Is Ramadan Good for Your Health?

We've come to the end of Ramadan and I thought I'd do some checking to see if Ramadan is good for the health of participants.  Turns out there is surprisingly little investigation of this question, and no definitive statements from medical researchers.  We might expect that - medical researchers are not HEALTH researchers after all.

There is surprisingly little definitive research results of whether fasting is good for your health.  Ramadan is a very special type of fasting - and perhaps more difficult to research. But why don't we know if fasting is healthy?

Studies of the effects of fasting on health fail due to the medical paradigm. A typical statement from the medical systems are like this WIKI quote " Benefits include reduced risks of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, insulin resistance, immune disorders, and more generally, the slowing of the aging process, and the potential to increase maximum life span". Duh.. These are mostly medical benefits, not health benefits.  And the next step taken by the 'medical paradigm' is to measure the 'side effects' of fasting, as if fasting was a 'medicine'. I think trying to study health using the medical paradigm is a bit like trying to study darkness by shining a light on it.

Why don't we know if fasting is good for your health? Because we don't measure health.  We only measure illness.  And we don't have a solid framework to define and study health.  How can you measure health effects without a clear definition of health?

If you read my blog - you may know that I have developed  a framework for understanding and studying health, as opposed to illness. The primary components of health are nutritional health, cellular health, tissue health, organ health, systems health, body health, mind health, spirit health and community health.

With this framework we have useful way to study the effects of fasting on health. One step at a time.

What are the effects of fasting on:

Nutritional Health: at first glance we might think that fasting could not possibly improve nutritional health, but looking closer we can see at least two nutritional advantages.  First, if we eat the same, or similar foods repeatedly over a long time period our bodies are exposed to the toxins in those foods.  Every food contains some toxins.  By fasting, we stop our exposure to those toxins for the length of the fast, giving our bodies time to clear out and recover.  Secondly, many people fast by avoiding on some foods.  This may force consumption of more 'different foods'.  If the standard diet is deficient - the fasting diet may provide missing nutrients.  Both of these areas are potential rich areas of study - if we study health.  The first major stumbling block is that we don't have any validated, commonly used techniques to measure nutritional health.

Cellular Health: does fasting make our cells healthier?  I'm not sure we have any method of measuring overall cellular health. Can you imagine going to your doctor and she says "I'm sending you to the lab to test the health of your cells" - or even a subset "I'm sending you to the lab to test the health of your blood cells"  or "your skin cells". When we can measure cellular health, we can take the next step - to measure whether or not fasting improves cellular health in the short, medium and long term.  Of course we might learn that fasting improves the health of some types of cells and degrades the health of some other cells - there are hundreds of different types of cells in the body.

Tissue Health: does fasting improve tissue health?  Health proponents claim that fasting helps the body to clear toxins and improve tissue health.  Medical practitioners say... ?  Well, medical practitioners do not measure tissue health on a regular basis, so what could they say? Suffice to say they don't have any meaningful agreement on any meaningful statements. When we can reliably measure tissue health - we can take the next step and measure the effects of various types of fasting on tissue health.

Organ health: do you see a pattern here?  Medical practitioners research organ illness, but do not measure organ health in any useful fashion. It is not at all uncommon for someone to have a medical, be given a 'clean bill of health', and then rapidly succumb to organ failure that was not detected.  Because we don't measure organ health. When we learn to measure organ health effectively, we can measure the effects of fasting on organ health.

System Health: does fasting improve or degrade your circulatory system?  your lymphatic system?  your digestive system?  We don't measure system health, so how can we know?

Body Health: is the whole more that the sum of the parts?  The body is more than the sum of the cells, tissues and organs.  We need to learn to understand this more clearly.  To define 'body health' clearly enough that we have useful measurements of body health - separate from measurements of illness, before we can measure the effects of fasting on the body.  And when we speak of the effects of fasting on the body - our statement should be separate from statements about the effects of health on the liver, the respiratory system, etc.

Mind Health: is fasting good for your mind? Does it improve your memory?   Your calculation abilities? Your planning abilities?  In the short term?  Medium term?  Long Term?  We have techniques to make these studies - but there are no 'standard lab tests'. When we can reliably, expertly measure mind health - we can study the effects of fasting on mind health.  Mind Health studies may be the most difficult for our society to accept as a general practice, but it is an essential component of health measurement.

Community Health: does fasting improve community health?  Studies have shown that there are fewer crimes committed during fasting periods, like Ramadan. That is one component of community health.  What other components we should measure to understand community health?

Spiritual Health: does fasting promote spiritual health? It is an interesting question in light of the fact that most people fast based on spiritual beliefs.  But how do we measure spiritual health?  At present, we have no way to measure spiritual health - although we might have two fleeting impressions.  One - spiritual health exists and can be strong or weak in different individuals and in the same individual at different times in their life.  Two - measuring spiritual health might be dangerous from a religious or political perspective.

So.... Does fasting improve health?  We don't know.  Frankly, we don't reliably know if anything improves health (as opposed to avoiding or curing disease) - because we don't measure health.

I believe in Personal Health Freedom.  I believe we need to study health, separately from our studies of medicine, if we are to truly understand health.  This is one necessary first step to true Health Freedom.

ps. If you enjoy my posts, please share - and you might LIKE my facebook page. 

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Health Protection vs Health Freedom

Last night I attended the FREEDOM IN CRISIS LECTURE TOUR lecture by Shawn Buckley.  It was a very interesting, enlightening presentation.  Shawn is a tireless (and as far as I can determine, mostly 'paidless') worker for health freedom, with great knowledge, insight and initiatives. There were many threads, and perhaps because I have researched health freedom - only one shocked me with it's intelligence. 

In Canada, as you may know, our governments are pressing for strong 'consumer protection' legislation.  Our government wants, not only the arbitrary restriction of your rights to purchase foods, medicines and even teddy bears - they also want very strong rights to order product recalls, to trespass and seize products deemed to be 'offending the regulations'.  

Shawn gave many examples of government's attempts and ability to protect us from healthy living. The True Hope story, where our government acknowledges that suicide deaths resulted from product restrictions.  The heart disease cure that brought hundreds of people back to health - how Shawn protected the seller in a legal challenge from the BC Medical Association.  And finally, how our government shut down production and sales of a Teddy Bear - because it has a heat pouch containing white rice, a dangerous health risk. 

Then Shawn reminded us about peanut butter.  Of course we all know about peanut butter.  Every year, people die from peanut butter.  But anyone can go to the supermarket and buy a big jar of peanut butter.  We need to ask, how can our government justify protecting us from white rice teddy bears, while allowing purchase and consumption of peanut butter.  

But then he took the leap that surprised me. Shawn has issued 'access of information' requests when he wanted information about government reasoning and activities.  Shawn is a lawyer - and legal processes are his forte. 

He has issued an 'access for information request' about risk.  But not what you might expect. You might expect Shawn to ask for the governments 'risk analysis' on several restricted products.  But no, that would be to simple.  Although it is clear the government has not done any risk analysis - it might be possible for them to create a risk analysis to justify the restrictions. 

Shawn Buckley has asked the government if they have assessed the risk created by restrictions!

Brilliant!  If the government is going to restrict our freedom because of a potential risk, they need to assess both sides of the risk. 

If our government is sincere about protecting our health, they need to demonstrate that sincerity with analysis and processes that protect us from regulatory errors.

We know that, in the case of the True Hope product, EmPowerplus, our government actions to 'protect the public' resulted in suicide deaths of several bipolar patients.  Government actions were taken against EmPowerplus without an assessment of the 'risk to the public'. And they were also taken without an assessment of the 'risk to the public' presented by the government regulations.  In the end, the courts decided in favour of TrueHope, and issued a ruling:
====================================================================
court ruling
‘The Defendants [Truehope] are not guilty’

Necessity. ‘The Defendants were overwhelmingly compelled to disobey the D.I.N. regulation in order to protect the health, safety and well-being of the users of the micronutrient treatment [EMPowerplus] and the support program.’ 
========================================================================================


Truehope was compelled by the courts to disobey the government regulations.  Our government did not appeal.  


If governments are to create regulations that restriction health freedoms, it is important that they:
 - weigh the risks associated with the regulation
 - weigh the risks associated without the regulation (eg. health freedom)
 - make a decision based on a comparison of relative risks
and be prepared and have a process to re-evaluate all restrictions when new information comes to light.

Or our courts will continue to tell our citizens to ignore the regulations to keep our health freedom.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Star Trek Medicine vs measuring health

The main medical item seen on various Star Trek shows (and various incarnations) is the medical tricorder.  Star Trek uses many types of tricorders, or scanners used for various purposes.  The medical tricorder is used to scan humans, animals and occasionally aliens for signs of illness.

Even in the Star Trek future, there seems to be no tool to measure 'health', only a tool to measure illness.  This is demonstrated fully in Star Trek Minutiae episode 131 (not Star Trek)\ where the doctor says:

"I’m not picking up anything on my tricorder scan. He seems perfectly healthy."


Apparently, if you are healthy, the tricorder does not give a reading.  The quote from Beverly in STTNG First Contact: "It's a... new medical scanner. It's a little more precise than an X-ray machine."  The medical tricorder is a diagnostic device - not a health measurement device, nor a treatment device.

The most talked about medical scanner in today's technology is the MRI scan.  Does the MRI scan reveal anything about your health?  No. The MRI scan searches for 'abnormalities' - on the assumption that if there are no significant abnormalities detected - you are healthy.   Health is not measured.

I wish for a future where we can measure health, instead of waiting for illness to 'strike' and then attempting to diagnose the illness.

What would our medical systems be like, if we could measure health?

How would 'clinical trials' be conducted if we could measure health effectively?  

We should measure the health of all subjects before the clinical trial.  Then apply the treatment.  And after the trial - or even during the progress of the trial, measure the subjects' health again.  'Side effects' are a measure of illnesses caused by the treatment.  We should also measure the 'health effects' -positive, or negative.

What would our 'health systems' be like if we could measure health?  I think it will take a very long time to answer that question.  When we can measure health effectively, we will learn many new facts, come to many new understandings.  We will learn that specific actions that improve health in the short term - might be detrimental to health in the long term.  Or that some actions that improve long term health actually harm short term health.  This does not surprise us - but it would be very useful to have a measuring tool.

A specific exercise, running five miles, for example, might be shown to harm immediate health status, to improve medium term health status and slightly effect long term health status.  We don't know.

Of course it's not that simple.  Even with a toolbox that effectively measures health - it still takes 10 years to measure the effects of a ten year change in health activities. And a lifetime to measure the lifetime effect of lifestyle changes.  This is the major reason these changes are personal - each person has a right to make their own decisions about health actions because the truth will not be known until they are dead and gone.

I firmly believe that measuring health is a serious deficiency in our current health systems and practices.

What might we learn about cancer patients, for example, if we try to measure health?  I often hear or read quotes like 'a cure for cancer', 'he beat cancer, but it struck again', and 'she was in perfect health, but suddenly struck by cancer'.  Does cancer strike suddenly?  We know it does not.  It takes years for cancer to grow to a dangerous level.  Many, if not most people over a certain age, have some cancerous cells - and their healthy body is dealing with them effectively.  But some people have either a more serious 'cancer', or a body in 'poor health', that creates a medical emergency.  If we could measure the 'health' of all cancer patients - we might learn more than any 'cancer treatment clinical trials'.

We might also learn that cancer is not just a 'cellular' disease.  Cancer cells exist, but the critical issue in a specific cancer might be nutrient health, tissue health, or system health or a combination of health factors.

We will be better equipped to find the 'cause' of many illnesses, if we can measure health effectively.  There are many illnesses, like cancer, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, etc where the cause is not clearly known.  Our current medical system searches for 'a cure', perhaps because once an illness is detected - finding a cure is more important than finding the cause. What if we could find the cause?  In some illnesses, like arthritis, we know there are many potential causes - and each individual suffering from arthritis may be suffering from several causes.  But current treatments for arthritis, generally, - ignore the cause.

We will be closer to finding and understanding causes when we start to measure health on all seven dimensions: nutritional health, cellular health, tissue health, organ health, system health, body health, mind health, spiritual health and community health.

When a doctor says 'he has the heart of a 20 year old', what does it mean?  Does it mean anything useful, anything accurate?  When we start to measure organ health and organize and analyze these measurements by demographics, we will be able to see that he really has the heart of a 24 year old, or not. We will also be able to tell if specific groups of people have better nutrient health, cellular health, etc - not just 'they live longer, but we don't understand why' or 'they are less likely to get heart attacks, but more likely to get cancer'.

Our medical system often speaks of the 'gold standard' treatment for an illness.  What is the 'gold standard' for measuring nutrient health?  What is the 'gold standard' for measuring cellular health?  What are the gold standards for measuring tissue health, organ health, mind health, spiritual and community health?

The sad truth is that we do not have any standards for measuring health.  And few tools. We have many tools that measure illness - few, if any, that measure health.

I believe in personal health freedom. An important step to achieving personal health freedom is the development of a suite of tools to measure health.  If you know of tools that 'measure health', as opposed to measuring illness - please leave a comment, or drop me a note.   

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Universal Declaration of Health Freedom

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness.


Note: This declaration, prepared in 2010, has led to the book:  Healthicine: The Arts and Sciences of Health and Healthiness which expands on these concepts.

Full Version:
=========

Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and...";
and
Whereas the United States Declaration of Independence says "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that amount these are life, liberty and...";
and
Whereas the Canadian Bill of Rights says "the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty...";
and
whereas life does not exist without health, and quality of life is first measured by quality of health, and life ends when health ends;
and
whereas liberty is fundamentally constrained by health, and poor health creates a deficit in the liberty;

therefore
a fundamental right of all people is "the right to pursue healthiness".

Thus, the Universal Declaration of Health Freedom states thus:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness.

-------  discussion  -----------

These three rights are fundamental rights of individuals and do not depend upon, nor infringe upon the rights of other individuals.  As fundamental rights, these rights are not dependent on any 'responsibilities', that might encumber non-fundamental rights, for example the right to property.

"The right to pursue healthiness" includes  the right to seek the highest qualities of personal and community health and to take actions that improve health.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Any action that threatens the health of an individual is a threat against the "security of the person".   Therefore it can be seen that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is perfectly aligned with the Health Freedom Declaration.

The United States Declaration of Independence states that " that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".  "Pursuit of happiness" a valuable right, and it can be seen that it includes the pursuit of healthiness.  What could be more happy than a healthy person?  Happiness might first be measured by healthiness, which includes physical, mental, spiritual and community health. Therefore, it can be seen that the United States Declaration of Human Rights is also aligned with the Health Freedom Declaration.

The Canadian Bill of Rights states that "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property". Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Canadian Bill of rights recognizes right to 'security of the person' and thus the right to the 'pursuit of healthiness'.  

The Canadian Bill of Rights muddies the water with the right to the 'enjoyment of property'.  Enjoyment of property is an important right in our society - and an important right to health freedom.  However, it is not a 'fundamental right'. By its very definition, the right to the enjoyment of property, most especially when the property in question is a limited resource like real estate, infringes on other people's rights to enjoy the same property. Thus, property is a 'secondary right', not a fundamental right.

===========================================================
You can find other declarations of health freedom:

 International Declaration of Health Freedom from World Health Freedom Assembly 2006.  A more in depth declaration of health freedom, although the text is a bit sloppy and could use a good editor.  Contains information that is useful for contacting other Health Freedom organizations around the world.

2004 - NHFC Declaration of Health Freedom "National", eg. United States view. Poorly written, unnecessary emphasis on privacy and law.  Some useful links and info.

Charter of Health Freedom  Canadian.  Wordy and specific to Canada.

to your health, tracy
Author: A New Theory of Cure

Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine: ps. If you enjoy my posts, please share - and you might LIKE my facebook page. 

My Healthicine Page
and the book: Healthicine: The Arts and Sciences of Health and Healthiness

Measuring Health - how healthy are you?

If you can't measure it. you can't manage it", said management guru Peter F. Drucker.

How do you measure your personal health?  Can we measure health?  Is 'health' the opposite of 'illness'.  Do we measure illness?  These simple questions force us to think seriously about the definitions of health, and illness.

Warning.  If you try GOOGLE, your public library, your doctor to find a 'health measurement' - you will be seriously challenged.  The word 'health' is generally used to mean 'illness'. Health Care is not about health - it is about illness. "Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires", by Ian McDowell is not, as the title suggest - about measuring health.  It is about measuring illness and deficiencies.
For example it discusses the Health Utilities Index which measures the health of our sensory systems as:
"SENSATION:
1. Able to see, hear, and speak normally for age.
2. Requires equipment to see or hear or speak.
3. Sees, hears, or speaks with limitations even with equipment.
4. Blind, deaf, or mute."
eg. If you can 'see, hear and speak normally for your age' - you are healthy. There is no measurement of how healthy you are.  Measurements of 'health' only arise when you are clearly 'deficient'. Health is not measured. Either you have it, or not.

Illness is defined by 'diagnosis'.  The result is binary.  Either you have disease x, or you do not. Doctors diagnose 'illness' and prescribe a treatment.  Some illnesses have progressions, from pre-diabetic, to type 2 diabetes is one example.  Pre-diabetes is also measured as a 'yes/no' answer.

Yes/no responses are not adequate measures of health.  We need a more sophisticated technique - or perhaps many sophisticated techniques to create an accurate measure of health.  We can start with the basic disciplines of health: nutrients, cells, organs, systems, physical health, mental health, social health and spiritual health. If we can measure health on each of these areas - the sum will provide an overall health measurement.

But search you may - you will not find a tool to measure your health status in any one of these areas - much less all 8 of them.

How can you accurately measure your nutrient health?  Nutrient health is made up of hundreds of components - the essential nutrients.  Our medical establishment does not agree on the two key factors required to measure nutrient health:

1. What nutrients are essential to health? eg. What nutrients do we need to measure to determine nutrient health.
2. What level of nutrient is 'optimal' for optimal health?  Our medical systems generally define how much of each nutrient is 'essential to avoid illness in most people', and how much is 'so much it may result in risk of illness'.  But between those two numbers - often very far apart - there is no scientific information that recommends 'optimal' levels of nutrients.

If we try to measure cellular health... hmm. Do we need surgery? What tools does our medical system have to measure cellular health - of a relatively healthy subject? Are the blood cells healthy? The skin cells?  The bone cells?  etc. How do we know how healthy they are - on a scale of 0 to 100 percent, for example.

When we can measure health, some serious questions might be easily answered.  Do mercury fillings improve or degrade your health?  Your cellular health? Your organ health? Does removing mercury fillings improve your health in the short term?  The long term?

Can we measure individual (or personal) health to any useful level of accuracy?

How can we manage our own personal health if we cannot measure health?

If we are to strive for Personal Health Freedom - we need to explore the measurement of health.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Driving with a Healthy Attitude

Last year I attended a concert by a visiting musician.  I do that a lot....

Before the performance, she told us about her drive across the city, and how she was 'cut off' three or four times.

My brain went fuzzy.  I thought,"When was the last time I was cut off?"  I couldn't remember.  I drive a lot. More than most people.  But I hardly ever get 'cut off'.  So what's up with that? It took some thinking, and I started to pay attention to how I drive.  Over time, the answer came to me.

There are several reasons why I never get 'cut off' when I'm driving.

First, if someone is ahead of me - even in a different lane, I pay attention.  If they want to move in front of me, even if they don't signal, I generally detect it in advance - and give them room.  It is almost impossible for someone to 'cut me off' because of my driving attitude.  And afterwards, I usually find they don't even want to be in front of me - they want to change lanes so they can make a turn, disappearing from my path.

I remember driving in Toronto, with an older passenger who said "I never signal lane changes. Why should I signal my lane changes."  I pointed to the car in front of me, clearly (to me) planning a lane change. I backed off - and the driver zipped in front.  "There," I replied  "he didn't signal - so I'm driving for him as well".

Another reason I don't get cut off has to do with my high tolerance for mistakes by other drivers.  To be honest, sometimes I get frustrated, but generally, if a driver is lost, in a hurry, not paying attention, a new driver, an elderly person who maybe doesn't see very well, a visitor from out of province, or just plain idiotic and they do manage to 'surprise' me by pulling in front - I don't hold a grudge.  I might honk my horn, but generally not.  And in a few minutes - I forget about it.

So, if you cut me off today, I won't remember, or care, five minutes later. I certainly don't keep a list of people who cut me off, nor a count.

Next time you are cut off (or in a car where the driver was cut off) ask these simple questions:

1. Were you caught by surprise?  If you were caught by surprise, maybe you were not "cut off", maybe you were just not paying attention? Honk your horn at yourself. (sometimes I wish we had different horn sounds - so I could have one honk for DANGER, another for 'sorry....').

2. Did you see it coming, and speed up "try to not let the other driver in"? You were not "cut off", you were driving like an idiot.  Shame on you.  Honk your sorry... horn.

3. Were you speeding?  If you were speeding, are you saying: "I'm a better driver than most, so I can choose to drive faster and still be safe" - so, if you can drive faster and be safe, then  no one can cut you off - because you anticipate and share the road better than the other drivers.

I believe it is not possible to be cut off if you are speeding.  Once you pass the speed limit, you accept responsibility for what happens in front of you.

so... ask yourself, is it possible to be 'cut off' if you are driving alert, safely and sharing the road?  Maybe, but unlikely.

The secret to ensure we are never "cut off" when driving, is simple: change our attitude. Share the road.

Make this a personal health choice. Choose to be a healthy driver.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

I get knocked down, but I get up again

I get knocked down, but I get up again.

I get knocked down, but I get up again.

(song: Tubthumpinb by CHUMBAWAMBA)

Is this how health works?  We are up.  Then we get knocked down.  Then we get up again. This happens over and over and over.  At some point, we get knocked down so hard that we cannot get up again - or we realize we need help.  So we visit a doctor.  The doctor prescribes some medicines, or surgery, or other intervention - and we get up again, but maybe not so tall.  Until we get knocked down and we can't get up again. And we die.

Sometimes we view our health status as 'ok', or 'sick'. eg. as 'Knocked down' or 'up again'.  This is a very simplistic and weak paradigm. 

How should we view health?  

Our health is a status measurement - a summary of many status measurements. How healthy are we on a scale of 0 to 10.  Dead, to perfectly healthy.  How healthy are our cells?  How healthy are our tissues, our organs, our bodily systems, our body, our mind, our communities and our spirit?  The sum, or summary, of these health status measurements is a powerful measure of our health.  We are not 'knocked down or up again'.  We are lying down, or kneeling, or crawling, or standing up, or walking or running.  Or we can walk, but not run.  Or we can run, but not very fast... A continuum of measurements provides a more useful health status. 

Health is also a balance measurement - the sum or summary of many balance measurements. Are our nutrients in balance - not to little, not too much.  Are our stresses in balance - not too little, not too much.  Our parasites are in balance, not to little, not too much. And so on. 

If a 60 year old goes to the doctor for his annual physical, and the doctor says "You're as healthy as a 50 year old person".  What does it mean? Does it mean anything? And next month, if the 60 year old is diagnosed with terminal cancer - does it mean he's as healthy as a 50 year old with terminal cancer? 

How does this happen?  It does happen.  Why is our current health system not able to measure health status, complete health status - and give a useful answer? 

The answer is very complex and very simple. 

There are 9 dimensions of health. Nutrients, cells, tissues, organs, systems, body, mind, community and spirit.  How do we measure your nutrient health?  We don't, unless you are ill. Do we have an established method for measuring nutrient health of people.  No. How do we measure the health of your cells?  We don't, unless you are ill.  Do we have an established method for measuring the health of your tissues?  No.  And so on. 

Each of these 9 dimensions contains a list of components.  There are over 100 different nutrients essential to the maintenance of our health. Our medical system does not provide a definitive list, much less a definitive guideline for health.  Our body consists of over one hundred different types of cells.  Is it possible to measure the health status of each of them?  Is it necessary to determine health status completely?  Our bodies are comprised of many organs, systems and tissues.  How do we effectively measure the health status of each and all of them? 

There are 6 factors that can lead to illness, by deficiency or excess.  They are genetics, nutrients, parasites, toxins, stress and growth.  How do we measure the status of these health factors?  We don't bother, unless you are ill.  Do we have an established method for measuring deficiencies or excesses of nutrients?  Of stress?  Of growth?  No. Not unless you are sick to the point of a diagnosis. 

Of the over 100 essential nutrients, are you suffering from a deficiency or an excess of 1, or 10, of 30? Do you have sufficient healthy bacteria to maintain your health?  But not an excess, and not an excess of unhealthy bacteria?  Are you under-stressed?  Or overstressed? How can we tell the difference?  Are the symptoms similar? Are you lacking stress in one area, but suffering from too much stress in another?

I believe that, if we shift our paradigm from 'I get knocked down, but I get up again', to 'In some ways I am very healthy and in others, not so healthy - I'm working to learn about and improve in those areas', we will be closer to understanding and improving our health - and our health systems.  

What do we need to accomplish this?  We need to develop effective paradigms and tools to measure health status and illness status - far below the threshold of 'sickness' (I get knocked down).  We need more powerful tools than simple diagnostics that produce a 'yes/no' answer. 

We need to provide individuals with information about their health status, based on the measurements from these tools and technologies.  

We need to give individuals the responsibility and the power to take health actions on their own behalf.   To give them personal health information - and Personal Health Freedom.  

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

The Food Myth - Part 2

I have received a number of positive comments about my recent blog The Food Myth. Some people were confused about my message. Thanks very much for the comments - I view all comments as positive. They help us to understand each other, and ourselves.  This post is a clarification of my position with regards to The Food Myth.

Myth: The best way to meet your nutritional needs is through a healthy diet.  eg, Eat the right foods.

Fact: Eating the right foods is an excellent start to meeting your nutritional needs.  However, it is insufficient and eating the wrong foods can be dangerous. 

First let's be clear what I mean by food.  I mean foods in their natural state - raw or cooked.  Non-supplemented foods. Many of the foods we buy in the store are 'supplemented foods', or invented foods. Even the basics like bread and meat, cheese and wine, often have additives that are nutritional, or perhaps not.

I love Gerry's comment that when she was pregnant in Japan - she was advised to eat small amounts of 30 different types of food every day.  This advice is very good.  We don't know for certain which foods are essential to a healthy baby, so we  try to eat many different foods to ensure all the needs are met. This is much healthier than binging on a single food - which probably only contains a small number of the essential ingredients to help a baby grow. The same is true for us as adults.  Every day we grow 'new cells', and they need nutrition.  But I'd guess that many North Americans don't eat 30 different foods in a week.

Fact: Eating supplemented foods is an excellent second step to meeting your nutritional needs.  However, it is insufficient, and sometimes dangerous. 

It is unfortunate that we do not have a good word to name 'supplemented foods'.  We have a very fuzzy distinction between foods and supplements, made worse by the huge quantities of supplemented foods that are now on the market. We need a word for supplemented foods, to distinguish foods, from supplemented foods, and from supplements. I propose the word 'sfood' for supplemented food, and 'sfoods' for supplemented foods.

Salt is supplemented with iodine, because most people cannot get enough iodine in the food they eat. Supplementing table salt with iodine improves the health status of most people in the general population. On the other hand, table salt you buy today is not just supplemented with iodine - it is also contains non-food products to keep it flowing smoothly.

If you buy rock salt, or sea salt, it is not normally supplemented with iodine. Table salt is supplemented, therefore it is a 'sfood'.

or is it?

According to many people, Mercola, for example, table salt does not contain 'food salt'. It contains a highly processed form of sodium chloride, and iodine supplement and some chemicals to help if flow freely.  The table salt in my store also contains sugar.  Mercola says that table salt is very unhealthy and upsets your normal fluid balances.

So, according to Mercola, and others, table salt is not a food, and not a sfood.  This makes it is a supplement.  Eg. it is a non-food, containing a supplement that is essential to your health.  Supplements normally have 'additives' in the package.  As does the iodine supplement that is sold as 'table salt'.

Politicians, health professionals and product manufacturers can argue for decades about table salt.  Is it a food?  A sfood?  A supplement. Who is right?  The only important decision is your Personal Health Freedom decision.  You can decide for yourself and act on your decision - as long as sea salt and rock salt are available as alternative purchases. But, when you buy a processed food product containing salt, in most cases, you don't know what kind of salt it contains.  So, if you want to avoid table salt, you must take severe actions.

There are many valuable sfoods.  Breakfast cereals, breads, margarines and many other foods are supplemented with essential nutrients - changing them from foods, to sfoods.

Fact: Meeting your nutritional needs by choosing the right supplements is an excellent first step to optimizing your health status.  


There is a huge difference between 'meeting your nutritional needs' and 'optimizing your health status'.  Vitamin and mineral guidelines are generally designed to prevent illness.  To quote the Nutrition Information Resource Centre "Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) – the average dietary intake level of a nutrient that prevents a deficiency in 98% of a population."  There is a huge difference between preventing a deficiency, and optimizing your health.  If you just 'meet your nutritional needs', you may suffer many deficiency related illnesses that are just 'below the level of diagnosis'.  And few people have diets that regularly meet the RDA recommendations.

"Optimizing your health status" is the primary goal of Personal Health Freedom.

'Meeting your nutritional needs' is similar to getting 50 percent on an exam.  A pass mark. Sufficient - but hardly a worthwhile goal.  We can easily reach 70 percent, 80 percent or higher with some research, study and effort.

We need to ensure that the food myth is busted - to free ourselves, to move our health forward, personally, and as families, communities and societies.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: