SEVERAL POPULAR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ARE WORTHLESS AND DANGEROUS

Statin Muscle Toxicity
New FDA warning labels citing risks of confusion, memory loss, new onset diabetes and muscle injury. Even people who don’t experience pain or weakness on cholesterol-lowering statin drugs may be suffering muscle damage

* * *

Say no to drugs by saying yes to more plants

* * *

John McDougall MD: Pills Won’t Save You

* * *

The Bisphosphonates: Fosamax, Actonel, Boniva, Reclast

The drugs like Boniva or Fosamax are called bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates are very dangerous to someone’s health and should be taken off the market. That’s how dangerous these drugs are. The major problem with bisphosphonates is they increase by 50% the risk of atrial fibrillation, which is also known as irregular heart beats. Another problem with these drugs is that they stay in a woman’s tissues for longs periods of time of 5 to 10 years even after she has stopped taking them. So if a woman develops irregular heart beats as a result of taking bisphosphonates and then stops taking the medication, the irregular heart beats can continue for up to 5 to 10 years.

Bone undergoes constant turnover and is kept in balance (homeostasis) by osteoblasts creating bone and osteoclastsdestroying bone. Bisphosphonates inhibit the digestion of bone by encouraging osteoclasts to undergo apoptosis, or cell death, thereby slowing bone loss. This is not right. Bones are living tissues and we need our tissues to regenerate normally. The goal is not to stop the body from going through its normal course of homeostatis. The goal is to live an active lifestyle that prevents significant muscle and bone weaknesses to develop. If we inhibit the removal of old bone with drugs, then the bone that remains gets older, brittle and weaker than a bone that is kept healthy and flexible.

As a result of the poisoning of the osteoclasts, women taking bisphosphonates have 50% increased risk of wrist fractures and 84% increased risks of hip fractures compared to women not taking the medication. Therefore, a bisphosphonate taken to reduce bone fractures ends up increasing the risk of bone fractures! This is not a joke, it is the truth. These drugs are horrible and should be avoided.

The other negative effects of bisphosphonates include:

  • Reflux esophagitis and gastritis
  • Osteonecrosis of the jaw or dead jaw syndrome
  • Mid femur fracture after years of use
  • Bone pain, muscle cramping
  • Swollen ankles and feet

Finally, the long term safety data of these drugs is lacking. People are often surprised to hear the above negative information on bisphosphonates. The general thinking is that if it were true, our doctors would not prescribe these drugs. Unfortunately, we live in a world where most doctors do not read the scientific literature and are educated by pharmaceutical representatives trying to sell their drugs.

For more information on preventing or reversing osteoporosis, please refer to our section called osteoporosis.

Suggested Reading

Why the FDA’s new ban on trans fats may be most important change in our food supply ever

When all the talk tends to center around how the U.S. food system is failing people, it can be easy to forget its successes. But one of those instances has been brought to the forefront this morning.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced Tuesday that it will implement a new near-zero tolerance ban of partially hydrogenated oils, the main source of trans fats. Food companies will be given three years to phase the ingredient out of their offerings. The decision comes on the heels of a 2013 announcement that a ban was imminent.

And it is a very big deal.

“It’s probably the single most important change in our food supply, if not in decades then ever,” said Michael Jacobson, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and a longtime advocate for the change. “This action alone will save many thousands of lives each year.”

There are various artificial sweeteners that have been banned over the years, including cyclomate in the 1960s. But none of them, Jacobson explains, have been so clearly linked to tens of thousands of deaths like trans fat. Even the introduction of nutrition facts labels in 1993, he says, though it has helped empower the population, hasn’t saved lives in such a way.

For more than a century, trans fat has been an essential part of the U.S. food system. Almost anything that was fried or baked had it. Foods that were made with trans fat tasted better, and, perhaps even more importantly, lasted longer. No one worried, because no one knew how dangerous that was.

But slowly, research started to catch on. In the 1970s and 1980s, studies began to suggest that eating the man-made fat might be tied to heart disease, at least in animals. Consumption dipped, due largely to fear that this effect might carry over to humans.

Then in 1990 a clinical study shook the ground. It found that eating trans fat led to higher levels of bad cholesterol and lower levels of good cholesterol. It also spurred a whirlwind of follow-up research, including a study by the USDA, which the food industry hoped would exculpate trans fat, but did just the opposite. Consuming it, study after study found, was associated with increased risks of heart disease.

By 2003, the government required that all foods made with trans fat carry a label.

Perhaps the most telling sign came in 2006, when New York City banned the lipid from all bakeries and restaurants. The food industry had long complained that removing trans fat would be costly, and replacing it would be very difficult. But eateries managed just fine, swapping out the banned ingredient for various other oils.

“That was really the key,” said Jacobson. “It showed that trans fat could be eliminated from pretty much anything.”

Americans have cut their intake of trans fat by roughly 85 percent over the past decade. The remaining 15 percent will be a squeeze for many food companies, which have held out. Those include some well known popcorn, frosting, and biscuit makers. Jacobson has made sure to keep track of themon Pinterest, where CSPI pictures all of the offenders.

In three years, that will no longer be necessary. What was once a staple of most commercially sold food in the United States will soon be phased out almost entirely.

“The food industry will probably continue to argue that there are some foods where you need it [trans fat],” said Jacobson. “But that’s just not true. The government knows that.”

Even if switching over proves a big expense for some confection makers, it’s safe to say that that’s trivial when compared to the health cost associated with continuing to serve trans fat to what is already one of the most obese countries in the world.

Health Canada recently announced proposed changes to nutrition labels

Health Canada recently announced proposed changes to nutrition labels as well as the launch of new tools to promote healthier food choices.  The improvements would include a new Nutrition Facts table format and clearer labelling of sugar and serving sizes.  New resources such as the My Food Guide mobile application and the Eat Well Plate will also help Canadians apply the guidance of Canada’s Food Guide to build a healthy meal.  Please pass this information on to your organization’s members or feel welcome to post on your website, share through social media, or on bulletin boards.  

Proposed changes:  

  • Mandating consistent serving sizes will make it easier to compare nutrient contents of similar foods.  The ingredient list on the proposed new label would also be easier to find, read and understand.
  • The addition of a percentage daily value for sugar and the way that it is identified in the list of ingredients will make it easier to understand how much sugar is in a product and what the source is.

New Resources:

  • The  Eat Well Plate helps you follow Canada’s Food Guide when planning and serving meals, showing food group proportions and how to make half your plate vegetables and fruit.
  • The interactive tool My Food Guide customizes Canada’s Food Guide just for you.  You can then print it and stick it on your fridge for quick and easy reference!

Have your say!  To contribute to the consultation on proposed changes to nutrition labels, visit Canada.ca.

Thank you for helping to keep Canadians safe and healthy!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, simply reply to this email with ”Unsubscribe” in the subject line.

Health Canada Atlantic Region
www.healthcanada.gc.ca

Santé Canada a annoncé récemment des propositions de modifications à l’étiquetage nutritionnel et le lancement de nouveaux outils pour promouvoir des choix alimentaires plus sains.  Les améliorations proposées incluraient une nouvelle présentation du tableau de la valeur nutritive et l’étiquetage plus clair de la teneur en sucre et de la taille des portions.  De nouvelles ressources telles que l’application mobile Mon Guide alimentaire et l’Assiette Bien manger aideront aussi les Canadiens à préparer des repas santé en appliquant les recommandations du Guide alimentaire canadien.  Nous vous invitons à transmettre ces renseignements à vos membres, à les publier sur votre site Web et dans les médias sociaux, ou encore à les afficher sur vos babillards.

Modifications proposées :

  • Rendre obligatoire l’uniformisation de la taille des portions facilitera la comparaison de la teneur en nutriments d’aliments semblables.  La liste des ingrédients sur la nouvelle étiquette proposée serait aussi plus facile à localiser, à lire et à comprendre.
  • L’ajout d’un pourcentage de la valeur quotidienne pour le sucre et la manière dont il est indiqué dans la liste des ingrédients permettra de comprendre plus facilement la quantité de sucre contenu dans un produit ainsi que sa source.

Nouveaux outils :

  • L’Assiette Bien manger vous aide à suivre la Guide alimentaire canadien lorsque vous planifiez et préparez des repas en présentant les proportions des groupes alimentaires et la façon de remplir la moitié de votre assiette avec des légumes et des fruits.
  • L’outil interactif Mon guide alimentaire permet de personnaliser leGuide alimentaire canadien juste pour vous.  Vous pourrez ensuite l’imprimer et l’afficher sur votre réfrigérateur pour le consulter rapidement et facilement!

À vous la parole!  Afin de contribuer au processus de consultation sur des propositions de modifications à l’étiquetage nutritionnel, visitez le site Web Canada.ca.   
 
Merci de contribuer à la sécurité et à la santé des Canadiens!

Pour vous désabonner de cette liste d’envoi, veuillez simplement répondre à ce courriel en indiquant « Me désabonner » comme sujet.

Santé Canada, Région de l’Atlantique
www.santecanada.gc.ca

The secrets to a healthy life

They say you are what you eat. In the world of medicine, that couldn’t be more true.

What we choose to eat has a powerful impact on both our internal and external environments. When we realize that something as primal as what we choose to put in our mouths each day makes an important difference in these crises, it empowers us and imbues these choices with meaning. If it’s meaningful, then it’s sustainable—and a meaningful life is a longer life.

For almost four decades, my colleagues and I at the non-profit Preventive Medicine Research Institute and the University of California, San Francisco, have conducted clinical research proving the many benefits of comprehensive lifestyle changes. These include:

  • a whole foods, plant-based diet (naturally low in fat and refined carbohydrates);
  • stress management techniques (including yoga and meditation);
  • moderate exercise (such as walking); and
  • social support and community (love and intimacy).

In short—eat well, move more, stress less, and love more.

Many people tend to think of advances in medicine as high-tech and expensive, such as a new drug, laser, or surgical procedure. We often have a hard time believing that something as simple as comprehensive diet and lifestyle changes can make such a powerful difference in our lives—but they often do.

In our research, we have used high-tech, expensive, state-of-the-art scientific measure to prove the power of these simple, low-tech and low-cost interventions. These randomized controlled trials and other studies have been published in the leading peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals.

In addition to preventing many chronic diseases, these comprehensive diet and lifestyle changes can often reverse the progression of these illnesses.

We proved, for the first time, that lifestyle changes alone can reverse the progression of even severe coronary heart disease. There was even reversal after five years than after one year and 2.5 times fewer cardiac events. We also found that these lifestyle changes can reverse type 2 diabetes and may slow, stop, or even reverse the progression of early-stageprostate cancer.

Changing lifestyle actually changes your genes—turning on genes that keep you healthy, and turning off genes that promote heart disease, prostate cancer, breast cancer, and diabetes—over 500 genes in only three months. People often say, “Oh, it’s all in my genes, there’s not much I can do about it.” But there is. Knowing that changing lifestyle changes our genes is often very motivating—not to blame, but to empower. Our genes are a predisposition, but our genes are not our fate.

Our latest research found that these diet and lifestyle changes may even lengthen telomeres, the ends of our chromosomes that control aging. As your telomeres get longer, your life gets longer. This was the first controlled study showing that any intervention may begin to reverse aging on a cellular level by lengthening telomeres. And the more people adhered to these lifestyle recommendations, the longer their telomeres became.

This is a different approach to personalized medicine. It’s not like there was one set of diet and lifestyle recommendations for reversing heart disease, a different one for reversing diabetes, and yet another for changing your genes or lengthening your telomeres. It’s as though your body knows how to personalize the medicine it needs if you give it the right raw materials in your diet and lifestyle.

It’s not all or nothing. In all of our studies, we found that the more people changed their diet and lifestyle, the more they improved and the better they felt—at any age. So, if you indulge yourself one day, just eat healthier the next. If you don’t have time to exercise one day, do a little more the next. If you don’t have time to meditate for an hour, do it for a minute. What matters most is your overall way of eating and living.

These lifestyle changes are part of the most influential trend in medicine today—what is known as “Lifestyle Medicine,” which is lifestyle as treatment as well as prevention.

Health Care Crisis:

There is a convergence of forces that makes this the right idea at the right time. While the limitations of high-tech interventions such as drugs and surgery are becoming increasingly well-documented, the power of diet and lifestyle interventions is also becoming clearer.

More than 86% of the $3 trillion in annual U.S. health care costs (which are really predominantly sick-care costs) are from chronic diseases which can often be prevented and even reversed by making healthier diet and lifestyle choices, at a fraction of the costs—and the only side-effects are good ones.

For example, in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study, patients who adhered to healthy dietary principles (low meat consumption and high intake of fruits, vegetables, and whole-grain bread), never smoked, were not overweight, and had at least 30 minutes a day of physical activity had a 78% lower overall risk of developing a chronic disease.

This included a 93% reduced risk of diabetes, an 81% lower risk of heart attacks, a 50% reduction in risk of stroke, and a 36% overall reduction in risk of cancer, compared with participants without these healthy factors.

That’s really mind-boggling. Type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes are pandemic, already affecting almost one-half of all Americans. United Health Care projected that if current trends continue, annual costs from these will be more than $3.3 trillion over the next decade, which is clearly not sustainable.

And yet the EPIC study showed that type 2 diabetes is completely preventable for at least 93% of people today. We don’t need a new breakthrough; we just need to put into practice what we already know. Also, lowering blood sugar with diet and lifestyle is more effective at preventing premature death and disease than getting it down with diabetes medications.

Likewise, heart and blood vessel disease is still the number-one cause of death in the U.S. Yet at least 90% of heart disease can be prevented—today!—by changing diet and lifestyle. And that’s probably an underestimation.

It’s not just low-fat vs. low-carb. A study found that animal protein dramatically increases the risk of premature death independent of fat and carbs. In a study of over 6,000 people, those aged 50-65 who reported eating diets high in animal protein had a 75% increase in overall mortality, a 400% increase in cancer deaths, and a 500% increase in type 2 diabetes during the following 18 years. In contrast, plant-based proteins were protective.

At the same time that the power of comprehensive lifestyle changes is becoming more well-documented, the limitations of high-tech medicine are becoming clearer.

For example, randomized controlled trials have shown that angioplasties, stents, and coronary bypass surgery do not prolong life or prevent heart attacks in most stable patients. Only 1 out of 49 people with early-stage prostate cancer and PSA levels below 10 may benefit from surgery or radiation; the other 48 may become incontinent, impotent, or both—i.e., maimed in the most personal ways.

Yet when men are diagnosed with prostate cancer, most want to do “something” if the only alternative is to do nothing—watchful waiting or active surveillance. As mentioned earlier, our randomized controlled trial showed that comprehensive diet and lifestyle changes may slow, stop, or even reverse the progression of early-stage prostate cancer, so this may be a third alternative for many men.

Lifestyle medicine is cost effective as well as medically effective. Our research has shown that when comprehensive lifestyle changes are offered as treatment (not just as prevention), significant cost savings occur in the first year because the biological mechanisms that control our health and well-being are so dynamic.

For example, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield found that overall health care costs were reduced by 50% in the first year when people with heart disease or risk factors went through our lifestyle program in 24 hospitals and clinics in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska. In patients who spent more than $25,000 on health care in the prior year, costs were reduced 400% in the following year. In another study, Mutual of Omaha found that they saved $30,000 per patient in the first year in those who went through our lifestyle program.

Because of these findings, Medicare began covering my program of lifestyle medicine for reversing heart disease in 2011 when they created a new benefit category. If it’s reimbursable, it’s sustainable. Last year, I began a partnership with Healthways to create a new paradigm of health care based on our work. Already we have trained The Cleveland Clinic, Beth Israel Medical Center, UCLA, and many others. Now that Medicare is covering my program, the other major insurance companies are doing so as well, including Anthem (formerly WellPoint), Aetna, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, and many others.

Environmental Crisis:

Many people are surprised to learn that animal agribusiness generates more greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation combined. The livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire global transportation chain as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent (18% vs 13.5%). More recentestimates are that these numbers are even higher—that livestock and their byproducts may actually account for more than 50% of annual worldwide greenhouse gas emissions (at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year).

More than half of U.S. grain and nearly 40% of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans. In the United States, more than 8 billion livestock are maintained, which eat about seven times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire U.S. population. It takes over ten times as much energy and resources to eat a meat-based diet than a plant-based diet.

We have enough food today to feed all 7 billion humans on the planet if more people ate lower on the food chain.

Producing 1 kg of fresh beef requires about 13 kg of grain and 30 kg of forage. This much grain and forage requires a total of 43,000 liters of water.

Governor Jerry Brown recently ordered water restrictions in California. Many people don’t realize that a long shower takes 40 gallons of water but it takes 4,000-18,000 gallons of water to make one 1/3 pound hamburger according to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior.

More than half of U.S. grain and nearly 40% of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans. In the United States, more than 8 billion livestock are maintained, which eat about seven times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire U.S. population.

So, to the degree we choose to eat a plant-based diet, we free up tremendous amounts of resources that can benefit many others as well as ourselves. I find this very meaningful. And when we can act more compassionately, it helps our hearts as well.

Dean Ornish is founder and president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute and clinical professor of medicine at the University of California in San Francisco.

Health Canada to re-examine every facet of Canada’s Food Guide

The governmental department will re-examine the science behind it, to the policies and programs that stem from it and it’s relevance to Canadians, the “changing food supply, population and demographics,” says spokesperson.

Health Canada is going to re-examine  Canada’s Food Guide. Nutrition experts want fruit and vegetables put in different categories.

MARCUS OLENIUK/TORONTO STAR

Health Canada is going to re-examine Canada’s Food Guide. Nutrition experts want fruit and vegetables put in different categories.

It’s sung as Canada’s gospel of proper nutrition; a trustworthy guide dispensing sound advice on how to eat well, feel well and keep thin.

But Canada’s Food Guide is under fire — within academic circles, among clinicians, in witness testimony at a senate subcommittee investigating obesity — and now, at Health Canada, which says it has decided to review the country’s official food rules.

The governmental department will re-examine every facet of Canada’s Food Guide, from the science behind it, to the policies and programs that stem from it and it’s relevance to Canadians, the “changing food supply, population and demographics,” spokesperson Eric Morrissette wrote in an email.

It’s part of a new, “recently implemented” review process to “ensure Canada’s Food Guide and related dietary guidance, continue to be current and useful,” the statement says.

The Food Guide, a rainbow graphic of food groups and portion sizes explaining how we should spend our daily calories, was last updated in 2007 — despite a rising chorus of criticism from academics and clinicians. They say it is outdated, based on observations rather than hard science and focused on nutrients when it should emphasize whole foods.

“We need to throw out the idea that dietary recommendations can be built off nutrient requirements,” says Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, a vocal critique of the guide. “We don’t shop for nutrients, we shop for food.”

Freedhoff adds that Canada’s official food rules do little for public health, but “quite a lot” to serve the interests of the food industry.

Health claims associated with the guide, such as “low in fat” and “no added sugar,” give hyper processed foods the illusion of “health in a box,” he says.

That puts the onus on the shopper to study “poorly designed nutrition fact panels,” and try to figure out whether the package is telling truth or not, he says.

Manual Arango, director of Health Policy for The Heart and Stroke Foundation, says it’s time the guide was revised — especially in its treatment of sugar.

Health Canada makes no distinction between added sugars, which are added in processing, and “free sugars,” which exist unbound from the whole foods they come from, he says, citing juice as a prime example.

Currently, the food guide says that a 1/2 cup of juice can stand in for a serving of whole fruit.

Calling it “sugar water,” Arango says he wants Health Canada to remove the recommendation immediately.

“It’s bananas,” he says. “Pure pulp fiction.”

Criticisms of the guide range widely: fruits and vegetables should be separated into two groups because Canadians already eat enough watermelon and grapes, but not enough veggies, like beets and eggplant, experts say.

Fats are absent — and they shouldn’t be, some experts say — especially with emerging evidence showing it is not fat that’s bad, but the food it comes from.

Even the science behind it is under scrutiny’s lens, says physician and University of Toronto nutritional sciences associate professor Dr. John Sievenpiper. “A big critique right now is that we don’t measure well,” he says. “We lack the big trials … the randomized trials.”

Valerie Tarasuk, professor at the University of Toronto’s Nutritional Sciences Department, says the guide, food groupings and portion sizes, are based on “sound scientific principles” and draw attention to how a healthy diet is made up of a spectrum of different foods.

If Canadians could only follow it, they would meet their nutritional needs, she says. The controversy arises from a misunderstanding of what the guide should be used for. “It’s not a prescription,” she says. “It’s an educational tool.”

Kate Comeau, registered dietitian and Dietitians of Canada spokesperson, agrees the guide is effective at starting a conversation about nutrition — with some groups, she says. But it’s “not for everyone.”

And, says Joanne Lewis, of the Diabetes Association, it is certainly not the only factor that contributes to health, and chronic disease. The environment of eating, she says, including food labels, marketing and access to food — are all important to healthier eating, she says.

If anything, what’s broken, she says, is “the way we implement” the food guide. “I would hope that the food guide is revised based on any new evidence out there.”

Sugary drinks linked to 1,600 Canadian deaths a year: Study

Report ties sugar-sweetened beverages to diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer

OurWindsor.Ca

Liquid candy is killing us.

So say the results of a new study, which holds sugary drinks responsible for the death of 1,600 Canadians annually.

That’s more than four deaths per day, and higher than most other wealthy industrialized countries, said Dariush Mozaffarian, senior author and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in Boston.

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are cause-and-effect for obesity and diabetes,” he told the Toronto Star. “There’s no intrinsic health value to it. There’s plenty of replacements. This is an easy problem to fix.

“We just have to stop drinking sugary beverages,” he added.

Those beverages include soda pop, energy and sports drinks as well as fruit beverages, sweetened iced teas and homemade sugary drinks like frescas.

The global report, published recently in the journal Circulation, evaluated statistics to estimate how many deaths were directly attributable to sugar-sweetened beverages in 2010. The conclusion: 184,000 worldwide.

The study found that diabetes induced by excessive consumption of sugary beverages was responsible for more than 70 per cent of those deaths, with cardiovascular disease and cancer trailing behind at 25 per cent and four per cent respectively.

And while 40 per cent fewer Canadians per capita die as a result of sugary drinks than in the United States, at least twice as many of us die due to the habit than in Great Britain and France, the study found.

Mozaffarian stressed the need to change the culture around soft drinks, “so that it’s not cool to drink a one-litre Big Gulp with your friends.”

He criticized sports and film celebrities for promoting energy drinks and soft drinks.

“Those movie stars would never do commercials and advertise tobacco to kids.”

Sugary drinks are the main source of added sugars in the Canadian diet, said Lesley James, a health policy analyst at the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

“Canadians are often unaware of how much sugar they’re consuming in beverage form. And the more you drink, the higher your risk is of these adverse health effects,” she said.

The foundation is pushing for a levy on sugary drink producers to force them to hike the price in hopes of scaring away customers. It says the revenue would go toward healthy lunch programs in schools across the country.

It is also calling for a legislated ban on free refills of fountain pop at chain restaurants.

“It’s liquid candy,” said Corinne Voyer, director of the Quebec Coalition on Weight-Related Problems.

A bottle of pop hits the body a lot harder than, say, a cookie, “because the sugar goes so fast into your body and your liver has to work to metabolize it all,” Voyer said. “It makes the liver very fat.”

Health Canada announced plans earlier this month for redesigned nutrition labels that will highlight added sugars and standardize portion sizes on food packaging.

“Health Canada is in the process of reviewing the evidence base for its current guidance on healthy eating to Canadians, including how the existing guidance is being used by health professionals, educators and consumer,” spokesperson Eric Morrissette wrote in an email.

Earlier this year, Ontario passed a law requiring large food chains to post calories for food and beverage items on menus.

The Tufts University study examined dietary surveys and national data across 187 countries from 1980 to 2010.

http://misc.thestar.com/tools/numbers/index.html?12Q6hQ8Yt63qXwEsFdFkHpPb3qzavqlcBCzHanTg8f7I

The Best Kept Secret in Medicine

· July 1st 2015 ·

The Best Kept Secret in Medicine

Lifestyle changes are often more effective in reducing the rates of heart disease, hypertension, heart failure, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and premature death than almost any other medical intervention.

Doctor’s Note

Of course, to advise patients about nutrition they first have to educate themselves, as it is unlikely they received formal nutrition education in medical training:

For more on the power of healthy living, see:

If you want to take advantage of Dr. Barnard’s transformation, check out his amazing 21-Day Kickstart Program, a free public service that starts the first of every month on how to transition towards a healthier diet.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.