A group of conventional physicians who are strongly aligned with the pharmaceutical paradigm have called themselves the "skeptics". They also have a few journalists in their camp.
Michael Spector is one of these journalists. If you have any appreciation of natural medicine you will have a very good laugh by watching his entire presentation at a recent TED conference.
If you want further entertainment then listen to my interview with Jeffery Smith in which he decimates Michael's ignorant comments on GMO.
Jeffrey Smith, the premiere GMO expert and author of the bestseller Seeds of Deception, and Genetic Roulette, exposes the flimsy rationale, and the complete lack of evidence that tries to pass as "science" when it comes to defending genetic engineering.
Science can, and has, given us answers to the question: "Are genetically modified foods safe?"
But those answers are NOT what industry is reporting, and the reason is simple. If they were, genetically engineered crops would never be allowed to be planted, and GM foods would be banned worldwide.
Smith sheds light on how the deception is perpetrated, and counters the critics' claims that "GMOs are safe" with science-based evidence.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
There are a number of people who object to the information I'm sharing on the internet. Some have a direct vested conflict of interest that explains their behavior, but there is also a large group of people who seek to use science or the scientific method as justification that many of the principles we advocate and instruct you to apply in your life are incorrect.
One of the more prominent media proponents that try to debunk what I teach is an individual named Michael Specter.
He's the author of a book called Denialism and is a journalist for the New York Times. He recently gave a lecture at a TED conference, criticizing those who would dare to question, among other items, the science of vaccines or genetically modified foods.
He goes so far as classifying those of us who seek to alert the public to the potential dangers inherent with vaccines and GMOs as "endangering public health."
It is my position that actually the converse is true, and that clear, independent, scientific evidence exists to back up our claims. Those of us who are concerned about the safety of vaccines and GMOs are absolutely committed to the scientific method.
Science does work. The challenge with science that many people fail to appreciate is that it has become progressively easier for many well funded multinational corporations to manipulate and distort the entire process to make it appear as though science is applied, when in fact it's only superficially being implemented due to massive conflict of interest.
In recent times we've seen researchers being exposed for creating entirely fraudulent research; studies are ghostwritten and researchers are paid to put their names on work they've had no part in; journalists are paid to write articles that are nothing more than thinly disguised advertising, and the list of scientific deception goes on.
All of this deceptive maneuvering gives industry the appearance of being science based, when in fact they're oftentimes far from it.
Of course this creates confusion. How could it not?
But there is a simple, rational solution. And that is to pay attention to the source of the funding, for one, and to pay special heed to research that comes from independent sources that have no vested interest in manipulating the end results.
When you do, you'll find that there is no shortage of scientific based evidence showing a wide variety of hazards that are currently being ignored and glossed over with, in many cases, completely nonsensical PR sound bytes.
Jeffrey Smith is clearly one of the leading experts on genetically modified foods in the world, and his not-for-profit organization ResponsibleTechnology.org has amassed an ever growing number of studies illustrating the grave dangers inherent with GMOs.
Avoiding a Problem Doesn't Prove It's Not There - How Industry Manipulates Scientific Results to Justify "Safety"
"These guys have gotten bad science down to a science. They are expert at figuring out ways to avoid finding the problems," Smith says.
"When genetically modified bovine growth hormone was being tested, one disgruntled FDA employee evidently stole the documents and made them public.
They showed that when Monsanto's researchers wanted to prove that the [rBGH] injections did not interfere with the cow's fertility, they secretly introduced cows to the study that were already pregnant before they were ever injected.
And when they wanted to show that the pasteurization process destroys the hormone that's increased in the milk supply, they pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal. That destroyed 19 percent of the hormones.
So they doused the milk with 147 times the amount of the naturally existing hormone, and heated the milk 120 times longer than normal. Under those bizarre circumstances, they were able to destroy 90 percent of the rBGH hormone, and that's what the FDA reported - that pasteurization destroys 90 percent of the hormone. "
Essentially, the entire scientific method was bastardized and rigged, and used as an incredibly deceptive, yet effective, mechanism to convince people that rBGH was safe.
"In fact, I talked to a former Monsanto scientist who said he was aware that colleagues had fed genetically modified corn to certain rodents and came up with problems," Smith says. "But instead of pulling the corn off the market or withdrawing the application, they rewrote the study to hide the incidence of the problems.
He also said that three of his colleagues who were doing safety studies on Monsanto's genetically modified bovine growth hormone stopped drinking milk after they saw the changes in the milk."
Michael Specter, like so many others, are simply repeatedly parroting the same fabrications despite the fact that the dangers of GMOs are now well documented.
If You Believe in Science-Based Evidence, then You Must Follow Wherever it Leads
Advanced technology has opened a dangerous hole in data security.
Read This or Risk Losing Your Money or Identity Online
Your Private Health Details May Already Be Online
The FDA has finally made its food-rights policy crystal clear. Here's the agency's position, made evident in their response to a lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund:
- They believe you have no absolute right to any raw unprocessed food, unless the FDA says it's okay
- They believe you have no right to good health, except as approved by the FDA
- They believe that there is no right for citizens to contract privately for their food
The Complete Patient reports:
"More Americans appear to be getting the message ... Over the past six months, we've had the popular push in Wisconsin, a state where the regulators have gone bonkers to eliminate raw milk, to pressure legislators to approve making it available from the farm ... [and] a firestorm building in Massachusetts over a ... decision by a regulator to restrict consumer access to milk."Sources:
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
If you try to purchase a gallon of raw milk in the majority of U.S. states, you could be taken away in handcuffs . literally. With the exception of 10 states that allow retail raw milk sales, and 15 that allow farm sales, purchasing raw milk in the United States is a crime, according to the FDA.
Their decision to ban the interstate shipment of raw milk back in 1987 has been declared unconstitutional by many Americans interested in securing their right to choose fresh, unprocessed and unpasteurized food for their families, but the FDA has been fighting back, even going so far as to harass and legally prosecute small dairy farmers and consumers seeking to distribute the milk.
The issue reached new heights earlier this year when the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) filed a lawsuit against the FDA over their raw milk ban . and you won't believe how the FDA responded.
You Have "No Absolute Right to Consume . Any Particular Food"
Last month, the FDA responded to FTCLDF's suit that banning raw milk in interstate commerce is unconstitutional. Their rebuttal contained the following extremely concerning and outrageous statements:
- "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food."
- "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."
- "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."
- FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health."
- "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract."
Since when did the FDA have authority to tell you what you can and cannot eat and feed your children? Apparently they believe they've had it all along.
If you go by these assertions, it means the FDA has the authority to prohibit any food of their choosing and make it a crime for you to seek it out. If, one day, the FDA deems tomatoes, broccoli or cashews capable of causing you harm (which is just as ludicrous as their assertions that raw milk is harmful), they could therefore enact such a ban and legally enforce it.
What this means is that freedom of food choice is a myth if you live in the United States, and this simply is not acceptable. As FTCLDF states:
"Growing numbers of people in this country are obtaining the foods of their choice through private contractual arrangements such as buyers' club agreements and herdshare contracts.
FDA's position is that the agency can interfere with these agreements because, in FDA's view, there is no fundamental right to enter into a private contract to obtain the foods of choice from the source of choice.
As for the agency's contention that there is no fundamental right to obtain any food, including raw milk, here is what the 'substantive due process' clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Obtaining the foods of your choice is so basic to life, liberty and property that it is inconceivable that the 'right of food choice' would not be protected under the Constitution but FDA is saying "No.""
Whether you're currently a raw milk drinker or not, the FDA's arrogant attitude that they have authority over your choice of food is atrocious.
First Raw Milk, What's Next?
As regular readers know, I am an avid supporter of raw milk.
Organically-raised, grass-fed milk naturally contains healthy "good" bacteria, including lactobacillus and acidophilus. There are also several coliform families of bacteria.
Raw milk also contains nutrients, which are virtually eliminated by the pasteurization process of commercial milk. The presence of beneficial bacteria is what makes raw milk such an outstanding food source to promote the growth of healthy bacteria in your intestine, which in turn has a significant, beneficial impact on your overall immune function and health.
However, my purpose today is not to extol the virtues of raw milk. If you'd like to learn more about that, just listen to this video with health and business journalist David E. Gumpert, author of Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights.
What I want to share is that if this unconstitutional ban has happened with raw milk, it's only a matter of time before another health-promoting, life-giving food is targeted.
The FDA never had any grounds for making the sale of raw milk illegal in the first place. Even a quick review of the data shows that this food, which the FDA claims is so harmful to human health, is less harmless than countless food products that have earned the FDA's seal of approval!
In their lawsuit, FTCLDF pointed out that CDC statistics from 2007 showed over 7,000 outbreaks of food-borne illness related to bacteria, which resulted in 678 hospitalizations and 11 deaths.
In that same year, and using CDC data, raw milk was responsible for only 32 of those cases, which amounts to only 0.5 percent of all food-borne bacteria-related illness. Further, there were only two hospitalizations related to raw milk, and no deaths, whereas three people died from drinking pasteurized milk!
They also pointed out, and rightly so, that the FDA is taking an unfairly harsh approach with raw milk. For instance, unpasteurized juices are sold with just a warning label letting consumers know the juice has not been pasteurized, while raw milk has been outright banned in many states.
Is it a coincidence that some of the states where raw milk sales are illegal are also among the largest dairy producers in the United States (namely Wisconsin and Iowa)?
The conventional dairy industry has a very powerful lobbying force. What would happen to the majority of the dairy industry if raw milk really caught on? They'd be forced to clean up their acts, raise healthier cows, and give them access to pasture, as only healthy cows are the ones that you would buy raw milk from.
And this would cost them money . lots of money, if it were even possible at all.
Join the Raw Milk Revolution and Stand Up for Your Food Freedom!
By joining the fight to make access to healthy raw milk a right for all Americans, you are not only standing up for raw milk; you're taking a stand to protect your freedom of food choice.
No one, and certainly not any government agency, should be able to restrict your access to pure, unadulterated food. Organizations like the Weston A. Price Foundation and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund are working toward true freedom of choice for American consumers, and I urge you to get involved in their causes.
Related Articles:The FDA is Running an Extortion RacketComments (71)
Choosing Between Raw Milk and a Dead, White Liquid
Demonized Since the 1950s - Yet Still One of Healthiest Foods Available
Consistently sleeping for fewer than six hours each night may cause an early death. However, too much sleep can also cause problems.
New research analyzed data from 16 separate studies. People who habitually slept for less than six hours a night were 12 percent more likely to experience premature death.
While people who consistently sleep more than nine hours a night can also be more likely to die early, the oversleeping may be an indicator of underlying ailments rather than a cause.
According to The Guardian:
"The study noted that previous research into lack of sleep had shown it was associated with ailments including heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes."
However, reaching for a sleeping pill in order to get a good night's sleep is pointless.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has had data for 15 years which shows that over-the-counter sleep products such as Tylenol PM and Excedrin PM don't offer any significant benefit to patients.
It is currently unclear why the FDA took 15 years to evaluate the data.
According to CBC News:
"An analysis of the data suggests the combination products are statistically better than a placebo but not by much."Sources:
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
One-third of U.S. adults say they get less sleep than they need to function at their best, and many sleep-deprived individuals, desperate for some uninterrupted shut-eye, are resorting to sleeping pills as a solution.
You would be far better off putting your money toward authentic solutions to help you sleep, like installing black-out drapes in your bedroom, than on sleeping pills, as it's now clear that they do next to nothing to help you sleep and may actually make it more difficult for you to get a good night's rest naturally.
FDA Finally Gets Around to Evaluating 15-Year-Old Sleeping Pill Study
The latest news on the sleeping meds front comes from a study that should have come out more than a decade ago. The industry-sponsored study, which was submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1995, evaluated the effectiveness of over-the-counter sleep aids, such as Tylenol PM and Excedrin PM.
The drugs, which are a combination of acetaminophen (a painkiller) and diphenhydramine citrate (a sleep aid), were found to work only slightly better than a placebo -- a finding the FDA has now ruled insufficient.
Dr. Charles Ganley, director of the Office of Nonprescription Products at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the FDA, said in a letter to the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, reported by CBC News:
"FDA has reviewed the submission and concluded the study results do not demonstrate a contribution of both ingredients to the efficacy of the combination for OTC relief of occasional sleeplessness when associated with minor aches and pains."
There is no explanation for why this news is coming out so late, years after the products have been on the market, but really it is far from surprising.
In 2007, an analysis of sleeping pill studies financed by the National Institutes of Health found that sleeping pills like Ambien, Lunesta, and Sonata reduced the average time to go to sleep by just under 13 minutes compared with fake pills -- hardly a major improvement.
Yet, the participants believed they had slept longer, by up to one hour, when taking the pills. This may actually be a sign of a condition called anterograde amnesia, which causes trouble with forming memories. When people wake up after taking sleeping pills, they may, in fact, simply forget that they had been unable to sleep!
Sleeping pills, of course, do nothing to help the underlying reasons why you're having trouble sleeping in the first place. This is likely why studies have shown that cognitive behavioral therapy can treat insomnia better than drugs.
In one study, those who suffered from insomnia and received behavioral therapy not only spent less time awake at night but also spent more time in the deepest stages of sleep compared to those given drugs.
OTC Sleeping Pills May Increase Your Risk of Liver Failure
Many OTC sleep aids contain acetaminophen (Tylenol type products), especially if they advertise pain relief as well.
The NUMBER ONE cause of acute liver failure in the United States is taking too much acetaminophen, which is incredibly easy to do considering just how many over-the-counter and prescription products contain this drug.
So if you have a headache, cold or achy back that's making it difficult for you to sleep, you may have already taken one or more acetaminophen-containing products to relieve your pain and other symptoms, and then take another dose to help you sleep, not realizing that compounding doses of acetaminophen can be extremely dangerous, even deadly.
It's very easy to overdose on acetaminophen, and thereby cause serious liver damage or liver failure. This risk is important to be aware of, especially if you take Tylenol PM, Excedrin PM or other acetaminophen-containing sleep aids on a regular basis.
Sleeping Pills are Not a Safe Solution for Sleepless Nights
When you're desperate for sleep, the idea of popping a pill and falling blissfully fast asleep is a tempting one, but resorting to sleep medications is risky business. There are serious, not to mention bizarre, risks involved.
For starters, these pills are notorious for being addictive, which means that once you want to stop taking them, you'll likely suffer withdrawal symptoms that could be worse than your initial insomnia. Some, such as Ambien, may also become less effective when taken for longer than two weeks, which means you may find yourself needing ever higher dosages.
Ambien may also make you want to eat while you're asleep -- and I don't mean sneaking down to grab a piece of fruit. The sleep eating can include bizarre foods such as buttered cigarettes, salt sandwiches, and raw bacon.
It can also cause you to gain weight; one woman gained over 100 pounds while on Ambien -- and others have cut themselves while trying to chop up food in their sleep.
Sleeping pills, and again Ambien in particular, are also known to increase your risk of getting into a traffic accident. Ambien actually ranks among the top 10 drugs found in the bloodstreams of impaired drivers, according to some state toxicology labs.
Among the elderly, using sleeping pills may increase the risk of nighttime falls and injuries, and anyone who takes them may find they wake up feeling drowsy if the effects of the drug have not worn off yet.
Really, if you're going to wake up feeling like you're in a daze, and go through your day in a state of fatigue, what's the point?
You're far better of finding safe and natural solutions that will actually address the underlying causes of your sleepless nights instead of just cover up the resulting symptoms.
Getting Adequate Rest is Essential
The new issue of Sleep contains a poignant reminder of why getting enough sleep is so important. People who make a habit of sleeping less than six hours a night were 12 percent more likely to experience premature death.
Too much sleep -- more than nine hours a night -- also increased the risk of dying early, although likely because oversleeping is a sign that there could be some underlying health issues present.
This suggests that the ideal hours of sleep every night would be more than six and less than nine . but this is dependent on your age, activity and stress levels, health and other factors. There really is no magic number of hours that's right for everyone, and you may require more or less sleep than someone of the same age, gender and activity level.
The important gauge to go by is how you feel. If you wake up feeling tired or feel you could fall asleep at 3 o' clock in the afternoon, you're probably not well-rested.
Studies suggest that healthy adults have a basal sleep need of seven to eight hours each night. However, if you haven't been sleeping well and have accumulated a sleep debt, you may still feel tired even if you've slept a full seven or eight hours one night. If you have a sleep debt, you may be especially tired at the times when your circadian rhythm naturally dips -- such as overnight or in the mid-afternoon.
The important point is to make sure you're devoting enough time to high-quality sleep, as otherwise your health will inevitably suffer. Too little sleep impacts your levels of thyroid and stress hormones, which in turn can affect your memory and immune system, your heart and metabolism, and much more.
So please always listen to your body. If you feel like climbing into bed at 9 p.m., don't stay up later watching TV or surfing the Net. Your body needs its sleep.
How to Get a Good Night's Sleep
If you are having trouble sleeping, please do not ignore the problem or simply wait for it to go away. Quality sleep just as important as your need for food, water, and pure air -- and there are very simple methods to help you get yours.
Please read my comprehensive sleep guide 33 Secret's to a Good Night's Sleep for my full set of recommendations, but to start, make certain you are exercising regularly.
A Stanford University Medical School study found that after 16 weeks in a moderate-intensity exercise program, subjects were able to fall asleep about 15 minutes earlier and sleep about 45 minutes longer at night. However, don't exercise too close to bedtime or it may keep you awake.
Stress is another major reason why people have trouble sleeping, which is why I suggest you start to wind down from your day at least an hour before your bedtime (but preferably two or more).
You may want to spend time journaling, meditating, sipping herbal tea, washing your face, using Meridian Tapping/Emotional Freedom Techniques (MTT/EFT) or reading a calming or spiritual book to help soothe your mind. Be sure your phone, email, and television are all off during this time.
Your sleeping environment is also important in your ability to rest, and yours should be comfortable and conducive to sleep. This includes keeping the temperature cool, adding in some white noise if you need it and making sure your room is pitch-black.
If there is even the tiniest bit of light in the room it can disrupt your circadian rhythm and your pineal gland's production of melatonin and serotonin. For this reason, I highly recommend adding room-darkening drapes to your bedroom, or if this is not possible wearing an eye mask to block out any stray light.
Again, by following my 33 Secrets for a Good Night's Sleep, the majority of people will be able to fall asleep and stay asleep. However, for times when sleep is especially difficult, these eight natural remedies may also help and are far safer than sleeping pills of any kind.
Related Articles:Sleep Drugs Are Wildly Popular Despite Barely WorkingComments (24)
Nocturnal Sleep Eating: A Newly Described Ambien Side Effect
Continued Insanity -- Sleep Medications to Kids
Increased intake of omega-3 fats, and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) in particular, increases bone mineral content and produces healthier, stronger bones -- at least according to the results of a study with rats.
The findings did not extend to EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid), however.
Researchers used dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to assess bone mineral content in the rats.
However, the omega-3 fat EPA also has its proponents in this regard, according to NutraIngredients:
"Scientists from NASA recently reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research that the omega-3 EPA may protect against bone loss during space flight, a result that challenges the [rat study] data."Sources:
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
If you needed yet another reason for getting enough omega-3s into your diet, you can now add improved bone health to your list.
According to this latest study published in the British Journal of Nutrition, the omega-3 fat DHA "appears to be a vital constituent of marrow and enhances bone mineral content." They did not, however, find evidence that EPA was a significant contributing factor.
NASA scientists, on the other hand, have also published a study recently in which they claim that EPA "may protect against bone loss during space flight."
Fortunately the majority of the public already understands and appreciates the importance of omega-3 fats, although many are still lagging when it comes to actually making sure they're getting enough.
Omega-3 deficiency was recently revealed as the sixth biggest killer of Americans, responsible for up to 96,000 premature deaths each year, so increasing your omega-3 intake could very well be a life saving strategy for many.
The results of three studies published in 2008 also mirrored these results, indicating that low concentrations of EPA and DHA resulted in an increased risk of death from ALL causes, and accelerated cognitive decline.
Are You Getting Enough Omega-3?
Animal-based omega-3 fats, which come largely from fish and fish oils, are not eaten in abundance in the United States. What IS eaten in abundance are damaged omega-6 fats (think trans fats), which come from highly processed vegetable oils like corn, soy, and canola.
For optimal health, the ratio between omega-3 and omega-6 should be close to 1:1.
When damaged omega-6 fats predominate in your diet, you encourage inflammation in your body. And since so many diseases have now been linked to chronic inflammation, this really is one of the most important nutrition concerns you need to get right.
In fact, many scientists believe that one major reason for today's high incidence of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, premature aging, and some forms of cancer is this profound imbalance between your intake of damaged omega-6 and omega-3 fats.
Here is just a sampling of omega-3's heart healthy benefits:
- Antiarrhythmic: counteracting or preventing cardiac arrhythmia
- Antithrombotic: tending to prevent thrombosis (a blood clot within a blood vessel)
- Antiatherosclerotic: preventing fatty deposits and fibrosis of the inner layer of your arteries from forming
- Anti-inflammatory: counteracting inflammation (heat, pain, swelling, etc.)
- Improves endothelial function: a major factor in promoting the growth of new blood vessels
- Lowers blood pressure
- Lowers triglyceride concentrations
You can shift your ratio by consuming more high quality omega-3 fats, which promote the production of substances that fight inflammation, while also cutting down on unhealthy damaged omega-6 fats in vegetable oils.
The Significant Difference Between Plant- Versus Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats
Unfortunately there is still plenty of confusion about omega-3 fats as many "experts" fail to appreciate the importance of animal based omega-3 fats, as opposed to just eating plant based omega-3 fats that contain ALA.
It's important to realize that while plant-based omega-3 fats are necessary, highly beneficial, and should be consumed as well, the evidence is very clear that they are not an acceptable substitute for animal based omega-3 fats.
This is primarily related to the fact that your body does not easily convert the ALA in plant based fats to the longer fats of EPA and DHA. And if you have diabetes, are overweight, have high blood pressure or high cholesterol, your body has even more difficulty converting these fats.
Animal-based omega-3 fats contain two fatty acids crucial to your health, DHA and EPA. These two fatty acids, not ALA, are the ones that are pivotal in preventing heart disease, cancer, and many other diseases. Over 50 percent of your brain is also made up of DHA, which explains why it's so essential for proper brain function and development.
Beware: Fish are No Longer the Optimal Source of Animal-Based Omega-3s
Ideally you would receive all the animal based omega-3s you'd need from eating sea food. Unfortunately, industrial pollution has changed the landscape, turning most of the world's waters more or less toxic.Most seafood is now contaminated with heavy metals like mercury, and industrial toxins like PCBs, PDEs and dioxins. Time will tell the extent of harm the latest BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will do to fish stocks everywhere, as the oil now appears to be dispersing along the Gulf stream.
Because of the increasing difficulty in assuring the purity of fish and other seafood, the next best thing is to take a fish oil supplement. However, fish oil also has its drawbacks, both in terms of purity and effectiveness, and evidence suggests that there may be even better sources of animal-based omega-3 fats.
Additionally there is serious question as to just how oxidized or rancid many of the fish oils are, and there simply are not enough fish to supply the world with fish oil. It is NOT at all a sustainable source of omega-3 fats.
My personal favorite is krill oil.
Krill, very tiny shrimp-like creatures, are the largest biomass on the planet, far exceeding the amount of fish (or any other animal, including humans) in the world. They are clearly the most sustainable source of animal-based omega-3 fats in the world today.
Additionally, because the krill fat is attached to phosphates, they are far more readily absorbed than fish oil, so you need FAR less. And they contain very powerful antioxidants, called astaxanthin, that help protect the highly perishable DHA and EPA fats, protecting and preserving them until they're consumed.
Do's and Don'ts for Bone Health
Now, omega-3s certainly are not the only nutrients that have been linked to strong healthy bones. Here are several helpful strategies and nutrients, as well as a list of things to avoid to optimize your bone health.
- Birth control pills
- Many drugs, such as pain killers, inhaled steroids, Prozac, and, ironically, osteoporosis drugs
- Excessive thyroid hormone
- Sugar and soda (which can increase bone damage by depleting your bones of calcium)
- Gastric bypass surgery
Related Articles:Beware of Misleading Omega-3 ClaimsComments (18)
Why Fish Oil is NOT the Best Omega-3 Source
New Findings About Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Depression