HealthBeat News

Category: Health Questions

  • Pregnancy Risks With Flax?

    By Nurse Mark

    There is no natural substance so good that it cannot be overdone!

    And there is no substance, natural or otherwise that cannot have an alarming article written about it based on someone’s reading of a tangentially related research study!

    We get letters… frequently they are from folks who have seen some alarming little tidbit in some article or other and they are now suddenly worried – understandably so, since they are taking the substance that is in question in the cautionary article.

    Here is the note we received:

    Hi there,  My daughter just sent me the link below to an article about flax seed.  I am curious as to your thoughts on what this writer expresses.  Birgitta

    http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2009/03/flax-seed-and-oil-phytoestrogens-phytic-acid-and-pregnancy-risks.html

    something to keep in mind, especially with the oil. I’m still going to make the bread and eat it, but I don’t think the
    amount of ground flax in there is high enough to make me nervous.

    And here is Dr. Myatt’s reply:

    Hi Birgitta:

    We’ve talked about flax and phytoestrogens before, but here’s the short course.

    LOTS of foods have mild estrogenic properties, most of which are protective against stronger estrogens in the environment. And lots of foods have some anti-nutrients. Soy is one of the worst.

    At recommended doses these are really "non issues."

    Also, there are a long list of things not to do when pregnant; pregnancy is an entire different metabolic circumstance than non-pregnant. Heck, in natural medicine we often use a tablespoon or two of castor oil to stimulate contractions, but yes, any oils might start labor.

    All in all, there’s nothing new in this article and nothing that contradicts the way in which I advise people to use flax.

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    Like Dr. Myatt, I reviewed the article – a nice article, but one that looks to be written by a layperson. This person has read a single study from Canada (not a country that is especially friendly toward natural solutions over pharmacology) which offers a rather alarming headline – as seen here:

    Pregnant women consuming flaxseed oil have high risk of premature birth

    Université de Montréal study looks at the dangers of some natural products

    A study has found that the risks of a premature birth quadruple if flaxseed oil is consumed in the last two trimesters of pregnancy. The research was conducted by Professor Anick Bérard of the Université de Montréal’s Faculty of Pharmacy and the Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Center and Master’s student Krystel Moussally.

    In Canada, 50 percent of pregnant women take prescription medication. Yet many of them prefer to use natural health products during the pregnancy. "We believe these products to be safe because they are natural. But in reality, they are chemical products and we don’t know many of the risks and benefits of these products contrarily to medication," says Bérard.

    Bérard and Moussally set out to conduct one of the largest studies ever undertaken on by analyzing data from 3354 Quebec women. The first part of the research established that close to 10 percent of women between 1998 and 2003 used natural health products during their pregnancy. Before and after pregnancy they were respectively 15 and 14 percent to use these products. The increase means that about a third of women consuming natural health products stopped during the pregnancy.

    The most consumed natural health products by pregnant women are chamomile (19 percent), green tea (17 percent), peppered mint (12 percent), and flaxseed oil (12 percent). Bérard and Moussally correlated these products to premature births and only one product had a very strong correlation: flaxseed oil.

    "In the general population, the average rate of premature births is 2 to 3 percent. But for women consuming flaxseed oil in their last two trimesters that number jumps up to 12 percent," says Bérard. "It’s an enormous risk."

    The correlation existed only with flaxseed oil, yet women consuming the actual seed were unaffected. Even if more studies must be undertaken to verify these results, Bérard recommends caution when it comes to consuming flaxseed oil.

    If we read this article carefully we see that the researcher (who is not a doctor but rather a "professor") looks to have a bit of a bias against natural products to begin with. We then see that amounts of flax oil consumed by the subjects of this study are not given and that the risks are increased for those taking this unknown amount during the last few weeks of pregnancy. Finally, there is the somewhat grudging admission that this effect was seen in women consuming this unknown amount of flax oil – and not those using flax seed.

    So, I am left to wonder if this effect is the same effect that might be seen with the consumption of any amount of any oil during the late stages of pregnancy. As Dr. Myatt mentioned in her note to Birgitta a couple of tablespoons of castor oil is a time-honored natural way of stimulating the contractions of labor – and  a dose of oil taken too early could possibly stimulate the premature labor of the researchers headline…

    The bottom line?

    There are two: All things in moderation. And, pregnancy changes the rules – proceed with caution and with the assistance of a good holistic / naturopathic physician to ensure a happy and healthy outcome for all!

  • Stevia – "We Told You So!"

    Deborah from Oklahoma wrote recently to ask:

    Do you have a take on this Truvia sweetener?

    Well, as a matter of fact we do have a take on it!

    I wrote about the future of stevia a little while ago in Another Chance For Stevia – where I predicted that this natural sweetener was getting ready to have a new lease on life as far as the FDA is concerned.

    You see, I had noticed the rumblings in the financial news – certain stocks were going up, based on the work of the American Industrial giants Coca Cola and Pepsico who were preparing to market their own patented versions of the age-old natural sweetener.

    I predicted that as soon as these industrial giants made it known to the FDA that they wanted no regulatory resistance to their new products then the "natural" forms of stevia would also have to be "recognized" to be safe since the new, patented sweeteners Truvia and PureVia are nothing more than isolates of natural stevia. My understanding is that the substances are not patented, the process for obtaining the substance is patented.

    So, what’s my take? I think it is great news that Coca Cola and Pepsico have listened to consumer demand and that the FDA is finally forced to listen to good sense – perhaps now Americans can begin to turn away from the toxic synthetic sweeteners marketed by the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and enjoy some nice, sweet, natural stevia.

    Are the new, patented sweeteners Truvia and PureVia going to prove to be safe over the long haul? My first reaction is to say "yes" – though with any substance that is isolated from the natural substance there is a risk that by isolating one small part of it we may be discarding another important part that somehow serves to prevent harm. The natural "sweet leaf" stevia has a history of safe use that spans thousands of years – Truvia and PureVia can’t say the same thing though there should be no reason for them not to be just as safe.

    Here at the Wellness Club we’ll continue to use natural stevia – but it sure is a pleasure to be able to find stevia in it’s natural form and it’s new patented forms on the shelves of our local grocery store! Coca Cola and Pepsico have given stevia it’s freedom and respect back.

    Thank you Coca Cola and Pepsico – did you ever think you would hear us say that here?

  • A Great New Wellness Club Service For You!

    New – Brief Medical Consultations by Telephone.

    Get Fast, Professional Answers To Your Most Pressing Health Questions

    Do you need a few medical questions answered but don’t want or need a full patient consultation – complete with in-depth case study, research, and written recommendations – at this time?

    A Brief Phone Consultation with Dr. Myatt may be all you need to get your questions answered.

    Dr. Myatt is now available for brief telephone consultations. Each 15-minute increment costs only $40, and many people find that a single 15-minute session with Dr. Myatt is sufficient to get their most pressing questions answered.

    • Struggling to understand hormone balance?
    • Wrestling with weight loss and wondering about the benefits and risks of the different diets?
    • Want the straight scoop on cancer treatments?
    • Wondering what the latest research is on diabetes treatments and how it affects you?
    • Need to know the truth about cholesterol or blood pressure?
    • Want to hear an honest opinion of the latest "miracle" juice or vitamin or supplement?

    The answers to these questions and many more are just an inexpensive phone call away.

    Knowledge is power. Knowledge is also your key to good health. Don’t deprive yourself of valuable knowledge any longer!

    Please visit our website here: Brief Medical Consultations  for more information on how this great new service works for you and to book your Brief Medical Consultation now!

  • What’s Old Is New Again – Can You Say "Chia Pet?"

    What’s Old Is New Again – Can You Say "Chia Pet?"

    By Nurse Mark

    There’s a New Kid On The Fiber Block… and his name is Salba.

     

    Like you, our email has been bombarded with ads and claims and articles and come-on’s for what is being touted as being a miracle food.

    Well, I decided to do a little research – because we don’t carry this "New Miracle Food" and I wanted to be sure that we were not missing out on something that would benefit our patients and customers.

    You see, we had looked at Salba previously, and found that in our opinion it didn’t have any clear advantages over tried-and-true flax seed. Yet now, with ad after ad and with pseudo-scientific "come-on’s" breathlessly trumpeting the wonders of this new offering, I just had to be sure.

    I looked up Salba – it turns out that "Salba" is a made-up name; a trade name for Salvia hispanica which is also known more traditionally (and popularly) as Chia Seed. Yep, the same stuff that your Chia Pet grows from… You won’t find Salba listed in the USDA Nutritional Database, but you will find Chia seed. I then looked up Flax seed in the USDA Nutritional Database – I really wanted to be sure I was making a true comparison, with data from a respected source, so that I could be sure I was comparing apples and apples – not apples and oranges.

    Various of these ads glowingly proclaim that "Salba’s nutritional content leaves flaxseed in the dust. Gram for gram, it’s got more Omega 3, more fiber and way more calcium and magnesium." That really got my attention.

    Is that fact I wondered? Well, let’s look at the advertising hype, and at the facts, according to the USDA:

    More Omega 3? Nope – according to the USDA figures, Flax beats Salba for Omega 3’s by a pretty good margin.

    More Fiber? Yes, Salba does have a little more fiber per 100 grams – but at what cost? Salba’s 37.7 grams of fiber comes at the price of 43.85 grams of carbohydrates – while flax, with 27.3 grams of fiber will cost you only 28.88 grams of carbs – much closer to the ideal 1:1 ratio of fiber to carbs. This might not make a difference if your weight is ideal, but it sure could make a big difference if you are on a low-carb diet…

    Calcium? Yes, Salba has more. ‘Way more. But should you rely on this for your daily calcium intake? Not hardly! We recommend at least 1000 mg of calcium daily, more for post-menopausal women. Our Maxi Multi contains 1000 mg of calcium and everybody should be taking Maxi Multi (or an equivalent multiple vitamin) every day.

    Magnesium? Well, the USDA for some reason has not listed magnesium for chia (Salba) but looking at a Salba industry website (you knew that there would be a Salba growing industry didn’t you… complete with growers "organizations" and lobby groups and advertising campaigns…) it looks like, according to their figures Salba has 383 mg of magnesium per 100 grams. The USDA does list this important mineral for flax seed – at 392 mg per 100 grams. Hmmm… sounds like somebody’s math is off just a little bit… but again, neither food should be relied upon for one’s daily intake of this mineral.

    Better taste? That’s an opinion call, but we haven’t heard any complaints about the mild, buttery taste of flax.

    Salba keeps for up to 5 years. So does Flax seed. But why would you keep something around that long without using it?

    So what else is there to compare? Well, most of these ads tout the protein content of Salba – proclaiming "more protein than soy!" Well, so does flax. In fact, flax has over 3 grams more protein per 100 grams that Salba!

    As for other nutrients, Salba claims to provide a whole bunch of goodness in the form of antioxidants and other valuable micronutrients – but then so does flax. Flax even provides a surprising 651 mcg of eye-healthy Lutein + zeaxanthin per 100 grams – something that Salba does not claim.

    So what does Salba do that flax doesn’t? It costs more!

    One popular and respected internet source is selling Salba seed in 444gm (just less than 1 lb) bottles for $29.95. Yikes!

    Flax seed can be found on our website at $6.49 per pound.

    Let’s see: Salba = $29.95 per pound, flax = 6.49 per pound.

    So, is Salba bad or worthless? Of course not! It is a fine and valuable food, both nutrient and fiber rich. But then so is flax.

    Is it worth over four-and-a-half times the cost of flax? Not in our opinion!

    We are also "Endorsing Birdseed" – in the form of flax seed. We’ll leave the chia seed in the Chia Pets where it belongs.

    The chia seeds do have one benefit though – when they sprout on your Chia Pet they can be picked and eaten – they make a tasty addition to a fresh salad…

     

    Nutrient Salba per 100 gm Flax per 100 gm
    Energy 490 Kcal 534 Kcal
    Carbohydrate 43.85 gm 28.88 gm
    Protein 15.62 gm 18.29 gm
    Fiber 37.7 gm 27.3 gm
    Omega 3 (18:3) 17.550 gm 22.813 gm
    Omega 6 (18:2) 5.785 gm 5.903 gm
    Omega 9 (18:1) 2.007 gm 7.359 gm
    Calcium 631 mg 255 mg
    Phosphorus 948 mg 642 mg
    Potassium 160 mg 813 mg
    Zinc 3.49 mg 4.34 mg

    All figures in this table are taken from the USDA National Nutrient Database http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/index.html

  • Antibiotics For Everything! A pill For Every Ill!

    How "Drug Resistant" Superbugs Are Born…

    Commentary by Nurse Mark

    Here is an interesting series of correspondence, and one that shows just how well the drug companies have conditioned us to believe that the only answer for any malady is a prescription drug, and just how casual conventional medicine practitioners have become about prescribing powerful drugs. This woman recently wrote in with the following question:

    Dr. Myatt:
    I Hope all is well with you and your family.  Fortunately for me, all I have is blood in my urine, burning sensation when urinating and bubbles (clouds) in my urine.  I don’t think this is serious yet.  But if it goes untreated, it can be deadly.  I do not have any medical insurance and due to the economy, my business is not bringing in income.  I cannot find a job. Q = Is there an antibiotic that I can take, without seeking a physician?
    Thanks!
    N

    Well, times are tough and a lot of Americans are not doing well financially – but being without "disease insurance" is not necessarily a bad thing…

    And it is true that if left untreated a urinary tract infection can be serious – indeed, alarming headlines have been filled recently with the tragic death of the South American  model who developed a septicemia – reportedly from a bladder infection.

    The short answer to N’s question is No.

    Prescription drugs are called that because they must be prescribed by a licensed health care professional – usually a doctor with prescribing privileges – and all patented antibiotics that I know of are controlled substances, available by prescription only.

    So, Dr. Myatt took the time to send N a brief reply pointing her in the direction of effective self-care:

    Dear N,
    This page tells you exactly what to do. More than 90% of people with a UTI (urinary tract infection) do NOT need, and shouldn’t take an antibiotic. Here’s what to do instead: http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/UrinaryTractInfections.htm

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    Well, it seems that in the meantime N was able to get together the money to go and seek a prescription – she wrote:

    Hi,
    …Your web-site stated "Antibiotics not only kill bacteria in the urinary tract, but they can kill a lot of "friendly bacteria" in the gut as well." I don’t want to destroy the good bacteria in my body.  I was prescribed the medication below.  I was instructed to take 1 tablet twice a day for 7 days. Are you saying that I shouldn’t take it?

    SMZ/TMP DS 800-160 TAB INTERPHARM substituted for BACTRIM DS

    Can I find this D-mannose in the stores?

    I have been reading up on your diet information. It’s makes a lot of sense.  Some of these things I have known for years.  I am from the old school where mom used bushes, weeds, roots, etc to heal our illnesses.  I am a descendant of Africans who were captured and made into slaves in the 1700-1800’s.  I am the 5th generation.

    Since Dr. Myatt was up to her eyebrows in patient reports I took a few minutes to answer N this time – since I wanted a little more information about how this popular and powerful antibiotic was prescribed so quickly.

    Hi N,
    You may be able to find D-Mannose in local health-food stores. Be careful to obtain a high-quality product – not all supplements are created the same!

    D-Mannose can also be found on our website: http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/DMannose.htm – this is a pharmaceutical grade product and we can vouch for it’s purity, potency, and quality.

    As Dr. Myatt mentioned, it is impossible for us to advise you regarding the use of the antibiotic that was prescribed to you – we do not have benefit of the information that the person who prescribed it has: your history, symptoms, and laboratory report of the culture and sensitivity of your urine which tells whether there is a bacteria present in your urine, what variety of bacteria that is, and whether that bacteria is sensitive to (will be killed by) the antibiotic that was prescribed. The person who prescribed the antibiotic ~DID~ have a urinalysis culture and sensitivity performed, right?

    An analogy could be that all snakes can bite – but some snake bites are much more serious than others. Knowing which kind of snake has bitten is pretty important!

    If the urine C&S (med-speak for culture and sensitivity) showed that there was a bacteria present and that bacteria is sensitive to the antibiotic that was prescribed, then you should probably take the antibiotic as directed. Using the D-Mannose along with the antibiotic will help it to do it’s job better.

    Some harm to the normal flora (bacteria) of the gut is unavoidable with almost any antibiotic use, but can be corrected with the use of  probiotics (friendly gut bacteria) to replace the bacteria harmed by the antibiotics. More information, and an excellent product for this purpose can be found here: http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/supremadophilus.htm

    N, as you know we often use the questions and comments of folks who write us in our HealthBeat Newsletter when we feel that they can be helpful to others. Some form of this back-and-forth will likely appear in an upcoming article as these are questions that we hear often. Can you tell me please, did the person who prescribed the antibiotic for you perform the laboratory test for culture and sensitivity on a sample of your urine, or was the antibiotic prescribed to you just based on your symptoms?

    Cheers,
    Nurse Mark

    N wrote back once more to say:

    Hi Nurse Mark,
    Thank you for commenting on my questions. I went to one of the local hospitals. I gave a urine sample. The nurse said that I have a urinary tract infection. He said that there were white blood cells, bacteria and something else in the urine     [Nurse Mark notes: probably protein]. Another nurse brought me a prescription along with home care instructions and sent me on my way.

    Mark, thank you and Dr. Myatt for all of your help.

    Well, there you have it – as I suspected, a urine sample was collected. It was certainly "dipped" – a test done in a few seconds using a dipstick that will demonstrate the quick results that N described. It may have been sent on to be cultured – a more expensive and time consuming test requiring 48 hours or more for meaningful results – but I doubt it. No, the antibiotic was prescribed presumptively – based on N’s reported symptoms and the results of the "dip".

    You see, it is very common in conventional medicine to prescribe powerful antibiotics "presumptively", and here’s how it works: the patient complains of a symptom, and the doctor (or in this case the nurse) presumes that this symptom is the result of something common and therefore no further testing is necessary before prescribing a drug. Further, in this case, SMZ/TMP (Bactrim) is considered a "broad spectrum" antibiotic, meaning that accuracy in diagnosis is even less important – it’ll kill a wide variety of bacteria and so it is easy to prescribe. It’s easy, "cookbook" medicine.

    Is this a good thing? Well, if used carefully it certainly is – broad spectrum antibiotics can be life-saving in the case of an overwhelming infection. They can be used to begin a patient on antibiotic therapy while a careful doctor awaits the results of the Culture and Sensitivity lab test that will t
    ell him if he guessed correctly at what the causative bacteria was, and what that bacteria would be sensitive to. If the results of the C&S show that a different bacteria is present or is sensitive to a different antibiotic, then the antibiotic can always be changed – but only if a C&S was done, and only if the doctor was made aware of the results in a timely manner.

    My guess is that none of that will happen and that N was prescribed her powerful antibiotic based on presumption and a "standing order". Standing Orders allow people who otherwise are not allowed to prescribe drugs to do so based on a set of defined conditions – the doctor just comes along and "signs off" on the order later. This saves time, gets more people seen, and sells more prescription drugs to people.

    And that’s just the way the big drug companies like it.

    Unfortunately this willy-nilly prescribing of powerful antibiotics at the drop of a hat (or the dip of a test stick) is giving us a frighteningly powerful crop of drug-resistant bacteria that scoff at our current antibiotics – these are the "superbugs" that we hear about ever more often in the news.

    Superbugs that will need to be battled with yet-to-be-developed Super Antibiotics that can be patented and offered to a frightened and desperate public at "Super" prices.

    And that’s just the way the big drug companies like it.