kamagra does it work

Oct 18

A recent issue of the Daily Express newspaper contained about allergy testing. The full article may be seen here:   http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/204814/Allergy-detection-What-works, (by Jane Symons.)

One of the methods (not Health Kinesiology) challenged in the report apparently concluded: “Dylan was deficient in docosahexaenoic acid (an omega-3 fatty acid often abbreviated to DHA), glutamine, niacin, silica, vanadium and sulforaphane.” The author of the article, Jane Symons, then made an unreferenced comment: “There is, however, no recommended intake for DHA, glutamine, silica, vanadium or sulforaphane, which means there is no such thing as a deficiency.” (My emphasis.)

Ms. Symons could use a lesson in scientific methodology.

In the medical world one approach to researching effects is called the “gold standard” of methodology, namely randomized double blind. What this means is that the participants, subjects, are randomly placed in the different treatment groups, such as placebo and drug groups, with neither the subjects nor the researchers knowing which group is which. However, many medical researchers do not have extensive training in scientific methodology. I do.

Depending on the type of data sought there are numerous valid research design options, and choosing an inappropriate one can lead to very misleading conclusions. Consider this example.

Dr Feingold proposed, decades ago, that hyperactive children were reacting to naturally occurring salicylates in food, (or by taking aspirin). He provided evidence, so a larger more elaborate study was needed to verify, or not, his proposal. A “gold standard” study was carried out, by others, in which a group of hyperactive kids were randomly assigned either to a salicylate-free diet or a diet containing salicylates. At the end of the study the entire groups of kids were compared and the conclusion was that there was not a statistically significant difference in the two groups. In other words the conclusion was that salicylates were not a cause of hyperactivity. So what was wrong with that? It was not understood by the researchers that not every kid was a reactor! Only about 10% of the kids reacted to salicylates, but in those kids the effect was obvious to parents and teachers. By lumping all the kids together, both reactors and non-reactors, the real effect was “washed out”. That deficiency in the research design has probably affected many thousands of kids.

Quite often there is simply a binary decision. Either there is an effect or not. So the questions becomes, “Can we demonstrate that a deficiency exists when there is no Recommended Daily Intake?” This is not to determine how much is needed, but only that some is required. There is a simple test we can do. If we can demonstrate that only one single individual requires a specific nutrient, then obviously there is a daily requirement even though that is not yet determined. This is similar to the original description of the platypus: a duck-billed mammal was so unbelievable that unless one specimen was displayed no one would believe it existed.

After massive research, about one minute, I found a perfect example of a required nutrient for which there is no recommended intake. We all accept that it is required, but obviously Jane Symons does not believe it. I urge her to volunteer to be the one subject to prove my point. Is she up to the challenge.

Hypothesis: Some nutrients are required even though there is no recommended intake.
Subject: Any volunteer. Disbelievers preferred.
Human Subject Declaration: Since a human subject is involved then a Form must be provided to the subject for them to give consent, state they understand the research, any possible consequences, and so on. The entire experiment will take only a few minutes. I was once on the Human Subjects Committee at a major American medical school.
Measurement Variables: pulse rate, respiration rate, and muscle tone. Many others could be used, but these three are very simple, inexpensive, and low tech.
Procedure: Seat subject and make baseline measurements of the variables until they stabilize. Any significant change in these measurements after the experimental treatment begins will indicate we have demonstrated the need for this nutrient.
Have the subject place a plastic bag over their head and seal the bag around the neck.
Nutrient Being Evaluated: Oxygen (or more precisely, air).
Expected Result: A drop in each variable to zero.
Conclusion: If the expected result is obtained then we have proved that there is at least one required nutrient for which there has not been established a minimum daily intake and therefore we have also disproved Ms. Symons statement as quoted above. Furthermore, we have demonstrated this even though the subject knows what is being tested and can make any effort they desire to modify their responses. Removal of the bag would also prove the hypothesis, because there would be no reason to do so otherwise! This is a very robust research design.

Well Ms. Symons?

Jun 11

Important Nutrition Concepts

No one argues that everyone needs to take in nutrients; they only disagree about which nutrients and how much! Since every individual has a different nutritional requirement there can be no rigid statement about what and how much you should eat, in spite of the “authority’s” demands to the contrary. There are, however, some general nutritional principles which do apply to everyone–actually every living thing.

In my Health Kinesiology™, HK nutrition work we can actually determine, energetically, a person’s nutritional needs, and we use these general principles to guide us.

First of all we measure the person’s Diet Quotient. A perfect diet for that person is an index of 100. In our polluted, soil-nutrient-deficient, everything-needs-to-be-processed, crop-spraying-world a DQ of 100 is nearly impossible. If you Iive far from “civilization”, grow your own food, and eat it freshly preprared by yourself, then maybe you can achieve that. For most of us, no way. However, almost anyone can achieve an index above 90. This is established predominantly by avoiding the wrong foods, including junk and the foods to which you are allergic / sensitive (all by HK testing methods) , and by eating more of the especially nutritious foods. These will be discussed in future posts here. I find that the typical hospital food index is an amazingly low 20 or so. Eating at fast food restaurants is even better! No wonder that so many people die in hospitals–they starve to death.

We can determine how nutritionally deficient a person is by checking their “Nutrient Level”, using an Index of 0 to 100. A “0″ nutrient level is, or course, impossible. An index of 100 is perfect. An Index of 99.9999% is a failing grade, because the person does not have in their body sufficient levels of at least one nutrient to fully supply all the tissues. This is because 100% Nutrient Level is defined as the person having in their body 100% of every nutrient their tissues need to function optimally. Anything less than 100% means that some tissue does not have all the raw materials to function optimally. Something has got to give, and no tissue can be perfect unless it has ALL the required raw materials it requires.
Even this concept is not enough, however, because even though the nutrients are in the body does not mean that they are available to all the tissues. Various things can block the cells from absorbing or utilizing the nutrients even though they are available. What can do this? Various toxins , drugs, vaccines, fluoride in the water, chlorine in the water, and so on. In HK, however, we have methods to repair these metabolic blockages and release the toxins so the body can dispose of them. Again, watch for future posts about these concepts.

As some nutrients reach the 100% tissue nutrient level the body can store them away as a “Metabolic Reserve”. At exactly 100% Nutrient Level the Metabolic Reserve Index is 0%. The reserve level can climb to 100%, meaning that the body has stored away all of that nutrient that it can. Developing a high metabolic reserve is vital. Any type of stress will cause the body to work harder, to cope with the added stress. As your body is stressed, as long as there is some metabolic reserve to be used the tissues will not be harmed. In other words, as long as your metabolic reserve can supply your body with the required nutrients everything will continue to operate normally. As soon as any nutrient drops below the 0% Metabolic Reserve level (less than 100% Nutrient Level) some tissue cannot function properly, and you will suffer the consequences. The more nutrients and the greater the nutrient drop the more severe the tissue dysfunction.
I have worked with people who underwent chemotherapy for cancer who were not damaged by the drugs and did not lose their hair, because we were able to supply their body with enough nutrition (starting before the drug therapy) to prevent the massive damage from the drugs. (Radiation, too.) To do this they had to ingest very large quantities of natural nutritional supplements.

The above actually describes three concepts:
Meeting the Ongoing Nutritional Need (for daily activities)
Ingesting “extra amounts” to Rebuild Nutritional Deficiencies.
Ingesting still more additional amounts to Build Metabolic Reserves.

There is a Fourth concept, however, which is also very important: Nutritional Abundance.
What this means is that there is a high abundance of nutrients “just floating around”. The body can grab what it needs without finding it in storage and taking it out then transporting it to wherever it is needed. This improves efficiency and uses less energy. Suppose in your home you have only one of some frequently used item, say a water glass. That glass might be used in different rooms by different family members. If you need a glass of water you would have to go all around the house looking for that single glass. On the other hand, if you have different water glasses all over the house you can more easiy grab and use the most nearby one, saving a lot of running around.

When there is not enough nutrition available in the food you need to supplement the food with the appropriate nutrients. That is why they are called Nutritional Supplements! They are to supplement the food, not replace it. This topic will occupy some posts on this site in due time. Meanwhile, note that many, probably most, nutritional  supplements on the market are rather poor.

Apr 14

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in its infinite wisdom has decreed The Truth about nutrition and human needs for nutrients. For many years I have said:


Show me someone who takes in only the RDA and

I will show you a sick person.


Jimmy Scott, Ph.D.

Why is that? I can think of several reasons:

1  The FDA (and Department of Agriculture) do not believe that whole natural organic foods contain any nutrients not found in other foods and that depleted soils do not affect food quality.

2  They do not believe that whole natural complexes contain substances essential to robust life.

3  They define Vitamins as only one of the components of the entire complex. For example, tocopherol is defined as Vitamin E, even though it is only one of at least six different groups of molecules in the natural Vitamin E complex.

4  They believe that a synthetic single molecule does the same function as the whole natural complex.

5  They barely accept the proposition that nutrition deficiencies are related to disease!

6  The RDA definition states that the RDA is the amount of a nutrient that a healthy person needs to remain healthy. The great nutritional biochemist Roger Williams proved that even genetically identical individuals (mice in this case) might have as much as a 20 fold difference in need for a specific nutrient. That means that the definition only applies to those lucky few who have a lower nutrient need than most. Do, say, ½% of the population really determine what the other 99½ % need? If mice can have a twenty-fold difference how much difference in need do humans have?

7  The Committee who determines the RDA is allowed to “fudge” the numbers to account for any beliefs on their part. This may be good or bad depending on the people.

8  Human needs are not determinable by traditional reductionistic laboratory thinking. BioEnergy is an unknown concept to those who try.

9  Nutritional needs are also proportional to the stress experienced by the individual. The higher the stress the more the body and mind have to work, so the greater the nutritional needs. This is exactly like your automobile requiring more gas to drive faster! These days there is generally greater psychological stress, but perhaps more importantly for this purpose, there is more water, air, and food pollution (not to mention electromagnetic–which can interfere with normal metabolism). Toxins from these food sources as well as drugs, vaccines, antibiotics, and other substances have increased total toxin intake by, my guess, 10,000 times what it was a century ago. No wonder that so many people are obese, sick, suffer from cancer, infections, low energy, and so on.

The RDA

The following RDI’s (Reference Daily Intake, Value) and nomenclature “are established by the FDA (USA Food and Drug Administration) for the following vitamins and minerals which are essential in human nutrition”: They consider that everyone will get what they need if they take this much in. They also consider that there are no other essential nutrients!!!

Reference Daily Values

(DRVs) for Food Components according to the FDA

(These may be changed on occasion, so might not be exactly up to date.)

Reference Daily Intakes (RDIs) for Nutrients Based on a 2,000 Calorie Per Day Diet

* Required on the nutritional label as percent of the daily value.

Food Component           DRV / RDI

Total Fat *                      65 grams (g)

Saturated Fatty Acids *   20 grams (g)

Cholesterol *                  300 milligrams (mg)

Total Carbohydrate *      300 grams (g)

Fiber *                                25 grams (g)

Protein *                        50 grams (g)

Vitamin A *                   5,000 International Units (IU)

Vitamin C *                   60 milligrams (mg)

Vitamin D                      4,000 International Units (IU)

Vitamin E                       30 International Units (IU)

Vitamin K                      80 micrograms (mcg)

Vitamin B

Thiamin                     1.5 milligrams (mg)

Riboflavin                  1.7 milligrams (mg)

Niacin                        20 milligrams (mg)

Vitamin B6                2 milligrams (mg)

Folate                         400 micrograms (mcg)

Vitamin B1                2 6 micrograms (mcg)

Biotin                         300 micrograms (mcg)

Pantothenic Acid        10 milligrams (mg)

Calcium *                       1,000 milligrams (mg)

Chloride                         3,400 milligrams (mg)

Chromium                      120 micrograms (mcg)

Copper                           2 milligrams (mg)

Iodine                             150 micrograms (mcg)

Iron *                             18 milligrams (mg)

Magnesium                     400 milligrams (mg)

Manganese                      2 milligrams (mg)

Molybdenum                  75 micrograms (mcg)

Potassium                       3,500 milligrams (mg)

Selenium                         70 micrograms (mcg)

Sodium *                        2,400 milligrams (mg)

Zinc                                15 milligrams (mg)

It gets worse! Food labels must state the percentage of the “daily need” provided by some number of servings of that food. How realistic are those serving sizes? How much of those nutrients are even absorbed? How appropriate are those DRV / RDI / RDA values anyway?

Lets get back to Roger Williams. As far as I am concerned he should have won several Nobel Prizes for his work. He truly was a superhero of nutrition. When I first met him in 1977 he was 86 years old, and had more energy than most people at 20. He discovered pantothentic acid (Vitamin B5) and named folic acid (from foliage, since certain types of leaves were excellent sources). He will be referred to in various later posts on this site.

Of special interest here is Williams’ concepts of “biochemical individuality”. He showed that when genetically identical mice (as best that could be determined in those days) could have as much as a 20-fold difference in need for any given specific nutrient. If both animals got their required amount they were identical. If one got their need or more than their need and the other got less than their need then the deficient one would not grow as fast, or lost weight faster, etc. The deficient ones did not flourish even if they took in 15 times more than the average of the other mice, if their need was greater than their intake. In other words, you must take in (and utilize) as much of every nutrient as you individually need, regardless of what some government agency tries to pass off on the nutritionally uneducated. (In all fairness, the agency types are the ones needing the education.)

Some of the RDA values are so obviously wrong it is laughable, although it is no laughing matter. The zinc RDA is 15 mg / day. An average ejaculation reportedly contains about 15 mg of zinc. A sexually active man then is in trouble! The retina has the body’s highest concentration of zinc; the prostate the second highest. If you follow the RDA you will go blind if you have much sex! (Oh, what a lot of jokes are possible about this!) Maybe this is related to the dramatic reduction in male fertility in the last several decades.

If you routinely ingest several times of the RDA you will be much better off. Alternatively, a good Health Kinesiology  / BioEnergetic Physiologist Practitioner with some experience working with Nutritional BioEnergetics can help you determine just what your own individual nutritional requirements are. Once you take in your required amounts, and can utilize them thanks to our BioEnergetic corrections, you will become healthier, stronger, and probably happier. (You will likely not get this information from your friendly hospital Registered Dietition. I have never met one who knew anything about this material, or for that matter knew who Roger Williams was.)

preload preload preload