Perspective….

Question:

William – this is an excellent article and explains very well the alternative or "holistic" view of what health is all about. Also the emphasis on how nutrition helps rebuild/regenerate new cells is especially notable. I know this is not a study and doesn’t cite specific data on any research, but again, it does do a very good job in at least explaining how and why malnutrition can play an important role in the development of many chronic diseases, and also how proper nutrition can go a long way in regaining health at the cellular level. I hope that people do read it and thanks for posting it. Regards, Jeff 2

This is an article from this months issue of Prospect magazine. Take it or leave it, but I think it’s relevant and well worth the read! Article Title : Nutrition-the new medicine Article Introduction : Medicine today focuses on suppressing the symptoms of disease. A truly preventive medicine, capable of tackling degenerative diseases like arthritis and Alzheimer’s, will be based on diet supplements, not drugs. Drug companies don’t like it Article Author : Paul Clayton  Throughout human history the leading causes of death have been infection and trauma. Modern medicine has scored significant victories against both, and the major causes of ill health and death are now the chronic degenerative diseases, such as coronary artery disease, arthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s, macular degeneration, cataract and cancer. Five out of six people in their sixties in Britain have one or more of these diseases. Drugs can alleviate symptoms, but they do little to alter the underlying disease, which usually continues to deteriorate. Based on the idea of the "magic bullet," developed in the 19th century by the founders of pharmacology such as Robert Koch and Paul Ehrlich, most drugs are designed to block a single step in the complex process leading to the symptoms of illness; a strategy which rarely cures, and is often associated with unpleasant side-effects. Modern medicine is generally practised as crisis management: wait until the diagnosis, then start treatment. But by the time symptoms of these diseases appear, damage has already been done to the body that drugs cannot address. The chronic degenerative diseases-like coronary artery disease and Alzheimer’s-have a long latency period before symptoms appear and a diagnosis is made. It follows that the majority of apparently healthy people are pre-ill. In their bodies are the seeds of the illness which will one day become overt and perhaps kill them. An artery is furring, bone is thinning, brain cells are dying; leading eventually, inevitably, to a heart attack, osteoporotic fracture, or dementia. But are these conditions inevitably degenerative? A truly preventive medicine that focused on the pre-ill, analysing the metabolic errors which lead to clinical illness, might be able to correct them before the first symptom. Genetic risk factors are known for all the chronic degenerative diseases, and are important to the individuals who possess them. At the population level, however, migration studies confirm that these illnesses are linked for the most part to lifestyle factors-exercise, smoking and nutrition. Nutrition is the easiest of these to change, and the most versatile tool for affecting the metabolic changes needed to tilt the balance away from disease (a point made by the recent WHO report, "Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases"). All biological tissues are dynamic. Their apparent constancy disguises a state of flux, with the processes of decay and regeneration running in parallel. Bones are constantly being worn away and rebuilt, as are joints. Atheroma is constantly accumulating inside the arteries, and just as constantly being removed. If the anabolic and catabolic processes are in balance, tissue remains intact and good health is sustained. But if the rate of decay is only a little faster than the rate of repair, there is a net loss of healthy tissue, a pre-illness growing every day until clinical illness finally emerges. In many cases, this may be due to multiple micronutrient depletion. Many national surveys (the biggest of which is the US department of agriculture continuing survey of food intakes) reveal that malnutrition is common in developed countries. This is not the calorie and/or micronutrient deficiency associated with developing nations ("Type A malnutrition"); but multiple micronutrient depletion, usually combined with calorific balance or excess ("Type B malnutrition"). The US survey measured intakes of classical micronutrients in terms of the RDA (recommended dietary allowances) values designed to prevent deficiency diseases. The incidence and severity of Type B malnutrition is worsened if newer micronutrient groups are included, such as the essential fatty acids, various fibre types, xanthophylls, flavonoids and so on. Commonly ingested levels of these micronutrients seem to be far too low in many developed countries. The prevalence of multiple micronutrient depletion is due to several factors: – We were designed to live active lives, and to consume 3,000-4,000 calories per day. Now no longer hunter-gatherers, we live sedentary lives and require fewer calories. Our appetites have shrunk (but not quite enough, which explains why so many are overweight). When we eat less, we consume fewer micronutrients. – Most processed food is depleted in micronutrients, and more processed food is being consumed than ever before. British consumption of fresh green vegetables declined 7 per cent in 2001-02, according to the annual expenditure and food survey. – Many soils are low in key minerals, or have become depleted due to overintensive farming. Plants or animals raised in these areas are also depleted in these minerals-this is why British intakes of selenium are so low. – Smoking, sunbathing, pollution and excess alcohol all deplete the body of antioxidants. – We become progressively more depleted in micronutrients as we age. DIET SUPPLEMENTS RATHER THAN DRUGS There is now considerable evidence spelt out in reports from the WHO and other bodies that Type B malnutrition is a major cause of chronic degenerative diseases. If this is the case, then it is logical to treat such diseases not with drugs but with multiple micronutrient repletion, or "pharmaco-nutrition." This can take the form of pills and capsules-"nutraceuticals," or food formats known as "functional foods." This approach has been neglected hitherto because it is relatively unprofitable for drug companies-the products are hard to patent-and it is a strategy which does not sit easily with modern medical interventionism. Over the last 100 years, the drug industry has invested huge sums in developing a range of subtle and powerful drugs to treat the many diseases we are subject to. Medical training is couched in pharmaceutical terms and this approach has provided us with an exceptional range of therapeutic tools in the treatment of disease and in acute medical emergencies. However, the pharmaceutical model has also created an unhealthy dependency culture, in which relatively few of us accept responsibility for maintaining our own health. Instead, we have handed over this responsibility to health professionals who know very little about health maintenance, or disease prevention. They are only taught how to manage disease, or rather the very late stages of disease, when it becomes symptomatic. An analogy might be with car mechanics who know nothing of maintenance, because they have only been taught how to carry out crash repairs. We have many palliative drugs, and many ways of suppressing the symptoms of illness, but hardly any cures. When the pharmaceutical industry was founded on the "magic bullets" of Koch and Ehrlich, it started in the wrong place. It should have followed Pasteur who, towards the end of his career, came to the realisation that le terrain (our internal physiology) was all-important. And le terrain is in worse shape than ever, due to the increasing prevalence of Type B malnutrition. WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE? One problem for supporters of this argument is lack of the right kind of hard evidence. We have a wealth of epidemiological data linking dietary factors to health profiles/disease risks, and a great deal of information on mechanism: how food factors interact with our biochemistry. But almost all intervention studies with micronutrients, with the notable exception of the omega 3 fatty acids, have so far produced conflicting or negative results. In other words, our science appears to have no predictive value. Does this invalidate the science? Or are we simply asking the wrong questions? Based on pharmaceutical thinking, most intervention studies have attempted to measure the impact of a single micronutrient on the incidence of disease. The classical approach says that if you give a compound formula to test subjects and obtain positive results, you cannot know which ingredient is exerting the benefit, so you must test each ingredient individually. But in the field of nutrition, this does not work. It is like the mechanic who, confronted with a chronically under-maintained car, insists on a test drive after changing the oil filter; another after replacing one of the spark plugs-and so on. Each intervention on its own will hardly make enough difference to be measured. To make the car run noticeably better and last longer requires a comprehensive service. Similarly, to enable humans to live healthier and longer lives, comprehensive nutritional support is required. For example, in coronary artery disease it is clear that there is no single weak link. Rather, western diet and lifestyle can push haemochemistry and vascular physiology into multiple pathologies. The best therapeutic response must therefore combine micronutrients to normalise the … read more »

Response:

This is an article from this months issue of Prospect magazine. Take it or leave it, but I think it’s relevant and well worth the read! Article Title : Nutrition

Related Posts