90+

THIS is not the new thing I have to tell you, that's old news now if not very poorly publicized but it bears repeating with the new push for the RDAs to be thrust closer to the year 2007. What I have to tell you is that a panel of experts has come by basically issuing a statement warning the government of the dreadful medical condition many officials have been afflicted by. The rotten affliction I'm addressing is ACRI...Advanced Cranial Rectal Inversionosis that is.

Among the suggested increased RDAs are Selenium to 200 mcg well as an obvious increase in the vitamin C RDA going all the way up to 2,000 mg. Once again because a 60 mg recommendation should cause a clown penalty where all the people involved in the recommendation should be forced to dress up like Bozo. As for the selenium, it's a long time coming considering the Dr. Larry Clark selenium study in 1996.

* If you would like a copy of my newsletter which talks about the many slanted and stifled vitamin C and selenium studies, please write NinetyPlus4Life@aol.com and request a free copy of the issue entitled '' A delicious new recipe for Vioxx pie''. If you aren't a subscriber, please remember to put ''Free subscription and requested issue'' in the subject line.  

The panelists in charge of the study include about 15 Medical Doctors, 2 Naturopathic Doctors and a handful of PhDs.

To see this release, click this link: Doctors Say, Raise the RDAs Now

or copy and paste this to your browser:

http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n10.shtml

List of increased amounts requested were listed as:

Vitamins

B-1 Thiamine: 25 mg
B-2 Riboflavin: 25 mg
B-3 Niacinamide: 300 mg
B-6 Pyridoxine: 25 mg
Folic acid: 2,000 mcg
B-12 Cobalamin: 500 mcg
C: 2,000 mg
D3: 1,500 IU
E as natural mixed tocopherols: 200 IU

Minerals

Zinc: 25 mg
Magnesium: 500 mg
Selenium: 200 mcg
Chromium: 200 mcg

I am smugly grinning as I quote this panel of doctors.

From the OMNS release:

The Panel concluded by stating: "In the past, over-conservative government-sponsored standards have encouraged dietary complacency. People have been led to believe that they can get all the nutrients they need from a 'balanced diet' of processed foods. That is not true. For adequate vitamin and mineral intake, a diet of unprocessed, whole foods, along with the intelligent use of nutritional supplements, is more than just a good idea: it is essential."

Ultimate Classic completely covers several of these recommendations exactly or better in a single serving, and that's supposed to be a supplement to your diet? As far as vitamins and minerals go, once again I say, Your diet is a supplement to your supplement if you've got a great supplement.

Some look at the back of our Ultimate Classic and ask why B vitamins and chromium and such are higher than the RDAs-in some cases over a thousand percent higher...it's because the RDAs are ignorant and your average doctor who knows nutrition KNOWS they're ignorant. People are wolfing down the MSG canned soups and TV dinners and they're concerned that their supplement is poisoning them with vitamins. Those nutrition savvy doctors I mentioned would of course include the scientific panel full of doctors at Youngevity. Ultimate classic is a great way to get these nutrients. You can consider two ounces instead of one which is really covering your bases as far as dietary lack or you can go with one ounce and mix in a little Ultimate Selenium for the extra selenium and other nutrients. Ultimate Selenium is of course a formula capitalizing on selenium but we just don't make single nutrients, we pack them to the brim with nutrition so you get optimal benefit. It's full of extra Vitamin A, C, E, Zinc, Chromium, Aloe vera gel, vanadium and Bilberry so it's hard to go wrong.

My Independent Associate web site for recommended products: http:/Capacity.youngevityonline.com

Please note that if you aren't registered, they will be retail prices and the prices listed on the site are wholesale. Register first, it's very simple.

Of course, you can always pretend that you don't need supplements and that the food is just fine... or that we aren't bombarded by more toxins and radiation every year. While we're telling each other tall tales to feel safer and more in control, let's keep it up. World Peace is almost here, the lives of bees don't add up to a hill of beans, Jerry's kids are justthe hair on a moth's behind away from a big pharma cure this year, like they were last year and the year before that and heck, our food is getting more nutritious the more depleted the soil is, why not? As for myself and all those who say any different, we are just alarmists, quacks and snake oil salesmen. If that makes you feel better...it must be true.

~ J. D. Shafer

''The worst thing about medicine is that one kind makes another necessary.'' ~ Elbert Hubbard- Author and son of one Doctor Silas Hubbard.

*This information is for educational purposes only. It is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease nor replace advice of your personal doctor or make health claims as to the efficacy of natural substances on treatment of any ailment. Many products have contraindications with pharmaceuticals and other conditions. Please check with a healthcare professional before using these highly potent nutritionals, oils and other such products in case of conflict.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

90+ Nutrition News:

A Balanced Diet in One Hand and Something Far Less Appetizing in the Other

Part 1:

A bit of health politics to start:

Will the government ever have a realistic policy about nutrition? If they want people physically fit enough for manual labor or smart and focused enough for mental labor, they eventually will have to. If not,...I guess robots are getting more advanced everyday. Speaking of government and health freedom, here are some interesting current endorsements. After mentioning a while back that Dr. Mercola was a fan of Congressman and MD Ron Paul, I see that Chet Day of Chet and Josh Day's Health and Beyond Weekly has endorsed Congressman/MD Ron Paul for president. I just thought I'd throw that in there since it seems Ron is the only presidential candidate to acknowledge Dr. Rima Laibow and HealthFreedomUSA.com's questionnaire about the health concerns we should all be getting straight answers about from AT LEAST every presidential candidate. If Dr. Paul is the only one who thinks it's important, that tells us a lot right there. See at:  Congressman Paul Answers our Health Freedom Questions

Also, I'm sure many of you fellow Youngevity associates and associates of other supplement companies know Jonathan W. Emord, legal health freedom warrior. Emord is famous for taking the FDA to school in the courtroom. No small task I'd imagine since I cannot picture a group more slippery and sly as the FDA. On the Emord and Associates web site there's an icon towards the bottom of the page which simply reads '' Ron Paul 2008''.

See here: Constitutional and Administrative Law - Emord & Associates

Please also familiarize yourself with Mr. Emord's legal perspective on FDA power here:

FDA Violation of the Rule of Law - Emord & Associates

He gives us a very realistic view of why FDA power is really against the very founding principles of American government. For those readers in other countries, please don't be annoyed by the nationcentric topics that must be discussed here. I hear the talk about how solid nutrition is ideally from a ''balanced diet'' and how supplementation shouldn't be necessary with this flaky term firmly in play. It's partly flaky because most lay people are completely ignorant about what a balanced diet is, concerning their own needs. I hear about how a vitamin and mineral supplement doesn't replace a good diet. Well this is ludicrous. As a matter of fact a good and ''balanced diet'' doesn't replace a good supplement because that's exactly where we are right now. The RDAs we have are continuously shown to be too low on several nutrients. Some essential nutrients as of yet don't even HAVE RDAs! On top of this, our foods...even the healthiest foods in their raw state are losing some of the most valuable nutrients and many experts believe we need MORE of certain nutrients now than we would under biologically natural circumstances [which we are clearly not in]. This is why the title of today's post seems dismissive of the term ''balanced diet''. So, today let's go with two pieces on nutrition. Part 1, a USDA comparison of the depletion I've mentioned to back up my position in case you are skeptical by way of ignorance and part 2, yet another urging that just came out this month where a whole panel of doctors have made recommendations for several nutrients to have their RDA modernized to meet the requirements that are suspected to be optimal-raised that is. As I suspected, they clearly steam rolled over the vitamin C RDA. Some RDA levels are reasonable in my estimation, some are way off but at least valuable. The RDA of vitamin C however has always been laughable to the point of silly. They suggest you need no more than what will keep you from a definite full blown case of SCURVY! Seriously, that's the reasoning behind that RDA level of 60 mg. That's how much you need to keep from eventually dying of scurvy. That's like recommending that you drink no more water than the amount you'd need to not die of dehydration. Sound logical? So that answers the common person's question of whether they set RDAs as the maximum of a nutrient you should ever allow yourself, the minimum you should ever have or the best you should have. That gives a pretty good idea of our standards, I think.   

Doctor Wallach was right when he declared that the balanced diet rhetoric has more or less killed more people than any other mainstream medical theory.  In order to get just your day's RDA for calcium from milk alone you'd have to drink between three cups to a whole quart of milk everyday. Two ounces of Ultimate Classic provides 120% of your calcium RDA with grossly more assimilability than you'd get in T-T-T-TUMS. I apologize for stuttering on that particular brand name. You couldn't see it but I also have a facial tick that goes off when T-T-T-TUMS comes into the conversation. That's two ounces equating one quart of milk plus an astonishing amount of nutrition that milk doesn't even come close too either for minerals or vitamins and that's ESPECIALLY the homogenized, pasteurized FMF they sell these days.

 *FMF stands for FauxMilk Fluid...if you're me anyway.

I've always been on the fence about milk because there is just so much conflicting study on its place in a human diet. It's not unheard of for one species to drink the milk of another species for survival but as a staple of a healthy diet it's an interesting but murky concept. Dairy ends up providing most of the calcium of a modern unsupplemented human these days but there's much to consider. If it's pasteurized, homogenized, defatted and pumped full of hormones, pesticide residues and remnants of antibiotics...I can't even consider it milk, cheese or yogurt anymore...it's not even close to food in that case and it shouldn't be part of the ''to moo or not to moo'' question. Sadly, most dairy products have all those qualifications and the government has been cracking down on the superior raw milk and raw milk products as if it were more of a threat than say Tamoxifen...you've heard recently I'm sure that this breast cancer preventive agent and FDA approved wonderdrug was found to increase uterine cancer, right? That's just another fun thing I thought I'd slip in there.

See:  Shocking Revelation -- This Cancer Drug CAUSES Cancer - Articles Although this was covered by several sites, I'm directing you to the Mercola coverage because I'm playing favorites.

Anyway, bringing you up to speed on how well a balanced diet you can really have...

The USDA had something interesting to say:

In spite of the fact that this following comparison exists, most doctors still think supplementation is generally useless and that you get all you need from a ''balanced diet''. ''Balanced diet'' of course refers to your waiter balancing the plate on the palm of his hand? The USDA Nutrient Data Base Compared 1975 food values with 2004 food values. That's real food like fruits and vegetables, not real food as in crackers and fruity pebbles. What they found supported the necessity of supplementation. Quite frankly, it did so more convincingly and even less disputably than the senate document back in 1936 when our government should have stepped up on this issue as it was well warned of then. See, their argument against that 1936 take seems to be that tests were old and meaningless and that our low mineral range fertilizers consisting mostly of potassium and phosphorus mineral-wise are getting the job done for humans because they're doing it for plants.

The last that I heard, plants didn't need a skeletal system Bubba. Human bones once again, consist of sixty minerals by analysis. Plants have a ''mineral profile'' of what they'll pick up and how much, and they need far fewer minerals than your spine does or your enzymatic catalyst system. The USDA data base reveals just to cite a small piece of the scary example, that our soil is likely to be worsening rapidly. Plants don't ''make'' minerals, if they're not there for the plant to use, they won't be in the plant. Counting on even the ''known'' amount of each mineral and vitamin in standard produce to be accurate is a stretch since they come from different places with different soil and different methods of farming. When you want to know the nutrient values of any one food, you are only in a guesstimate predicament. With supplements being tested continuously, that guessing game is not a problem, it's definite for multivitamin/mineral formulas. Although wholefood supplements may vary, good companies ensure that they can supply a bare minimum of whatever the potent nutrients you seek from the labels are. So, the mineral contents are shaky with even healthy fruits and veggies, does that mean the vitamins are safe? Plants do make vitamins, but this USDA comparison shows that clearly something is even inhibiting that, like perhaps a mineral catalyst to help make the vitamins? Here are some of the tested fruits and vegetables from the USDA Database Comparison.

The comparisons include:

Loss of iron from the 1975 to 2004 USDA comparisons:

Carrots: 57% loss

Strawberries: 58% loss

Apples: 60% loss

Onions: 62% loss

Blueberries: 72% loss!

Loss of Calcium from the 1975 to 2004 USDA comparisons:

Corn: 33% loss

Green beans: 33% loss

Kale: 46% loss

Broccoli: 54% loss

Blueberries: 60% loss!

Next we have vitamin losses. Although plants make vitamins whether because the minerals aren't present at the same rates or some agricultural practice is altering their normalcy, those vitamin rates are dropping too.

Vitamin A loss from the 1975 to 2004 USDA comparisons:

Blueberries: 46% loss

Strawberries: 80% loss

Onions: 95% loss

Corn: 400% loss!

Lastly we have Vitamin C loss from the 1975 to 2004 USDA comparisons

Blueberries: 31% loss

Onions: 36% loss

Potatoes: 43% loss

Spinach: 45% loss -Whoops, Popeye's forearms have shrunk and he just lost some of his night vision

Now...what are those vegetables and fruits considered the most healthful these days? EXACTLY...See Part two for the rest. I could not fit the whole article on one blog post unfortunately.

~ J. D. Shafer

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, grand mal seizures and depression

These are all afflictions I discuss in my cholesterol report direcly relating to low cholesterol. I just updated that report a few days ago here and I think I'll add to it again with something that I just came across today. Reaffirming my position that low cholesterol can be a possible risk factor for the diseases mentioned OR at the very least a factor contributing to a faster decline as some of those diseases or symptoms progress, I'll introduce a video clip of an interview conducted by the BBC. Due to my vast research into cholesterol and the ''controversial'' position I've clearly taken on it, this piece of information is not at all surprising to me. I touched on the Parkinson's/low cholesterol connection only very slightly in my report so I don't feel that I'm wasting anyone's time by overstating my case with this additional attention if you've read the 90+ report already. With the addition of this blog recently and the considerable amount of statin drug prescriptions out there, I feel a need to get into this some more with the latest material available to me, so... stop rolling your eyes Bucko!

Still doing my best to keep it brief:

Here's the link to the video clip which is under three minutes long: BBC News Player - Cholesterol link to Parkinson's

or copy and paste this address into your browser: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6690000/newsid_6690300/6690311.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm&nol_storyid=6690311&news=1

If you have any technical difficulty watching this video clip, here's the outline of the clip and brief summary [some of the information is not from this clip but an article on U.S. News and World Report entitled ''Low LDL Cholesterol Levels Linked to Parkinson's'' by Adam Voiland:

The BBC interviewed a North Carolina researcher/doctor who finds direct correlation of low cholesterol with her patients who have Parkinson's disease. Doctor Xuemei Huang-University of North Carolina School of Medicine neurologist specializing in Parkinson's- is with orthodox medicine it seems in the assumption that high cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease and stroke [Yes, I disagree with that orthodox assumption] but she's also concerned about a dangerous cholesterol minimum that is as yet not well established let alone publicized like we all know the supposed maximum has been. They briefly interview a man who had heart trouble, lowered his cholesterol to be SAFE and now has low cholesterol plus Parkinson's and I would personally add- no guarantees of having helped his heart one iota directly from cholesterol reduction. In the U.S. News article, the finding quoted was that those with a low LDL cholesterol level-lower than 114 mg/dl [LDL is the one deemed the ''bad'' cholesterol] had a ''3.5-fold higher occurrence of the disease than those with higher LDL levels (more than 138 mg/dL).''

I have more that I hope to touch on in this blog or in the newsletters with regard to a commonly known infection which may cause low cholesterol, Parkinson's and some of these other diseases but I need to do more research before I'm comfortable writing about it. I hope you've found this post informative and can put it to good use.

~ J. D. Shafer

*This information is for educational purposes only. It is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease nor replace advice of your personal doctor or make health claims as to the efficacy of natural substances on treatment of any ailment. Many products have contraindications with pharmaceuticals and other conditions. Please check with a healthcare professional before using these highly potent nutritionals, oils and other such products in case of conflict.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this