Eating – Page 3

Superfoods: Science or Marketing?

August 22, 2014 oblanderchiropractic

There is no medical definition for a “superfood”. Food manufacturers are eager to use the word to promote sales of their products that contain traces of supposed superfoods such as blueberries, pomegranates and chocolate. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a superfood as “a nutrient-rich food considered to be especially beneficial for health and well-being.” However, there are no set criteria about what makes a food nutrient-rich. Most superfoods are high in antioxidants and phytonutrients relative to other foods. However, if you were to eat only one of these superfoods to the exclusion of all else, you would be seriously deficient in many of the nutrients your body needs in order to stay healthy. So what exactly is the science behind the idea of superfoods?

While we would like to believe that if we eat certain foods we can stave off illness and keep aging at bay, the truth is that it’s not so easy. Although there is no doubt that a diet consisting primarily of fruits and vegetables is one of the keys to healthy longevity, it is also what you don’t eat and do that is important. For instance, if you eat a breakfast of blueberries and pomegranates in a bowl of oatmeal, along with a cup of green tea, that does not mean that your health will improve overall if for lunch you have a bucket of fried chicken, French fries and a 64-ounce Coke, followed by a cigarette.

The majority of scientific studies indicating that there may be some positive health effects associated with the nutrients contained in certain foods were conducted in a laboratory. In general, high levels of nutrients are used in these studies—usually far more than what can be consumed in a normal diet. For instance, the compound resveratrol that studies have shown to be heart-healthy and to guard against prostate cancer is found in grape skins only in very small amounts. So although “the French paradox” (why the French have low rates of heart disease despite a rich diet) is often partially attributed to the regular consumption of red wine, in fact, you would have to drink 40 liters of wine a day to get the same amount that was shown to benefit the health of mice in these studies.

The positive results of studies performed in test tubes on a few human cells and studies performed on mice do not necessarily translate into health benefits for the wider population. The effect of a single nutrient on human health is difficult to pinpoint, as we all eat a combination of foods. Some nutritional benefits may only occur in the presence of other nutrients in the same food, or even in a different food eaten at the same time. Iron absorption, for example, is boosted when a food rich in vitamin C is eaten at the same time.

The best nutritional advice someone can follow if they’re interested in maintaining good health is to eat a wide range of whole foods, and (even more importantly) to avoid foods that are bad for you such as processed foods and hydrogenated oils. As the European Food Information Council advises, “A diet based on a variety of nutritious foods, including plenty of fruits and vegetables, remains the best way to ensure a balanced nutrient intake for optimal health.”

Unrealistic Expectations for Gluten-Free Diets?

July 21, 2014 oblanderchiropractic

It is official: the gluten-free diet is the latest “magic bullet” weight-loss craze. Seeing shelf after shelf filled with gluten-free foods in grocery stores is becoming the new norm, which is great news for the relatively small number of people who truly suffer from gluten-intolerance (aka celiac disease). But gluten-free has become something much larger—the nation’s newest weight-loss love affair. However, evidence suggests that a gluten-free diet by itself is largely useless if you’re trying to lose weight. So, this begs the question—do Americans now have unrealistic expectations when it comes to living gluten-free?

In a word, yes. According to the Wall Street Journal, about a third of the American populace is avoiding gluten, a protein that is responsible for the elastic texture of dough that is often found in grains such as wheat. While about 1% of the population suffers from celiac disease, sales of foods labelled “gluten-free” have exploded and are now worth an estimated $23 billion per year. Many people take up this diet with expectations of losing weight—but they may find themselves disappointed.

As US Newsreports, “But there’s no hard evidence that a gluten-free diet is appropriate for weight loss or is any more effective at whittling waistlines than other diet plans. Most experts recommend it only for those with celiac disease or gluten intolerance, says David Katz, founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.”

However, the article goes on to say, “Still, cutting out gluten can lead to weight loss, since the plan forces dieters to shun high-calorie refined carbohydrates. ‘Tell anyone to cut down on bread and pasta, and they’re likely going to drop calories and lose weight,’ Politi [Elisabetta Politi, nutrition director at the Duke Diet and Fitness Center in Durham, N.C]says. But gluten-free is no weight-loss panacea, either. ‘If you’re going down the grocery aisle grabbing gluten-free cookies and pasta and bread, you probably won’t be as successful.’ A gluten-free brownie is still a brownie. Often, these products are packed with saturated fat, cholesterol, and sugar to improve taste.”

Not only are many gluten-free products packed with unhealthful ingredients, they are often more expensive than their gluten-containing counterparts—sometimes much more. This puts the gluten-free diet in the same category as other expensive fad diets that have given false hope to their followers. Instead, nutritionists agree, it is far better to live on a low-sugar diet that’s packed with fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean meat, and low-fat dairy.

As WebMD puts it, “Gluten itself doesn’t offer special nutritional benefits. But the many whole grains that contain gluten do. They’re rich in an array of vitamins and minerals, such as B vitamins and iron, as well as fiber. Studies show that whole grain foods, as part of a healthy diet, may help lower risk of heart disease, type-2 diabetes, and some forms of cancer. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that half of all carbohydrates in the diet come from whole grain products.”

So unless you suffer from celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity, you may consider saving your money and lowering your expectations for gluten-free. It’s been said before and it’ll be said again: there is no magic weight-loss bullet—at least not yet—and if you truly want to live a healthy lifestyle, proper diet and exercise is still the best way to go.

Fruit Juice and Kids: A Reality Check for Parents

April 9, 2014 oblanderchiropractic

Ah, the simple joys of parenting! You want to do your best to give your kids a healthy diet, so after reading all the articles about how bad soda is for them, you switch them over to fruit juice. But now when you pick up a newspaper or read posts on your favorite Internet forum, you see more and more evidence that fruit juice may also be bad for them. What’s a parent to do?

The two-part answer to this question seems to be, “Get all the facts and use your best judgment. And—when in doubt—use moderation.” Yes, there is a new study, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, that calls for the UK government to change its “five servings a day” guidelines to exclude fruit juice. And yes, the researchers have their reasons for presenting this argument.

Those reasons seem to relate primarily to the amount of sugar in fruit juices. The study authors argue that a common misperception among parents is that fruit juices provide a natural, low-sugar alternative to artificially-sweetened drinks like soda. Technically, this is not true. As Naveed Sattar, professor of Metabolic Medicine at the Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland points out, “Fruit juice has a similar energy density and sugar content to other sugary drinks, for example: 250 milliliters (ml) of apple juice typically contains 110 kilocalories (kcal) and 26 grams (g) of sugar; and 250 ml of cola typically contains 105 kcal and 26.5 g of sugar.”

Professor Nattar’s research leads him to believe that—unlike consumption of solid fruit, which has been shown to decrease the risk of diabetes—high consumption of fruit juices is linked to an increased risk of diabetes. “One glass of fruit juice contains substantially more sugar than one piece of fruit; in addition, much of the goodness in fruit – fiber, for example – is not found in fruit juice, or is there in far smaller amounts,” Nattar’s research partner, Dr. Jason Gill, adds that although fruit juices do contain minerals and vitamins not present in sodas, the level of these nutrients is not sufficient to offset the health risks associated with consuming excessive sugar.

That’s the bad news. The better news is that even Drs. Nattar and Gill don’t recommend that parents cut fruit juice out of their children’s diet entirely, merely that they limit consumption to 1 to 1½ small (125 milliliter) glasses of fruit juice per day. The Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) released in February agree with them, still recommending fruit juice as part of a healthy, balanced diet for everyone, including children. They point out that one of the elements left out of the debate is that 100% fruit juice contains no added sugars, and often contain nutrients that sodas do not, such as vitamin C, folate, potassium and other micronutrients, plus antioxidants. Nutritionist Kristin Beck of the ADG says, “It’s not always possible for kids to get their recommended daily servings of fruit, so parents should be aware that 100% fruit juice can help meet these targets – especially for fussy eaters.”

Ms. Beck also provides what may be the best advice on the topic for parents: “Check the label to ensure you’re buying a good quality, 100% fruit juice. Be mindful of portion sizes and combine with a healthy, balanced diet that includes all core food groups – such as fresh fruit and veggies and a combination of lean meats, fish, dairy and carbohydrate-rich foods, mainly whole grains.”

The Power of Proper Nutrition: For the Mediterranean Diet, the Jury is In!

October 16, 2013 oblanderchiropractic

Although the health benefits of the Mediterranean diet have been supported by anecdotal evidence and have been touted for years by health gurus and even a large number of doctors, it is only recently that the science to back up these claims has emerged. Researchers from the University of Barcelona performed a large-scale 5-year study that found that those who follow a Mediterranean diet can reduce their risk of death from the effects of cardiovascular disease, such as heart attack and stroke, by 30 percent.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, followed 7,447 people who had been selected to participate due to significant cardiovascular risk factors, including high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, high cholesterol, a family history of heart disease and being overweight. The participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups:

A standard Mediterranean diet, supplemented with at least 4 tablespoons of olive oil per day
A standard Mediterranean diet supplemented with about an ounce per day of nuts (walnuts, almonds and hazelnuts)
A low-fat diet group.

Participants in the Mediterranean diet group consumed two servings of vegetables and three servings of fruit daily. They were to add fish and legumes to the menu at least three times a week and were asked to substitute white meat for red. If the participants drank alcohol, they were advised to drink a minimum of seven glasses of wine per week with their meals. Participants in this group were asked to reduce the amount of commercially baked goods they consumed to no more than three times a week, and to limit processed meats and dairy products.

Participants in the low-fat diet group were to avoid eating nuts and any type of vegetable oil (olive oil included), cut off visible fat from meat and limit store-bought desserts to less than once a week. They were asked to eat three or fewer servings daily of a simple carbohydrate such as bread, potatoes, pasta or rice, and consume three servings of low-fat dairy products, as well as fruits and vegetables.

No calorie limits were placed on any of the groups, nor were they encouraged to increase their level of physical activity. Those in the low-fat group had the most difficult time adhering to the dietary guidelines and most participants reverted to a standard Western diet, with a slightly lower fat intake.

Those assigned to the Mediterranean diets were found to be not only 30% less likely to have suffered a stroke, heart attack, or died during the study, they were also 40% less likely to have suffered a stroke in the study’s 4-year follow-up period than those who were assigned the low-fat diet. The aim of the study was not to reduce the participants’ cholesterol, blood pressure or weight, but to count the number of heart attacks, strokes and deaths from any cause to evaluate how effective the Mediterranean diet was in reducing these events and increasing longevity.

Not only have low-fat diets been shown to not be of much benefit, but they are known to be difficult to maintain because they leave people feeling unsatisfied. Dr. Steven E. Nissen, from the Cleveland Clinic’s department of cardiovascular medicine said “Now along comes this group and does a gigantic study in Spain that says you can eat a nicely balanced diet with fruits and vegetables and olive oil and lower heart disease by 30 percent,” he said. “And you can actually enjoy life.”

Following the Science on Genetically Altered Crops

March 26, 2013 oblanderchiropractic

It’s often hard to know whose science to believe and whose advice to take when it comes to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in our food. The information available on this subject is complex, the stakes are high (in terms of the health, social, environmental, political and economic issues involved) and passions run hot on all sides of the debate. So it’s not surprising that facts are often used selectively and much of the discussion is biased.

On one side of the debate, large agribusinesses such as Monsanto stress the potential human and environmental benefits of genetically altered crops, such as reduced pesticide use and being able to feed a growing worldwide population. On the other side of the debate, opponents of genetic engineering are often guilty of scaremongering and using emotionally-loaded labels like “Frankenfoods” to color the conversation. So what does the science currently tell us?

Genetically modified plants have now been with us for three decades, and have been widely planted since the mid-1990s. This kind of technology differs from conventional plant breeding in that it uses genes from other species to modify DNA rather than selecting for certain characteristics from within a breeding population. Of particular interest to farmers is the ability to engineer plants that are resistant to certain pests and herbicides, can tolerate harsher or more variable environments and have increased nutritional value (more vitamins or minerals, for example).

On the other side of the fence, concerns of consumers and environmental activists are threefold:

1. That genes from crop plants will spread to the wild and other, non-engineered or organic, crops or that there may be unanticipated environmental impacts

2. That there may be unknown long-term health effects from this relatively untested technology

3. That farmers, especially in developing countries, will become over-reliant on global seed companies rather than saving their own seed, resulting in greater dependency and poverty.

Thus far, some 13 plant species have been genetically engineered in one form or another, including wheat, soybeans, corn, tomatoes, alfalfa, canola, potatoes, rice and sugar beets. In 2010, genetically engineered crops accounted for over 320 million acres of planting–165 million in the USA alone. Over 80% of the soy and corn being eaten as food in the USA is now consumed in its genetically modified form.

Given the widespread planting and consumption of GM crops over the last decade, it might be expected that there would be a wide range of studies on the safety of these foods. However, a report in 2003 found only 10 such studies in a search of the literature. This number had grown to just 42 by 2011. Of these, 36 studies were found to demonstrate no negative effect when GM crops were fed to animal species, four had positive effects and two negative. The two negative studies were both carried out prior to 2000 and have not since been replicated. Despite the largely positive conclusions drawn from these studies, a subsequent review of 19 studies found that there was sufficient data to indicate a likelihood of liver and kidney damage. The authors also noted that some significant results were stated as being “biologically insignificant,” a conclusion that they found questionable.

It is notable that soy allergies in the UK rose by 50% following the introduction of GM soy products. One study found that levels of a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, were increased by more than a quarter in GM compared to non-GM soy, and that these levels were seven times higher following cooking. Further studies have also demonstrated negative environmental effects related to the use of GM crops, such as an increased mortality of wetland and water insects exposed to genetically modified corn pollen, and increased use of herbicide in plantations of GM soy, cotton and corn compared with their conventional counterparts. This casts considerable doubt on one of the main proposed benefits of herbicide resistant crops.

Independent scientists reviewing the safety of GM crops have called into question both the general lack of safety testing of GM crops and absence of follow-up studies, especially ones that are not in some way funded by the biotech companies themselves. Given this and the lack of stringent testing requirements for GM crops prior to both widespread field planting and human consumption, there remains cause for concern. The notion of “substantial equivalence” that largely exempts GM food from safety testing if it is seen to be the same as its conventional counterpart, has also been flagged as unnecessarily lenient on a technology most regard as unproven.
While the general public has (for the most part) been reassured by the fact that there have been very few few short-term disasters, genes from GM crops continue to find their way into wild and conventionally grown (including organic) plants as well as the larger food chain. Until sufficiently rigorous independent studies are available to determine the short- and long-term effects of GM crops, it is hard not to conclude that we are currently in the middle of a long-running experiment in which most of the benefit is gained by the biotech companies while most of the risk is carried by consumers and the environment. The problem is that if GM crops, or even just some of them, are eventually found to be a risk not worth taking, it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. In some respects, it is simply too late now to do the long-term safety assessment that should have been carried out well before widespread approval was granted.
For the time being, the best that consumers can do is to push for disclosure and choice so that they have more flexibility when they shop at the local grocery store.

Is Organic Food Really More Nutritious?

March 19, 2013 oblanderchiropractic

There is no question that organic food costs more than conventionally grown food, and organic has long been out of reach for many consumers due to higher prices at the market. But if you have the money to fork out, is the extra that you are spending worth it? The bottom line is that it depends to some extent on the reason why you are buying organic in the first place. If it is because you believe it is more nutritious, then recent research suggests that you may just as well buy conventionally grown produce. But if you are concerned about pesticide intake and conventionally grown agriculture’s effect on the environment, in addition to avoiding GMOs (genetically modified organisms), then your money is well spent.

A recent meta-study performed by researchers at California’s Stanford University published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found that their analysis of 223 studies performed on food evaluating nutrient and contamination levels “lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” However, they did conclude that “Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” Only 17 of the included studies had been performed on humans, the longest of these lasting for only two years. The long-term effect of one type of food compared with another has yet to be established.

There have been many criticisms of this study, one of the most relevant being that researchers did not define what they meant by “significant” in terms of health benefits. In terms of detectible pesticide residues, conventional produce had an average of 38%, and conventionally grown produce, 7%. However, the researchers did not take into account the type of pesticides and their individual impact on health. It’s also important to note that the amount of pesticide contamination is not the only factor to be considered. Charles Benbrook, from the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University says, “Pesticide dietary risk is a function of many factors, including the number of residues, their levels, and pesticide toxicity.”

In fact, studies that have followed young children from the earliest days of their mothers’ pregnancies through the first few years of childhood have found that exposure to pesticide residues from the beginning of pregnancy can have a significant effect on a child’s development. The children of women who consumed organic food during pregnancy and who ate it throughout childhood had a lower risk of birth defects, eczema, autism, learning and neurobehavioral problems.

Benbrook’s commentary letter on the study, also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, stated that “I recently completed an assessment of relative pesticide health risks from residues in six important fruits-strawberries, apples, grapes, blueberries, pears, and peaches. Using the latest data from USDA’s Pesticide Data Program (USDA, 2012) on these foods, I found that the overall pesticide risk level in the conventional brands was 17.5 times higher than in the organic brands…. The differences translate into a 94% reduction in health risk from the selection of organic brands.”
Essentially, it’s what you are not getting in your organic produce that you are paying extra for. If your budget is limited, it might pay to take some time to discover which items of produce are likely to be highest in pesticide residues and buy organic forms of that produce. The rest of your produce can be conventionally grown, and there are many local farmers who basically grow their crops in an organic manner but are not certified, which can save you some money.

Is There Such a Thing as a Negative Calorie Food?

February 11, 2013 oblanderchiropractic

One of the most widespread diet gimmicks circulating around the Internet is the practice of eating “negative calorie food.” What is meant by this term is the idea that certain low-calorie foods burn more calories in their preparation, consumption and digestion than the calories they contain. Although this is an attractive idea that would seemingly allow you to eat as much of these foods as possible without gaining weight, there is no scientific research confirming that it is actually true.

Celery is the most frequently used “example” of this idea in action. A stalk of celery contains only between 8 and 10 calories. Ninety-five percent of it is water, with the remainder being composed mostly of fiber. Chewing food burns only around 5 calories an hour, and digestion adds just a few more calories to that amount. The process of digestion does not take very much energy, accounting for only about 5 percent of your daily energy expenditure. To put it in perspective, consider that it takes 15 minutes of strenuous exercise to burn 100 calories. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the Chief Medical Editor for NBC news, says in an article in Time magazine, “The calories your body burns in fueling the digestive cycle are minuscule compared with the calories in the food itself. Although chewing celery might seem like a strenuous activity, it burns about the same amount of calories as watching grass grow.”

One of the features that nearly all supposed negative calorie foods share is that they have very high water content. In addition to celery, among the other foods on this list are watermelon, lettuce, apples, grapefruit, lemons, limes, onions and pickles. All contain a lot of water and are relatively high in fiber (which is healthy in itself). However, making a diet exclusively out of these types of foods would eventually cause nutritional deficiencies.

Although no scientific studies have proven the theory, it may be possible-technically speaking-that eating some kinds of negative calorie foods could provide a very slight negative calorie deficit under a particular set of conditions. However, it would not be significant enough to affect any kind of weight change and, as a practical nutritional matter, has big drawbacks. The only way negative calorie foods can help you lose weight is if you eat them in place of higher-calorie foods that have more nutritional value.

The Director of the obesity and diabetes programs at Harlem’s North General Hospital, Cathy Nonas, notes that, “If you substitute celery for cookies and pretzels, and those are the things that were putting you over the top in terms of weight then yes, you will lose weight. But you’re not going to lose weight by chewing celery a couple times a day if you’re not exercising and changing what else you eat.”

Quick Pasta Bolognese – Fun Healthy Recipe for those busy nights!

January 3, 2013 oblanderchiropractic

Quick Pasta Bolognese

From EatingWell: January/February 2013

4 servings

Active Time: 30 minutes Total Time: 40 minutes

Ingredients

1 tablespoon extra-virgin olive oil
1 medium onion, finely chopped
2 medium carrots, finely chopped
2 medium stalks celery, finely chopped
3 cloves garlic, minced
8 ounces whole-wheat rigatoni or penne (about 3 cups)
8 ounces lean (93% or leaner) ground beef
1/3 cup dry red wine (can substitute beef stock)
1 14-ounce can petite diced tomatoes
2 tablespoons tomato paste
1/8 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground pepper

Preparation

Heat oil in a large nonstick skillet over medium heat. Add onion, carrots, celery and garlic; cook, stirring occasionally, until just tender, 6 to 8 minutes.
Meanwhile, bring a large pot of water to a boil. Add pasta and cook according to package directions. Drain.
Add beef to the vegetables and cook, breaking up with a wooden spoon, until cooked through, 3 to 4 minutes. Increase heat to medium-high, add wine and cook until almost evaporated, 1 to 1 1/2 minutes. Stir in tomatoes, tomato paste and nutmeg; reduce heat to medium-low, cover and simmer, stirring occasionally, for 10 minutes. Remove from the heat and stir in salt and pepper. Serve the pasta with the sauce.

Per serving: 414 calories; 10 g fat ( 3 g sat , 5 g mono ); 43 mg cholesterol; 55 g carbohydrates; 0 g added sugars; 26 g protein; 7 g fiber; 522 mg sodium; 709 mg potassium.

Nutrition Bonus: Vitamin A (118% daily value), Vitamin C (39% dv), Zinc (33% dv), Iron (24% dv), Potassium (21% dv), Magnesium (19% dv).

Carbohydrate Servings: 3 1/2

Exchanges: 2 1/2 starch, 2 1/2 vegetable, 2 lean meat, 1/2 fat

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

If you like to utilize natural health remedies as much as we do….Stay tuned….we will be having a herbal class by Lori Cameron on Simple Home Remedies! Lori is a Master Herbalist and will have some great information to share! We will be announcing the date of her class soon!

Oblander Chiropractic, 3307 Grand Avenue, Ste. 101, Billings, MT 59102

Phone: 406-652-3553

For more healthy recipes go to our website at www.oblanderchiropractic.com!

Chiropractic Boosts Immunity!!!

November 29, 2012 oblanderchiropractic

We wanted to share this article. We see the influence that chiropractic adjustments have on immunity and overall health all the time. However, we know that our patients seldom get to have that amazing vantage point that we do! With the cold and flu season upon us and for overall health – make sure you keep you and your loved ones adjusted!

Chiropractic Boosts Immunity
Friday, February 04, 2011 by: Dr. David Jockers

The nervous system and immune system are hardwired and work together to create optimal responses for the body to adapt and heal appropriately. Neural dysfunctions due to spinal misalignments are stressful to the body and cause abnormal changes that lead to a poorly coordinated immune response. Chiropractic adjustments have been shown to boost the coordinated responses of the nervous system and immune system.

The autonomic nervous system is hardwired into the lymphoid organs such as the spleen, thymus, lymph nodes, and bone marrow that produce the body’s immune response. Growing evidence is showing that immune function is regulated in part by the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system.

Subluxation is the term for misalignments of the spine that cause compression and irritation of nerve pathways affecting organ systems of the body. Subluxations are an example of physical nerve stress that affects neuronal control. According to researchers, such stressful conditions lead to altered measures of immune function & increased susceptibility to a variety of diseases.

Inflammatory based disease is influenced by both the nervous, endocrine, and immune systems. Nerve stimulation directly affects the growth and function of inflammatory cells. Researchers found that dysfunction in this pathway results in the development of various inflammatory syndromes such as rheumatoid arthritis and behavioral syndromes such as depression. Additionally, this dysfunctional neuro-endo-immune response plays a significant role in immune-compromised conditions such as chronic infections and cancer.

Wellness based chiropractors analyze the spine for subluxations and give corrective adjustments to reduce the stress on the nervous system. A 1992 research group found that when a thoracic adjustment was applied to a subluxated area the white blood cell (neutrophil) count collected rose significantly.

In 1975, Ronald Pero, Ph.D., chief of cancer prevention research at New York’s Preventive Medicine Institute and professor in Environmental Health at New York University, began researching the most scientifically valid ways to estimate individual susceptibility to various chronic diseases. He has conducted a tremendous amount of research in this area that includes over 160 published reports in peer reviewed journals.

Pero and his colleagues discovered that various DNA-repairing enzymes could be significantly altered following exposure to carcinogenic chemicals. He found strong evidence that an individual’s susceptibility to cancer could be determined by these enzymes. Lack of those enzymes, Pero said, ‘definitely limits not only your lifespan, but also your ability to resist serious disease consequences.’

Pero was fascinated by the relationship cancer-inducing agents had on the endocrine system. Since the nervous system regulates hormone balance, he hypothesized that the nervous system had to also have a strong influence on one’s susceptibility to cancer.

To support this argument he found a substantial amount of literature linking various kinds of spinal cord injuries and cancer. Pero found that these injuries led to a very high rate of lymphomas and lymphatic leukemias. This understanding led Pero to consider Chiropractic care as a means of reducing the risk of immune breakdown and disease.

Pero’s team measured 107 individuals who had received long-term Chiropractic care. The chiropractic patients were shown to have a 200% greater immune competence than people who had not received chiropractic care, and a 400% greater immune competence than people with cancer or serious diseases. Interestingly, Pero found no decline with the various age groups in the study demonstrating that the DNA repairing enzymes were just as present in long-term chiropractic senior groups as they were in the younger groups.

Pero concluded, ‘Chiropractic may optimize whatever genetic abilities you have so that you can fully resist serious disease…I have never seen a group other than this show a 200% increase over normal patients.’

Kent, Christopher. Models of Vertebral Subluxation: A Review. Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research. August 1996, Vol 1:1. Pg 4-5

Sternberg EM, Chrousos GP, Wilder RL, Gold PW. The stress response and the regulation of inflammatory disease. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117 (10):854

Brennan PC, Triano JJ, McGregor M, et al. Enhanced neutrophil respiratory burst as a biological marker for manipulation forces: duration of the effect and association with substance P and tumor necrosis factor. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1992; 15(2):83

For Thanksgiving – A Healthy Green Bean Cassarole Recipe!

November 19, 2012 oblanderchiropractic

From EatingWell: November/December 2008
This healthy revision of green bean casserole skips the canned soup and all the fat and sodium that come with it. Our white sauce with sliced fresh mushrooms, sweet onions and low-fat milk makes a creamy, rich casserole.

6 servings, about 3/4 cup each
Active Time: 30 minutes
Total Time: 45 minutes

Nutrition Profile
Diabetes appropriate, low calorie, low cholesterol, low saturated fat, heart healthy, healthy weight, high calcium, high fiber.

Ingredients

•   3 tablespoons canola oil, divided
•   1 medium sweet onion, (half diced, half thinly sliced), divided
•   8 ounces mushrooms, chopped
•   1 tablespoon onion powder
•   1 1/4 teaspoons salt, divided
•   1/2 teaspoon dried thyme
•   1/2 teaspoon freshly ground pepper
•   2/3 cup all-purpose flour, divided
•   1 cup low-fat milk
•   3 tablespoons dry sherry or chicken stock
•   1 pound frozen French-cut green beans, (about 4 cups)
•   1/3 cup reduced-fat sour cream
•   3 tablespoons buttermilk powder or dry milk powder, (see Ingredient Note)
•   1 teaspoon paprika
•   1/2 teaspoon garlic powder

Preparation

1.   Preheat oven to 400°F. Coat a 2 1/2-quart baking dish with cooking spray.
2.   Heat 1 tablespoon oil in a large saucepan over medium heat. Add diced onion and cook, stirring often, until softened and slightly translucent, about 4 minutes. Stir in mushrooms, onion powder, 1 teaspoon salt, thyme and pepper. Cook, stirring often, until the mushroom juices are almost evaporated, 3 to 5 minutes. Sprinkle 1/3 cup flour over the vegetables; stir to coat. Add milk and sherry and bring to a simmer, stirring often. Stir in green beans and return to a simmer. Cook, stirring, until heated through, about 1 minute. Stir in sour cream and buttermilk powder. Transfer to the prepared baking dish.
3.   Whisk the remaining 1/3 cup flour, paprika, garlic powder and the remaining 1/4 teaspoon salt in a shallow dish. Add sliced onion; toss to coat. Heat the remaining 2 tablespoons oil in a large nonstick skillet over medium-high heat. Add the onion along with any remaining flour mixture and cook, turning once or twice, until golden and crispy, 4 to 5 minutes. Spread the onion topping over the casserole.
4.   Bake the casserole until bubbling, about 15 minutes. Let cool for 5 minutes before serving.

Tips & Notes

• Don’t use the high-sodium “cooking sherry” sold in many supermarkets. Instead, purchase dry sherry sold with other fortified wines.
• Look for buttermilk powder, such as Saco Buttermilk Blend, in the baking section or with the powdered milk in most supermarkets.

Nutrition

Per serving: 212 calories; 10 g fat ( 2 g sat , 5 g mono ); 10 mg cholesterol; 23 g carbohydrates; 7 g protein; 3 g fiber; 533 mg sodium; 259 mg potassium.
Nutrition Bonus: Calcium (16% daily value).
Carbohydrate Servings: 1 1/2
Exchanges: 1/2 starch, 1 vegetable, 2 fat

Sharing Chiropractic Health News and Advice Because We are Addicted to Good Health!

Browsed by
Category: Eating

Superfoods: Science or Marketing?

August 22, 2014 oblanderchiropractic

Unrealistic Expectations for Gluten-Free Diets?

July 21, 2014 oblanderchiropractic

Fruit Juice and Kids: A Reality Check for Parents

April 9, 2014 oblanderchiropractic

The Power of Proper Nutrition: For the Mediterranean Diet, the Jury is In!

October 16, 2013 oblanderchiropractic

Following the Science on Genetically Altered Crops

March 26, 2013 oblanderchiropractic

Is Organic Food Really More Nutritious?

March 19, 2013 oblanderchiropractic

Is There Such a Thing as a Negative Calorie Food?

February 11, 2013 oblanderchiropractic

Quick Pasta Bolognese – Fun Healthy Recipe for those busy nights!

January 3, 2013 oblanderchiropractic

Chiropractic Boosts Immunity!!!

November 29, 2012 oblanderchiropractic

For Thanksgiving – A Healthy Green Bean Cassarole Recipe!

November 19, 2012 oblanderchiropractic