Growing Controversies on New Psychiatric disorders

If you find yourself in times of trouble and you decide to talk to a psychotherapist, you'll sit in the hot seat, spill out your problems, and then at the end, make a payment. But if you intend to use insurance, the process includes another set of steps. The therapist has to decide what's wrong with you, assign a diagnosis, and then bill the insurance company based on whatever ailment you've been assigned. To make that diagnosis, almost all mental health workers--psychiatrists, social workers, and psychologists--consult a book called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders, known by its nickname, the DSM. The book is so widely used in the industry that it's sometimes called the "Bible of Psychiatry." Professionals use the DSM not only for insurance purposes, but also to guide medication decisions and to understand and categorize patient symptomology.

Since its first publication in 1952, the DSM has gone through five major revisions. With each successive edition, new mental disorders have been added and old ones routed out--with the overall trend definitely in the direction of adding increasing numbers of psychiatric conditions to the inventory. The first DSM, back in 1952, listed 102 disorders. Back then, schizophrenia was lumped together with manic-depressive disorder under the heading "psychosis." The latest edition--The DSM-V -- just out this week, describes over 300 disorders, including 15 brand new diagnoses. A quick glance through the book would most likely find you a malady that fits your peculiar psyche. It truly makes you wonder how the world survived before psychiatrists identified and codified this myriad of conditions.

Among the new diagnoses, you'll find "caffeine withdrawal." Symptoms include headaches, sleep problems, and mood swings. There's also "Disruptive mood disregulation disorder," formerly known as "brat with temper tantrums;" "sleep apnea;" and "hoarding," described as "persistent difficulty discarding or parting with possessions due to a perceived need to save the items and distress associated with discarding them." And let us not forget "Binge Eating Disorder," which describes a disease whereby you pig-out 12 times within three months--certainly something that applies to the typical vacationer or cruise ship patron on a two week jaunt.

There's been a lot of controversy about the changes in the good book from within the profession. Some find the new designations random and superficial. One disorder that especially raised hackles is "premenstrual dysphoric disorder," a fancy label for what used to be crudely called "that time of month" or "about to go on the rag." "PMDD" shares symptoms with PMS, only it's far worse...at least according to the DSM. Most women will recognize the signs: bloating, depression, despair, and the "I hate my partner and everyone else" syndrome. In other words, what used to be written off as routine premenstrual getting bitchy for a few days now has a full-blown psychiatric designation, and some worry that the label will be used as a pejorative to discriminate against women or as a way for pharmaceutical companies to recycle expensive, side-effect-ridden drugs including antidepressants, pain relievers, and cancer causing birth control pills.

There is some history, too, of peculiar mental illnesses being attributed to women only and then used against them. For instance, female hysteria was first diagnosed by Hippocrates in 2000 BC. The early clinicians thought it had to do with uterine dysfunction. The symptoms included some (but not necessarily all) of these manifestations: anxiety, heightened sexuality, insomnia, headaches, fluid retention, shortness of breath, irritability, screaming, loss of appetite, temporary paralysis, and "a tendency to cause trouble." In the mid-19th Century, a leading physician claimed one quarter of all women had the condition. While those symptoms do indeed create a colorful picture of nuttiness, one can also see how a woman with a real reason to be angry or who simply went her own way might be slapped with the label.

In the same way, some worry that women are now at risk of being labeled with the premenstrual dysphoric disorder designation simply because they're crabby. On the other hand, a dear friend who happens to be a psychiatrist assures me that some otherwise agreeable women actually get homicidal or suicidal a few days before menstruation, and that the condition exists and does need to be addressed. The problem is that listing it in the catalog opens the door for misuse. For instance, a vindictive spouse could sue for custody of his children in a divorce contest, claiming his former wife has the disorder. And when you think about it, is PMDD really a different condition than PMS or just more intense PMS? If so, there's no real dividing line, and any diagnosis is purely arbitrary.

Another new diagnosis in contention is the earlier described "disruptive mood disregulation disorder." Critics worry that any kid having a normal snit will get labeled and medicated and maybe even assigned to special classes, much like what some say has happened with ADHD. And when it comes to ADHD, it's worth noting that the U.S. prescribes five times more Ritalin and Adderall to its children than the rest of the world combined. Is it any wonder that these are now the illegal drugs of choice among college students and athletes? Make no mistake: words matter. Defining a set of symptoms as a disease matters.

The new edition of the DMS also renames a few golden oldies, including "Asperger's Syndrome," which now has been subsumed under the "Autism Spectrum Disorder" heading. In other words, if you had Asperger's last week, the good news is you no longer have it, but the bad news is you're now fully autistic. The once acceptable label "mental retardation" now has become "intellectual disability" which certainly sounds more highbrow given that "intellectual" is now part of the appellation. (Makes you wonder if the people who came up with these terms shouldn't be diagnosed as "clarity challenged.") "Hypochondriasis" is out and "illness anxiety disorder" is in. And the old "grief reaction" now gets classified as "major depressive disorder"…if you don't snap out of moping over your loss in a few weeks.

Scientists say that naming psychiatric conditions isn't an exact science with measurable indicators as is something like "diabetes," where insulin levels can be determined, or like cancer, where the tumor can be seen on film. Rather, the labels in the DSM describe groups of symptoms that span a wide range, and that may or may not have accompanying physiological manifestations. To some degree, the psychiatric diagnosis assigned relies on the subjective judgment of the therapist, although in some syndromes, like schizophrenia, the manifestations are so severe that there's bound to be consensus among a wide spectrum of professionals. Other disorders, though, may not be quite as black-and-white. But as far as insurance companies go, a diagnosis is a sure thing, and again, medication gets dispensed according to diagnosis, even for the more nebulous designations.

In a New York Times editorial, Dr. Richard A Friedman says, "Many psychiatrists, myself included, wonder whether we really need a new DSM in the first place. There is little groundbreaking science that would redefine our diagnostic categories, and some of the changes appear to risk pathologizing everyday human misery."

But later in the same article, he concludes, "Still, with all its limitations, the DSM at least gives clinicians a common language to describe and treat mental disorders. Until the underlying biology of those disorders can at last be unlocked, that is about the best we can expect."

In the meantime, if you do need therapy, make sure you stay in communication with your counselor about what label gets assigned to you in your records, especially if you have concerns about that label following you around. Try for something neutral like "Adjustment Disorder," or find yourself an off-the-radar clinician who won't label you at all.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

Lies about Carbohydrates. Things to know

If you believe much of what's circulating in the news today, carbohydrates are killers—responsible for everything from obesity to diabetes. Nonsense! Not all carbohydrates are bad. In fact, our bodies need carbohydrates. Most of our organs and tissues, including the muscles and our brain, run on carbohydrates.

As Joel Fuhrman states in his book, Eat to Live, 'It is impossible to glean all the nutrients needed for optimal health if your diet does not contain lots of carbohydrate-rich food. Fresh fruits, beans and legumes, whole grains, and root vegetables are all examples of foods whose calories come mainly from carbohydrate. It is the nutrient-per-calorie ratio of these foods that determines their food value.'

The concept of nutrient density that Dr. Fuhrman mentions is key to truly making sense of dietary issues. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) maintains a National Nutritional Database. Compare sirloin steak to romaine lettuce, for example, and you will be greatly surprised: romaine lettuce not only has far more nutrients than sirloin, but it also more than holds its own when it comes to protein per calorie as compared to sirloin. Surprise! On a per-calorie basis, romaine lettuce contains 100 times the calcium, over 20 times the magnesium, and infinitely more antioxidants, phytochemicals, and fiber than sirloin. Which food do you think is more beneficial to your body? And it's not just leafy greens that are nutrient dense—fruits of all kinds are packed with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, phytochemicals, and fiber.

And even whole grains have more nutrient density than meat and dairy. Now, to be sure, many grains are high-glycemic and trigger an insulin response and contribute significantly to allergies and autoimmune disorders, but not all grains do so. (The glycemic index was developed by diabetes researchers as a measure of the insulin impact of particular foods. Foods with a higher rating on the glycemic index cause a higher insulin response.)

Understand that your body can only use glucose (or its stored form, glycogen) as energy; everything must get broken down to these forms first. These are your body's primary and preferred energy sources and are sometimes referred to as blood sugar. If there is too much glucose in your blood (hyperglycemic), your pancreas produces insulin to shuttle the sugar out of your blood and into your cells; if there is too little sugar (hypoglycemic), your body produces glucose from the stored glycogen, which gets rid of the insulin so you can build up more sugar in your blood. Hyper- and hypoglycemia are the extreme conditions of high and low blood sugar, respectively.

The bottom line is that you need carbohydrates for energy. They power every part of your body and energize it to work, run, jump, think, breathe, and more. As long as you're using your body, you need glucose. When you are hungry, you find it hard to think and work because you're running out of glucose, and your brain needs more fuel."

JonBarron.org

How to Add more Iron to your Diet? These are four simple ways

Iron is a mineral that plays an important part in your health and how your body functions. If you experience a lack of iron you will often experience anemia. Iron deficiency is one of the most common nutritional deficiencies and can prove to be a highly dangerous condition. A lack of iron can cause various issues, including chronic fatigue or premature birth in pregnant women.  If you have been diagnosed with anemia, there are ways to correct your iron deficiency. Follow these 4 steps to get your body back on track.

 1. Increase Your Meat Intake
Meat products are an excellent source of Iron. If you're anemic, head to your local butcher shop or deli and load up on beef, pork, lamb, chicken and fish. Iron is present in these products and is absorbed into the body quickly.

 2. Take Vitamin C
If you are a vegetarian and you take your iron from foods such as spinach, beans or fortified cereals, your body may not be absorbing the iron as quickly or as properly as it needs to. You can improve the absorption of iron from non-meat sources by taking a daily dose of vitamin C. As an alternative, find foods that are rich in vitamin C including oranges, wild potatoes, kiwi, red peppers, broccoli or berries.

 3. Watch Your Diet 
If you are experiencing iron deficiency, it's wise to reduce foods that are rich in certain substances such as polyphenols, phytates or calcium as they reduce the absorption capacity of the iron from non-meats.  These substances can be found in tea, coffee, legumes and dairy products. Cut back on any of these items when possible.

 4. Take Iron Supplements
Taking iron supplements is a good option to improve the iron levels in your body. However, prior to choosing such supplements, consult your health care provider to get the right dosage. The dosage will be established based on your age the severity of your iron deficiency.

Credit:
ehealthforum.com
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

The Uncommon Herb that Protects the Liver

Traditionally, Picrorhiza kurrooa, also known as Kutki, is a well-known herb in both Indian Ayurvedic medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. It has been used to treat disorders of the liver and upper respiratory tract (including bronchial asthma), reduce fevers, and to treat dyspepsia, chronic diarrhea, and scorpion stings and snake bites. But primarily, it is known as a liver herb that not only protects and heals the liver, but also prevents liver toxicity, neutralizes harmful biochemical changes in the liver caused by many toxic agents, and even improves the flow of bile. Let's look at some of these benefits in a little more detail.

Liver Protection
Numerous animal studies have demonstrated that the active biochemicals of Picrorhiza kurrooa are effective at preventing liver toxicity--in fact, showed significant curative activity--vis-à-vis numerous toxic agents such as galactosamine, thiocetamide, and carbon tetrachloride. When administered, the toxic agents produced a 40-62% inhibition of cell viability. On removal of the toxic agents and the addition of the Picrorhiza extract, a concentration dependent reversal of these negative effects was seen in as little as 48 hours. A similar effect was seen when oral Picrorhiza extract was administered to rats poisoned by aflatoxin B1 exposure. Picrorhiza kurrooa "significantly prevented the biochemical changes induced by aflatoxin B1."

Now, while it is true that most of us are not too worried by things like hepatitis, cirrhosis, or ingesting carbon tetrachloride, we still subject our livers to constant stressors that ultimately damage and destroy liver cells—and, remember, that damage is cumulative over time. We're talking about things like:

Too much protein in the diet. Protein metabolism is especially taxing on the liver since it is the liver, which must metabolize complex proteins into simple compounds. The greater the consumption of protein, the greater the stress on the liver.
Too many simple carbohydrates in the diet. The body converts excess simple carbohydrates into triglycerides, which are then stored in the liver as fat. The more fat stored in the liver, the harder it is for the liver to perform its full range of normal functions.
Overeating. Too much enzyme-deficient food stresses the liver.
Drug residues. Virtually all of the drugs that we take (medicinal and recreational) are processed, purified, and refined in the liver—in preparation for elimination from the body.
Vitamin isolates. Many vitamins in their isolated form are toxic to the body and must be conjugated by the liver to render them harmless and make them available to the cells. Every time you supplement with such vitamins, you stress the liver.
Cirrhosis aside, any consumption of alcohol causes inflammation of the liver's tissue. Once the liver is inflamed, it can no longer filter, which causes it to plug up with fat and become even more inflamed. If we consume enough alcohol, we overwhelm the liver's ability to regenerate itself, and the net result is cirrhosis (or hardening) of the liver.
Toxins, heavy metals, and pesticides. Everything we breathe, eat, and absorb through our skin is purified and refined in the liver.
Lack of exercise forces the liver to do the elimination work that should be done by the lungs and the skin.
Thus, any herbs that are hepaprotective and that promote liver regeneration are an essential component of any health regimen.

Liver Regeneration
Similar to milk thistle, Picrorhiza has been shown to stimulate liver regeneration in rats. Specifically, studies have shown that oral administration of picroliv, a standardized fraction of roots and rhizomes of Picrorhiza kurrooa, showed stimulation of nucleic acid and protein synthesis in rat livers. Results are comparable to those seen when silymarin is administered. Even better. Picrorhiza extract was also shown to be effective in reversing alcohol-induced liver damage in rats. Treatment restored the damage in a dose-dependent manner (36-100%) over 45 days. This is significant for anyone suffering from cirrhosis.

Viral Hepatitis
Studies indicate that Picrorhiza extracts appear to be of therapeutic value in treating viral hepatitis. An in vitro study investigated anti-hepatitis B-like activity of Picrorhiza and found it to have promising anti-hepatitis B surface antigen activity. In addition, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 33 patients diagnosed with acute viral hepatitis, 375 mg of Picrorhiza root powder was given three times daily for two weeks to 15 of the patients, while the remaining 18 patients acted as controls and received a placebo. Bilirubin, SGOT, and SGPT values were significantly lower in the treatment group (that's a good thing), and the time required for bilirubin values to drop to 2.5 mg % was 27.4 days in the treatment group versus 75.9 days for the placebo group.

Cancer
As mentioned earlier, Picrorhiza has also demonstrated cancer protective properties. When tested against human breast cancer cells and human prostate cancer cells, Picrorhiza extracts exhibited promising antioxidant potentials and were also observed to be cytotoxic at the tested dosage and were able to target the cancer cells and kill them. In yet another study, Picrorhiza extracts demonstrated chemoprotective potential against chemically-induced liver tumors and induced sarcoma tumors and chemically-initiated papilloma formations.

The bottom line is Picrorhiza kurrooa extract has incredible liver protective and regenerative capabilities. In this case, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And again, most of us are not dealing with the extreme circumstances covered in the studies, but what those studies tell us is that Picrorhizza is a mandatory ingredient for protecting our livers against the cumulative assaults of daily life.

References:
Jonbarron.org

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10334634
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11169162
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1506022
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10473171
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2370093
- http://www.jpgmonline.com/article.asp?issn=0022-3859;year=1996;volume=42;issue=4;spage=105;epage=8;aulast=Vaidya
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21081148
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11277323
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11406836
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

Staying Fit can lower your Cancer Risk... 20 years and above

It's hardly news that living a healthy lifestyle and maintaining your physical fitness can cut your risk of developing numerous diseases. But no one has really had any evidence establishing just how long the health benefits might last...until now. New research has found that a high level of fitness in middle age appears to confer some protection from cancer in men for at least 20 years and leads to healthy aging.

The study, which took place at the University of Vermont in Burlington, found that men with high fitness levels while in their early 50s were much less likely to be diagnosed with cancer in their 70s than their less fit counterparts. In addition, the fit men who did eventually develop some form of cancer had a much lower risk of dying from the disease. These findings were based on the medical records of more than 17,000 men who had participated in exercise trials at the Cooper Institute in Dallas, Texas, during the 1970s. Each of these subjects took part in a fitness test at the Cooper Institute, which became their baseline fitness evaluation for this research.

The assessment that was conducted is known as the metabolic equivalent of task (MET). It is used to measure the energy expended during a particular activity. For example, sleeping uses one MET and doing laundry uses two. The participants were made to walk at a brisk pace on an inclined treadmill. A typical middle-aged person of average fitness would be at approximately nine METS during this task, as compared to a more athletic individual, who might be somewhere around 15 METS. And an elite-level athlete is usually around 20 METS during this type of activity.

The men at the Cooper Institute were timed and categorized by age. Those between the ages of 40 and 49 who were the least fit averaged less than 13.5 minutes on a maximum treadmill incline. The least fit between the ages of 50 and 59 managed an average of less than 11 minutes, and the 60 and older group remained on the treadmill for less than 7.5 minutes. Examining the health records of the men over the course of the following 20 to 25 years, the researchers noted that 2,332 of them developed prostate cancer, 277 developed lung cancer, and 276 developed colon cancer. Of these, 347 men were cancer fatalities and another 159 died of cardiovascular disease.

Based on that initial fitness evaluation taken at some point in the 1970s, the fittest men during middle age were found to have a 68 percent lower risk of getting lung cancer and a 38 percent lower risk of colon cancer two decades later. The fittest group also had a considerably lower risk of dying if they were diagnosed with any of these three forms of cancer. Each level of fitness achieved on the MET scale decreased the likelihood that a man would die of cancer by 14 percent and cardiovascular disease by 23 percent.

The scientists could not determine from this study whether the reduced risk of disease would remain the same if the men had not always been relatively fit. It is possible that some of them did not remain in shape as they aged. And others may have become more fit as they approached middle age than they had been in their 20s. It has been shown in numerous studies that increasing physical activity can make a huge difference to overall natural health and disease protection, including lowering the risk of certain cancers, heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and more. But don't go overboard; too much of a good thing is bad. Studies have shown that, at least in women, overdoing exercise can cost you brain function as you age. In other words, although you might not get cancer, there's a chance you might not have enough brain function left to know it.

That said, even if you have not always maintained the highest level of fitness, you can still lessen your chances of developing disease over time. A large part of the problem lies in the fact that so many people do no regular exercise at all. In a 2013 study conducted at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, it was determined that close to 80 percent of adults in the United States do not meet the government's recommendations for weekly exercise. It is high time for the minority to become the majority and start making some time for workouts every single day. If we don't, all signs seem to point toward a bleak and unhealthy future for a very large segment of the population. And there's a good chance you'll know it.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

Exposure to Smoke in non-Smoking rooms

Travel can be a wonderful experience, letting us gain new knowledge and appreciation for other places. But, on the downside, it can screw up your internal clock and change your eating habits for the worse with so much high calorie restaurant fare. And now, new research suggests that there's another health factor to consider when traveling: the hotel we choose. Even if most of us would never consider taking a smoking room in a hotel, we may still be on the receiving end of exposure to nicotine when staying in a non-smoking room as well.

The study, which was conducted at San Diego State University in California, found that those hotels with only a partial ban on smoking leave patrons with evidence of nicotine in their bodies even when they sleep in a designated non-smoking room. The researchers took samples of both the air and particles on the surface of furniture in the hotel rooms to analyze for the presence of nicotine. The evaluation encompassed both smoking and non-smoking rooms in 30 hotels that enforce a partial smoking ban and another 10 hotels that enforce a full smoking ban. In addition, they collected fingertip swabs and urine samples from non-smoking volunteers who stayed at each of these hotels.

The air quality was the poorest in the rooms that allow smoking, needless to say. However, when compared to hotels with a total ban on smoking, the non-smoking rooms within hotels with partial bans were found to have a 40 percent higher level of nicotine in the air. The human subjects who were tested were also determined to have greater amounts of nicotine and certain tobacco byproducts in both their urine and on the surfaces of their fingers. One of the byproducts that the scientists tested for was cotinine, which is metabolized in the liver and remains in the body longer than nicotine itself. A 1999 study at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, found that high cotinine levels in children were associated with increased wheezing, decreased lung function, and more sick days taken from school.

Some of the rooms in the present research may have been smoking rooms before a hotel switched over to a partial ban, and the residue lingered. A 2010 study that also took place at San Diego State University determined that third hand smoke remains in the former homes of smokers for months after the smoker has moved out--beyond even two months of vacancy and a thorough cleaning! In other cases, it may be that the smoke particles are traveling from nearby smoking rooms or other areas of the hotel in which it is allowed and seeping under the doorways or entering through the ventilation systems of the non-smoking rooms. In any case, the only way to avoid exposure to this third hand smoke appears to be to make your reservations exclusively in hotels with a complete smoking ban, and preferably those that have banned smoking since their construction.

Since 2006, an increasing number of hotels are adopting a smoke-free policy, which was a trend begun by the Westin chain. But as usual, the government is lagging behind. Only four states in America--Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Wisconsin--have enacted laws requiring a smoking ban in hotels. Another 71 cities and counties across the country have passed their own non-smoking laws for hotels.

While we've all heard plenty of information on the dangers of second hand smoke when spending time with smokers, third hand smoke (the gases and small particles in cigarette smoke that are deposited on every surface they come in contact with) can be quite the health hazard too. Research conducted in 2010 at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, found that the tobacco smoke residue that lingers after a cigarette is put out reacts with the common indoor air pollutant nitrous acid to produce dangerous carcinogens.

Now, maybe all of this isn't such an issue for those of us who only travel on occasion and stay the night in a hotel room once or twice a year. However, for those who travel extensively for business or pleasure, or who bring their children, this could potentially become a natural health hazard. It's important to do a little research and make sure the hotel you are staying in has a total ban on smoking and a not partial one. Note: some hotels take this very seriously and charge fines of $250-$500 if a guest smokes in a non-smoking room. Sticking with a chain that has a complete ban is a safe way to go. It also can't hurt to ask when they enacted the ban, since a newly smoke-free hotel is going to have a lot more nicotine residue in the air and on room surfaces than one that has always been smoke-free or has been smoke-free for years. You can also ask about smoking fines, as high fines tend to actually keep the hotels smoke free.


Baseline for Health Foundation: JonBarron.org

Music, how it might effect your mood!

We regularly write about the powerful impact music has on body and mind, and here's a reprise. Two new studies verify that music can play a powerful role in mood control. The studies come from opposite ends of the spectrum. The first found that uplifting music improves mood, and the second found that sad music comforts people suffering from a broken heart. In other words, there's room for music of many tones in your collection.

In the first new study, participants set out to deliberately improve their mood using music as an aid. The study asked 167 students from the University of Missouri to set their minds to getting happier. Then, the students listened either to the dissonant, somber music of Igor Stravinsky's Rite of Spring for 12 minutes,or to the far more chipper music of Aaron Copland's "Rodeo." A control group also listened to "Rodeo," but without setting the intent to get cheerier.

After listening, the participants rated their happiness level on a scale of 1 to 15. The passive listeners who hadn't set a goal didn't improve their mood in spite of the upbeat music, and neither did the Stravinsky contingent. But those who listened to the Copeland composition with intent improved significantly. The same results were found over the long-term. Subjects listened to the upbeat music every day for two weeks during lab sessions, and again the researchers found that those who concentrated on improving overall happiness did indeed achieve that goal compared to the control group.

Earlier studies have shown that music can improve mood, but what's unique here is the finding that the magic happens more effectively when there's an intention to improve mood, combined with the right type of music. Both elements are necessary; intention alone won't work if it's the wrong music. In fact, an earlier study (2003) in which participants listened to music while trying to get happy had the reverse effect. The subjects felt worse after the music session than they did before. What were they listening to? Stravinsky's Rites of Spring.

But what if someone feels angry or blue and isn't ready to get happy? Can joyful music make a difference? In fact, the second study determined that people who suffer from hurt feelings or problems in love respond to music that reflects their sadness rather than to music intended to cheer them up. Apparently, when one has heartache, music takes the place of a friend. Sad music makes the subject feel empathized with, as the music mirrors back the subject's mood. This raises the question of whether the maxim "misery loves company" plays a role. In other words, if intention matters in terms of how music affects us, is our unconscious intention when we feel heartbreak to commiserate rather than to get lifted out of the doldrums, and does the right music simply amplify that intention? Then again, Jon Barron talks about a young woman he knew years ago who listened to Joni Mitchell songs for hours on end whenever she felt romantically disappointed. And by the end of a single day, after listening over and over to songs of "circle games" and "urges for going," she was downright psychotic. Perhaps she's the proverbial exception that proves the rule. Or perhaps her intention was wrong.

On the other hand, if one feels frustrated because of something non-personal--a car problem, for instance--happy music actually can help, and sad music doesn't appeal.

Putting all this together, assuming we believe the studies, the picture looks like this. People who want to get happy and who aren't in bad shape to start with would do well to listen to dance music or something similarly elated while setting a happy intention. Those who are blue from heartbreak should listen to something sad until they feel well enough to flip over to the happy intention routine--with the exception of my Jon Barron's old acquaintance. And nobody should listen to chaotic, discordant music, unless they don't care about improving mood.

A few years ago, we reported on a study that found that teens who spent the most time listening to music had an eight times higher chance of being depressed compared to the teens who listened to the least music. Since the study didn't specify what type of music the kids listened to, we can only assume they listened to typical teen stuff--rap, hip hop, and rock. The question left unanswered is whether hard-edged music, when listened to over time, leads to depression more than other types of music do.

Research looking at how different types of music affect mood differently has found that the best results in mood enhancement come from music specifically designed to affect mood. In one study, 144 subjects listened to either New Age, classical, "designer" (music designed to have specific effects), and grunge rock. After listening to the grunge rock, the subjects had significant increases in fatigue, stress, sadness, and hostility. Sorry, Kurt Cobain! The New Age and classical selections had mixed results, but the designer music did indeed elicit the responses it intended to.

The problem with such studies is that all music within a particular genre isn't created equal. Just ask Antonio Salieri. As the recent research shows, different types of classical music may elicit vastly different responses. The same holds true for New Age and even rock music. A more useful study would look at the specific responses to specific songs or compositions, or even different singers or composers.

In fact, author and neuroscientist Dr. Oliver Sacks, has found that vulnerable people can actually experience seizures in response to a particular musical compositions. He cites one patient who had epileptic seizures when he heard Frank Sinatra songs, and another who reacted only to Neapolitan songs.

Dr. Sacks has also seen patients who experience swooning, hallucinations, and fits as well as seizures when listening to music. The point he makes is that music has enormous power to affect individuals, and the effects can be negative as well as positive. In other words, music has both "charms to soothe the savage breast" and the power to conjure up "Sympathy for the Devil."

Studies aside, you can tell how a piece of music affects you personally just by paying attention. The key here is to pay attention. Do you feel better after listening to a particular CD, or worse? Or to put it another way, you would be wise to choose your music well.

Jonbarron.org

Are Lipsticks and Lip Balms unsafe?

Researchers have known for a long time that lip products may contain potentially
hazardous materials. A study in 2011 by the FDA found lead in 400 types of
lipstick. The Agency wasn't too concerned with those results, and in fact issued
a statement concluding: "Lipstick, as a product intended for topical use with
limited absorption, is ingested only in very small quantities. We do not
consider the lead levels we found in the lipsticks to be a safety concern."

Not everyone was satisfied with the FDA's blasé attitude, and so, researchers at
the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley
continued to investigate liptisck
ingredients. Just this month, the team issued a report indicating that they
found not only lead, but also cadmium, chromium, aluminum, titanium, and four
other not-so-nice metals in the 32 varieties of popular lipsticks and lip glosses tested. They also found that these metals were present in worrisome amounts.
"Just finding these metals isn't the issue. It's the levels that matter," says study co-author S. Katharine Hammond. "Some of the toxic metals are occurring at levels that could possibly have an effect in the long term."
Like most cosmetics, lipstick ultimately gets
absorbed into the system through the skin, but as mentioned above, unlike other cosmetics, it also gets ingested.
If you smack your lips, sip a latte, or eat a meal, the metals and lead in lipstick is bound to find its way down the chute.

According to the researchers, the average lipstick wearer applies the stuff 2.3
times a day, and that leads to ingesting an average of 24 milligrams daily. The
more enthusiastic users reapply up to 14 times daily and end up swallowing an
average of 83 milligrams of lipstick--which obviously means also swallowing all
the heavy metals in the formula. (For perspective, a cup of light green tea
contains about 24 milligrams of caffeine, and dark espresso has up to 75
milligrams.) The acting Attorney General of
California back in 2008, Edward G.

Weil, presented a detailed analysis of exactly how much lead in lipstick is
likely to make its way into the body the wearer.

While it's disturbing to think you might be
swallowing small amounts of lead
with every gulp, some of the other heavy metals in lipstick ingredients actually pose a greater threat. Chromium, for instance, is a known carcinogen that has been linked to stomach tumors and lung cancer--and one-third of the lip products contained levels of chromium in excess of the FDA's safety standards, assuming moderate use. With heavy use, two-thirds of the products yield chromium in excess of safety standards. In most of the tested products, the levels of cadmium and manganese also were elevated beyond the safety zone. And that assumes the so-called safety zone really is safe. Some say getting a daily cocktail of these metals in any amounts is health-threatening.

Consistent with the earlier FDA findings, the lead content was low in most of the products tested, to the point that some researchers didn't find those results of much concern for adults. On the other hand, half the products contained lead in amounts exceeding the cap on lead levels allowed in candy. The fact that lead was present at all raised concerns about children playing with lipstick, since kids are far more sensitive to the effects of lead. Exposure can result in cognitive deficits, decreased bone and muscle growth, nervous system damage, speech problems, seizures, and kidney problems.

Even at the low, supposedly non-threatening levels identified as far as adult use goes, the lead content in lipstick concerned some experts, like Dr. Mark Mitchell of the National Medical Association. "Lead builds up in the body over time and lead-containing lipstick applied several times a day, every day, can add up to significant exposure levels," he wrote. Plus, some brands contain far more lead than others. The earlier study found that the product with the highest lead content exceeded by 275 times the amount found in the lipstick with the least lead. (Maybelline and L'Oreal had the worst track record as far as lead goes, in case you're still intent on wearing a popular brand of lipstick.)

While the experts quibble about what maximum safe exposure is, consider that in Europe, lead, cadmium and chromium are banned from cosmetic formulations. Even so, the industry in the U.S. supports its products, heavy metals and all.

"The finding of trace levels of metals in lip products is not unexpected given their natural presence in air, soil and water," said a statement from the Personal Care Products Council. "Trace amounts of metals in lip products need to be put into context. Food is a primary source for many of these naturally present metals, and exposure from lip products is minimal in comparison."

That's kind of like telling someone to drop dead and then defending your rudeness by saying that the person is going to die eventually anyway.

The bottom line is that you would do well to consult the Environmental Working Group's Cosmetics Database before smearing your lips with anything. We didn't even discuss the other questionable ingredients in lip products (including lip balms) beyond heavy metals, but suffice it to say that a look at the Database may convince you that your lips are just fine unadorned.

Curled from www.jonbaron.org

How are Oils Refined and Deodorized?

Once extracted, the oil 'needs' to be refined, which involves the treatment of the crude oil with a lye solution to reduce the free fatty acid (FFA) content to 0.05 percent. This is done primarily to prevent spoilage—to help the oil last an eternity on the grocer's shelf. However, free fatty acids are not necessarily bad: conjugated linoleic acid (found in meat and dairy products), for example, is a naturally occurring free fatty acid that has been shown to improve nutrient usage, promote muscle tone, significantly reduce body fat, and have anti-tumor properties. But why in the world would we want something like that in our vegetable oil?

In addition, other impurities in the oil, such as gums, phosphatides, pigments, and other oxidation products, which would 'impair' the taste, odor, shelf life, and other 'desired' properties of the oil are likewise removed. This degumming and neutralization process is accomplished by means of phosphoric acid and more lye.

The now 'neutral' oil is mixed with bleaching earth (a type of clay) and activated carbon to give the oil a lighter color. Final purification is accomplished using filters, presses, and polishing filters. At which point, the oil is pumped into storage tanks.

Deodorizing
All edible oils and fats contain certain compounds that give the particular oil its identifiable taste and smell. In all commercial oils, these compounds are removed to make the oil as neutral tasting as possible (after all, who wants to eat anything that has any flavor?). This process is called deodorization, and because of the high temperatures involved, it is extremely damaging to the oil.

Refined bleached oil from refining is first transferred to a de-aerator operating under a vacuum for removal of any air in the oil. The oil then passes through a series of heaters, where the temperature is raised high enough for efficient steam distillation and deodorization—upwards of 200°C (450°F). At these temperatures, the fundamental structure of many oils is changed into a different form of fatty acid through a process called isomerization. These new forms are not beneficial to the human body. The high heat also causes a small amount of trans fatty acids to be formed. Finally, steam is blown through the oil to vaporize those components of the oil that actually give it any lingering odor or taste. The fully deodorized, tasteless, and refined oil then passes through a cooler and polishing filter basket for removal of any fine suspension before being finally pumped to the storage tank.

What's left is an oil that is virtually colorless, odorless, and tasteless, which can last for years in a bottle with no danger of spoilage. On the other hand, it has no connection with the beneficial oil that was originally contained in the seed or nut. It is now a 'plastic fat,' fundamentally changed in structure, that offers no benefits to the human body—a plastic fat that is actually quite harmful. In addition, all of the beneficial phytochemicals (such as the lignans,which are an integral part of the oil complex and play a key anti-cancer role) have been removed."

Reference: www.Johnbarron.org

Fish Oil may not be what we actually know

Does your pill-taking regimen take so long that it could be fodder for a comedy routine? Would you like to speed it up? If so, a new study may give you reason to eliminate at least one pill from the bundle for your natural health.

The responses to this study largely ignore one key finding. In women, the fish oil did indeed seem to make a difference. Those taking the Omega-3 supplements had an 18 percent lower incidence of death and hospital admissions than those taking the placebo. Also, there were fewer admissions for heart failure in the fish oil group, although hospital admissions for other cardiac causes were equal across groups. Still, the experts caution that those positive results may well be due to chance.

Why would they hold back on celebrating the results showing that women may well benefit from fish oil supplements, or that the supplements seem to ward off sudden heart failure, and yet embrace the negative results for the group as a whole? Several large-scale earlier studies also found benefit to women and a preventative effect against heart failure. So why do the researchers in this case generalize the findings to say, as did Dr. Eric Topol of TheHeart.org, "Fish oil does nothing. We can't continue to argue that we didn't give the right dose or the right preparation. It is a nada effect"?

Nor do the experts seem to mind that the so-called placebo contained olive oil, which is known to have heart-healthy benefits. If the fish oil had been pitted against a water pill, the results would be more convincing. One might suspect that opponents of the natural supplements industry paid for the study, but in fact, the funding came, at least in part, from fish oil manufacturers.

As a side note, it's important to remember that the study took place in Italy, where most of the population follows the heart-healthy Mediterranean Diet. As mentioned above, the two previous studies that found no benefit to fish oil took place in Greece, where people also tend to follow a Mediterranean diet. Could it be that the study participants already get plenty of Omega-3 in their diet, rendering the supplements superfluous? In fact, the original design for the study had to be changed because the researchers had expected participants to die from their cardiac problems at a much faster rate than they did. Perhaps the Mediterranean diet, again, had an effect.

And keep in mind, as Jon Barron has pointed out again and again over the years, the benefits of Omega-3 supplementation are not inherent in the Omega-3 itself, but in correcting the imbalance of Omega-6 to Omega-3's in your diet. If you're not eating a diet high in Omega-6 fats, then supplementing with Omega-3's will have minimal benefit. With that in mind, the standard American diet is extremely high in Omega-6 fatty acids because of the high use of polyunsaturated vegetable oils in the diet. The Mediterranean diet is low in Omega-6's and high in Omega-3's and Omega-9's. In other words, people eating a typical Greek diet would not see much benefit from Omega-3 supplementation. On the other hand, people living pretty much everywhere else in the world most likely would.

In any event, the experts agree that taking Omega-3 supplements can't hurt. And there are studies indicating they help, like one out just last month finding that they may be helpful in promoting a healthy immune system. It seems that a "better safe than sorry" approach might be appropriate, particularly if you're a woman. And if you're eating a typical American diet as opposed to a Mediterranean or even a Paleo diet—both of which minimize the intake of Omega-6's--then Omega-3 supplementation still makes sense.

Meanwhile, if you want an extra boost in maintaining heart health, get a pet. The American Heart Association just issued a statement claiming that pet ownership decreases risk of heart disease, stroke, and hypertension. The question is, what will you do if your vet recommends that you put your dog on Omega-3's, and some vets now do?

Reference: Baseline of Health Foundation