Posts Tagged Recommended blood tests

The most important thing that you need to know about high blood pressure is that it is generally not a disease, instead, it’s a symptom of a body that is …

Recently a government agency known as The Institute of Medicine weighed in on the topic of vitamin D. After convening a 14 member panel of researchers to analyze over 1,000 published studies on vitamin D, the IOM made the following recommendations:

• Infants should get no more than 400 IU of vitamin D daily
• Adults should limit intake to 600 IU of vitamin D per day
• Pregnant women should get 600 IU of vitamin D per day

What’s The Harm?

The New York Times, The Wallstreet Journal and other newspapers love controversy. They published headlines such as, “Can Too Much Vitamin D Be Hazardous to Your Health?” These articles suggested that more than the 600 IU of D may pose hazards even though the IOM themselves suggested that the safe upper limit of D is 4,000 IU (up from their previous 2,000 IU recommendation).

Many people confused the recommendation to take 600 IU as an indication that more was toxic. This is an inaccurate interpretation of the IOM recommendations. Remember, the 600 IU adult dose that was suggested is a recommended daily allowance, not a suggestion that higher doses may be toxic. In the IOM’s report, they suggest that a dose over 10,000 IU per day is toxic, even though they failed to provide proof of such toxicity.

What Harm?

According to the IOM, doses over 10,000 IU could cause damage to kidneys and other tissues, once again they came to this conclusion without providing reproducible proof of such side effects. It should be noted that the body will produce up to 10,000 IU of vitamin D from simple sun exposure, is the IOM suggesting that nature messed up?

I should point out that the IOM decided on its position regarding the safety of vitamin D based on the philosophy that because there is little evidence that higher doses of D are safe, we should assume it is toxic. Although I agree that we should exercise caution when taking high doses of anything, including vitamins, I feel that they should be more responsible with how they phrase such caution.

How Do We Know That It Is Safe?

First, let me point out that even the IOM, a notoriously conservative organization, suggests that doses up to 4,000 IU appear to be safe, meaning the research suggests that there is no toxicity at this dose. In other words, if you take up to 4,000 IU per day, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The debate is whether or not doses above this 4,000 IU range are safe.

Personally, I typically do not recommend taking more than 4,000 IU per day unless we have blood tests that suggest that we need more. If, however, blood tests continue to be suboptimal on doses of D up to 4,000 IU, is the IOM suggesting that we not take more?

What Are We Missing?

Unfortunately, it appears that the IOM is not being forthcoming with all of the recommendations from the individual experts on the panel. In fact, some of the experts on the panel were staunch advocates for the safety and efficacy of higher dose vitamin D. Their reports, however, are being suppressed by the IOM. This means we can not read the recommendations of these experts, we are only provided access to the final paper of the IOM. The Vitamin D Council is in the process of filing, under the Freedom of Information Act, a lawsuit to have those reports made public. It makes you wonder what they are hiding.

What Should You Take Away from this Paper?

The purpose of today’s article was to defend the safety record of vitamin D, not to get into the mountains of research that support the use of vitamin D for the prevention of diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and brain dysfunction.

Based on this paper alone, we can establish the following:

1. Vitamin D is extremely safe up to doses of 4,000 IU per day
2. Vitamin D is probably safe up to doses of 10,000 IU, provided you are monitoring blood tests and keeping the blood levels within the optimal range of 50-80 ng/ml
3. 400 IU per day is likely a sufficient dose for infants
4. 600 IU is way too low for pregnant women and adults, even though the IOM suggests that it is sufficient
5. Blood testing is recommended to assure that you are within the optimal range.
6. The IOM provides no definitive evidence that higher doses of vitamin D are toxic; they are assuming toxicity based on a lack of evidence that doses higher than 4,000 IU per day are safe.

Al-Anon – addictions
Vitamin D
Werneke’s encephalopathy
Allergy to alcohol
Vitamin D
Life expectancy studies on vitamins
Dr. Dean Ornish
Tinnitus
Hirschbrung’s disease
Blood test for cancer
Recommended blood tests
Burning smell & brain tumor
Grain
Toxemia & chelation therapy
Forms of supplements & absorption

The double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study found that subjects who took 730 mg of quercetin daily enjoyed blood pressures that were 7 mm/Hg lower for systolic (upper number) and 5 mm/Hg lower for diastolic (lower number) after just 28 days.

Dr. Ray Hinish’s Notes:

Quercetin is a bioflavonoid that is most commonly used in the management of allergies, although it is well known for many other benefits to the body. This appears to be the first study to demonstrate benefit to blood pressure. It is very interesting that blood pressure came down despite the normal blood pressure of the participants of the study. The dose of quercetin used in the study was quite conservative, the dose used in management of allergies is typically 1500 – 2500 mg daily.

(J Nutr. 2007 Nov;137(11):2495-11)

The recommendation was that doctors should now consider preemptively medicating any patient whose blood pressure was creeping up towards the 140/90 cut off point. I remember thinking, “Are these people out of their minds? Now there is such thing as treating a ‘pre-disease’?” I thought. Worst yet, they treat these “pre-diseases” with medications that have not even proven their worth in treating the actual “disease”?

Needless to say, we at Your Prescription for Health did not sit quietly by and allow them to decree fabricated claims of disease prevention. We quickly wrote articles and stood angrily atop of our soap boxes to preach the fallacy of this ridiculous conclusion. Months later, it was determined that this “panel of experts” were actually cronies for the drug companies—having direct ties to the companies that make drugs used to treat hypertension, and now, pre-hypertension. Alas, the word was out and the damage done. Medicine had accepted their phony pre-disease as another medical “fact” that was beyond contestation.

Recently, a controversial article that was published in the reputable Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, issue 3, determined that lowering blood pressure to levels below 140/90 provided no benefit to the risk of heart attack, strokes or funeral rates (death rates per year). In this review, lowering blood pressure to 135/85 compared to 140/90 did nothing to improve the health and longevity of over 22,000 patients in the review.

So, yes, this is a big “I told you so!” It is not our first and it certainly will not be our last! But, I don’t want to end with an “I told you so.” Let’s talk about blood pressure, why it happens and how to fix it.

First, I am going to speak in generalities here. There certainly are extenuating circumstances that could lead to atypical hypertension. These include the use of certain medication and kidney disease. We will not discuss these less common situations in the interest of helping the majority of our readers. This article is for people who have run-of-the-mill hypertension without any definitive cause; this is called “idiopathic hypertension”. People with idiopathic hypertension often ask the doctor, “why is my blood pressure high?” and they receive the dismissive reply, “because you are getting older.”

The number one cause of elevated blood pressure is what we call “metabolic syndrome” or “insulin resistance”. This occurs when we consume more carbohydrates than our body can tolerate. When this happens, insulin steadily increases resulting in a catastrophic series of biochemical events that causes blood vessel constriction and water retention. Here is a quick and easy method to begin correcting this health issue:

1. Regulate the amount of carbohydrate that you consume. People with insulin resistance may want to consider decreasing carbohydrate intake to approximately 20% of their daily caloric intake. So if your daily caloric intake is 2,000 kilocalories; 20% equates to approximately 400 kilocalories or 100 grams of carbohydrates. After the body has normalized, you may be able to increase this to 25-30%.

2. Pay attention to the quality of carbohydrate that you consume on a daily basis. A high quality carbohydrate is one with a low glycemic load. For more information on glycemic load, see www.mendosa.com .

3. Exercise at least 5 days a week for at least one-hour. Exercise burns sugar and fat while improving insulin sensitivity. Most people do not exercise often enough, nor do they exercise for long enough. Commit to one-hour a day, if you do this then you will enjoy improved blood pressure and overall health and wellbeing. Your exercise program should include weight training, walking (or light jogging) and stretching.

4. Eat your fruits and veggies. There is no faster way to help normalize the potassium/sodium balance in the body than to cut the amount of refined/prepared foods while filling the void with fruits and vegetables.

5. Supplement to correct deficiencies and improve blood vessel health. Rather than taking herbs for blood pressure, we want to correct deficiencies that may cause elevated blood pressure. These include:

a. Omega-3 fatty acids – Fish oil is the best for improving blood pressure.

b. Magnesium/Potassium aspartate – Be careful if you are on medications for blood pressure as some medications, such as ACE inhibitors, can increase potassium levels to dangerous levels. Standard dose: 2 capsules two to three times daily.

c. Vitamin D3 – This will enhance the absorption of minerals such as potassium and magnesium while providing other benefits to the cardiovascular system. 2,000-4,000 iu daily.

d. HTN Complex – This formula is designed for those who need to more aggressively lower blood pressure. It contains many nutritional and herbal ingredients to improve blood pressure when the above mentioned measures are insufficient. Recommended dose: 2 capsules twice daily.

Cancer cells in the body
Article – Anti-Angiogenesis
Vitamin D
Cancer and nutrition
Cancer and chemo sensitivity testing
The Primal Blueprint
IGG and IGA blood tests
Hysterectomy & fibroids (Dim, ground flax seed, calcium d-glucarate, broccoli, cut carbs, increase exercise, lose weight)
Milk intolerance
Mushrooms & cancer
Breast cancer

The study involved 60 subjects with mildly elevated hemoglobin A1c. That result averaged 6.2% which would correlate with a daily blood sugar of 128. After two months of taking the green tea, the hemoglobin A1c dropped to an average of 5.9% which correlates to an average daily blood sugar of 119. In addition to the improvements in blood sugar, the subjects who took the green tea extract also enjoyed a slight but significant decrease in diastolic blood pressure.
(Source: Eur J Clin Cutr. 2008 Aug;62(8):953-60)
Dr. Ray’s Notes: Green tea has proven over and over again to be a valuable tool in the fight against many diseases including cancer, heart disease and diabetes. This study just adds to the already impressive track record for this valuable and inexpensive supplement. Although the results of this study were impressive, I feel that if they had continued treatment for three months rather than two we may have seen even better blood sugar control. In this study, the subjects received a green tea supplement that was standardized to contain 544 mg of polyphenols. These are a class of plant compound that has antioxidant and anti-cancer qualities. I personally use a product called “Botanical Treasures” by Natura Health Products which contains a spectrum of powerful whole food antioxidants including green tea, grape seed extract, turmeric, amla and more. I personally take 3 capsules twice daily and this dose should more than meet the green tea polyphenol needs of the body.

The second study tracked 36,282 postmenopausal women for seven years who were on calcium and vitamin D to determine if the supplements would offer any benefit as far as preventing invasive breast cancer. After the studies were wrapped up, the researchers found no benefit from either supplement program.

After the publishing of these studies, the press published news articles which were titled “No proof of vitamin C, D, E benefit” suggesting that these two studies prove the ineffectiveness of vitamins and antioxidants for promoting health. Obviously, this headline is both misleading and ridiculous.

The first study which evaluated the effectiveness of vitamin C and E in preventing heart attack or stroke used just 500 mg of vitamin C taken daily and 400 IU of vitamin E taken every other day. These doses are both very conservative and unlikely to offer significant benefit. The vitamin E used in the study was a synthetic vitamin E made from petroleum that is far inferior to natural, mixed tocopherol vitamin E formulas.

In the vitamin D study, just 400 IU of vitamin D was used in the study which studies have shown is not sufficient to improve blood vitamin D levels one bit. Our general recommendation for vitamin D is 2,000 IU daily and this dose may not even suffice. To properly evaluate the effectiveness of vitamin D, we would expect researchers to do vitamin D blood tests and then optimize the dose to achieve sufficient vitamin D blood levels. Research suggests that blood levels in the 50-60 range are considered optimal.

These studies were both heavily flawed. First, the doses of the vitamins were insufficient to positively impact health. This would be equivalent to evaluating the benefit of 1 capsule daily of amoxicillin in treating an infection when 3 capsules daily is the recommended minimum dose. In addition, using a synthetic vitamin E would be like using a chemical which resembles amoxicillin but isn’t quite the same and then making a final conclusion that “antibiotics don’t treat infections.” I hate to say it, but tax payers wasted millions of dollars on two studies which were doomed from the outset. There is an old saying that goes, “At first a new truth is ridiculed, then it is vehemently opposed and then it is accepted.” The good news in all of this bad news is it confirms our belief that we are in the second phase where the world of natural medicine is violently opposed which means that “acceptance” is right around the corner. Call, me optimistic…but that is my belief.

So let’s look at some recent studies that ended with a different conclusion to the above mentioned studies:
1. Circulation, 2007;116:1497-1503 – In this study performed at Harvard University, 39,876 women over the age of 45 were given either 600 mg of natural vitamin E or a sugar pill for a period of 10 years. The group that was given the natural vitamin E had a 21% lower risk of developing a life-threatening clot and the women who entered the study with a history of forming clots experienced a 44% decreased risk of additional clots. In addition, the group given vitamin E enjoyed an 8% lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke, a stroke that involves bleeding in the brain.
2. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2007;167:1610-1618 – This was another study performed at the Harvard School of Medicine. In this study, researchers studied 8,171 women who were given either 500 mg of vitamin C daily, 600 IU of natural vitamin E every other day or 50 mg of beta carotene every other day. This study was similar in design to the study recently mentioned in the press. The researchers reported that the group who took the vitamin E enjoyed an 11% decreased risk of cardiovascular event. When the researchers only included people who consistently took the vitamin E, there was a 22% lower risk of heart attack, 27% lower risk of stroke and a 9% decrease in risk of death from cardiovascular disease. When the people consistently took the vitamin C and E the results were even more significant.

The PSA is a popular blood test that is notorious for providing shady results, sometimes missing the cancer and other times worrying men with results that signal prostate cancer even when there is none to be found. In this article we will discuss the various tests such as the PSA, biopsies, ultrasound, digital rectal exam and more. You will learn…
What are the symptoms of prostate cancer
What tests are used to screen for prostate cancer
Why the PSA test is useless in most men
A improved version of the PSA test
How to improve the accuracy of the PSA test
Why prostate biopsies can kill you
Why prostate cancer may not be something to fear
A combination of tests that may prevent the need for prostate biopsies

Prostate cancer typically occurs without symptoms, however, occasionally people will note symptoms such as:

Blood in the urine
Difficulty urinating
Pain or burning while urinating
Lower back pain or pain in the upper thighs
Weak urine flow

Many of these symptoms can occur for other reasons such as infection, prostatitis (inflammation of the prostate) or benign prostate enlargement. For this reason, you should be assessed by a physician whenever you have any symptoms with the urinary tract. The likely is that these symptoms will turn out to be benign, however, it is best to be sure.

What tests are involved to diagnose prostate cancer?

The most common tests are the digital rectal exam and the standard PSA, which stands for prostate specific antigen. The digital rectal exams involves the doctor feeling the prostate for enlargement and abnormalities. The PSA is a blood test that is widely used to screen men for prostate cancer, unfortunately PSA can be elevated for many non-cancerous reasons and can cause unnecessary alarm and biopsy. A PSA is considered normal by the medical establishment as long as it stays below 4 dl/ml, however, some doctors prefer to see it below 2.5 dl/ml. PSA that are excessively elevated may signal more aggressive cancer.

To demonstrate how misleading the PSA can be, it is estimated that the standard PSA misses 82% of prostate cancers in men under the age of 60 and misses 65% of cancers in men over the age of 60. It has been noted that up to 1 in 6 men with a normal PSA actually have prostate cancer and in men who have a PSA score between 4 and 10 only 20-25 percent actually have cancer.

The PSA has an alarming rate of signaling prostate cancer in men without the disease. This can cause fear and panic in many healthy men. According to the research, the PSA test can signal cancer in 12 out of 15 men without cancer. This is an unacceptably high rate of false positives and it is very common for men who have an elevated PSA test to see those numbers drop to normal within a year. With this information it is a good idea to have PSA reassessed a couple months later before you subject yourself to biopsy.

To increase the accuracy of the PSA test, be sure to follow these guidelines:

Abstain from sex or ejaculation for at least 48 hours as ejaculation artificially elevates the PSA.
Make sure that you have the PSA test before the digital rectal exam as prostate manipulation increases PSA
Do not take part in physical activity, especially bike riding, for at least 48 hours before the test as this can artificially elevate PSA.
Stressed people are 3 times as likely to have an artificially elevated PSA than non –stressed men. So take part in some stress relieving activities.
Certain medications can artificially lower PSA. These medications are Proscar, Propecia and Avodart.
Saw Palmetto does not artificially loser PSA
The Bottom Line: The PSA is not an ideal tool for screening for prostate cancer. In fact, the doctor who attributed as being the father of the PSA test no longer recommends the PSA saying that the PSA is no longer a useful marker for detecting prostate cancer. In men who are 75 years and older the PSA question is more cut and dry as the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recently advised that men who are 75 years old or older no longer get the PSA test. Men in this age group are highly unlikely to die of prostate related problems The fact is, even if they did develop a prostate tumor they are likely to die of other causes well before the tumor would claim their life.

Other Tests for Prostate Cancer Screening

There are a number of other tests that may help to screen for prostate cancer, however, none of them are completely accurate and only a few are reasonably accurate.

Free PSA – PSA is a protein that exists in two forms in the blood, bound and unbound. Approximately 85% of the prostate specific antigen is bound to protein, the remaining 15% is free floating. The higher the amount of the free floating PSA, the lower your risk of cancer is. The main benefit of this test is the low number of false positives (men diagnosed with prostate cancer who do not have it).
Transrectal Ultrasound – This test can visualize prostate size and abnormalities in the shape of the prostate that may indicate prostate cancer.
Prostate Biopsies – Inaccurate and Possibly Dangerous

Biopsies are not a controversial matter in medicine…but they should be! First, it is important to note that most biopsies are performed because of an elevated PSA, one of the most inaccurate cancer screenings in the medical world. In fact, one study in 1500 men who underwent biopsies found only 10% actually had prostate cancer. Given the discomfort and subsequent risk of prostate inflammation or infection, perhaps we should reevaluate the standards for sending a man in for a prostate biopsy.

Okay, so you might argue that 165 men out of 1500 had cancer and now they can receive “life-saving” treatment. Not necessarily…you see, most prostate cancer is not going to result in death. In one study of men over the age of 70 who had passed from other causes not related to prostate cancer, over 80% had prostate cancer. The truth is most men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime and will not be bothered by it, they will live their lives ignorant to the fact that they have abnormal cells and will end up succumbing to something else.

Prostate biopsies can be dangerous because of the traumatic way in which the cell samples are taken. Remember, localized cancer is far less dangerous than metastasized cancer (cancer that has moved to other areas of the body). A biopsy involves taking numerous needle punches of the prostate tissue in hopes that a needle will catch some abnormal cells. It is fairly common that the luck of the draw misses the abnormal cells and results in a false negative result. If the doctor gets lucky and punctures an area with abnormal cells then you may run the risk of sending some of the abnormal cells into circulation where they can result in metastases.

According to one study, the best approach for prostate cancer screening is:

Digital Rectal Exam to feel for abnormal shape, nodules or size.
An ultrasound done rectally to visualize nodules or cancerous areas
PSA in relation to prostate size. If the prostate is enlarged, then PSA is not as good of a predictor and should not be used as a primary screening tool.
By following this procedure, it is estimated that we could avoid over 200,000 unnecessary biopsies annually.

Article Written by: Ray Hinish, Pharm.D.,CN,C.P.T.

Have you ever stopped to wonder who taught a monkey what to eat? I realize that you are here to learn about the benefits of potassium, bare with me a moment, I promise I will give you the answer. for now,, back to the monkey question, it will all make sense in a second…

I am willing to bet that you’ve never given it much thought because, admittedly, the question is quite ridiculous. Monkeys just seem to know what to eat. Through this mysterious force we call “instinct”, most animals exit the womb and just know exactly what to put in their mouths.

Although humans are more than animals, we do have instincts, like our monkey ancestors.

In recent years scientists have been trying to understand what man consumed when we didn’t have government agencies to tell us what to eat. During this time, approximately 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, Paleolithic man was comprised of hunters and gatherers who consumed a diet motivated by instinct. Then approximately 10,000 years ago began the Neolithic Revolution.

The Grand Mistake

During this new age of human development; we adopted more of an agriculture and animal husbandry practice. I imagine this is about the time when those nasty little creatures called “food scientists” came into existence. A “food scientist” is someone who thinks they can make food better, tastier, and more nutritious than nature.

Although the study of the Paleolithic lifestyle is quite complex, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what kinds of foods our ancestors consumed. It’s no surprise to see that most experts in the area of Paleolithic eating suspect that these people consumed primarily fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and some wild game. If you’re reading this list and feel that this is common sense, that “knowing” that you are experiencing is the remnant of your Paleolithic instinct.

Our abandonment of the Paleolithic way has resulted in a number of harmful and even life-threatening nutrient deficiencies…

Potassium Deficiency and the Benefits of Potassium

One nutrient that many scientists believe was much more abundant in our diet during Paleolithic times was potassium.

The Stone Age humans likely consume approximately 15 grams of potassium on a daily basis. Compare that to the recommended daily allowance of 4.7 grams per day. A ridiculously low level, I may add, that most of us never achieve.

In addition to a deficiency of potassium, the average American consumes a large excess of sodium. The sodium to potassium ratio is important for proper function of the body; when this ratio gets imbalanced the body suffers. Our Stone Age ancestors only consumed less than a gram of sodium (0.6 g) and it is estimated that the average American now consumes approximately 3.5 g of sodium and an embarrassing 2.8 g of potassium.

Why Should We Be Concerned With Our Sodium/Potassium Balance?

The balance of sodium and potassium is crucial for the function many cellular systems; some signs of potassium deficiency include:

1. Fatigue
2. Heart arrhythmias
3. Heart failure
4. Muscle weakness
5. Constipation
6. Delayed emptying of the stomach

Isn’t Potassium Dangerous?

Contrary to popular belief, potassium is a safe nutrient when taken properly. In healthy adults without heart or kidney problems, daily potassium intake should not exceed 8 grams.

If you suffer with kidney and/or heart disease, or you are on certain medications for blood pressure, potassium toxicity can occur at lower dose. For this latter group, ask your doctor before taking potassium supplements.

When supplementing with potassium, you must take into account how much potassium you are taking in through diet. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish, legumes are all good sources of potassium. It is possible to get sufficient potassium levels from your diet, however, it requires discipline and a hefty appetite for fruits and vegetables.

For the rest of us, supplementation may be required in order to achieve healthy potassium levels.

Who’s At Risk of Potassium Deficiency?

Before we get into the benefits of potassium, let’s talk about the risks of potassium deficiency.

It is important to realize that certain lifestyle habits, medications, and conditions can lead to an increased risk of potassium deficiency, these include:

1. The use of diuretics
2. Diarrhea or vomiting
3. Chronic dieting
4. Chronic kidney failure
5. Magnesium deficiency
6. Strenuous exercise

Keep these variables in mind when considering supplementation. See our Daily Potassium Requirements for Optimal Health for more information on supplementing with potassium.

What Are the Benefits of Potassium?

Potassium is essential for regulating fluid balance, acidity within the body, blood pressure, and muscle function. There are numerous outward benefits of supplementing with potassium, including:

1. Lowering blood pressure – An analysis of 33 published studies have demonstrated potassium supplementation to be of benefit in people who suffer with hypertension. The effective dose used in the research was 2,400 mg daily. (JAMA 1997;277:1624–32
2. Protection from Cardiac Arrhythmias – Studies show that people with low potassium levels are at a heightened risk of arrhythmia. Supplementation with 1,000 mg of potassium was shown to decrease the risk of arrhythmias in people who were prescribed a potassium-depleting blood pressure medication called hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). (Int J Cardiol 1989;25:93–8)
3. Prolonged life and Improved Quality of life – One study demonstrated that men who consumed high levels of potassium had a longer life. More importantly, those with higher potassium intake enjoyed an improved quality of life. See the article: Potassium for a Longer and Healthier Life – Benefits of Potassium for Seniors
4. Improved energy – Electrolytes, such as potassium, can allow the body to manufacture needed energy. Potassium deficiency can cause physical and mental exhaustion.
5. End to muscle cramps and charlie horses – Potassium deficiency can promote muscle cramps, as can calcium or magnesium deficiency.