Pain Relief Chiropractic

Do you want to live longer?  How about be healthier or have less pain and more energy?  Stupid questions, right? Pretty much everyone wants to live longer and better, and most people are hoping that future scientific and technological breakthroughs will make it possible.

And why not?  Science and technology are amazing.  There is no doubt that advancements in these fields have made life much both easier and better.

However, there are many aspects of health and happiness that science and technology can NOT help.  A perfect example can be found in the results of a new study done by researchers from the Princeton University, Stony Brook University, and the University of California, Los Angeles.

Recently published in The Lancet, the study followed 9,050 participants and measured how their sense of wellbeing affected their longevity.

Questionnaires measured the participants’ sense of self-control, feeling that what they do is worthwhile, and their sense of purpose in life.

RESULTS:  According to Science Daily: “Over the next eight and a half years, 9% of people in the highest wellbeing category had died, compared with 29% in the lowest category.  Once all the other factors had been taken into account, people with the highest wellbeing were 30% less likely to die over the study period, living on average two years longer than those in the lowest wellbeing group.”

One researcher stated, “We have previously found that happiness is associated with a lower risk of death…  These analyses show that the meaningfulness and sense of purpose that older people have in their lives are also related to survival.  We cannot be sure that higher wellbeing necessarily causes lower risk of death, since the relationship may not be causal.  But the findings raise the intriguing possibility that increasing wellbeing could help to improve physical health.  There are several biological mechanisms that may link wellbeing to improved health, for example through hormonal changes or reduced blood pressure.  Further research is now needed to see if such changes might contribute to the links between wellbeing and life expectancy in older people.”

When it comes to your mind (brain), there are quite a few studies showing how mental conditions can affect your health. If the mind can have a major impact on health, then chances are it can also impact your lifespan.

One would not be going out on a limb to say (holding all other factors constant) the person who thinks positively and has a great mental outlook will most likely be healthier and live longer than someone who always has a negative outlook.

It’s also not a stretch to say stress kills.  It exhausts you and prematurely ages you.  It can lead to many illnesses.  Clearly, stress is a product of our thought processes.  Stress and its negative effects are completely controlled by YOU and your reactions to any and all situations.

Learning how to react to situations to limit stress can not only improve how you look and feel, but can also benefit your overall health.

This is in stark contrast to looking for solutions from advancements in science and technology.

Once again, breakthroughs in science and technology are wonderful and save lives, but it is NOT the answer to having a negative mental attitude that poisons your body and causes sickness and disease in the first place.

Evidence from a recent study suggests consuming the maximum acceptable daily intake of artificial sweeteners may negatively affect gut bacteria, potentially causing glucose intolerance within a short period of time.

No one wants to be overweight or have any of the health problems associated with it such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, osteoarthritis, and cancer, just to name a few. And, nearly everyone’s ears perk up if they hear someone offering simple and easy “short-cut secrets” to lose extra weight so they can look and feel great.

That’s why the weight-loss industry is BIG BUSINESS.  Estimates put the value of the weight-loss industry at 60.5 BILLION (with a “B”) in 2013 with expectation that it will continue to grow for many years to come.

One of the biggest “breakthroughs” in the diet industry was the invention of artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, saccharin, and sucralose. There has been quite a bit of debate as to the safety and effectiveness of these products for weight loss.  According the research published in Nature, “Non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) are among the most widely used food additives worldwide, regularly consumed by lean and obese individuals alike. NAS consumption is considered safe and beneficial owing to their low caloric content, yet supporting scientific data remain sparse and controversial.”

Artificial sweeteners are often referred to as non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS).  NAS are synthetic substitutes for sugar that can be up to 20,000 times sweeter than their natural counterpart.

The biggest selling point for these NAS is that they aren’t considered to contain calories.  Holding all other variables constant, logic assumes that digesting fewer calories leads to weight loss.

But because some of the research regarding NAS is conflicting, the Weizmann Institute conducted a series of experiments on both mice and humans to try to get to the bottom of all this once and for all.

To start, they added the maximum acceptable intake for humans of NAS (as defined by the FDA) to the water of laboratory mice. The artificial sweeteners used in the study were aspartame, saccharin, and sucralose.

Results:  “After 11 weeks, mice consuming NAS showed significant glucose intolerance as compared to control mice consuming only water or water with added glucose. They also repeated the experiments with different breeds of mice and found the same thing.”

The researchers theorized that artificial sweeteners have a negative effect on good gut bacteria, which may be the cause of the glucose intolerance they observed. They checked the gut bacteria population in the mice, and the results indicated their theory was correct.

Next, the researchers gathered data on 381 humans to see if their results were the similar.

“They found an association between self-reported NAS consumption and glucose intolerance and also differences in gut microbiome profiles between those consuming lots of NAS and those that did not consume them.”

In other words, for the NAS the researchers tested, it appears they have the same result on humans as they did on mice in their initial studies.

Here is the conclusion reached by the researchers in the study published in Nature: “Collectively, our results link NAS consumption, dysbiosis and metabolic abnormalities, thereby calling for a reassessment of massive NAS usage.”

As with all research, one study is not a definitive answer, and more research must be done.  But, people who are consuming large quantities of these artificial sweeteners might want to re-think this habit.

One thing is for sure, scientific discoveries and advancements have dramatically changed our lives. Not too long ago (about 20 years), only a few people owned a cell phone. Now, imagine leaving your house without one — you would probably have a panic attack!
Heck, they are not even “cell phones” any more. They are smart devices that are much more powerful than the computers we used to use at home just a few years back.
But, there are two sides to the coin. Some say this “progress” is not all good and many people are addicted to their devices and are becoming anti-social. One article states that a majority of people polled liked their fake Facebook life better than their real one. Is Facebook the problem, or the people using it?
Things that have the power for good can also be used for bad. This is not a judgment on the technology, just on how it is used.
For example, if there was technology available that could grow back the spinal cord of a paralyzed person, would that be a good thing?
Or, how about this: If the next time you have a bad tooth, instead of doing a root canal or pulling it out, what if your dentist could actually re-grow a replacement using your own tissue?
Would You Be Interested?
New research indicates that both may be a possibility in the not too distant future.
First, the spinal cord study: Scientists at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and Veteran’s Affairs, San Diego Healthcare System report that: “Neurons derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) and grafted into rats after a spinal cord injury produced cells with tens of thousands of axons extending virtually the entire length of the animals’ central nervous system.”
According to the scientists, the human iPSC-derived axions traveled through the white matter of the injury sites and often into the gray matter to form synapses (connections) with the rat neurons. The rat axons did the same thing with human iPSC grafts.
Senior author Mark Tuszynski, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurosciences and Director of the UC San Diego Center for Neural Repair, writes, “These findings indicate that intrinsic neuronal mechanisms readily overcome the barriers created by a spinal cord injury to extend many axons over very long distances, and that these capabilities persist even in neurons reprogrammed from very aged human cells.”
In other studies, grafted stem cells have formed new functional circuits across an injury site. Animals treated this way have experienced some restored movement in the affected limbs.
While There is Potential for Good,
There is Also Potential for Harm…
Dr. Tuszynski warns about moving this research to human therapy too quickly: “The enormous outgrowth of axons to many regions of the spinal cord and even deeply into the brain raises questions of possible harmful side effects if axons are mis-targeted. We also need to learn if the new connections formed by axons are stable over time, and if implanted human neural stem cells are maturing on a human time frame – months to years – or more rapidly. If maturity is reached on a human time frame, it could take months to years to observe functional benefits or problems in human clinical trials.”
Tuszynski states that 95% of human clinical trials fail, so they are trying to do as much as possible to identify the best way to forge ahead with complete information to give themselves the best possible chance at success with human subjects. If they do not take their time and do it right, their work will probably just result in another failure.
Can Stem Cells Re-Grow Teeth?
Maybe. A new study published in Science Transitional Medicine claims that a lower-powered laser can trigger stem cells in teeth to form dentin.
Dentin is the yellowish tissue that makes up the bulk of teeth. It is harder than bone but softer than enamel.
Secondary dentin, a less well-organized form of tubular dentin, is produced throughout life as a patching material where cavities have begun to form, where the overlying enamel has been worn away, and within the pulp chamber as part of the aging process.
Scientists have figured out that a blast of laser light induces some chemically active molecules to activate a growth factor that stimulates dentin growth.
Previous studies have regenerated parts of a tooth in the laboratory, but the hopes are this laser procedure will do it right in a patient’s mouth.
In this study, researchers said the low-powered laser (LPL) treatment demonstrated significant increase in dentin regeneration in rat teeth.
Will it Work with Human Teeth?
It may seem like a short bridge to cross between rat teeth and human teeth, but this may not be the case.
Rat teeth have evolved to take more physical abuse and thus may have more natural regenerative abilities than human teeth.
In fact, rodents have two continuously growing incisors in the upper and lower jaws, which must be kept short by gnawing.
More studies need to be done before it will be known if this LPL treatment can replace some dental treatments, so don’t put off that visit to the dentist and stop taking care of your teeth just yet.
Advancements in science seem to be coming every day, but don’t gamble with your smile!

The cover story of the June 12th issue of Time magazine, entitled Ending the War on Fat, begins with: “For decades, it has been the most vilified nutrient in the American diet. But new science reveals fat isn’t what’s hurting our health.”
There is one word that sums up those two sentences: WOW! If you are on Facebook, then you probably saw many of your friends liking or sharing this story. For most people, that cover photo of the stick of butter and those two sentences were about all information they got from the article. But there is much more to this story than those 23 words and a catchy image concerning what you should or should not eat, including fat.
There are advocates for nearly every conceivable diet out there, but two that are very popular (and feuding) right now, in very general terms, are: (1) the low fat “non-meat” group and (2) the meat and fat eaters.
Each have experts, researchers, doctors, marketers, etc. working to “prove” and popularize why their way of eating is healthier and superior to all your other options.
When you consider that the nutrition and diet industry is worth BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, you better believe that a lot of what you read, even from experts, researchers, and doctors, is based on profit.
That’s why weeding out fact from fiction in the diet and nutrition arena is more difficult than keeping a tight grip on a piglet smothered in grease.
There is not enough space in this newsletter to cover everything in detail, but there are some basics you should understand. If you do, it should help you live a healthier (and slimmer) life.
To make sure this all makes sense to you, here is a great example from the fitness world…
Research studies have recently been published indicating that too much exercise is bad for you. In other words, the old belief that “doing some exercise is good, so more is better” does not seem to be true.
In fact, some of this new research shows that too much exercise may increase the risk of death from heart attack or stroke in patients with existing heart problems.
This study was published in the journal Heart and tracked 1,000 people who were previously diagnosed with stable coronary heart disease.
According to CBS News: “The researchers found those who were most sedentary were around twice as likely to have a heart attack or stroke as those who were regularly physically active. They were around four times as likely to die of cardiovascular events and all other causes.
“But more surprisingly, those who did the most strenuous daily exercise were also more likely to die of a heart attack or stroke than people who engaged in more moderate activity.”
It looks like Confucius was correct all those years ago when he said, “To go too far is as bad as to fall short.” Doing too little exercise is no good. Doing too much exercise isn’t good either. The trick is finding the correct amount for YOU. You are an individual who may be similar to others, but you are not the same.
Eating right is no different. The first thing to understand is there is no simple answer and there is no magic bullet or cookie cutter approach that works for everyone.
You are an individual and your body will react to foods differently than the way other people’s bodies will react to the same foods.
But, there are basic principles you can use to help find which foods work best for you.
The first, and probably most important, is understanding that processed foods are generally bad for you.
America launched the war on fat back in the 1970s and started producing and eating massive amounts of processed foods with “low-fat” and “non-fat” promises on the packaging.
Not only were people eating these processed foods, but they were eating a lot of them — probably because foods that were labeled as “fat-free” were thought to be safe. In fact, the daily caloric intake for the average person went up from 2,109 calories a day in 1970 to 2,586 calories a day in 2010.
During this time, vegetable consumption did not go up. In fact, the amount of calories Americans consumed from vegetables dropped 3% during that time. When you consider that vegetables do not have a lot of calories (a handful of broccoli contains about 30 calories), 3% is a lot.
Without getting into the great fat debate, there is no doubt, eating a lot of vegetables is good for you and eating too many calories is not.
In other words, you can cut out all the fat you want, but if you eat a lot of processed food and no vegetables, you will not be as healthy as you could be.
So, one simple thing anyone can do is to cut out processed foods and eat a lot of vegetables. Just doing those two things can have a drastic effect on your health and life.
Should you be eating a lot of fat? That is another topic without a simple answer. There are different kinds of fats from different sources. If you are interested, check out diets like the Mediterranean diet and read up on the pros and cons of the various types of fats from trans fats to the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA and make a decision for yourself (or consult with your doctor).
But don’t think you can eat a pound of butter for breakfast every day because you saw the Time Magazine cover and read the headline on a social media site.

A study published in the March 2014 edition of Clinical Interventions in Aging compared Curcuma domestica (C. domestica) extracts to ibuprofen to treat knee osteoarthritis. Over 350 knee osteoarthritis patients with high pain scores were given either 1,200 mg/day of ibuprofen or 1,500 mg/day of C. domestica extract.
The study concluded: “C. domestica extracts are as effective as ibuprofen for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. The side effect profile was similar but with fewer gastrointestinal AE reports in the C. domestica extracts group.”
Two things are very important here…
First, according to this study, C. domestica extract relieves knee osteoarthritis pain. Even more importantly, the study concluded that the adverse effects were similar to ibuprofen except for fewer gastrointestinal problems.
But, adverse events were only noted if they occurred during the study and drugs like ibuprofen can have even worse side effects. In fact, ABC News reported the results of a large Danish study that found, “People taking ibuprofen — sold under the brand names Advil, Motrin, Nuprin — had [a] 29 percent increased risk of stroke.”
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen is in this group) have carried a warning for increased risk of cardiovascular problems since 2005. C. domestica extract use has not been found to increase an individual’s risk for heart attack or stroke. Some researchers and doctors speculate that freshly juiced tumeric may outperform tumeric extract but of course, more research needs to be done.
New Study Finds Nagging by a Spouse
Can Shorten Their Partner’s Lifespan!
Sometimes reality sounds more unbelievable than fiction, and this is one of those times. According to a new study, nagging by a spouse can actually kill you. That’s right, researchers have finally given anti-naggers some good amunnition to end the badgering. According to CBS News, “Danish researchers from the University of Copenhagen said having a nagging partner can significantly shorten one’s life, and could result in three extra deaths per 100 people per year.” The study also said people nagged by their spouses are more likely to develop heart disease and cancer and men are at greater risk than women, if only slightly. Researchers always like to say, “more research needs to be done” but it appears that nagging someone, even if your intentions are good, may be doing more harm than good.

How the “Black Death” Can
Make You Healthier
It might seem strange to think that something like the “Black Death” (also called bubonic plague) can make you healthier, especially since it was one of the most devastating epidemics in human history.
In fact, the bubonic plague is estimated to have killed nearly one hundred million people between 1347 and 1351. For a better understanding of the devastation, the plague wiped out approximately 30% of all Europeans and almost 50% of Londoners in just four years.
But, a new study sheds a different light on the Black Death, and it is not all bad.
The study published in the journal PLOS ONE suggests that, “people who survived the medieval mass killing plague known as the Black Death lived significantly longer and were healthier than people who lived before the epidemic struck in 1347.”
The article indicates that, “the disease targeted elderly adults and individuals who had been previously exposed to physiological stressors.”
A key point here is that the disease did not just target “older” people. In fact…
The 14th-century Black Death was not an indiscriminate killer, but instead targeted frail people of all ages.
Survivors of the plague experienced improvements in health and longevity with many people living to ages of 70 or 80 years, as compared with pre-Black Death populations.
Improvements in survival post-Black Death didn’t necessarily equate to good health over a lifespan, but revealed a hardiness to endure disease, including repeated bouts of plague.
The Black Death, either directly or indirectly, shaped mortality patterns for generations after the epidemic ended.
This is All Very Interesting Information… but…
Why is Any of This Important to YOU Now?
Good question. This study, like just about all studies, is not “the answer.” It shows interesting correlations and raises even more interesting questions.
One such question is, since the Black Death only seemed to kill people with weakened immune systems (the frail), wouldn’t it be wise to do everything possible to strengthen your immune system to its full genetic potential by eating right, exercising, getting enough sleep, managing stress, and keeping your nervous system functioning optimally as possible?