I am a researcher – not a doctor.  I research many sources of health and nutrition and evaluate the good and bad and pass on information that I believe everyone should know.  My position on statin drugs is that they probably have a place in medical treatment, but not at the level they are being provided by doctors today.  Cholesterol is produced by your body.  Cholesterol is also available from the food you eat.

Statin drugs lower cholesterol by blocking the enzyme, hydroxy-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase (HMG-CoA reductase), responsible for producing of cholesterol by your liver.  Why does your body produce cholesterol?  Because it is critical for your health – it is critical for the normal function of every cell in your body.  Cholesterol can contribute to the development of atherosclerosis – a condition in which your artery wall thickens because of cholesterol and other fatty materials build up as a result of oxidation.  Atherosclerosis is also known as ‘hardening of your arteries.

Over time cholesterol and other oxidized fatty plaques can accumulate on the inside surface of your artery walls.  As these plaques grow it is possible to reduce or block the flow of blood to your heart.  You may notice this constriction from pain around your heart – angina.  The interesting thing that I’ve discovered is that half the people who die from a heart attack have no warning – no chest pain.  Half the people who die from a heart attack have healthy levels of cholesterol.  What does that mean?  Maybe cholesterol is not the ‘marker’ to be measured for heart disease.  Most of the studies I’ve researched indicate that heart disease can be moderated by reducing the inflammation in your body. 

Cholesterol is measured differently around the world.  In the United States, cholesterol is measured in totality and is broken down into components.  A total cholesterol reading of 200 mg/dL is considered desirable, yet friends of mine have a total cholesterol reading less than 200 and their doctors want to put them on statin drugs to ‘prevent’ a future risk.  WHY?  Borderline high total cholesterol has been defined as 200-239 mg/dL.  High total cholesterol is defined as anything over 240 mg/dL. 

Two of the primary components of cholesterol are LDL and HDL.  Cholesterol is made up of five groups of lipoproteins.  The smallest are chylomicrons followed in increasing size by VLDL (very low density lipoprotein), IDL (intermediate density lipoprotein), LDL (low density lipoprotein) and HDL (high density lipoprotein).  LDL is considered as ’bad’ cholesterol and HDL is considered to be “good” cholesterol.

LDL cholesterol levels are defined as follows:  Very high LDL is 190 mg/dL or above; high LDL is 160-189 mg/dL; borderline LDL is 130-159 mg/dL; and, near ideal LDL is 100-129 mg/dL.  It is interesting that two other levels are defined for people with high risk of heart disease. 

For people at risk of heart disease, LDL cholesterol should be below 100 mg/dL.  For people at very high risk of heart disease, your LDL cholesterol should be below 70 mg/dL.  High risk of heart disease is someone who has had a previous heart attack or stroke.  It also includes artery blockages detected in your carotid (neck) and peripheral (arms and/or legs) arteries.  The following activities are also contained in the definition of high risk of heart disease:  smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, family history of early heart disease and age – older than 45 for men and older than 55 for women.

HDL cholesterol has been defined by the following levels.  Poor HDL cholesterol is below 40 mg/dL for men and 50 mg/dL for women.  ‘Better’ HDL is defined as 50-59 mg/dL.  The ‘best’ HDL is defined as 60 mg/dL or above.  HDL cholesterol has been shown to reduce or lessen the build-up of plaque on your artery walls.

Statin drugs are dangerous – read the side effects.  Statin drugs are linked to chronic fatigue, liver damage, muscle pain, nausea, lowered mental performance, cardiomyopathy (deterioration of your heart’s function), heart problems (depletion of coenzyme Q 10 in your heart – which can cause congestive heart failure) and even death.  You will feel older and look older if you take statin drugs for a long time.  They sap your strength.  Fatigue results in weight gain and other health problems.  Are these side effects worth a perceived lowering of your risk of heart disease caused by high levels of cholesterol? 

If half the people who die from a heart attack have healthy levels of cholesterol, why take a drug that has side effects that can do you real harm?  What’s even worse is that doctors are now prescribing statin drugs to children as young as 8 years old.  Should you accept the side effect risks for your child?  Say NO to statin drugs!

So, what can you do?  Many things, but you actually have to do them.  You can take statin drugs and maintain your lifestyle and you will see no improvement in your life.  You must do something differently to improve your health.  Here are a few things to consider:  short bursts of high intensity exercise (at least twelve minutes a day), reduce the amount of carbohydrates you eat – especially refined grains and sugars, eat foods rich in omega-3 oil (fish, nuts, etc), supplement using vitamin B3 (niacin) – consider using a sustained release variety, but no more than 500 mg/day, eat more soluble fibers (oatmeal, beans, fruits, vegetables, etc), and lose weight (if you are overweight).

Choices have consequences.  Your Prosperity Professor, Red O’Laughlin

I was having lunch with a good friend the other day.  We were talking about a number of subjects, but the general theme was health.  He asked how I would define overall health – how healthy am I – or, how healthy is anyone?

It got me to thinking about it – how do I define overall health?  Obviously if I pass a medical physical, I could consider myself healthy.  But is that all there is to it?  I had a Navy flight physical every year for 31 years and passed every one of them.  I also had a dental check-up with each flight physicaland a twice a year physical fitness test.  When I go to my doctor for my annual physical, it doesn’t include a dental check-up or physical fitness testing.  I have to go to my dentist for that assessment for an assessment of my dental health.  I am on my own initiative to determine my personal physical fitness.  So, I don’t believe a periodic medical general physical is the definitive answer for overall health.

 I go to my dermatologist every six months to get screened for any new actinic keratoses or any potential skin cancers.  My regular physician does not examine my for pre-cancers for which I have a predisposition.  This is another indication that a regular medical physical is not the perfect indicator for overall health. 

I personally add several blood tests to my physical each year that my doctor does not specify – highly sensitive C-reactive Protein, homocysteine level, anti-malignin antibody in serum (AMAS), free testosterone, vitamin D3 and a few others.  I will add the omega3/omega6 ratio test to my next physical since it is a better indicator of heart health than a homocysteine level test.  So, the normal panel of blood tests ordered by my physician is not totally indicative of overall health.  If something is outside the normal range, it gives the doctor a chance to order some more blood tests.  But, the typical blood panel does not cover vitamin D deficiency, cancers, heart health or overall inflammation – just to name a few.

I am not asked to do flexibility tests during any physical – like I did in my early Navy flight physicals.  Flexibility is an indicator of total health, yet it is not checked unless you have something wrong and complain about it.  Emotional health is not usually checked either.  I’m sure there are a few other things that could be checked that I can’t think of this moment.

The Navy and other military services require an semi-annual test for physical strength and endurance – push-ups, sit-ups and a 1.5 mile run.  I’ve passed every one of those, but always wondered why the run in the Navy was limited to 1.5 miles.  Anyone can push the limits and pass that test without much effort.  If I had designed that test, I would have set it up to run for one hour and measure the distance run rather than set an arbitrary short distance – but, I’m not in charge of setting those standards.  I would have added pull-ups to the annual tests also – I believe the Marine Corps does have that requirement.

Blood tests, dental, emotional, strength, endurance and other things all determine some aspect of overall physical health.  If you never have a regularly scheduled medical physical – every year or two – how do you really know how healthy you are?  You don’t!  You might feel good, but you can’t feel blood pressure, cancer or heart disease.  Half the people with heart disease die without ever having any symptoms.

If you are taking any prescription medicines, can you really say that you are 100% healthy?  I’ve been very fortunate that I’ve never had to take any prescription drugs except for a specific period of time to address a temporary malady.  I believe prescription medicines add more problems than they solve with the side effects for each drug.  Sometimes you never have a symptom, but read the fine print to see what could be going on without you feeling it.

What about supplementation?  Fifty to one hundred years ago our fruits and vegetables were loaded with vitamins and minerals.  Over time a lot of those nutrients have been removed from our foodstuffs to make them look better and last longer in the logistics process from the farm to the grocery.  So, eating green vegetables with you meals does not give you the same nutrient value that your grandparents enjoyed.  Supplementation is needed to some degree for a lot of what we need – this is my belief.  A deficiency in vitamin D3 or B12 can cause lots of problems.  A deficiency in free testosterone is not good either.  We live in a world of nutrient deficiency and supplementation is a good, effective way to remedy those deficiencies.

Unless a testing protocol is established to test many aspects of your physical and mental health, I don’t think that one test fits all to determine how healthy you might be.  I believe you have to decide what is important to be tested and have it tested so you know where you stand.  Sometimes your insurance will pay for these tests.  If you really want to know how healthy you are, you’ll have to foot the bill for the remaining tests.  Some tests can be done annually and others less often – based on your assessment.

Choice have consequences.  Your Prosperity Professor, Red O’Laughlin

For those who know me and have read my blogs in the past, they know I prefer to do fartleks than to jog.  I used to jog for years, actually decades.  I started jogging in earnest in the 70s – started running 5K (or equivalent) road races on weekends.  In the 80s I ran a Wednesday afternoon 2 mile race at Audubon Park in New Orleans and usually Friday, Saturday and Sunday races – many times two in one day.  I didn’t run to win the races; I was beyond that capability – too many young studs out there running with me.  I ran for cardiovascular exercise because I truly enjoyed it.  I run during the summers and go on sabbatical during the colder months.

I was introduced to fartleks in the 90s.  A fartlek is a sprint – you run as fast as you can for as long as you can and then recover.  You do that cycle over and over again.  I would incorporate fartleks into my running schedule – an afternoon run after work or a run during lunch – about one or maybe two times a week.  I would pick a starting point and an ending point and run between those two points as fast as I possible could.  Your heart rate goes up and then comes down as you recover – walk slowly while you catch your breath and time your pulse.  The timing of your pulse is very critical.

Today was my first fartlek for 2010.  It was 81 degrees with 52 percent humidity.  I prefer both the temperature and humidity to be above 85 degrees now-a-days to run – I love to sweat.  But, today was a good day to start.  Since I hadn’t run since last September, I took it relatively easy – about 75-80% of full pace.  I just wanted to work my way back into a regular regimen of sprinting.  I stretch and then begin a jog for about a minute or so.  Then I pick my starting point and begin saying to myself, ‘zero’ every time my left foot hits the ground.  I start this mental process about six or eight feet before I begin sprinting.  As soon as I reach my starting point, I crank up my speed and count every time my left foot hits the ground.

My first fartlek is 30 steps of my left foot.  Then I measure my pulse rate.  I wait for it to fall below 120 beats per second before I begin the next fartlek.  The next fartlek is 40 steps and the one after that is 50 steps.  Each time I finish sprinting I measure my pulse rate and then walk slowly and measure my pulse rate every minute thereafter.  I have an upper limit that is naturally achieved based on weather (temperature, humidity, wind, etc.) and my endurance.  Early in the season my upper pulse rate is measured between 150 and 160 beats per second.  A measure of performance is to have my pulse rate below 120 beats per second in less than a minute.  As the season progresses and the temperature ramps up to around 100 degrees, the readings vary by very little.  By that time I’ve built up my endurance and I start extending my running times to 60-70 or more.  If it’s a good day and I feel really good towards the end of the run my last fartlek is 100 steps on my left foot.

I drink whole-fruit mangosteen juice to eliminate, or minimize and running related sore muscles.  I’ve found that whole-fruit mangosteen juice actually eliminates any muscle fatigue or soreness, even after not running for months.  I hydrate very well and listen to my body at all times.  I’m no longer pushing just to push.  If I run a really good fartlek one day and the next day it doesn’t feel right, then I truncate my run after three or four fartleks rather than running a dozen or more.

Why is a fartlek better for you?  A jog will keep your heart rate fairly consistent –whether it is at 150 or more beats per second.  A fartlek causes your heart to race upward and then it comes back down.  You are cycling your heart – it puts a lot of stress on that muscle.  In less than a couple of miles you can get an exceptional workout.  Sprinting at full speed is less damaging to your knees.  I’ve never had a knee injury while sprinting, but I’ve had several knee and other leg-related injuries over the years with the constant grind of jogging.  My objective is to get the best cardiovascular exercise in the minimal time allowed.  Why go out and run five, six or eight or ten miles and come back and have no real time to do other things?  At one point in my life I was running 8+ miles after work routinely during the week just to keep in shape.

You heart is able to handle the stress and when you stress it by cycling your heart rate up and down you get a better workout than by simple jogging.  My daughter and grandson run three 5K races a year with me – around Memorial Day, around Independence Day and around Labor Day.  Before my grandson turned a teenager (this past year) he would usually beat me.  I had been jogging and not doing anything different than any other year.  I could finish a 5K race in a reasonable time, but it’s hard to compete with youth.  I believe the Memorial Day race he beat me by four minutes.  I started doing up hills – a variation of fartleks.  I would sprint uphill and then walk down hill and do it over and over again.  There’s not much time between Memorial Day and Independence Day, but I managed to beat him by four minutes on that race and I did not other training other than uphill sprints.

If you are like many of us who do not have the time to spend jogging for an hour or more a day, you might consider adding fartleks to your routine, even if it is just one day a week.  It’s hard to wean yourself off jogging, but you can.

Choices have consequences.  Your Prosperity Professor, Red O’Laughlin

I was asked last month and again recently about why my Prosperity Professor Blog has so many blogs on health – why not just post them only on your health blog?  I told the first person that it is important to me to convey information that will help people improve their lives – in the areas and wealth and health.  Why have all the money you can spend and not have the ability to change your own diaper?  I believe that health is extensively interwoven with prosperity, not just wealth, in and of itself.  Wealth gets you the dollars in the bank – and should allow you to live any lifestyle you want.  Self-improvement goes a step beyond and makes you a better person.  If you were rude and obnoxious before you became wealthy, then you will still be rich, rude and obnoxious after you are wealthy.

Self-improvement is about continual expansion of your personal development – to make you a better person – a person who can help others.  Why not take an active role in preventing any health problems that could creep into your life at the same time you are taking an active role in your investments and business opportunities?  As such, I blog to help people grow mentally, fiscally and physically.  I have a newsletter I send out monthly that starts at the very core of how disease becomes established in your body and what steps you can take at the cellular level to prevent it.  Each new issue of my newsletter concentrates on disease prevention, because that’s where you get more bangs for your investment.

Suzanne Somers has written a couple of books on health.  My wife called my attention to an interview she did recently.  She had many good things to say, but the one crucial item that I took away was that every one of us has cancer (and disease – my addition) in us at all times.  Our bodies can handle the normal day-to-day fighting of these health issues through diet, nutrition, exercise, immune system, etc.  We have on-off switches that our bodies trigger as needed to shut down cancers from growing – or, allowing them to grow.  As long as we take good care of our bodies, they will keep us healthy.

Dr. Keith Black has a new book out called, Brain Surgeon.  Dr. Black is a brain surgeon, one of only 50 in the United States who specializes in brain tumors.  He states that the survival rate of someone with a malignant brain tumor is 32% – two out of three people with malignant brain tumors will not be cured.  Why am I bringing up brain tumors at this time?  Because the environment and our lifestyles actually create fertile breeding grounds for brain cancers.  Let’s look at a few of those things you probably know about and maybe a couple that you don’t.

Thinking back to Suzanne Somers‘ comments for a moment, Dr. Black says that our environment has many toxins that we come into contact every day and our bodies have to neutralize those toxins.  Toxins come from the air we breathe, cigarettes we smoke, pesticides on foods we eat, automobile exhaust (especially diesel) that is near any roads and highways, preservatives (especially nitrites in hot dogs, cured ham, and bacon), microwaving foods wrapped in plastics and cell phone usage – just to name a few.

You have more problems if you work in a tire plant or plastics manufacturing industry because of the carcinogenic chemicals released daily in their processes.  If you live next to a golf course, the level of chemical fertilizers and pesticides are higher than if you live a couple of miles away from one.  Waste dumps should not release anything harmful into our water supplies, but we know that it sometimes happens – less today than in the past.  What if you live downwind for a petrochemical plant – or, from a major city?  There are lots of airborne toxins looking for a nice, warm moist home.

There are obviously a lot of things you can do to counter most, if not each of the health hazards outlined by Dr. Black.  Wash fruit and produce before cooking or eating.  Take several grams of vitamin C or 100 mg of chlorophyllin before eating bacon or ham.  Use the speaker option on your phone more often.  Install a UV light in your heater and air conditioning systems to eliminate mold and other germs, viruses, bacteria, mold spores, fungus, etc.  Take antioxidants regularly, especially when you exercise.

If you can remain healthy while building your prosperity, then you will enjoy it more when you have the time in your life to concentrate on you and your family.

Choices have consequences.  Your Prosperity Professor, Red O’Laughlin

I was reading a publication from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.  The term acesulfame potassium was linked with a product review they were doing.  I was unfamiliar with the term and looked it up.  Ironically, I had planned to do a blog today on artificial sweeteners as part of my series on processed food ingredients that you need to know about for your health.  I’ll cover acesulfame potassium in detail a little later in this blog.

Our calorie conscious society had a need over 50 years ago for new sweeteners that did not add calories.  Initially they were tied to weight loss since you could have something sweet without it affecting your diet.  The field on nonnutritive sweeteners evolved.  Paradoxically, the new field hit a brick wall in the 70s with fears of being connected to cancer.  The big “C” always gets peoples’ attention.  There has been a lot of testing to verify the links to cancer and the overall safety of these artificial sweeteners.

Saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame potassium, sucralose and neotame are FDA approved nonnutritive sweeteners.  These products have been declared safe, stable during cooking and can be combined with artificial or natural sweeteners.  An Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) has been established for each to ensure your life-time risk is minimized.

The best researched artificial sweetener is Saccharin (Sweet and Low, Sweet-Twin, Sweet’N Low, and Necta Sweet).  Saccharin contains no calories and does not raise blood sugar levels.  It is 200 to 700 times sweeter than sugar.  Saccharin is considered to be the safest of the five approved FDA artificial sweeteners.  Saccharin is used in tabletop sweeteners, baked goods, jams, canned fruit, dessert toppings, etc.  The FDA proposed a ban on saccharin in 1977 because it was thought to be linked to bladder cancer in rats.  The public caused Congress to intervene and the ban resulted in a warning label being added to the product.  Further testing yielded no results linking bladder cancer in rats to humans.  The National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health had enough evidence to have the warning removed from saccharin in 2000.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest wants the product labeled because they believe it is a weak carcinogenic and there is a hazard to the public.  Some people are allergic to sulfonamides and saccharin is in that class of chemicals.  Typical reactions are headaches, breathing difficulties, skin problems, and diarrhea.  The FDA has concluded that not enough research has been done to demonstrate a link.  If you have a concern, it might be prudent to limit saccharin from infants, children and pregnant women.

The FDA approved Aspartame (Nutrasweet, Equal and Sugar Twin) in 1981 for use in tabletop sweeteners, chewing gum, cereals, gelatins and puddings.  A couple of years later carbonated beverages were added to the list.  In the late 90s the FDA approved it for general use.  Today aspartame can be found in more than 6000 foods in over 100 countries.  Aspartame does contain a few calories and is around 200 times sweeter than sugar.  Anecdotal evidence has caused headlines around the world that aspartame causes cancer, hair loss, depression, dementia, behavioral imbalance, etc.  However, when over 500 reports were reviewed by the European Scientific Committee on Food, they could find no association of the symptoms mentioned above based on biochemical, clinical, and behavioral testing.

Aspartame has been one of the top controversial artificial sweeteners with over 80% of the complaints to the FDA.  You can find lots of books, articles, stories and testing which strongly recommend that you do not use aspartame.  Testing in the United States and other countries have not found any relationship between aspartame and cancer, specifically oral, pharynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, larynx, breast, ovary, prostate and renal cell.  Investigators examined testing done on over 7000 men and women over 55 years of age and concluded there was nothing of any substance.  The only listing that I could find limits usage of aspartame for people with phenylketonuria, commonly called PKU.  PKU is an inherited syndrome that increases phenylalanine in your blood.  Phenylalanine is an amino acid obtained through your diet.  It is found in all proteins and in some artificial sweeteners.  PKU can be extremely harmful if untreated causing significant health challenges.

One of the newest artificial sweetener to hit the market is Sucralose (Splenda).  It is 600 times sweeter than sugar.  It has next to zero calories and is not fully absorbed in your body.  It is regarded as a general purpose sweetener and is found in nearly 5000 foods.  Extensive testing has been done by the FDA and no linkages could be found to cancers, reproductive or neurological problems.  Interestingly enough, sucralose was discovered while tying to create a new insecticide – don’t ask, but if you must then – sugar is treated with trityl chloride, acetic anhydride, hydrogen chorine, thionyl chloride and methanol with dimethylformamide, 4-methylmorpholine, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, acetic acid, benzyltriethlyammonium chloride and sodium methoxide.  You start out with sugar and end up with a product that has a ‘sugar-like’ structure and a ‘sugar-like’ taste; however, it is far from natural sugar.

The product Splenda is sucralose combined with dextrose and maltodextrin.  These extra products increase bulk, but they also add calories.  People with diabetes should exercise caution when using Splenda.  Some groups are upset with the naming of sucralose because it ends in ‘ose.’  They think it is misleading – too close to real sugar products.  A chemist would have named it tricholorgalactosucrose.  The FDA accepted the name sucralose.  There is a concern for many that sucralose contains chlorine.  No long-term studies have been done to determine any risks; conversely, some claims of bloating, gas, diarrhea, nausea, rashes, hives, itching, swelling, wheezing, coughing, chest pains, anxiety, anger, mood swings, depression, itchy eyes, etc. have been made.

Acesulfame potassium (also listed as acesulfame K, Ace-K and Sunett) is 200 times sweeter than sugar and is used in sweetening and preserving foods.  Like sucralose, no long-term studies have been performed.  Acesulfame potassium contains a known carcinogen, methylene chloride.  Methylene chloride causes headaches, depression, nausea, mental confusion, liver defects, kidney defects, visual problems and cancer.  The FDA has not required additional testing based on acesulfame potassium containing methylene chloride.

Neotame is an advanced version of aspartame that is safe for people without phenylalanine – so it is safe for those with PKU.  Neotame is around 10,000 times sweeter than sugar.  As with other newly introduced artificial sweeteners, neotame does not have long-term testing protocols.

Cyclamates are still banned or limited in usage in some countries today.  They were developed in the 1930s as an artificial sweetener for use in commercial food manufacturing.  They are 30 times sweeter than sugar.  The FDA banned cyclamates in 1969.  Additional research was done after the ban and it was removed in the 1980s.

Stevia is used as a sugar-free product, but it is a natural product derived from the leaves of the stevia plant.  Alitame (Aclame) is 2000 times sweeter than sugar with no aftertaste common to aspartame.  Alitame has a storage life twice aspartame, but saccharin and acesulfame potassium are more stable.  Alitame does not contain phenylalanine and is safe for people with PKU.  If you process aspartame and acesulfame potassium, the resulting new product is an aspartame-acesulfame salt which is 350 times sweeter than sugar.  The last artificial sweetener for this blog is Neohesperidin dihydrochalcone (NHDC).  NHDC is 1500 times sweeter than sugar and has some limitations in its use.  It is approved outside the United States, but the FDA has not recognized it as generally safe, or approved for public use.  Dulcin, Glucin, P-4000 are artificial sweeteners banned by the FDA several decades ago.

So where does this leave you – what choices do you have?  Sucralose, acesulfame K, and saccharin can be used in cooking, but aspartame cannot.  I mentioned Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) earlier in this blog.  ADI is established to be one-hundredth of the amount necessary to be of any minimal concern.  If you weigh 150 pounds, then you could drink 18 cans of diet cola sweetened with aspartame, 31 cans of diet soda sweetened with acesulfame K and 6 cans of diet soda sweetened with sucralose.  Approximately one dozen packets of saccharin sweetener can be used daily and considered safe.

Whether it is sugar-free, sugar substitute, low calorie sweetener, nonnutritive, artificial, sugar alcohol, or natural sugar substitute, there is a lot of confusion over what is good for you.  Just removing sugar doesn’t make it better.  A few less calories give some people the logic to eat or drink more because there is no sugar present.

As with any health concern you might have, not everyone responds to the same product or same level of product.  If you experience symptoms that affect your health, you have many choices, especially with artificial sweeteners.

Choices have consequences.  Your Prosperity Professor, Red O’Laughlin

McDonalds used seven percent cottonseed oil combined with 93 percent beef tallow to give their French fries the consistent and distinctive taste that the public grew to love.  Years later the cholesterol scare took stage front and McDonalds looked at other alternatives to frying potatoes in beef tallow.  They switched to 100 percent vegetable oil and added a natural flavor.  I mentioned in yesterday’s blog that people buy food items based on appearance – their visual sense.  They keep coming back to the same food item to eat based on taste.  Processed foods make up about 90 percent of the total food market.  Natural or artificial flavor is added to offset the loss of flavor through the various manufacturing, canning, freezing and dehydration processes.

The Code of Federal Regulations defines a natural flavor as the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional.  Artificial flavorings are those not contained in the Code of Federal Regulations defined as natural flavor.

Chemically, artificial flavorings may be very close chemically (and should be) to natural flavorings.  If you blend the right combinations of chemicals together, you can approximate the natural flavor.  The real difference is the source of the materials.  Coconut flavorings are derived from the bark of the Massoya tree which grows primarily in Malaysia.  If every time you wanted to use a natural coconut flavor in your food process, then eventually the Massoya tree population would be eliminated over time.  The cost is extremely high to go to Malaysia, extract the bark, distill the lactone, isolate the end products and ship it back to the manufacturers.  The synthetic or artificial flavoring can be made much cheaper without endangering any of the Massoya trees.  It is rare to create really new flavors today.  Juicy Fruit gum is an example of a flavor that was created.

People have allergies to both natural and artificial flavors.  One can eat a whole food – a natural foodstuff right off the vine or out of the ground – and have an allergy, yet be able to eat a similar food product without having that allergy – and vice versa.  We taste flavors and smell aromas – both natural and artificial.  They activate our taste buds on our tongues and the sensory cells in our noses and give us a hint of what is coming.  Most artificial flavors have components of both smell and taste.  It is not unusual to modify the smell rather than the flavor to improve the taste of a food product.  Likewise, artificial flavors can be added to enhance a natural flavor – give it more of a punch, so to speak.

Most artificial flavors are combinations of many chemical groups.  There are some artificial flavors that are derived from a fundamental chemical.  Examples are:  diacetyl for buttery; isoamyl acetate for banana, cinnamic aldehyde for cinnamon, methyl anthranilate for grape; limonene for orange; allyl hexanoate for pineapple, ethylvanillin for vanilla, methyl salicylate for wintergreen, etc.  Some can be combined to give you that special combination that you like, such as cherry vanilla.  Natural flavors may contain toxins and may not have a long shelf life – that’s a characteristic of natural food products.  Artificial flavors have been tested for safety and storage length.  The Food and Drug Administration lists artificial flavorings as ‘generally recognized as safe.’

Some artificial flavors may contain animal by-products or alcohol and may go against some religious and dietary laws.  The Kosher Pareve certification identifies natural flavorings free of meat and dairy by-products.  The Vegan Society’s Sunflower symbol designates products without animal flavorings.  Artificial flavors have to withstand the same cooking processes that whole foods and natural flavorings do so that the end user enjoys the food as it is presented at the table for consumption.

Artificial flavors are close to natural flavors in smell and taste, but not exactly the same.  They are cheaper to produce and store in bulk.  They are as safe as natural flavors for the vast majority of us.  Allergies can start and stop for a number of reasons.  I was never allergic to tomatoes until the late 80s.  I noticed a slight burning sensation after eating a tomato in a salad or by itself.  It took me a while to figure out that I had developed an allergy to tomatoes.  I stopped eating them for a while and tried one a few years later.  Whatever caused my allergy went away and I’ve been able to eat tomatoes ever since without any problems.

Check the labels of foods you buy to see what they contain.  It is not unusual to see ‘artificial flavors’ added, but you probably won’t know exactly what chemicals were used to develop that specific artificial flavor.  You have a choice of the whole food or the processed food product.  If you are having some health issues with a whole food or a processed food, then changing back and forth from one to another several times might help you isolate the specific ingredients that are causing your problems.  Manufacturers are constantly looking for ways to improve their products and reduce their costs.  What bothered you several years ago in one product might not be there today – and, a competitor’s product today might be better tasting and cheaper – all because of artificial flavors.

Choices have consequences.  Your Prosperity Professor, Red O’Laughlin

A whole food is one in which nothing has been done to it before you eat it.  A freshly picked tomato is an example of a whole food.  That’s not the norm for most of us.  We eat processed foods.  Processing add shelf life, nutrients, color, etc to our foods.  Over the past 50 to 100 years, the whole foods have lost a lot of nutrient value because of farming and fertilizing methods.  We get more per acre, but not necessarily the same quality of nutrients that existed decades before.  We see similar things in flowers – the really pretty fresh red roses have no smell, but they last days longer than the original varieties.

We hear health professionals tell us to eat mostly whole foods, or more whole foods than processed foods.  The whole foods are supposed to make it easier for us to maintain or lose weight.  I’m not sure about that – I haven’t researched enough to offer my opinion.  I do know however, that there are many reasons for losing weight and most of them have to do with our biochemical processes in our bodies, not just the intake of food.  As we age our internal processing degrades – becomes more inefficient – and we can’t ‘burn off’ the calories from whole foods or processed foods.

With that being said though, I believe that whole foods are better for you because they do not add extra chemicals (over 2600 food additives currently available to be added to your food) into you body.  Do I need extra sugar, no matter what form it comes in, to be added to a food?  I’ll discuss that topic in a future blog.  Allow me the opportunity to discuss the topic of artificial colors added to our foods.  Color helps us identify freshness in most foods.  We make a decision to eat something based on many of our senses – visual appeal is a major factor in making that selection.

Color has been added to foods for over 2000 years.  Natural coloring has been added to foods for centuries, such as, saffron, alum, indigo, safflower, marigold, paprika, and others to name a few.  Even today, we still use some of them.  Natural food colors come mainly from plants.  Regulations against coloring foods didn’t come into vogue until the 1800s.  In 1906, The United States Food and Drug Act restricted the volume of over 80 synthetic food colors to only seven – those that could be tested as safe.  In 1938 the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act approved 15 dyes and assigned color numbers instead of their common names (i.e., amaranth is Red Dye #2).  New laws have come out in the 60s, 70s and 90s to protect us from additives that could cause us harm – cancer prevention being the primary objective.  Ironically, the term ‘natural food color’ has never been legally defined.

Today the primary artificial colors used are:  Blue Dye #1 (bright blue dye used in beverages, dairy products, icings, syrups, etc.); Blue Dye #2 (royal blue food dye used in cereals, snacks, sherbets, etc.); Green Dye #3 (sea green dye used in puddings, ice cream, cherries, dairy products, etc.); Red Dye #40 (orange-red dye used in gelatins, puddings, beverages, condiments, etc.); Red Dye #3 (cherry-red dye used in fruit cocktail, baked goods, snack foods, etc.); Yellow Dye #5 (lemon-yellow dye used in custards, beverages, ice cream, preserves, etc.); and, Yellow Dye #6 (orange dye used in cereals, dessert powders, ice cream, etc.).

So, by now you might ask yourself, are artificial food colorings safe for me?  The Food and Drug Administration says yes – they have certified them safe for use.  But, like a lot of things in our environment, some people are allergic to things that the majority of us are not.  The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says that artificial food colorings are not safe and want them banned.  The Feingold Diet, made popular in the 70s by Dr. Ben Feingold, eliminated a number of artificial ingredients from children’s’ diets, including artificial coloring.  Subsequent studies have shown no links between food coloring and behavioral problems, such as ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).  Nonetheless, as technology marches forwarded newer testing suggests that they might cause behavioral problems.  The results are still out.

If artificial food colorings are safe, do I really need them?  You don’t really have a choice – that choice has been the realm of the food manufacturers.  Obviously, you can choose to select those foods with or without artificial food colorings added.  A lot of food manufacturers have voluntarily removed a large majority of artificial colors in favor of more natural colorings.  Big companies may choose to use natural food colors in one country and artificial food colors in another country.  The bottom line is that food looks better with color added in many cases.
Have you every looked at your child’s tongue (or your tongue) after eating something artificially colored?  I remember a couple of years ago I had a sherbet from a famous ice cream outlet and noticed that my tongue was blue for a long time after eating.  Did it hurt me?  I don’t think so, but it made me aware very quickly that something had been added to the sherbet.  I have avoided that selection since, even though I really enjoyed the taste – there’s something about staining my tongue that didn’t feel right to my brain.

So, should I keep artificial food colors from my family?  The Food and Drug Administration says they are safe.  I recommend reading labels – I read lots of food labels, as well as labels on many other products – something I’ve done for years.  You have a choice – you can avoid anything with artificial colors and select products with natural colors added.  But, beware of the ‘other ingredients’ that are not specified.  If it really looks colorful, it probably didn’t come that way form nature, unless it was picked and sent straight to the store – and, even then you can’t be sure.  I would be on the watch for any changes in behavior or health – allergic reactions, fatigue, rashes, headaches, asthma, hyperactivity, etc.

I used to run a lot of 5K races back in the 80s and 90s – several per week.  There were local beer sponsors giving away free beer after the races – and I would have a beer or two as part of the post race festivities.  For years I never had a problem.  A friend of mine noticed headaches from drinking beer after the races and gave up drinking the free beer.  It was several months later that I noticed if I had more than one beer I would get a slight headache.  So, I stopped drinking the free beer.  I don’t know if it was an artificial color or other artificial flavor or ingredient added, but whatever the change was to the formula, it left me with a health problem.  I haven’t had that brand of non-bottled beer since then – over fifteen years.  I had a choice and made it.

Choices have consequences.  Your Prosperity Professor, Red O’Laughlin

Recently, I blogged about 7 keys to a healthier heart – smoking, body mass index, physical activity, diet, total cholesterol, blood pressure and fasting blood glucose level.  I gave the official party line and then my comments – whether I agreed or disagreed and why.  I read an article today that really got my attention about how to truly measure your heart’s health.  I’ve been an advocate for a long time about getting a homocysteine level blood test to determine your heart health.  Most people rely on their doctor’s recommendation for a cholesterol test.  Half the people who die from a heart attack have very healthy levels (total cholesterol way below 200 mg/dL.).  If half those who die from a heart attack have ‘good’ cholesterol, why is cholesterol even used as an indicator for heart health?  Some physicians rely on the ratio of your total cholesterol to your ‘good’ cholesterol (HDL).

For example, if your total cholesterol is 250 mg/dL and your HDL is 70 mg/dL, your ratio is 250/70 or 3.57.  The American Heart Association recommends that you keep your cholesterol ratio at or below 5.0.  In the example above, your HDL would have to be 50 mg/dL in order to have a cholesterol ratio of 5.0.  However, the American Heart Association states that a cholesterol ratio of 3.5 is ideal.  Nonetheless, the American Heart Association also recommends that your doctor consider only the total cholesterol number as the most effective planning tool for your doctor.

I’m confused at this point.  If you go to your doctor and have a total cholesterol of 250, you will most likely be put on a statin drug to lower your cholesterol.  Yet, with a cholesterol ratio of 3.5 (example above), the American Heart Association says you have an ideal cholesterol ratio – the ratio of total cholesterol to ‘good’ HDL cholesterol.  But, because your total cholesterol is over 250, the American Health Association suggests that your doctor ignore their ideal cholesterol ratio and only look at your total cholesterol.  Why?

Cholesterol is naturally produced in your body and used in every cell in your body.  If you ate nothing with cholesterol, your liver would make cholesterol.  It is needed in tissue and hormone formation.  It protects your nerves and helps you digest food.  Your heart health depends on the HDL (good cholesterol) to scavenge the oxidized LDL (bad cholesterol) from your arteries.  Oxidized LDL forms plaque on your arteries that causes them to harden and over time reduces the internal dimension of the artery so that blood is restricted from freely flowing through your arteries.  Plaque, over time, can become unstable and can release a blood clot which could block an artery and lead to a heart attack or stroke.  Notice that I said it’s the ‘oxidized’ LDL – not all your LDL that is a problem.  If your HDL levels are high enough – as in the ideal cholesterol ratio – then you have sufficient HDL to cleanse your arteries of the oxidized LDL.  How does your LDL get oxidized?  Oxidation is caused by free radicals.

Statin drugs typically reduce your LDL by 40-60%.  It has little effect on raising your HDL levels.  If I go back to my earlier example of a person with a total cholesterol of 250 and HDL of 70, then it is easy to determine your LDL level – 250 minus 70 equals 180 (your LDL).  If you take a statin drug and it reduces your LDL by 50%, then your new LDL should be around 90.  LDL (90) plus HDL (70) equals 160 (total cholesterol).  Yes, a total cholesterol of 160 sounds great.  But, what about the ratio?  Now your cholesterol ratio is 160/70 or 2.2.  Is 2.2 good, bad or what?  You originally had a cholesterol ratio of 3.5 and the American Heart Association thought it was ideal.  Now your ratio is 2.2, is that better than ideal?  Wouldn’t we want our cholesterol ratio to approach the number 1 or less?  Obviously there are reasons why the American Heart Association chose 3.5 as the ideal cholesterol ratio.  But, you might be endangering your overall health by taking a statin drug that shuts down your body’s production of co-enzyme Q-10 (Co-Q-10).  Co-Q-10 is needed in every cell in your body.  Statin drugs are typically given out without advice to take a Co-Q-10 supplement to make up for the reduction that occurs by taking a statin drug.  How can this be healthy for you if only half the people die from high total cholesterol and now you are taking a drug that shuts down a component that is needed in every cell in your body?

If half the people die from heart attacks have good, healthy cholesterol readings, why is it reducing total cholesterol important?  I don’t know.  Maybe it’s a tradition that got started that can’t be stopped.  I’ve blogged in the past about getting a homocysteine level check (and a highly reactive C-protein test) to get a better idea of how healthy or unhealthy your heart might be.  The article I read today states that the best ratio to measure heart health is the ratio of omega 3 to omega 6.  Omega 3 fatty acids (specifically EPA and DHA) have been studied probably more than any other component regarding your cardiovascular health.  DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) have been shown to affect a healthier cardiovascular system by addressing the negative effects of Interleukin 1-beta, Cyclooxygenase-2, Leukotriene B4, Tumor necrosis factor-alpha and Thromboxane – just to name a few.  If you address these factors mentioned above, you can prevent or reverse cardiovascular disease.

I hadn’t planned on spending as much time on cholesterol as I did when I started blogging today.  I had planned to discuss the omega 3 fatty acids in more detail.  There is now a home blood test that you can take to measure your omega 3 index (ratio of omega 3 to omega 6).  I’m excited about test driving this new test and seeing what wonderful numbers I can generate.  Please allow me the opportunity to research this omega 3 index a little more and I’ll blog more about it in the near future.

Choices have consequences.  Your Prosperity Professor, Red O’Laughlin