Thursday, April 10, 2008
NOW, NOT TOMORROW!
Never again clutter your days or nights with so many menial and unimportant things that you have no time to accept a real challenge when it comes along. This applies to play as well as work. A day merely survived is no cause for celebration. You are not here to fritter away your precious hours when you have the ability to accomplish so much by making a slight change in your routine. No more busy work. No more hiding from success. Leave time, leave space, to grow. Now. Now! Not tomorrow!—Og Mandino
Shoes and socks off NOW!
SHOULD YOU BE RUNNING BAREFOOT?
Most of us consider running shoes essential.
But what happens when you decide not to lace 'em up?
By Amby Burfoot PUBLISHED 06/30/2004
As a teenager, I loved to run barefoot on the Connecticut beaches, splashing through the waves. A few years later, I often ran without shoes while training for the college cross-country season, completing workouts that were the hardest, fastest, most puke-able, and yet most enjoyable of my life.Those are strange bedfellows: extreme effort and high pleasure. I have wondered if someone was spiking my Kool-Aid, a popular sports drink of the time. Then I close my eyes and recall how my friends and I snuck onto Shennecossett Golf Course as dusk descended. How we giddily removed our shoes, and felt the fairway underfoot. How we ran an undulating six-mile fartlek loop, sprinting and jogging, sprinting and jogging, the summer sweat cascading off our bodies. How we finished, not another gasp of oxygen in our lungs, and flopped onto the 14th green. The kinesthetic memories are fullblown, from the slight chill of the grass on my feet to the heaving chest and the lightheaded dizziness of the effort. Was it the barefoot running that made the memory so vivid?
Famous runners had gone barefoot before us, of course. In 1960 Ethiopia's Abebe Bikila, the greatest Olympic marathoner of all time, won the first of his consecutive gold medals sans shoes in a world record 2:15:17. My high school coach, "Young John" J. Kelley, was the leading American finisher (19th, 2:24:58) in that 1960 Rome Olympic Marathon, and his descriptions of the torchlit race have always entranced me. Except the part about the stones. "On the ancient Appian Way, we had to run on huge, rounded cobblestones that were completely unyielding," Kelley says. "They had no 'give' at all. I remember that I was afraid of slamming down too hard on them, and I still can't imagine how Bikila did it."While Bikila was making Olympic history, England's Bruce Tulloh was running European record times from 1955 to 1967, almost always in bare feet. He ran 13:12 for three miles on grass, and 27:23 for six miles on cinders. Later, Tulloh taught in Africa, coached, wrote books, and ran solo across America (2,876 miles, albeit in shoes). At 68, his mind is as sharp as ever, and he is ever eager for a good barefoot jaunt. "I'll be running on the beach at Devon this weekend," he said in early summer. "The only reason that more people don't run barefoot is that they're afraid to be unconventional."
That wouldn't apply to either Charlie "Doc" Robbins or Zola Budd, both important contributors to barefoot running. Robbins, winner of two USA National Marathon Championships in the late 1940s, completed 50 straight Thanksgiving Day Road Races in Manchester, Connecticut, before calling it quits two years ago.
Most Thanksgivings, Robbins went shoeless, though he would resort to a pair of socks if the temperature dipped below 20 degrees. Budd set a track world record in January 1984 when, just 16, she ran 5000 meters in South Africa in 15:01.83, more than six seconds under Mary Decker's existing record. (Too bad Budd is better known for her fateful collision with Decker in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic 3000 race.
Decker was thrown horribly off-balance, and twisted and fell to the infield grass.) Interest in barefoot running seemed to wane until 2001, when Michael Warburton, an Aussie physical therapist and 2:42 marathoner, published an online paper titled, simply, "Barefoot Running." (You can view the paper at the sports science web site sportsci.org.) In his section on running economy, Warburton points out that the extra weight of shoes on your feet is much worse than a pound or two around your middle.
Weight on your feet is subject to constant acceleration and deceleration (runners call these movements "strides"), which have a high energy cost. According to Warburton, research has shown that 100 grams of extra weight on your feet decreases your running economy by one percent. Simple math says that two 10-ounce shoes will make you more than five percent less efficient. That's a big deal. When you add five percent to Paul Tergat's marathon world record 2:04:55, he's a 2:11 guy, which doesn't net him enough for a warm bowl of ugali in the Kenyan highlands.
But we don't think much about running economy when we buy a pair of new running shoes. First we want protection from harmful objects. And then we expect cushioning and/or motion control--the stuff of injury prevention. But this is where things get strange, because scientific studies have had a hard time proving that shoes represent a big step forward from the naked foot.
To learn what's going on inside the body, which, after all, is where we runners develop all our stress fractures, Achilles strains, and so forth, a medical team needs to take measurements from--ouch!--inside the body.
I've actually seen this take place in a biomechanics lab, and it's a blood sport. The combatants typically include a mad Ph.D. scientist and several grad students (a.k.a. the "volunteers") desperate to finish their degree work. ("Sure, I'll be happy to let you drill a metal accelerometer into my shin bone before my next treadmill run," says a grad student.) The results of several of these intrusive experiments have shown little change in shock absorption or motion-control in shod versus unclad feet. This apparent difference seems hard to believe.
All that foam padding and all those posts, bridges, and dual-density midsoles have to be doing something, right? Of course they are; they're deceiving the body. Here's an explanation, based on your body's proprioceptive abilities--that is, the way it can communicate up and down all pathways. When you run barefoot, your body precisely engages your vision, your brain, the soles of your feet, and all the muscles, bones, tendons, and supporting structures of your feet and legs. They leap to red alert, and give you a high degree of protection from the varied pressures and forces of running. On the other hand, when you run in socks, shoes, inserts, midsoles and outsoles, your body's proprioceptive system loses a lot of input. "This has been called 'the perceptual illusion' of running shoes," says Warburton. "With shoes, your body switches off to a degree, and your reaction time decreases."The way I see it, there's a simple explanation for the high IQ of barefoot running: We descended from the trees to walk and run this planet's surfaces six million years ago, and we've had time to get really, really good at it, from the soles of the feet to the top of the brain.By now, you might be worried about your Reebok stock or your friends who work at the local running store.
I wouldn't sweat it too much, at least not to judge from the number of bare feet I saw at my last big road race (zero). Even though a guy named Ken Saxton is running a marathon a month this year (barefootrunning.org), I doubt his preference will take off the way instant messaging, low-carb diets, and The Apprentice have. Besides, many podiatrists think it's dangerous. "Most of my patients aren't worldclass runners," says foot doctor Stephen Pribut, DPM. "It wouldn't make sense for them to risk getting twigs and glass in their feet. And I think some soft surfaces increase plantar fascia and Achilles problems. Of course, what doesn't kill you might make you stronger."This a-little-medicine-is-good-for-you perspective is shared by a number of other podiatrists, physical therapists, and coaches.
Their theory: Modern man does spend too much time in shoes, and this weakens many of the foot and leg structures. To correct this, you can walk barefoot around the house, do simple foot strengthening exercises, or run a few barefoot miles a week on safe, secure surfaces. And then put your shoes back on before you hit the pavement. Even Abebe Bikila gave up his barefoot ways. Four years after winning in Rome, he wore Pumas in the Tokyo Olympic Marathon. He won again, despite having had an appendectomy 40 days earlier, and set a new world record, 2:12:11.2. Apparently, the shoes didn't bother him at all.
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/
Check it out and tell them we sent you.
Most of us consider running shoes essential.
But what happens when you decide not to lace 'em up?
By Amby Burfoot PUBLISHED 06/30/2004
As a teenager, I loved to run barefoot on the Connecticut beaches, splashing through the waves. A few years later, I often ran without shoes while training for the college cross-country season, completing workouts that were the hardest, fastest, most puke-able, and yet most enjoyable of my life.Those are strange bedfellows: extreme effort and high pleasure. I have wondered if someone was spiking my Kool-Aid, a popular sports drink of the time. Then I close my eyes and recall how my friends and I snuck onto Shennecossett Golf Course as dusk descended. How we giddily removed our shoes, and felt the fairway underfoot. How we ran an undulating six-mile fartlek loop, sprinting and jogging, sprinting and jogging, the summer sweat cascading off our bodies. How we finished, not another gasp of oxygen in our lungs, and flopped onto the 14th green. The kinesthetic memories are fullblown, from the slight chill of the grass on my feet to the heaving chest and the lightheaded dizziness of the effort. Was it the barefoot running that made the memory so vivid?
Famous runners had gone barefoot before us, of course. In 1960 Ethiopia's Abebe Bikila, the greatest Olympic marathoner of all time, won the first of his consecutive gold medals sans shoes in a world record 2:15:17. My high school coach, "Young John" J. Kelley, was the leading American finisher (19th, 2:24:58) in that 1960 Rome Olympic Marathon, and his descriptions of the torchlit race have always entranced me. Except the part about the stones. "On the ancient Appian Way, we had to run on huge, rounded cobblestones that were completely unyielding," Kelley says. "They had no 'give' at all. I remember that I was afraid of slamming down too hard on them, and I still can't imagine how Bikila did it."While Bikila was making Olympic history, England's Bruce Tulloh was running European record times from 1955 to 1967, almost always in bare feet. He ran 13:12 for three miles on grass, and 27:23 for six miles on cinders. Later, Tulloh taught in Africa, coached, wrote books, and ran solo across America (2,876 miles, albeit in shoes). At 68, his mind is as sharp as ever, and he is ever eager for a good barefoot jaunt. "I'll be running on the beach at Devon this weekend," he said in early summer. "The only reason that more people don't run barefoot is that they're afraid to be unconventional."
That wouldn't apply to either Charlie "Doc" Robbins or Zola Budd, both important contributors to barefoot running. Robbins, winner of two USA National Marathon Championships in the late 1940s, completed 50 straight Thanksgiving Day Road Races in Manchester, Connecticut, before calling it quits two years ago.
Most Thanksgivings, Robbins went shoeless, though he would resort to a pair of socks if the temperature dipped below 20 degrees. Budd set a track world record in January 1984 when, just 16, she ran 5000 meters in South Africa in 15:01.83, more than six seconds under Mary Decker's existing record. (Too bad Budd is better known for her fateful collision with Decker in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic 3000 race.
Decker was thrown horribly off-balance, and twisted and fell to the infield grass.) Interest in barefoot running seemed to wane until 2001, when Michael Warburton, an Aussie physical therapist and 2:42 marathoner, published an online paper titled, simply, "Barefoot Running." (You can view the paper at the sports science web site sportsci.org.) In his section on running economy, Warburton points out that the extra weight of shoes on your feet is much worse than a pound or two around your middle.
Weight on your feet is subject to constant acceleration and deceleration (runners call these movements "strides"), which have a high energy cost. According to Warburton, research has shown that 100 grams of extra weight on your feet decreases your running economy by one percent. Simple math says that two 10-ounce shoes will make you more than five percent less efficient. That's a big deal. When you add five percent to Paul Tergat's marathon world record 2:04:55, he's a 2:11 guy, which doesn't net him enough for a warm bowl of ugali in the Kenyan highlands.
But we don't think much about running economy when we buy a pair of new running shoes. First we want protection from harmful objects. And then we expect cushioning and/or motion control--the stuff of injury prevention. But this is where things get strange, because scientific studies have had a hard time proving that shoes represent a big step forward from the naked foot.
To learn what's going on inside the body, which, after all, is where we runners develop all our stress fractures, Achilles strains, and so forth, a medical team needs to take measurements from--ouch!--inside the body.
I've actually seen this take place in a biomechanics lab, and it's a blood sport. The combatants typically include a mad Ph.D. scientist and several grad students (a.k.a. the "volunteers") desperate to finish their degree work. ("Sure, I'll be happy to let you drill a metal accelerometer into my shin bone before my next treadmill run," says a grad student.) The results of several of these intrusive experiments have shown little change in shock absorption or motion-control in shod versus unclad feet. This apparent difference seems hard to believe.
All that foam padding and all those posts, bridges, and dual-density midsoles have to be doing something, right? Of course they are; they're deceiving the body. Here's an explanation, based on your body's proprioceptive abilities--that is, the way it can communicate up and down all pathways. When you run barefoot, your body precisely engages your vision, your brain, the soles of your feet, and all the muscles, bones, tendons, and supporting structures of your feet and legs. They leap to red alert, and give you a high degree of protection from the varied pressures and forces of running. On the other hand, when you run in socks, shoes, inserts, midsoles and outsoles, your body's proprioceptive system loses a lot of input. "This has been called 'the perceptual illusion' of running shoes," says Warburton. "With shoes, your body switches off to a degree, and your reaction time decreases."The way I see it, there's a simple explanation for the high IQ of barefoot running: We descended from the trees to walk and run this planet's surfaces six million years ago, and we've had time to get really, really good at it, from the soles of the feet to the top of the brain.By now, you might be worried about your Reebok stock or your friends who work at the local running store.
I wouldn't sweat it too much, at least not to judge from the number of bare feet I saw at my last big road race (zero). Even though a guy named Ken Saxton is running a marathon a month this year (barefootrunning.org), I doubt his preference will take off the way instant messaging, low-carb diets, and The Apprentice have. Besides, many podiatrists think it's dangerous. "Most of my patients aren't worldclass runners," says foot doctor Stephen Pribut, DPM. "It wouldn't make sense for them to risk getting twigs and glass in their feet. And I think some soft surfaces increase plantar fascia and Achilles problems. Of course, what doesn't kill you might make you stronger."This a-little-medicine-is-good-for-you perspective is shared by a number of other podiatrists, physical therapists, and coaches.
Their theory: Modern man does spend too much time in shoes, and this weakens many of the foot and leg structures. To correct this, you can walk barefoot around the house, do simple foot strengthening exercises, or run a few barefoot miles a week on safe, secure surfaces. And then put your shoes back on before you hit the pavement. Even Abebe Bikila gave up his barefoot ways. Four years after winning in Rome, he wore Pumas in the Tokyo Olympic Marathon. He won again, despite having had an appendectomy 40 days earlier, and set a new world record, 2:12:11.2. Apparently, the shoes didn't bother him at all.
Note from John ...............
There is a company which has created a virtual bridge between safety and functionality and its product is called the Vibram 5 fingers shoe.
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/
Check it out and tell them we sent you.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
One man's Pipes of Passage
What's the deal with fiber? - John Williams C.S.C.S, CARPT
Everyone tells us we need it….we need more and more fiber, that’s the solution to all our problems. Ok, first thing I always like to ask when hearing something like this is “who” said we need it. The usual answer for most of these general health concepts are to respond doctors or scientists or some other random source. But do you even know why we need it? To have more bowel movements? Nope sorry…false assumption. To lower cholesterol? Nope sorry, never been proven. To lower the risk of colon cancer? Well….yes and no, and you will see that below in more detail. First let’s go over the 2 types of fiber:
Soluble - fiber that is “water soluble” (put it in water it expands into a large gel like substance). This is what expands in our guts, gives us a feeling of fullness, slows down digestion.
Insoluble - fiber that is NOT “water soluble”, this goes through us like sand through a long winding pipe. Simple enough huh?
Ok….so what are the main sources of fiber? Fiber is found in fruits, vegetables, beans, legumes and the most popular source nowadays of “bran fiber”. But what is Bran? Does it really improve our health? Why do we even need it? Let the games begin….
The belief that regular bowel movement is important for health is very ancient. But the present theory is based on Dr. Dennis Burkitt’s discovery that relatively few rural black Africans suffer from cancer of the colon. He attributed this to their relatively crude diet.
The theory was that, as fibre made food travel through the gut faster, it allowed less time for cancer-inducing agents to form. This, of course, presupposed that food became carcinogenic in the gut and there was no evidence that it did. Neither was there any evidence that moving food through the intestine at a faster rate decreased the risk of colon cancer. Moreover, the rural Africans’ lifestyle was far from that of the Western city dweller: their diet is different, but also they were not exposed to so many pollutants, toxins or mental stresses. Indeed, there were many factors that could have been responsible for a difference in disease patterns. Other communities - the Mormons of Utah, for example - also enjoyed a low incidence of colon cancer yet they ate a low-fiber diet.
Wait….so more fiber does not lower the rate of colon cancer? Other factors in their lifestyle could of been more important to preventing colon cancer? Hmmmm….go on…..
Commercial interests were quick to see the potential in the recommendation and jump on the bran wagon. Burkitt’s recommendation was based on vegetable fiber, but bran (cereal fiber) has a far higher fibre content and bran was a practically worthless by-product of the milling process that, until then, had been thrown away. Almost overnight, it became a highly priced profit maker. Although totally inedible, backed by Burkitt’s fiber hypothesis, bran could now be promoted as a valuable food. But Dr. Hugh Trowell, Burkitt’s partner and another strong advocate of dietary fiber, stated in 1974 that: “A serious confusion of thought is produced by referring to the dietary fiber hypothesis as the bran hypothesis, for many Africans do not consume cereal or bran”
So basically Fruits and Vegetable based diets are what all the health benefits of fiber are based upon yet Bran jumped on that bandwagon because manufacturers found a cheap way to make their cheap products healthy to the general public? Hmmmmmm……more?
It may be useful at this stage to consider the claims for fiber in curing or preventing other diseases. For example, bran has been a popular way to manage irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) for about thirty years, despite the fact that no placebo-controlled study of bran in IBS has yet shown any convincing beneficial effect. A study, published in 1994, found that while fruit fiber was effective, bran only made the situation worse. Far from being a cure for IBS, they found that it was the bran that was causing it! Bran also caused bowel disturbances, abdominal distension and pain.
Again….”Yeah” for Fruits and Vegetables….but Bran? “Booooooo…….”.
Tests into the supposed benefits of dietary fiber soon showed that there could be other harmful side effects. All the nutrients in food are absorbed through the gut wall and this takes time. Fiber, by speeding food through the gut faster so that less nutrients are absorbed, inhibits the absorption of iron, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, energy, proteins, fats and vitamins A, D, E and K. This happens with all types of fibre although with a normal Western-style, nutrient-rich diet, the loss caused by vegetable fibre intake is unimportant. More importantly, phytate found in cereal fibre (bran) also binds with calcium, iron and zinc making them indigestible, which in turn causes malabsorption. One study, for example, showed that subjects absorbed more iron from white bread than from wholemeal bread even though their intakes of iron were fifty percent higher with the wholemeal bread. Bran has also been shown to cause faecal losses of calcium, iron, zinc, phosphorus, nitrogen, fats, fatty acids and sterols, thus depleting the body of these materials.
WHAT!
Too much fiber can speed up food through the gut, bind itself to essential vitamins and minerals and cause malabsorption? I didn’t see that on the box of Cheerios. So honestly what are we to do for maximum health? Here’s the overview:The source of fiber is important, fruits and vegetables should be our primary source. Bran is cheap, worthless and does more harm than good. (also makes crappy foods “healthy”in the public eye)
If you are not eating processed foods, then you don’t have to worry about blood sugar control with slower gastric emptying, as you get that automatically with fruits and vegetables.
Bowel movements are more based on the BACTERIA environment of the gut. Don’t believe me? Go take some probiotics (healthy bacteria) and let me know what happens….stock up on the TP! If you want more bowel movements, start with treating the source which is the bacteria balance in your gut. Fiber is not the answer.
Fiber is not the magic pill to cure or prevent colon caner or any disease/illness. Eating a diet higher in fruits and vegetables will always give you a healthier body….but it is a small portion of what true health is. Our whole environment from external toxins, stress, and overall lifestyle play into those factors as well. Don’t think a fiber pill is going to save you if you life is chaotic and destructive.
Too much fiber is not going to be healthy too as it can absorb essential nutrients that your body needs and can cause gut irritation (like scratching your skin with your fingernails…fiber is scraping your intenstinal lining). You want to get really sick? Then mess up your gut! I can’t stress how important a healthy gut is for overall health…it’s the biggest factor that we can control and is usually all messed up! Re-read the post on gut health again….and again….and again.
Once again…..moral of the story….eat your fruits and vegetables, stay away from processed foods and don’t believe the marketing hype of manufacturer’s trying to make their food “healthy”…as it usually has more disadvantages than advantages. If you are eating meats, vegetables, fruits, health fats, avoiding sugars, not taking antibiotics (or taking probiotics), controlling stress, limiting toxin exposure…then you don’t need any more fiber do you? Keep your gut healthy, keep your foods natural, and live an enjoyable low stress lifestyle….chances are that you will live long and prosper. If you want more bowel movements….take some probiotics and enjoy!
Everyone tells us we need it….we need more and more fiber, that’s the solution to all our problems. Ok, first thing I always like to ask when hearing something like this is “who” said we need it. The usual answer for most of these general health concepts are to respond doctors or scientists or some other random source. But do you even know why we need it? To have more bowel movements? Nope sorry…false assumption. To lower cholesterol? Nope sorry, never been proven. To lower the risk of colon cancer? Well….yes and no, and you will see that below in more detail. First let’s go over the 2 types of fiber:
Soluble - fiber that is “water soluble” (put it in water it expands into a large gel like substance). This is what expands in our guts, gives us a feeling of fullness, slows down digestion.
Insoluble - fiber that is NOT “water soluble”, this goes through us like sand through a long winding pipe. Simple enough huh?
Ok….so what are the main sources of fiber? Fiber is found in fruits, vegetables, beans, legumes and the most popular source nowadays of “bran fiber”. But what is Bran? Does it really improve our health? Why do we even need it? Let the games begin….
The belief that regular bowel movement is important for health is very ancient. But the present theory is based on Dr. Dennis Burkitt’s discovery that relatively few rural black Africans suffer from cancer of the colon. He attributed this to their relatively crude diet.
The theory was that, as fibre made food travel through the gut faster, it allowed less time for cancer-inducing agents to form. This, of course, presupposed that food became carcinogenic in the gut and there was no evidence that it did. Neither was there any evidence that moving food through the intestine at a faster rate decreased the risk of colon cancer. Moreover, the rural Africans’ lifestyle was far from that of the Western city dweller: their diet is different, but also they were not exposed to so many pollutants, toxins or mental stresses. Indeed, there were many factors that could have been responsible for a difference in disease patterns. Other communities - the Mormons of Utah, for example - also enjoyed a low incidence of colon cancer yet they ate a low-fiber diet.
Wait….so more fiber does not lower the rate of colon cancer? Other factors in their lifestyle could of been more important to preventing colon cancer? Hmmmm….go on…..
Commercial interests were quick to see the potential in the recommendation and jump on the bran wagon. Burkitt’s recommendation was based on vegetable fiber, but bran (cereal fiber) has a far higher fibre content and bran was a practically worthless by-product of the milling process that, until then, had been thrown away. Almost overnight, it became a highly priced profit maker. Although totally inedible, backed by Burkitt’s fiber hypothesis, bran could now be promoted as a valuable food. But Dr. Hugh Trowell, Burkitt’s partner and another strong advocate of dietary fiber, stated in 1974 that: “A serious confusion of thought is produced by referring to the dietary fiber hypothesis as the bran hypothesis, for many Africans do not consume cereal or bran”
So basically Fruits and Vegetable based diets are what all the health benefits of fiber are based upon yet Bran jumped on that bandwagon because manufacturers found a cheap way to make their cheap products healthy to the general public? Hmmmmmm……more?
It may be useful at this stage to consider the claims for fiber in curing or preventing other diseases. For example, bran has been a popular way to manage irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) for about thirty years, despite the fact that no placebo-controlled study of bran in IBS has yet shown any convincing beneficial effect. A study, published in 1994, found that while fruit fiber was effective, bran only made the situation worse. Far from being a cure for IBS, they found that it was the bran that was causing it! Bran also caused bowel disturbances, abdominal distension and pain.
Again….”Yeah” for Fruits and Vegetables….but Bran? “Booooooo…….”.
Tests into the supposed benefits of dietary fiber soon showed that there could be other harmful side effects. All the nutrients in food are absorbed through the gut wall and this takes time. Fiber, by speeding food through the gut faster so that less nutrients are absorbed, inhibits the absorption of iron, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, energy, proteins, fats and vitamins A, D, E and K. This happens with all types of fibre although with a normal Western-style, nutrient-rich diet, the loss caused by vegetable fibre intake is unimportant. More importantly, phytate found in cereal fibre (bran) also binds with calcium, iron and zinc making them indigestible, which in turn causes malabsorption. One study, for example, showed that subjects absorbed more iron from white bread than from wholemeal bread even though their intakes of iron were fifty percent higher with the wholemeal bread. Bran has also been shown to cause faecal losses of calcium, iron, zinc, phosphorus, nitrogen, fats, fatty acids and sterols, thus depleting the body of these materials.
WHAT!
Too much fiber can speed up food through the gut, bind itself to essential vitamins and minerals and cause malabsorption? I didn’t see that on the box of Cheerios. So honestly what are we to do for maximum health? Here’s the overview:The source of fiber is important, fruits and vegetables should be our primary source. Bran is cheap, worthless and does more harm than good. (also makes crappy foods “healthy”in the public eye)
If you are not eating processed foods, then you don’t have to worry about blood sugar control with slower gastric emptying, as you get that automatically with fruits and vegetables.
Bowel movements are more based on the BACTERIA environment of the gut. Don’t believe me? Go take some probiotics (healthy bacteria) and let me know what happens….stock up on the TP! If you want more bowel movements, start with treating the source which is the bacteria balance in your gut. Fiber is not the answer.
Fiber is not the magic pill to cure or prevent colon caner or any disease/illness. Eating a diet higher in fruits and vegetables will always give you a healthier body….but it is a small portion of what true health is. Our whole environment from external toxins, stress, and overall lifestyle play into those factors as well. Don’t think a fiber pill is going to save you if you life is chaotic and destructive.
Too much fiber is not going to be healthy too as it can absorb essential nutrients that your body needs and can cause gut irritation (like scratching your skin with your fingernails…fiber is scraping your intenstinal lining). You want to get really sick? Then mess up your gut! I can’t stress how important a healthy gut is for overall health…it’s the biggest factor that we can control and is usually all messed up! Re-read the post on gut health again….and again….and again.
Once again…..moral of the story….eat your fruits and vegetables, stay away from processed foods and don’t believe the marketing hype of manufacturer’s trying to make their food “healthy”…as it usually has more disadvantages than advantages. If you are eating meats, vegetables, fruits, health fats, avoiding sugars, not taking antibiotics (or taking probiotics), controlling stress, limiting toxin exposure…then you don’t need any more fiber do you? Keep your gut healthy, keep your foods natural, and live an enjoyable low stress lifestyle….chances are that you will live long and prosper. If you want more bowel movements….take some probiotics and enjoy!
Monday, April 7, 2008
On Womens Health and beyond...
Women’s health is important to Paradigm Performance Lab.
This is HUGE!
Join us on the evening of April 24th , Seven O’clock at Paradigm Performance Lab, to meet Thermographic specialist Nina Rea from Infrared Thermal Imaging.
Did you know? Every three minutes a woman in the United States is diagnosed with breast cancer. In 2006, 212,920 new cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed, along with 61,980 new cases of non-invasive breast cancer. And 40,970 women died in 2006 from this disease. The awareness of Breast Cancer in women has gained significant attention in recent years. Sadly though, we can not say the same for the methods of early detection and prevention.
Until Now…..
Our continued commitment to bring you the latest information and the best technology has to offer in the way of prevention has led us to the discovery of Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging (DITI). This is a noninvasive screening procedure that detects and records infrared heat emissions from the breast. DITI is especially useful for detecting early lesions before they otherwise become clinically evident. These changes could accompany cancer, fibrocystic breast disease, local injury, infections or vascular disease. Thermography has also been shown to detect the precancerous state of breast tissue up to 10 years before breast cancer is identified by other methods.
As if that’s not enough; we can also use thermography to isolate areas of chronic inflammation, fractures, strains tears and other soft tissue related injuries.
As if that’s not enough; we can also use thermography to isolate areas of chronic inflammation, fractures, strains tears and other soft tissue related injuries.
This is HUGE!Join us on the evening of April 24th , Seven O’clock at Paradigm Performance Lab, to meet Thermographic specialist Nina Rea from Infrared Thermal Imaging.
As a special BONUS, I have invited our local ambassador of wellness Dan Honore, owner of Juices Wild, in Sugar Hill to attend.
Dan has informed me that if we get at least 15 people
confirmed to attend he will bring some natural,
healthy and supremely tasty goodies!
Sign up in person while sipping on a fresh juice at
Juices Wild or email Paradigm directly:
770-815-3531
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
