologist
argues that myriad tiny amounts of cancer-causing agents in our environment
-- and even in our shampoo -- can make us sick.

.............

We know that children are not simply little adults. With their quick
heartbeats, fast-growing organs and enviable metabolism, the young absorb
proportionally more pollutants than those who are older. Exposures to minute
amounts of hormones, environmental tobacco smoke or pollutants early in the
life of an animal or human embryo can deform reproductive tracts, lower
birth weight and increase the chance of developing cancer. And yet results
from an independent chemical testing laboratory released last week found a
probable human carcinogen, 1,4-dioxane (also known as para-dioxane), in some
common children's shampoos at levels higher than those recommended by the

U.S.

Food and Drug Administration. The Environmental Working Group,
<http://www.ewg.org>, a research and advocacy organization that ran the
study, estimates that more than a quarter of all personal-care products sold
in the

United States

may contain this cancer-causing agent.

The presence of a cancerous agent at levels above those suggested by the FDA
is disturbing enough. The idea that such a compound exists at any amount in
products that can be in regular contact with babies¹ skin is even more
disconcerting. Scientists have long known that certain chemicals like
para-dioxane can cause cancer. (The World Health Organization considers
para-dioxane a probable human carcinogen because it is proven to cause
cancer in male and female mice and rats.) Now we're beginning to realize
that the sum total of a person's exposure to all the little amounts of
cancerous agents in the environment may be just as harmful as big doses of a
few well-known carcinogens. Over a lifetime, cigarettes deliver massive
quantities of carcinogens that increase the risk of lung and other cancers.
Our chances of getting cancer reflect the full gamut of carcinogens we're
exposed to each day -- in air, water and food pollution and in cancerous
ingredients or contaminants in household cleaners, clothing, furniture and
the dozens of personal-care products many of us use daily.

Of the many cancer risks we face, shampoos and bubble baths should not be
among them. The risks of para-dioxane in American baby soaps, for instance,
could be completely eliminated through simple manufacturing changes -- as
they are in

Europe

. To remove such carcinogens, however, would require
intervention by the federal government, but the federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act allows the industry to police itself.

Europe

has banned the use
of para-dioxane in all personal-care products and recently initiated a
recall of any contaminated products. There¹s a problem with the way the

United States

and other countries look at toxicity in commercial agents.
Regulators nowadays often won¹t take action until enough people have already
complained of harm. This makes little sense. Scientists can seldom discern
how the myriad substances, both good and bad, that we encounter in our lives
precisely affect our health. We need to be smarter about using experimental
evidence to predict and therefore prevent harm from happening. A few decades
ago, people accepted the fact that cigarette smoking was harmful, even
though no scientist could explain precisely how this happened in any
particular cancer patient. If we had insisted in having perfect proof of how
smoking damaged the lungs before acting to discourage this unhealthy
practice, we would still be questioning what to do. By the same token, we
now have to get used to the idea that scientists are unlikely to be able to
say with certainty that a trace chemical in shampoo accounts for a specific
disease in a given child. But if we're to reduce our cancer risk, we need to
lower our exposures to those agents that can be avoided and find safer
substitutes for those that can¹t.

Scientists don¹t experiment on humans, for obvious reasons, but we have
found some clues from lab and wildlife studies. Medical researchers have
demonstrated that trace chemicals of some widely used synthetic organic
materials can damage cultured human tissue. The effects don¹t just
accumulate, they mushroom. UC Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes has shown that
very low levels of pesticide residues in

Nebraska

cornfields can combine to
create male frogs with female features that are vulnerable to infection and
can¹t reproduce.

Should we wait for these same things to happen to baby boys before acting to
lower exposures? There's plenty of solid human evidence that combined
pollutants can cause more harm together than they do alone. We are not
surprised to hear that people who smoke, drink and work as painters have
much higher risks of kidney cancer than those who only engage in one of
these known cancer-causing practices. We also understand that women who use
hormone-replacement therapy and drink more than two glasses of wine daily
have higher risks of breast cancer than those who engage in only one of
these practices. This tells us that other combinations of chemicals in the
environment can also lead to other cancers. One in five cases of lung cancer
in women today -- a disease that kills more women than ovarian, breast and
uterine cancer combined -- has no known history of active or passive smoking
exposure. Rates of non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other cancers not tied with
aging or improved screening have also increased in many industrial
countries. New cases of testicular cancer continue to rise in most
industrial countries. While still rare, childhood cancer is more common
today than in the past, and most cases occur in children with no known
inherited risk of the disease.

The problem, from a scientific standpoint, is that resolving the effects of
miniscule levels of chemicals we encounter throughout our lives is part of a
complicated puzzle for which many pieces are missing. What scientists need
is data -- lots of it. Manufacturers, however, tend to hold the precise
formulations of products as trade secrets, and the law allows them to
withhold much information about carcinogens even if they are known to be
present. Of course, we should continue to collect information to advance our
ability to prevent cancer and other chronic diseases. But when a chemical
causes cancers in both sexes of two different species of animals, we
shouldn¹t arrogantly presume we will escape a similar fate. Recent work on
the human and animal genomes shows us that humans differ from frogs and mice
by fewer than 10 percent of genes. We should not let the absence of specific
information on the health consequences for our infants and toddlers of
single cancer-causing contaminants like para-dioxane become a reason to
delay getting rid of such hazards.

The goal of public-health policy is to prevent harm, not to prove that it's
already happened. The Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of
Pittsburgh Cancer Institute advises that personal-care products that contain
hormones may, in part, account for the continuing and unexplained patterns
of breast cancer in African-Americans under age 40, and also may explain why
more girls are developing breasts at younger ages. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention found generally higher residues of some plastic
metabolites in African-American women, with children ages 6 to 11 having
twice the levels of whites. Dr. Chandra Tiwary, a recently retired military
chief of pediatric endocrinology at Brooks Air Force Base, found that
African-American baby girls as young as 1 year old developed breasts after
their parents applied creams that they hadn't realized contained estrogen to
their scalps. When the creams were no longer used, these infant breasts went
away. Other work published last week by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Science, shows similar effects in young boys who had
been washed with some hormone-mimicking soaps or oils. After their parents
stopped applying these products, their breasts also receded.

In light of the growing numbers of young girls with breasts, the Lawson
Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, the certifying board for pediatric
endocrinology, in 1999 changed the recommendation of what is natural. We
believe this would be a dangerous move. If we say that it¹s now normal for
African-American and white young girls to develop breasts at ages 6 and 7,
respectively, we will fail to pick up serious diseases that could account
for this. We will also lose the chance to learn whether widely used agents
in the environment, like those found in personal-care products today or
others that may enter the food supply, lay behind some of these patterns.

It should not be the job of scientists, or of public-spirited leaders or
environmental groups, to find out what contaminants or ingredients may be
affecting the delicate endocrine systems of our children and grandchildren.
(The tests that found para-dioxane in shampoo were funded privately by
environmental journalist and activist David Steinman, author of "Safe
Journey to

Eden

.") Manufacturers have known for years about how para-dioxane
forms as a by-product of manufacturing and how to get rid of it. Until now,
they just haven¹t need to do so. People have a right to know whether
products they use on themselves and their children contain compounds that
increase their risk of disease. They also have a right to expect that
government will prevent companies from selling products that are harmful to
children. To do otherwise is to treat our children like lab rats in a vast
uncontrollable experiment.

..............

Davis

is director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University
of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and is a professor of epidemiology at the

University

of

Pittsburgh

's

Graduate

School

of Public Health. A National Book
Award finalist for "When Smoke Ran Like Water," she is completing "The
Secret History of the War on Cancer," from which this work is adapted,
expected in October from Basic Books.

............

NHNE Body Burden Resource Page:
http://www.nhne.org/tabid/443/Default.aspx

.............

PREVIOUS NHNE NEWS LIST ARTICLES:

'PRECOCIOUS PUBERTY'' IS ON THE RISE (1/6/2007):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/12382

IS YOUR LIPSTICK SAFE? (12/11/2006):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/12234

SCHWARZENEGGER SIGNS 'BIO-MONITORING' BILL INTO LAW (10/5/2006):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/11951

THE BEAUTY INDUSTRY'S UGLY SECRET (9/20/2006):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/11896

COSMETIC PRODUCTS CONTAIN 175 DIFFERENT TOXIC CHEMICALS (9/5/2006):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/11791

USDA: NO ORGANIC LABELS FOR COSMETICS (6/3/2005):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/9277

NEW ALERT OVER GENDER BENDING CHEMICALS (5/27/2005):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/9250

THE UGLY SIDE OF PRETTY (5/6/2005):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/9130

THE DARK SIDE OF COSMETICS
(& How To Tell The Good From The Bad) (6/10/2004):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/7369

Can you imagine *never* suffering from gas or bloating again?

Did you know,  that by following only 3 simple rules of food combining, you can improve your digestion dramatically and never suffer from gas or bloating again?

I mean, can you imagine *never* suffering from gas or bloating again?

I'll give you the most important rule now, and you can try it out this week:

*Avoid mixing sugar and fat*

This is the worst combination!

This week, if you could just try to avoid combining things like dates with nuts, avocados in a fruit smoothie, or bananas with nuts, I guarantee you'll be smiling comfortably in any social scenario.

If you'd like to read more information on food combining and get the full story, get some free information at

===>>

http://tinyurl.com/jyvn5

Have a great week and let me know how it goes with the sugar and fat.

Yours for health and abundance,

The Raw Vegan