Friday, December 31, 2010

Making Your Own Juice

When my son came down with the flu, he CRAVED orange juice. Since we were home for Christmas break and I had the time, I got out one of our juicers and made some REAL orange juice. I don't know how long I've had juicers but this was the first time I made orange juice at home! I just couldn't see feeding him that worthless store bought junk when he really needed something fresh, with vitamins intact so he could get better faster. Luckily, our local grocer had oranges on sale, too, so we actually juiced them cheaper than it would cost to buy the pasteurized stuff at the store. Man, was it yummy!

You might be wondering why I have two juicers. Well, they both were given to me. I know we should be using them more, but the fact is, they ARE a pain to clean, and with my limited time these days it just doesn't happen. If I were to come down with cancer or something, yeah, I would find the time then, wouldn't I? Here are the two I have, both of which work decently. There are better ones on the market according to reviews, but if someone gives YOU a juicer, accept it graciously and see what it will do!
This is the Jack LaLanne juicer. It worked really well on the oranges. I do not leave peels on, since I read that it makes the juice more bitter. I prefer a mechanical juicer to the "break your wrist twisting the orange on it" juicer because the mechanical juicer removes all the pulp. Plus, it gets more juice out!

The other juicer I have is a Juiceman. It works adequately, too. I was just reading a review that complained that it didn't work after daily use for over a year. Well I'm thinking that's not bad for what these machines do! Obviously, your juicer will start failing faster if you juice carrots everyday, which a lot of people do.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

How to Keep your New Year's Resolution

New Year's Day is right around the corner and you know what that is the failure to keep your resolution! Oh, I know; most people don't even bother making them anymore. I'm not sure if it's an "old age" thing or if society has just given up on themselves accomplishing anything in the New Year, but resolutions seem to be a thing of the past.
Nevertheless, it is easier now than ever before to actually KEEP your resolution! (So if you didn't have one, now is a good time to come up with one!) Whether you want to quit smoking, exercise more, eat better, gain confidence, sell more, make more friends, get organized, or find real joy, 2011 can be your best year yet to accomplish your goal(s).
I am speaking from experience and I can tell you THIS WORKS. Instead of going on about something I've already written about, let me share with you the Think Right Now Behavior Modification Program I wrote about on my website. Whether you actually make a resolution or not does not matter. I know we all contemplate our strengths and weaknesses around this time of year, and think about the little changes we can make to improve our lives. So check out this program and see if it's something that might work for you! (It is!) :)

Monday, December 27, 2010

Flu Prevention and Remedy

Last Monday night, my son came down with the flu. He just didn't feel right, but couldn't explain it. Then the fever came. "Ugggghhhhh," I thought. We had neglected to take our Vitamin D for about a week. The first thing I did was give him some D, some C, and put him in bed. The next morning, he stayed home from school, and I continued the Vitamin D and C regimen, taking them myself, as well as giving it to my daughter. That night he got out of bed, speaking in tongues, and then went into the living room and threw up all over the carpet. As I prepared his midnight bath, he asked, "Mommy, am I gonna die?"
"No," I said.
"Is there even a 1% chance?"
"If there was, we would be at the hospital right now."
That's when I realized why people go to the doctor and hospital so often for every little thing. We have been scared by statistics (reported incorrectly) about deaths from flu, and when kids feel that bad we want someone to fix it, lest they become a statistic. The truth is, the flu does feel horrible, but treated correctly, will come and go before you know it.
If TREATED CORRECTLY. My son was fever free by Thursday. Feeling perfectly fine...ready to This was not a stomach bug, often mislabeled the "flu." This was fever, chills, aches, and delerium. His highest fever that we read was 102.6. That's pretty high for a kid who is normally 97. He also has a history of lung problems...croup as a baby, pneumonia, and asthma (that we nipped in the bud at age 3 with vitamins) so I waited for the secondary infection so many people get after the flu (which is what people actually die from). He doesn't even have a sniffle.
We have liquid Vitamin D at home, so I gave this to my son morning and night. Also, Vitamin C all day. (I did this once when he was 5. That summer he had a fever of 105 and I gave him Vitamin C until he had a really good bowel movement. You can give it until it causes stomach discomfort or loose stools).
I am still flu-free and so is my daughter. If you want to learn more about using Vitamin D, here is another great article from Dr. Mercola:

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Vitamin D According to Dr. Mercola

We've been taking Vitamin D in "large" amounts for the past two years during fall and winter. Though I have two young kids and have historically had a weak immune system, we have been flu free since...I can't remember. Even colds that come up now are gone within a week. In the past, they have dragged on for many weeks. Not to mention, for the first time EVER, both of my kids have been getting "no cavities" reports at the dentist office. This was after YEARS of poor dental health. (See my story on Preventing Cavities in Baby Teeth). So I mention Vitamin D here a lot. It's important. And it's one of those vitamins that keeps getting a bad rap by the sheeple of big pharma. So as long as they keep pushing, I'll keep pushing back. Here's Dr. Mercola's article:

Why the New Vitamin D Recommendations Spell Disaster For Your Health

Sunday, December 05, 2010

Long-term Multivitamin Use in Women Reduces the Risk of Heart Attack

A new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition examined the association between multivitamin use and myocardial infarction (MI) in a large population of women.
The study included 31,671 Swedish women with no history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 2,262 women with a history of CVD aged 49–83 years. At the beginning of the study, the women completed a questionnaire regarding dietary supplement use, diet, and lifestyle factors. Multivitamins were estimated to contain nutrients close to recommended daily allowances.
During an average of 10.2 years of follow-up, 932 MI cases were identified in the CVD-free group and 269 cases in the CVD group. In the CVD-free group, use of multivitamins only, compared with no use of supplements, was associated with a 27% decreased risk of CVD. When multivitamins were used in conjunction with other supplements, the risk of CVD was decreased by 30%. In those that used only supplements other than multivitamins the reduction in risk was much smaller at only 7%. In women that used multivitamins for more than 5 years there was a 41% reduction in risk of CVD.

This research showed that the use of multivitamins was inversely associated with MI, especially among long-term users with no history of CVD. Rautiainen S, Akesson A, Levitan EB, Morgenstern R, Mittleman MA, Wolk A. Multivitamin us and the risk of myocardial infarction: a population-based cohort of Swedish women. 2010. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 92, (5), 1251-6.
**I personally know a woman who suffered from congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy who was rescued by a "friend with a bag of vitamins." The trick is to find high quality, bio-available pills (not the ones that cost $5.99 a bottle on the grocery store shelf.) I can tell you that it takes a lot of CO-Q10 and grape seed extract as well. My friend was at home waiting to die, and that was many years ago. He heart health returned to better than "normal"!

High-Dose Vitamin D Use Questioned by "Experts"

This morning when I woke up I remembered hearing a blurb last week on my local news channel about Vitamin D use not being as positive as many had proclaimed. I missed the news that night, so I Googled it to see if I could find an article online. As I read the article, I realized THIS is why I have a blog to mention these things; for the mainstream people who will believe it without a second thought. Read the article. Just in case they decided to remove comments, I have posted the comments that are there as of this morning. There may be more when you read the article, but here are the first ones...
wbgrant at 8:12 AM December 4, 2010
What is overlooked in this story is that the federal agencies that sponsored the study, the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, etc., severely limited the types of studies that could be considered by the panel. They permitted randomized controlled trials and prospective studies where a single value of blood level vitamin D was made and disease outcomes determined for up to 15 years of follow up. They did not permit case-control studies with blood level vitamin D measured at time of disease diagnosis or ecological studies that use solar ultraviolet B doses as the index of vitamin D production. The permitted studies are generally quite weak while the denied studies are generally strong. Thus, by setting the conditions of the study, the sponsors determined the findings. Many other reviews have found beneficial effects for vitamin D. The interested reader can find such reviews on the Web. There are about 100 diseases for which beneficial effects of vitamin have been identified.
Sunlight Caller at 8:23 AM December 4, 2010
"Vitamin" D is a steroid hormone when metabolized. Because it is a steroid hormone it is orders of magnitude more complex and essential in human function. The most difficult, troublesome medical conditions are often treated with such steroids as either a last resort, or lack of any other medication or procedure which will provide therapeutic benefit.
All other significant steroid hormone medications are available by prescription only. Thus vitamin D, essentially free, presents a problem to the general medical community because it is beyond their control.
Pharmaceutical companies clearly recognize mountains of compelling evidence that confirm vitamin D's obvious benefit in those suffering from a nearly endless list of chronic and acute diseases. This fact makes their profit projections unstable at best. The possibility of widespread use of a low cost alternative to expensive and marginally effective prescription medications is a threat unequaled on their collective radar.
Ultimately the Board has ignored evolution in a comical fashion. It is well know that the human body produces 10-20,000 i.u. in barely 15 minutes of high angle sun exposure. 10-20,000 i.u. naturally, daily, and yet the board cautions that "too much" vitamin D is harmful?
Profits and control are the real issues here.
Ed in Socal at 9:25 AM December 4, 2010
What hasn't been stated is that the "Institute of Medicine" is a Washington DC-based lobbying firm. Members of its board include the CEO of Merck, etc. The so-called study was sponsored and its data provided by onlt major pharmaceutical companies. The report itself was written by employees at Pfizer. The report is clearly a blatant lie designed solely to dissuade the citizenry from taking preventative steps to avoid the very diseases big pharma makes its money by 'treating' with the drugs it manufacturers. The activity by the "Institute of Medicine" is despicable and possibly criminal. The report should be considered worthless, except as evidence against big pharma. That the press reports this as important new guidelines from a quasi-government agency illustrates that the press, as usual, isn't vetting the press releases it prints as news.
AJ2011 at 10:44 AM December 4, 2010
Melissa - it's ironic that you present such a pre-concluded position on vitamin D BEFORE any of the very studies you mention are completed! Your argument is essentially reduced to name-calling as you arbitrarily label certain vitamin D doses as "mega doses" while making NO MENTION of actual 25(OH) vitamin D blood serum levels. It is nonsensical to establish dose recommendations or "limits" without looking at blood levels and the associated epidemiology. See and watch actual scientists from recognized medical schools show the correlation of chronic diseases. They repeatedly show a drastic reduction of cancer incidence & mortality for those with a 25(OH) D level of 40-60 ng/ml, which is (post unfinished)