"Baldness is a matter of genetics". That is the general medical opinion in the Western ("scientific" or "evidence-based") tradition.
Undoubtedly, genetics has to do with everything in the human body, so it would be astonishing if it had nothing to do with baldness!
But the "genetic" explanation seems to have prevented or discouraged investigation into other factors.
Here are my speculations based on introspection and observation, which need to be checked out by research:
1. Baldness (reduction in the area covered by hair) is associated also with reduction in the thickness and liveliness of individual hair, as well as with a reduction in the OVERALL density of hair on the head.
2. The skin over the top of the head also becomes thinner
3. Items 1 & 2 are associated with a reduction of blood flow to the head
4. Reduced blood flow is assocaiated with stress - specifically, reduced blood flow to the head is associated with stress which is centred on the neck area, as well as the back (all the way down to the waist, and even lower - surprisingly!).
5. Baldness may be inevitable for certain individuals but the PREMATURE greying of hair and PREMATURE baldness may be preventable and even REVERSIBLE by natural means - specifically the reduction of stress in general and, by means of massage of the neck and back - and other remedies.
6. It COULD be that modern hair shampoos et al (because they dry out and possibly damage hair) actually hasten PREMATURE greying and baldness.
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
Monday, 24 May 2010
Response to my post on Sugar
My friend Ken Murishwar writes:
"Sugar is bad, not just because of the obvious argument about calories: Within the appropriate circles it’s a well known fact that it is very detrimental to ones well being – When the body experiences a “sugar-spike”, it is very fundamental in shutting down the immune system, whilst being converted & stored by the body.
"Every 24 hours, each cell, including our DNA, face upwards of 10,000 oxidative hits (1). Thus, when the Telomeres that bind the DNA strand become eroded by this process, a mutation can occur - which if unchecked, can go o to form the basis of a tumour. In addition, if the immune system is turned off, it lays the body open to a multitude of degenerative conditions. I hope this explains why sugar is actually VERY bad for one’s health & well being.
"(1) Oxidative hits = Oxidative Stress = Oxidation at a cellular level. This is why we are advised to ingest Anti-oxidants in the form of Vitamins etc. Having said this, it is particularly harmful to have fragmented, isolated vitamin supplements as they lack the natural symbiotic enzymes otherwise readily available in fruits & vegetables.
"I hope you don’t mind but nutrition is one of my hobby horses & I felt it important to comment. "
No, Ken, I don't mind.
I always welcome debate.
But I wasn't trying to argue that sugar is good for everyone. I was only pointing out that while sugar may be bad for MOST people, no one apart from you can tell what the right level of sugar consumption (or anything else) is for YOU.
The best guide to how much of what to eat is from being very aware of your own body and from listening to the signals that your own body is always giving us - if only we are able to listen.
"Sugar is bad, not just because of the obvious argument about calories: Within the appropriate circles it’s a well known fact that it is very detrimental to ones well being – When the body experiences a “sugar-spike”, it is very fundamental in shutting down the immune system, whilst being converted & stored by the body.
"Every 24 hours, each cell, including our DNA, face upwards of 10,000 oxidative hits (1). Thus, when the Telomeres that bind the DNA strand become eroded by this process, a mutation can occur - which if unchecked, can go o to form the basis of a tumour. In addition, if the immune system is turned off, it lays the body open to a multitude of degenerative conditions. I hope this explains why sugar is actually VERY bad for one’s health & well being.
"(1) Oxidative hits = Oxidative Stress = Oxidation at a cellular level. This is why we are advised to ingest Anti-oxidants in the form of Vitamins etc. Having said this, it is particularly harmful to have fragmented, isolated vitamin supplements as they lack the natural symbiotic enzymes otherwise readily available in fruits & vegetables.
"I hope you don’t mind but nutrition is one of my hobby horses & I felt it important to comment. "
No, Ken, I don't mind.
I always welcome debate.
But I wasn't trying to argue that sugar is good for everyone. I was only pointing out that while sugar may be bad for MOST people, no one apart from you can tell what the right level of sugar consumption (or anything else) is for YOU.
The best guide to how much of what to eat is from being very aware of your own body and from listening to the signals that your own body is always giving us - if only we are able to listen.
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Light pollution
No, not "light" pollution, as opposed to "heavy" pollution.
Yes, the pollution caused by light....
The most vocal opponents of light pollution are astronomers, as their ability to see stars is affected. For example, the Sheshan branch of the Shanghai Astronomical Observatory was built on Sheshan Mountain about 38 km from Shanghai, as it was considered an ideal place for observations. However, the growth of Shanghai has meant that, in spite of the best instruments money can buy, Sheshan is no longer suitable for astronomical observations of the level needed, and so the equipment for the observatory is being shifted to another city in another province. The good thing is that China has made this area, Tianhuangping, Anji City, into a "night sky protected area".
Great idea. I hope other countries follow the example of China.
So why is this post on this blog, which is supposed to be about medical matters?
Because it turns out that light pollution isn't just bad for astronomical observations, it is also bad for our health!
According to Professor Dr You Jianxin, Deputy President of the Chinese Academy of Science and Technology Management Program at Tongji University in Shanghai, excessive light can cause an increase in headaches, stress, anxiety, eye disease and even a decrease in sexual function.
What I would like to ask Professor You is whether the research related to all kinds of light (natural as well as artificial) or only to one kind of light?
In other words, are the problems caused only by artificial light?
Yes, the pollution caused by light....
The most vocal opponents of light pollution are astronomers, as their ability to see stars is affected. For example, the Sheshan branch of the Shanghai Astronomical Observatory was built on Sheshan Mountain about 38 km from Shanghai, as it was considered an ideal place for observations. However, the growth of Shanghai has meant that, in spite of the best instruments money can buy, Sheshan is no longer suitable for astronomical observations of the level needed, and so the equipment for the observatory is being shifted to another city in another province. The good thing is that China has made this area, Tianhuangping, Anji City, into a "night sky protected area".
Great idea. I hope other countries follow the example of China.
So why is this post on this blog, which is supposed to be about medical matters?
Because it turns out that light pollution isn't just bad for astronomical observations, it is also bad for our health!
According to Professor Dr You Jianxin, Deputy President of the Chinese Academy of Science and Technology Management Program at Tongji University in Shanghai, excessive light can cause an increase in headaches, stress, anxiety, eye disease and even a decrease in sexual function.
What I would like to ask Professor You is whether the research related to all kinds of light (natural as well as artificial) or only to one kind of light?
In other words, are the problems caused only by artificial light?
Friday, 14 May 2010
Calories and Sugar in the human system
The most widely accepted view today is that too many calories are bad for health as they make for obesity, and that sugar (at least refined sugar) is best avoided completely.
Clearly, there are people who suffer from diabetes who should avoid sugar and be careful about the calories (particularly carbohydrates) they consume.
But I doubt that, for most ("normal") people, sugar is particularly harmful - and it may even be beneficial!
As evidence, I cite my own case: I have consumed vast amounts of sugar right from the time I was a child, and I am notorious in restaurants which know me, for eating as little as possible of the main course (which is vegetarian in any case) and of concentrating on the dessert. I often have two or even three desserts, as well as assorted cakes, biscuits, dried fruit and other suger-laden products such as commercially-produced cereal bars.
My weight has changed over the years gradually from the 60+ of my teenage years to the 70+ that I have now at the age of 61.
If I fast for a day or two, my weight drops by a little; if I indulge myself too much, my weight rises a little...for a little while.
That is because I try to eat as wide a variety of (vegetarian) food as possible, and try to be in tune with my body regarding how much of what food to eat.
If you are in normal health, my experience suggests that the best guide to the question of what and how much to eat is NOT your calorie-counter or your fashion magazine or even your doctor, but actually your own body.
It will tell you when you have eaten too much or eaten what is not good for you.
Get in tune with it. Communicate with it. Listen to it. You won't go wrong.
As for obesity, it is in my view entirely unrelated to how many calories one consumes. The sort of "obesity" one sees around the world today is a medical disorder that may be related to commercial soft drinks, to chemicals in our food or water, to plastics, to radiation, or some other factor. Some people may well be obese because they don't know how to listen to their bodies, and therefore eat too much of the wrong sort of food for themselves. However, in my observation, many obese people eat no more than normal people do.
Clearly, there are people who suffer from diabetes who should avoid sugar and be careful about the calories (particularly carbohydrates) they consume.
But I doubt that, for most ("normal") people, sugar is particularly harmful - and it may even be beneficial!
As evidence, I cite my own case: I have consumed vast amounts of sugar right from the time I was a child, and I am notorious in restaurants which know me, for eating as little as possible of the main course (which is vegetarian in any case) and of concentrating on the dessert. I often have two or even three desserts, as well as assorted cakes, biscuits, dried fruit and other suger-laden products such as commercially-produced cereal bars.
My weight has changed over the years gradually from the 60+ of my teenage years to the 70+ that I have now at the age of 61.
If I fast for a day or two, my weight drops by a little; if I indulge myself too much, my weight rises a little...for a little while.
That is because I try to eat as wide a variety of (vegetarian) food as possible, and try to be in tune with my body regarding how much of what food to eat.
If you are in normal health, my experience suggests that the best guide to the question of what and how much to eat is NOT your calorie-counter or your fashion magazine or even your doctor, but actually your own body.
It will tell you when you have eaten too much or eaten what is not good for you.
Get in tune with it. Communicate with it. Listen to it. You won't go wrong.
As for obesity, it is in my view entirely unrelated to how many calories one consumes. The sort of "obesity" one sees around the world today is a medical disorder that may be related to commercial soft drinks, to chemicals in our food or water, to plastics, to radiation, or some other factor. Some people may well be obese because they don't know how to listen to their bodies, and therefore eat too much of the wrong sort of food for themselves. However, in my observation, many obese people eat no more than normal people do.
Fat-analysis as an indicator of health - and disease
As I have a layman's interest in medical matters, I try to follow developments in almost all the medical systems of the world (Ayurvedic, Chinese, Hebrew, Homeeopathic, Unani or Greek, Chiropraxy, Feldenkrais, Dr Schussler's, as well as Allopathic or "modern"....).
None of them, however, investigates fat.
I have noticed that my fat has changed its nature over the years.
It is also interesting that, in order to make for a system in which the diseases of the Egyptians would not exist among the Hebrews, their Scriptures asked them never to eat the fat of animals - suggesting that animal fat has an essential relationship with the diseases of those with lifestyles involving little physical exertion.
I conclude that ways of analysing fat could offer important clues to identifying the existence and development of disease in human beings, particularly diseases that are most idenfitied with modernity.
None of them, however, investigates fat.
I have noticed that my fat has changed its nature over the years.
It is also interesting that, in order to make for a system in which the diseases of the Egyptians would not exist among the Hebrews, their Scriptures asked them never to eat the fat of animals - suggesting that animal fat has an essential relationship with the diseases of those with lifestyles involving little physical exertion.
I conclude that ways of analysing fat could offer important clues to identifying the existence and development of disease in human beings, particularly diseases that are most idenfitied with modernity.
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Genetically-modified food now invading Europe too
While I am all for science and for technological progress, I draw the line at the food which enters my body.
In the USA, I usually eat as little as possible, and certainly nothing that might be genetically modified (they do not label their food clearly, as a result all maize is out, for example).
Due to the danger of cross-pollination, now that the EU has stupidly permitted the introduction of a genetically modified potato (BASF's Amflora), I will now have to steer away from potatoes in the EU, which has already permitted Monsanto’s MON810 maize.
I have nothing against GM food provided (a) it is clearly labelled, so that those who like me do not want to eat it can keep away from it, and (b) all GM products can be guaranteed to kept totally separate from non-GM food. At present, (b) is a condition that cannot be met - at least in terms of invading fields in which non-GM food is grown, restaurant food, pre-cooked and prepared foods in most stores, and so on....
Sadly, therefore not only no meat or seafood for me, but no potatoes or maize either.
Very good for my waistline, though...:)
In the USA, I usually eat as little as possible, and certainly nothing that might be genetically modified (they do not label their food clearly, as a result all maize is out, for example).
Due to the danger of cross-pollination, now that the EU has stupidly permitted the introduction of a genetically modified potato (BASF's Amflora), I will now have to steer away from potatoes in the EU, which has already permitted Monsanto’s MON810 maize.
I have nothing against GM food provided (a) it is clearly labelled, so that those who like me do not want to eat it can keep away from it, and (b) all GM products can be guaranteed to kept totally separate from non-GM food. At present, (b) is a condition that cannot be met - at least in terms of invading fields in which non-GM food is grown, restaurant food, pre-cooked and prepared foods in most stores, and so on....
Sadly, therefore not only no meat or seafood for me, but no potatoes or maize either.
Very good for my waistline, though...:)
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Vitamin B12 and vegetarians
Having just had a medical check-up where my Vitamin B12 was measured for the first time.
Apparently, my level is 190 when the minimum should be 140 and the maximum should be 750
I am therefore somewhere near the lower limit, and one doctor recommended that I should take supplementary Vitamin B12.
The question however came up of my being a vegetarian and whether that might mean that my body functions fine without the high levels of Vitamin B12 found among non-vegetarians. Another doctor thought that I may therefore not need the supplement.
I don't like wasting money, but am commanded by God to look after my body, so I would appreciate any facts on the issue.
Apparently, my level is 190 when the minimum should be 140 and the maximum should be 750
I am therefore somewhere near the lower limit, and one doctor recommended that I should take supplementary Vitamin B12.
The question however came up of my being a vegetarian and whether that might mean that my body functions fine without the high levels of Vitamin B12 found among non-vegetarians. Another doctor thought that I may therefore not need the supplement.
I don't like wasting money, but am commanded by God to look after my body, so I would appreciate any facts on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)