|
Post by robwhite on Nov 24, 2009 12:30:47 GMT -5
Something that crops up alot these days is the concept of Intermittent Fasting (IF) - typically either radically undereating or completely fasting for a 16-20 hour period, and then overeating for a 4-6 hours after. I've seen alot about it on a couple of the forums i frequent with some guys raving about how amazing it makes you feel, gets your body fat down, and does not cause muscle loss. Alot of studies also show it is extremely good for glucose sensitivity, blood profile, upregulation of protein metabolism, and longevity, some of which were higlighted in a recent edition of The Paleo Diet newsletter, and it seems Loren Cordain is shifting towards the IF approach. EliteFTS also ran a 2-part article about it a while back with quite a 'neutral' overall opinion.
This eating pattern is shown in many indigenous groups. From the aforementioned Paleo Diet newsletter:
"We are currently in the process of compiling meal times and patterns in the worlds historically studied hunter-gatherers. If any single picture is beginning to emerge, it clearly is not three meals per day plus snacking ala the typical U.S. grazing pattern. Here are a few examples:
The Ingalik Hunter Gatherers of Interior Alaska: "As has been made clear, the principal meal and sometimes the only one of the day is eaten in the evening." 22.
The Guayaki (Ache) Hunter Gatherers of Paraguay: "It seems, however, that the evening meal is the most consistent of the day. This is understandable, since the day is generally spent hunting for food that will be eaten in the evening"23.
The Kung Hunter Gatherers of Botswana. "Members move out of camp each day individually or in small groups to work through the surrounding range and return in the evening to pool the collected resources for the evening meal"24.
Hawaiians, Tahitians, Fijians and other Oceanic peoples (pre-westernization). "Typically, meals, as defined by Westerners, were consumed once or twice a day. . . Oliver (1989) described the main meal, usually freshly cooked, as generally eaten in the late afternoon after the day’s work was over."25.
The most consistent daily eating pattern that is beginning to emerge from the ethnographic literature in hunter-gatherers is that of a large single meal which was consumed in the late afternoon or evening. A midday meal or lunch was rarely or never consumed and a small breakfast (consisting of the remainders of the previous evening meal) was sometimes eaten. Some snacking may have occurred during daily gathering, however the bulk of the daily calories were taken in the late afternoon or evening. This pattern of eating could be described as intermittent fasting relative to the typical western pattern, particularly when daily gathering or hunting were unsuccessful or marginal."
Finally, to me, IF-style eating patterns seem to be the most natural. Our ancestors would not have had time to sit and eat 3-meals-a-day-plus-snacks when they had so much to do in terms of hunting, gathering, farming, and doing community and residential chores. This also fits well with promoting natural diurnal cycles of daytime catabolsim and evening / nighttime anabolism. So, how does this fit into metabolic typing, and what metabolic type would you need to be to be able to eat like this?
T-Nation years ago did a good interview with Ori Hofmekler, creator of The Warrior Diet which is an undereating - overeating approach of ‘1 meal (a HUGE meal spread over a few hours) in the evening' approach, with optional low-calorie ‘nibbles’ during the day. In the interview, he states that the IF approach initially requires reasonable cortisol output to enable you to function without much food during the day. In fact, studies show that IF can result in peaks of a 105% increase in cortisol output during the day.
Bearing this in mind, if we look at Paul Eck’s theories, sympathetic dominant persons, who often only need to eat infrequently, tend to have decent adrenal and therefore good cortisol output, whereas 'unhealthy' parasympathetic dominant people, who often need to eat frequently, have low cortisol output due to adrenal fatigue. Therefore, it could be extrapolated from this that those with strong adrenals and good sympathetic output would do well on an IF-style eating pattern, whereas the unhealthy parasympathetics with the fatigued adrenals would not be able produce enough cortisol to do well on IF.
Perhaps, as a persons adrenal health improves, their need to eat so much diminishes ..? I’ve certainly noticed that since following an adrenal recovery protocol, my hunger has diminished and I can go longer without eating. In fact, i think my whole metabolic type might be changing (there are other symptoms like no asthma, massively reduced eczema, my average diameter of my pupils has widened recently, etc.).
It is worth noting that the type of food consumed in those IF studies involved light proteins, high carbs, and little fat - very much foods from a Carbo Type diet which rapidly oxidise and could result in blood sugar drops and then cortisol spikes in certain persons. Maybe if an IF approach was followed that used foods from the Protein Type food list, it could work for parasympathetics, in that such foods would slow oxidation and reduce the cortisol output somewhat. It maybe worth a try, esp. in light of Dr William Kelley's strong recommendations in "One Answer to Cancer" about daily periodic fasting from protien. He suggests that the pancreatic enzymes needed to stop cancer from developing are depleted if you consume cooked proteins all day long (because pancreatic enzymes get used up metabolising all that protein instead), and that if people condensed their protein consumption into a 6 hour window, that about 85% of cancer cases could be prevented, because it leaves the other 18 hours a day for production of pancreatic enzymes to digest cancer tissue.
|
|
|
Post by robwhite on Nov 20, 2009 7:15:11 GMT -5
Actually, the dangers of constantly being bathed in artificially created EM fields have been espoused by holistic health practitioners for about a30 years now, but it appears mainstream science is starting to also show concerns. (BTW i'm not a Mail reader in general - but this article was quite interesting): www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229069/Is-electro-smog-causing-headache.html
Is electro smog causing your headache? By Alasdair Philips Last updated at 10:08 AM on 19th November 2009
Swindon is to become Britain's first Wi-Fi town, but at what cost to its inhabitants' health? Swindon, that quintessentially Middle England town, hardly seems like a radical place. Yet it is at the forefront of a technological revolution that looks set to sweep the country.
For the local council has announced plans to give all its 186,000 residents free wireless (Wi-Fi) access to the internet.
About 1,400 access points will be installed on lampposts across the town, creating an electronic mesh which will allow internet connections to be made anywhere within Swindon's boundaries - even in the street, the pub or a park.
Thanks to the introduction of mobile phones, computers, CCTV cameras, satellite televisions and digital radios, our lives are enveloped in electronic radiation
In effect, Swindon will become Britain's first Wi-Fi town.
Council leader Rod Bluh proudly boasts: 'This is the future of England.' And, sadly, he is probably right.
No doubt many other towns will follow. Indeed, London mayor Boris Johnson has vowed to make the capital a 'Wi-Fi-city' by the time of the 2012 Olympics.
Already, there are an estimated 10,000 Wi-Fi hotspots across the country, while 80 per cent of secondary schools and 50 per cent of primaries are thought to have Wi-Fi installed in the classroom.
But before we all rush to embrace this new wireless technology, a loud note of caution should be sounded.
Amid all the excitable rhetoric about our electronic future, there has been precious little recognition of the downside.
For the reality is that these sprawling new grids of pulsing signals will add immeasurably to the amount of electromagnetic radiation in the air - with potentially disastrous consequences for the nation's health.
Some studies suggest that as much as five per cent of the population may already be suffering symptoms like irritability because of this electro smog
The evangelists of change are dismissive of any health concerns - just as they are about mobile phones - but evidence is mounting that wireless technology could have harmful side-effects.
Particularly at risk could be children, who are more vulnerable to waves of radiation as their brains and nervous systems are still developing.
Nothing is ever truly free in this life. What initially seems like a brilliant idea usually turns out to have a downside.
As well as concerns about health, there are also some anxieties about security. For example, hackers can exploit wireless technology to gain access to people's internet connections in their homes.
In several appalling recent cases, it has been known for a hacker to sit in a car outside someone's house, using the wireless connection to download child pornography.
Most distressingly, when investigated, all traces of the downloads will lead back to the innocent householder, not to the hacker.
Yet by far the greatest danger comes from the effect of Wi-Fi on our health.
Already, thanks to the introduction of mobile phones, computers, CCTV cameras, satellite televisions and digital radios, our lives are enveloped in electronic radiation.
About 1,400 access points will be installed on lampposts across Swindon, creating an electronic mesh
This phenomenon has been described as 'electro smog', so all-pervasive are the pulsing microwave signals that surround us on a daily basis.
Of course, we cannot see all this electronic activity, but if we could, the sight would be dramatic.
Stepping from somewhere free of modern electronic gadgetry into a Wi-Fi active zone would be the equivalent of walking from a peaceful country lane onto the hard shoulder of Spaghetti Junction.
And it is absurdly complacent to pretend that these electromagnetic fields are not going to have any impact on our health.
Far from doing no harm, some studies suggest that as much as five per cent of the population may already be suffering from headaches, concentration difficulties, chronic fatigue, irritability and behavioural problems because of this electro smog.
The computer industry airily dismisses any concerns, claiming that Wi-Fi uses only a few watts of energy - 'less than a lightbulb'.
But this ignores the fact that light and microwaves are different kinds of electromagnetic radiation, so the analogy with the lightbulb is meaningless.
The truth is that there have not yet been any major, comprehensive studies into the impact of Wi-Fi radiation on our health, so such reassurances are unjustified.
No one can state with any confidence that Wi-Fi is safe.
The industry also likes to point to mobile phones, pretending- - wrongly - that this technology has been given the all-clear by recent scientific assessments.
But the truth is that mobiles have been widely used only since the early 1990s, so it is far too early to say with any confidence what the long-term impact of them is - particularly because some cancers take more than a decade to develop.
Nevertheless, some studies are already indicating that those who have used their mobiles for ten years are twice as likely to get rare but incurable brain cancers on the same side of the head as they hold their phones.
David Carpenter, the director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany in New York, has warned: 'Based on the existing science, many public health experts believe it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancers in the future resulting from the uncontrolled use of mobile phones and increased population exposure to Wi-Fi and other wireless devices.'
It is perhaps no coincidence that since the advance of Wi-Fi in schools in Britain (from 1997), the number of cases of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has increased four-fold.
One study, by a group of German doctors in Bavaria, into the medical complaints of 356 people who have had long-term radiation exposure in their homes, revealed that the pulsed, high-frequency signals led to symptoms such as sleep disturbance, giddiness, nose bleeds, tissue pain, hearing loss, depressive moods, forgetfulness and nausea.
It is no coincidence that Germany, despite its prowess in electrical engineering, has been much more circumspect about allowing the spread of Wi-Fi.
There, the country's health protection agency has recommended the removal of cordless phones, the installation of Wi-Fi away from public areas and the use of cabling rather than wireless for internet access.
Similarly, the authorities in Frankfurt and the Bavarian Parliament have both recommended against the installation of Wi-Fi in schools.
Meanwhile, the French National Library last year imposed a moratorium on installing Wi-Fi in libraries, and the education authorities in the Sorbonne in Paris have done the same after university staff complained of nausea, dizziness and problems with memory.
In the Normandy town of Herouville Saint-Clair, Wi-Fi networks are being removed from schools to 'protect people's health'.
What we need is not more Wi-Fi installation, but a proper study of the real effect of this technology. Until that is done, we should proceed with caution.
• Alasdair Philips is the director of Powerwatch, an independent organisation researching electromagnetic fields and health.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229069/Is-electro-smog-causing-headache.html#ixzz0XOanjoEAThis is one of many articles Mercola has done on mobile phone problems: articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/19/A-Cell-Phone-on-Your-Hip-Weakens-Your-Bones.aspx
A Cell Phone on Your Hip Weakens Your Bones
Posted by: Dr. Mercola November 19 2009 | 30,311 views
Research suggests that wearing a cell phone on your hip may weaken an area of your pelvis. Using an X-ray technique used in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with osteoporosis, researchers measured pelvic bone density in 150 men who regularly carried their cell phones attached to their belts.
The men carried their phones for an average of 15 hours each day; they had used cell phones for an average of six years.
The researchers found that bone mineral density was lowered on the side of the pelvis where the mobile phones were carried. The findings raise the possibility that bone density could be adversely affected by electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones.
Sources:
WebMD October 27, 2009
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery September 2009;20(5):1556-60
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
When you clip a cell phone to your belt, keeping it conveniently close by, it likely never crosses your mind that this could be harming your bones. Or, worse yet, affect your fertility -- particularly if you're a man.
Previous studies have found that cell phone radiation affects men's sperm count, and the quality and motility of their sperm, and this may be a far greater issue than its effect on bone density. Men in particular tend to carry their cell phones on their belts, in close proximity of their reproductive organs. One such study, published in PLoS ONE, found that:
"RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring."
In addition, you have a number of other sensitive organs in that general area, including liver, kidneys, colon and bladder -- all of which are susceptible to radiation.
This latest study published in the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, found that after carrying a cell phone on their hip for an average of 15 hours a day over the course of about six years, male subjects' bone mineral density was slightly lower on the side of the pelvis where they carried their phones.
The researchers found the reduction in bone density was not yet statistically significant, but I say "not yet” because the men in the study were young -- their average age was 32. And this is only for bone density! There was no measurement of the important intercellular disruptions that are impaired by wearing a cell phone on your belt.
So what would happen if they carried their cell phone on their hip for another 10, 20 or 30 years?
I certainly wouldn’t want to be the guinea pig who finds out.
It's important to realize that as long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. So wearing a cell phone on your hip for 15 hours a day is giving your body nearly continuous radiation exposure.
That electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones can cause deterioration in your bone density is a major warning sign of just how dangerous this new technology can be. And although it may seem like cell phones have been around “forever,” keep in mind that cell phones have only been used heavily for about 15 years.
And given that many chronic diseases, such as osteoporosis and cancer, can take 30 or 40 years to show up, it’s too soon to know what health effects lie in wait for heavy cell phone users.
Have You Seen the Science on Cell Phone Dangers?
Cell phones are used by an estimated 275 million people in the United States and 4 billion worldwide.
Cell phones use a subset of radio frequency radiation that fall in the microwave range to transmit voice data, and the dangers of consistent exposure to these microwaves have been known since at least 1998. Yet few have been willing to accept the evidence, and the FCC and the cellular industry has followed in the footsteps of the tobacco industry, ignoring the risks.
It’s worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is even BIGGER than drug cartels, and they have far more influence.
My belief is that this exponential increase in this type of radiation exposure is far more serious a threat than even tobacco ever was.
The first major indication that cell phones might be a health hazard came out of a massive, $28-million research project funded by the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA). To the industry’s surprise and dismay, the results of the study came to the opposite conclusion from the one they were hoping for.
The study's results included findings of:
A nearly 300 percent increase in the incidence of genetic damage when human blood cells were exposed to radiation in the cellular frequency band A significant increase in cell phone users’ risk of brain tumors at the brain’s outer edge, on whichever side the cell phone was held most often A 60 percent greater chance of acoustic neuromas, a tumor affecting the nerve that controls hearing, among people who had used cell phones for six years or more A higher rate of brain cancer deaths among handheld mobile phone users than among car phone users (car phones are mounted on the dashboard rather than held next to your head) Brain Tumors, DNA Damage and More
Earlier this year, meanwhile, a recent review of studies, published in the journal Surgical Neurology, assessed whether there was evidence for an association between long-term cell phone usage and the risk of developing a brain tumor.
In order to be included in the analysis, studies were required to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, included participants who had used cell phone for 10 or more years, and analyzed the side of the brain tumor relative to the side of the head preferred for cell phone usage.
In all 11 long-term epidemiologic studies were reviewed and the results showed that using a cell phone for 10 or more years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same side of the head where the cell phone is typically held.
Few people realize this, but brain cancer has now surpassed leukemia as the number one cancer killer in children.
Australia has seen an increase in pediatric brain cancers of 21 percent in just one decade. This is consistent with studies showing a 40 percent brain tumor increase across the board in Europe and the U.K. over the last 20 years.
And around this time last year, the head of the prominent University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute -- Dr. Ronald B. Herberman -- issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer.
In addition to the widespread concern about brain cancer, scientists have found that radio waves transmitted by cell phones and other wireless devices can:
Harm your blood cells and cause cellular changes Damage your DNA Cause nerve-cell damage Accelerate and contribute to onset of autism and trigger Alzheimer’s disease Damage your eyes Cause sleep disruptions, fatigue and headaches As it stands, cell phone use is only increasing, and it seems most people are reluctant to limit their cell phone use at all. But I suspect this is only because most people are not aware of the risks … or don’t believe them to be true.
Are Some Cell Phones Safer Than Others?
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) recently released a new database for consumers ranking over 1,000 cell phones by the Specific Absorption Rate, known as the SAR value.
The SAR value is a measure of the power of the cell phone and its potential for heating tissues.
Within days of the EWG launching the new SAR value database, almost 500,000 people had accessed the database, indicating very encouraging new interest by consumers in cell phone safety.
But simply choosing a phone with a lower SAR value does not guarantee the phone is safe. Camilla Rees, founder of www.Electromagnetichealth.org, explains:
“It is important consumers realize that the SAR value, while providing information for comparison purposes between phones, is very limited in its usefulness as a measure of ‘safety.’ We are greatly concerned that people may be turning to the EWG database in droves not understanding just how limited a measure the SAR value is.”
Why is the SAR value not an accurate measure of safety?
1. The SAR value is only comparing the heating effect of different phones and does not give an indication that a cell phone is ‘safe.’
2. The power, or heating effect, of the phone is only one of many possible factors impacting cell phone ‘safety.’ Exposures to the radiation from the cell phone at non-heating levels have been linked to many serious biological effects, and the SAR value is not capturing anything about these harmful non-thermal exposures.
3. SAR values are reported to the FCC by the manufacturer and have been known to vary from the reported number by a factor of two across models of the same phone.
4. The SAR value varies with the source of exposure and the person using the phone. For example, if you are in a rural area or in an elevator or a car, where the cell phone uses more power, your brain will get a greater exposure from the higher power required in these instances.
5. Holding the phone in a slightly different way can actually render the worst SAR value phone better than the best SAR value phone.
6. SAR values have been created based on simulations of exposure in a plexiglass head filled with fluid, not a human head, and many scientists consider them to be inaccurate and irrelevant at determining actual biological effects.
As Rees points out, and I wholeheartedly agree:
“Physical distance of the phone from your brain, and less usage of the cell phone overall, more so than simply choosing a phone with a lower SAR value, is probably a far better insurance policy.”
Cell Phone Safety Tips for You and Your Family
Remember, the damage from cell phone exposure will take many years to surface, and there are rarely any initial symptoms, just like smoking and lung cancer.
At this point, you cannot completely avoid wireless radiation from all sources, such as WI-FI, since they’re so pervasive. Getting rid of your cell phone altogether can help protect you. But even if you don’t want to take that step, you can still minimize your exposure and reduce your risks by following these common sense guidelines:
Children Should Never Use Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults for a number of reasons. First, their thinner skull bones allow for greater penetration of radiation. The radiation can enter all the way into the midbrain, where tumors are more deadly. In addition, children's cells reproduce more quickly, so they're more susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Their immune systems are also not as well developed as adults. Lastly, children face a far greater lifetime exposure.
The following image, used with permission from the book Public Health SOS: [see the article for image, its quite alarming] The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, clearly shows the differences in depth of penetration between adults and young children.
Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. Use A Land Line At Home And At Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness. Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time. It's important to realize that portable phones are also highly problematic. Recent research has linked portable house phones to an increased heart rate in people who are electromagnetically sensitive. In some individuals, portable phone exposure as much as doubled their heart rate in double-blind tests. This groundbreaking research has been accepted for publication and is expected to come out around February or March of next year, along with a large number of other studies focusing on the mechanisms of action to explain the biological damage we see from this type of radiation.
If you must use a portable home phone, consider using very early non-DECT versions of portable phones. Unfortunately, due to the lack of labeling, the only way to know for sure whether the type of phone you have is safe, is to measure the amount of radiation emitted. Www.emfsafetystore.com offers a helpful summary of the various meters recommended.
Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit. And the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception. Turn Your Cell Phone Off When Not in Use: As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area. It's worth noting that your cell phone manual will actually tell you the minimum safety range of operation for your phone, even when not in use. For example, the iPhone states the phone must be at least 5/8 inch away from your body or ear for "safe operation." Almost all of them state that the cell phone "should NOT be worn or carried on the body." You can find more information about this in the white paper Cellphones and Brain Tumors -- 15 Reasons for Concern., page 16.
Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient radiation and transmitting radiation, not only directly to your brain, but also all along your torso. The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.
Use a Shielded Case: There are some shielded cases on the market, but you could also purchase a certain kind of EMF-shielding fabric, available at www.emfsafetystore.com. Making a pouch from this fabric to put inside your regular case can help shield up to 99.9 percent of the radiation emitted if you cover the entire phone and antenna. If you wrap most of the phone but leave the antenna out, you'd still achieve a significant reduction in radiation, but it would not be nearly as effective as wrapping up the entire phone. This is a particularly useful solution to significantly reduce unnecessary radiation exposure if you simply must carry the phone on your body. Two organisations mentioned in these articles that are worth looking at are www.powerwatch.org.uk/ and www.Electromagnetichealth.org. On these you can read some interesting discussions with mainstream scientists investigating this matter. For an idea of some emerging impacts of EM pollution on other species: articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/07/Honeybees-Face-Towering-Threat-From-Cell-Phones.aspx
Honeybees Face Towering Threat From Cell Phones
Posted by: Dr. Mercola November 07 2009 | 34,635 views
Studies have brought out evidence to support the theory of colony collapse disorder (CCD) among honeybees due to bioactive microwave radiation from cell phones and their relay towers.
Recent experiments have found that worker bees fail to return to their hives when their navigation skills are interfered by the mobile microwaves. Cell phones were placed near beehives. These hives collapsed totally in 5 to 10 days, with the worker bees failing to return to their homes.
The radiation also causes damage to the nervous system of the bee and it becomes unable to fly.
The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.
The phenomenon of CCD and resultant crop loss were first noticed in the U.S. several years ago, but it had spread to most European countries by 2007.
Sources:
The Pioneer September 18, 2009
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
The threat of losing entire honeybee colonies is far more serious than just a farmer losing his livelihood or you having to go without honey for a while.
Honeybees are critical components of agriculture, used to pollinate many of the nuts, fruits and vegetables that feed the world.
A full one-third of the U.S. food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. The California almond crop alone requires 1.3 million colonies of bees, and bees actually add an estimated $15 billion in value to crops like these.
So if bee colonies continue to be wiped out in unprecedented numbers, major food shortages could result, adding to the current food crisis.
In an average year, beekeepers expect to incur losses of between 5 and 10 percent. But in 2007, U.S. beekeepers surveyed by the USDA Agricultural Research Service reported a total loss of about 36 percent of their bee colonies, up from 13.5 percent the year before.
When nature’s pollinators start to mysteriously die off, it is a major clue that something is out of balance. This mysterious malady has been dubbed “colony collapse disorder” (CCD), and while a definitive cause has yet to be determined it seems cell phones may be playing a role.
How Cell Phone Towers Could be Killing Bees
Early findings pointed to a virus, a fungus or a pesticide as the most likely suspects in CCD, however it’s hard to ignore the research from at least two studies that point to cell phones as a major threat.
When cellular phones were placed near hives, the radiation generated by them (900-1,800 MHz) was enough to prevent bees from returning to them, according to a study conducted at Landau University.
Scientists believe the radiation produced by cellular phones may be enough to interfere with the way bees "communicate" with their hives. Cellular phones may create a resonance effect that interferes with the movement patterns bees use as a kind of language.
Most recently, experiments by Sainuddeen Pattazhy, a researcher and dean in the department of zoology at SN College, Punalur, Kerala, also found that microwaves from mobile phones appear to interfere with worker bees’ navigation skills.
When Pattazhy placed mobile phones near beehives, the hives collapsed completely in five to 10 days. The worker bees failed to return home and vanished, never to be found. Adding to the mystery, parasites, wildlife and other bees, which would normally raid the abandoned hives, would not go near the collapsed colonies. Pattazhy said:
“The navigation skill of the worker bees is dependent on the earth’s magnetic properties. The electro-magnetic waves emitted by the mobile phones and relay towers interfere with the earth’s magnetism, resulting in the loss of the navigation capacity of the bee. Then it fails to come back. Also, the radiation causes damage to the nervous system of the bee and it becomes unable to fly.”
A Combination of Deadly Factors?
Cell phones appear to be a likely threat to bees around the globe, but there may be a cumulative effect going on that is making it more and more difficult for bees to survive, let alone thrive.
For instance, tens of billions of bees are transported across the United States to pollinate oranges, almonds and other food crops. Though the pollination is a normal part of nature, transporting bees thousands of miles in the backs of trucks to a new location is not. Some experts believe this process is stressing bees, quite literally, to death.
Other possible causes of colony collapse disorder have also been pinpointed:
Pesticides Genetically modified crops Micro-organisms that compromise the immune system High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), frequently used for feeding by certain bee farmers Most researchers are pointing to a combination of the above factors. For instance, Penn State scientists analyzed pollen, beeswax, adult bees and larvae and found dozens of chemicals, including pesticides, present. These chemicals, especially when combined with these other stresses, are more than capable of overwhelming the delicate system of the honeybee.
|
|
|
Post by robwhite on Nov 19, 2009 5:55:28 GMT -5
Thanks for your insight md. Yeah, that terms it better - the fulcrum for where balance is is relative to the time of day. I suppose what i was getting at was it makes sense to try and push chemistry the opposite direction during the times of the day when the opposing state is required (e.g. a parasympathetic pushing towards sympathetic during the morning through to afternoon), but not at the times of the day when your imbalance happens to be the right state to be in anyway. How much you need to push chemistry, IF you need to at all (depending on the time if day, you might alreadt have the right balance at that moment), is all relative to where the fulcrum is at that time of day.
If you are parasympathetic, then i agree eating a parasympathising meal in the evening (i.e. light meats, low fat, high carb) would be very unbalancing and probably push you right off the end of the scale, upseting your sleep and cauising health problems. However, eating a normal mixed meal in the evening would leave you in the same parasypathetic state you naturally are at which could be ideal for the parasypathetic state evening / nightime requires as part of natural circadian rhythm. So i think you hit the nail on the head with moving towards a more balanced meal in the evenings. A sympathetic on the other hand could getaway with eating fairly normally (i.e 'balanced' meals) during the day, but in the evneing would need to eat heavily parasympathising meals in the eveing.
Of course, the DCR's would help confirm or refute this theory.
|
|
|
Post by robwhite on Nov 18, 2009 8:14:36 GMT -5
Something that has confused me recently is the desire to balance one's body chemistry all the time. Seems like a stupid question, but just think about it for a sec - the body goes through circadian phases in its metabolism and is designed to be UNbalanced most of the time, so why not only push your body chemistry at the appropriate times of day?.
I'll elaborate.
According to what i've read from Dr Revici's work and Guy Schenkers work, amongst others:
MORNING / DAYTIME = catabolic/sympathetic/slightly fast oxidation (i.e all serum acidic conditions); EVENING / NIGHTIME = anabolic/parasympathetic/slightly slower oxidation (i.e. all serum alkaline conditions).
If, for example, you are a parasympathetic like myself, it makes sense to push your body chemistry more towards sympathetic activity during the day, but, in my mind, absolutely no sense to do this in the evening when you SHOULD be in a parasympathetic state anyway!
Guy Schenker only advises giving parasympathetic clients sympathetic-activating supplements during the day, and not in the evning for this very reason. In my personal experience, i found that having sympathetic-stimulating foods in the evneing actually makes it harder for me to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by robwhite on Nov 17, 2009 12:10:42 GMT -5
I was considering getting the Immrama CD's but i noticed something even better - NeuroProgrammer 2. This package has some cool features such as: o Can create brainwave entrainment tracks that use combinations of binaural beats, monural beats, isochronic tones, and photic driving (via strobes on your monitor screen, or even better, dedicated goggles hardware), and as many layers of frequency levels as you like. There is reasearch to show that monural beats produce more powerful effects than binaural - In a 1973 issue of Scientific American, Dr. Gerald Oster examined how combining 2 pure tones resulted in a rhythmic beat which he called Binaural and Monaural Beats. In comparing Binaural beats against Monaural beats, Oster noted that Monaural beats were shown to elicit extremely strong cortical responses, which is the electrical activity responsible for entrainment. Oster concluded that while Binaural Beats produced very little neural response (because the depth of a Binaural Beat is only 3db or 1/10 the volume of a whisper), they could be useful in diagnosing certain neurological disorders. Isochronic tones are even more powerful than monaural (1981, Arturo Manns). o Can save off tracks to MP3 without any problems (its designed to work even when compressed); o Can add in your own subliminal messages to tracks via mic; o Over 125 sessions for all purposes and brainwave levels, and once you register the software you get access to an online members area which has hundreds more; I'm drawn to this because: a) It allows you to get the same packages offered by Imramma, Holosync, etc. for peanuts (excellent duplicates of these have been created in Members Area for free download if you are a registered NP2 owner). b) Its very cheap, even compared to Immrama; c) The use of isochronal and monural beats is very attractive, because it means you dont need to use earphones. When i'm doing gentle stretching exercises or drifting off to sleep, i find having earphones in a pain in the arse. Using isochronal and monural beats gets around this, and effectively allows you to do stuff around the house / office whilst getting an entrainment effect without wearing earphones. I'm also going to take advantage of this by putting Sleep and Wakeup tracks from it on the Lumie Bodyclock Elite 300 i'm going to get for xmas to coincide with the sunset and sunrise simulation www.lumie.com/shop/products/bodyclock-elite-300d) some of the packages are for sport enhancement and visualisation, which sounds intruiging. I downloaded the free 2 week trial of NP2 here and the interface is great and really easy to use, you guys should check it out www.transparentcorp.com/products/np/download.php. This company also does a package called Mind Workstation that uses bio / neurofeedback hardware (finger-mounted pulse monitor, GSR skin conductance monitor, EEG input, etc) to determine your stress state and brainwave activity, and then dynamically alters the entrainment program to change it to your needs. Kinda fits perfectly with the MT principle of individualising the tool to your needs! You are talking a few thousand dollars, but the idea of being able to accurately observe and alter your stress levels in ways totally unique to you is pretty damn cool. Like i said before, i dont intend to try and crowbar any more time into my schedule to dedicate to listening to this stuff than i already do , but using monaural and isochronic beats seems more effective and practical than binaural beats for my situation.
|
|
|
Post by robwhite on Nov 12, 2009 7:03:57 GMT -5
Although not exactly 'scientific', one posible way to determine herb use for different types is to use the 'Constitutional Type' FHC, in that the Ayurvedic and Chinese Medicine systems have very clear prescriptions of herbs for different constitutional types.
For example, in Ayurvedic medicine, typical herbs used to balance the Vata 'Dosha' (i.e constitutional type) are Ashwagandha, Asparagus racemosus, wild yam root, Mucuna pruriens,Cardomom seed, Long pepper, etc.
|
|
|
Post by robwhite on Oct 29, 2009 9:29:56 GMT -5
Egg nog!I don't have a recipe because I usually just go by feel, but if you want a sweet treat, particularly after training, then what can beat heavy cream, raw eggs, honey, and some vanilla? Or, if you want to cut down on the sugar, use stevia instead of honey. What a great idea! It never occured to me how great egg nog (minus the sugar) would be as a low carb high protein high fat snack.
|
|
|
Post by robwhite on Oct 27, 2009 13:14:09 GMT -5
This document is also something i have posted before, but it is so excellent at explaining physiological tests for Electrolyte Imbalance, Anabolic / Catabolic Imbalance, Carbo-Oxidative Imbalance, ANS Imbalance, and Acid / Alkali Imbalance, as well as showing you how to test for them yourself at home very cheaply, that it really is worth re-posting here as another 'core' read for those interested in developing a thorough understanding of their metabolic profile. www.royalrife.com/hbal.htmlThis method is the one used by Guy Schenker and, from what i've read on testing methods, is pretty much 95% the method adopted by other metabolic typing systems from a clinical testing perspective, such as Harold Kristal's approach (its woth reading the Appendix in Kristal's excellent book and tallying it with this information here to get an even more thorough understanding of these tests). Schenker does also use questionnaires but, like Kristal, places much more importance on the clinical test results. For a more logical, laymans description on how to go through the testing procedures, see here: www.drstuart.net/testprep.htmwww.drstuart.net/testing.htmwww.drstuart.net/ua.htmFor those trying to figure out which of Schenker's supplements tally with the HealthExcel / Ultra Life ones, this is what i have figured out so far: - Oxygenic B = Multi Com 3 / Synergy Com 3 - Oxygenic K = Oxi Com 1 - Oxygenic G = Oxi Com 2 - Oxygenic D = CataPlus - Oxygenic D Plus = Liqui-G-Plus - Oxygenic A = Anaplus - Oxygenic A Plus = Liqui-Mag-S - Complex P = Paraplex - Complex S = Symplex As for the Formula ES and Formula EI products (for treating electrolyte stress and electrolyte insufficiency respectively) i'm not sure what the Ultra Life equivalents are. Formula ES is discussed here www.royalrife.com/0597.html, and Formula EI is discussed here www.royalrife.com/0599.html. Also, in the article it talks about lots of different supplements for the many different types of possible acid / alkali imbalances (6 in total), and i have no idea how the Ultra Life supplements fit with those. Maybe Eric can enlighten us on those ...?
|
|