"Taking Care of Your Mitochondria" = Health or Hype ?

Some time ago, I encountered a book by a Dr. Mark Hyman entitled
something like "Ultrawellness" or "Hypermetaboliism" - which claimed to
be based on raising your metabolism.

I scanned it, and didn't seem able to pick up the thread of what new
things he had to say.

I signed up for his free "newsletter" -- that man certainly is a lean
mean writing machine in addition to whatever factual truth he may be
conveying.

I was deleting and unsubscribing my unread email newsletters when I
encountered his latest (of many) submissions.

This one, another long one, talked about free radicals damaging
mitochondria and metabolism and cleansing of toxins and antioxidants
doing prevention from free radicals and more.....

It had a short summary at the end which focused on his slant on boosting
metabolism via "taking care of mitochondria", and that is attached below.

Part A) Mitochondrial Damage Prevention
Part B) Boost and Protect your Mitochondria

Even the "short summary" is a bit long. :-)

================================================== ======================
BIG SNIP

We should obtain the bulk of our antioxidants
from food -- namely whole, real, unprocessed
plant foods.

And we should take antioxidants as a team, not
individually.

Whew!

That's a lot of biochemistry and physiology, and
I really wouldn't go into so much detail if it
weren't so important.

I want you to use this information to guide you
on your path to UltraWellness.

So now you know what can damage your
mitochondria.

Here's how to protect them -- and prevent
rusting.

== Address the causes of damage to the
mitochondria:

1) Eat less processed, junk food, sugar, and
empty calories -- in fact, you should really
avoid them altogether!

2) Detoxify -- Get rid of environmental and
internal toxins.

3) Address inflammation.

4) Balance your hormones.

== Then boost and protect your mitochondria:

1) Exercise.

Interval training increases the efficiency and
function of the mitochondria and strength
training increases the amount of muscle and
number of mitochondria.

2) Eat whole real, colorful plant food that's
full of antioxidants and phytonutrients.

Get 8 to 12 servings of fresh vegetables,
fruits, beans, nuts, seeds, and whole grains
every day.

3) Take mitochondria-protective and energy-
boosting nutrients.

These include acetyl-L-carnitine, alpha-lipoic
acid, coenzyme Q10, n-acetyl-cysteine, NADH, D-
ribose, resveratrol, and magnesium aspartate.

4) Increase omega-3 fats to help build your
mitochondrial membranes.

Give it a try and you'll see.

Taking care of your mitochondria will allow you
to increase your energy, lose weight, and age
well.

It is a cornerstone of creating UltraWellness!

That's all for this week.

Next week, I'll explain how your mind affects
your body and how your body affects your mind --
and important these both are for optimal well-
being and health.

Now I'd like to hear from you...

Do you think you need a metabolic tune-up?

How has mitochondrial damage affected your
health?

What have you tried to boost your metabolism and
protect your mitochrondria?
SNIP
============

His website is http://www.ultrawellness.com/ should anybody wish to look
into his preachings and teachings.


I'm not advocating what he says, nor am I doubting it.

I have heard great amounts of stuff about "metabolism" but what little
time I have available for research reveals that much more seems to be
unknown than is known.

Unfortunately, I feel Quacks rush in to fill such voids of knowledge and
spread confusion, and make some bucks.

DEFINITELY BS....

Ol' Bab

Jbuch wrote:
Some time ago, I encountered a book by a Dr. Mark Hyman entitled
something like "Ultrawellness" or "Hypermetaboliism" - which claimed to
be based on raising your metabolism.
*************************************
Unfortunately, I feel Quacks rush in to fill such voids of knowledge and
spread confusion, and make some bucks.

Jbuch wrote:

Some time ago, I encountered a book by a Dr. Mark Hyman entitled
something like "Ultrawellness" or "Hypermetaboliism" - which claimed to
be based on raising your metabolism.
....
I was deleting and unsubscribing my unread email newsletters when I
encountered his latest (of many) submissions.

This one, another long one, talked about free radicals damaging
mitochondria and metabolism and cleansing of toxins and antioxidants
doing prevention from free radicals and more.....

It had a short summary at the end which focused on his slant on boosting
metabolism via "taking care of mitochondria", and that is attached below.

Part A) Mitochondrial Damage Prevention
Part B) Boost and Protect your Mitochondria

Last month's Scientific American special topic edition was about
nutrition
and it had several articles on caloric reduction increasing lifespan
(as well
as one showing the data that death rates are lowest for the overweight
just to add in extra contradiction). So it's a current topic.

On 24 Mar 2007 12:51:37 -0700, "Doug Freyburger"
wrote:
Last month's Scientific American special topic edition was about
nutrition
and it had several articles on caloric reduction increasing lifespan
(as well
as one showing the data that death rates are lowest for the overweight
just to add in extra contradiction). So it's a current topic.

begin rant/

I haven't seen that particular article yet, so I'm just speculating
based on previous information I have on this subject - but I rather
expect that nothing has changed in the last few years. The lowest
death rate at "slightly overweight" info has been around at least 5
years.

BUT - The old "ideal weights" were based on a study by the
Metropolitan Life Insurance company back a long time ago (1935?
Something like that.) The ideal weight was DEFINED as "the weight
where people had the longest life expectancy" for given heights.

In the past 70 (or whatever) years, medical science has advanced on
many fronts. Treatment for heart attacks and strokes in particular
have gotten better, along with detection and prevention by heart
bypass operations, stents and so on.

Now, there was NOTHING SCACRED about those old numbers. They
indicated the longest life expectancy UNDER THOSE OLD CONDITIONS. But
if the studies done more recently (say, 2000 and beyond) indicate the
greatest life expectancy around higher numbers, WHY ARE WE CALLING
THAT OVERWEIGHT?!?!?

(I believe some places did loosen up the numbers a bit in the 70s. So
they changed numbers a bit after 40 years. Well, here it is another
30 years later and it's past time to change again.)

Using the same standards as the old system where the longest life
expectancy DEFINED the "ideal weight", then these numbers are not
"overweight". Yes, they are higher than the old numbers, but that's
because medical science and the American diet has changed and the
typical lifestyle has changed. SINCE LIFE EXPECTANCY IS HIGHER +NOW+
AT THE NEW NUMBERS, THEY SHOULD BE LABELED AS THE NEW +IDEAL WEIGHTS+.

Not "overweight". "Ideal weight." Until something changes again.

A Life Insurance Company, which wishes to minimize payment on claims,
would heartily agree. They would want people to be at the weight
where they live the longest (and pay premiums the longest). I think
the rest of us might reasonably want to be at the weight where we live
the longest as well. But for some reason those old numbers seem to get
treated as SACRED, a matter of FAITH and NOT TO BE CHALLENGED.

Bull.

The new numbers apply to today's conditions. They might go up or they
might go down depending on Medical Advances, the typical American Diet
and Lifestyles changes and several other factors - but they ARE the
new "ideal numbers".

The medical community should grow up and deal with it. The diet
industry should grow up and deal with it. And the American public
should grow up and deal with it. It's hard enough for many people to
aim towards the new ideal weights, let's not try to force them to aim
10 pounds below it.

/rant

You raise some interesting points based on the history of the old "Ideal
Weights".

I remember the weight tables on scales that listed "Small Frame",
"Average Frame" and "Heavy Frame" that were supposed to refer to being
light boned, average or heavy boned.

When I weighed OK on the "Heavy Frame" table of weights, people were
telling me I was skinny.

The modern BMI is a terrible replacement. It fails to account for this.

I am 5'6" and wear size 37 pants (36 is just a little tight, and 38 is
just a little loose). The BMI number for me is 30 - just inside the
obese rating.

Historically, my weight was best characterized as "Heavy Frame". Today,
I am overweight still, and my goal is simply to wear size 35" waist
pants equivalent. Without the "Muffin Top" bulge.

Three years ago, as a result of a large weight loss under Low Carb, I
bottomed out able to briefly wear size 36 pants and shorts with no
"muffin top". But some pounds crept on, and won't go away with my
current level of dietary and exercise discipline.


Harold Groot wrote:
On 24 Mar 2007 12:51:37 -0700, "Doug Freyburger"
wrote:

Last month's Scientific American special topic edition was about
nutrition
and it had several articles on caloric reduction increasing lifespan
(as well
as one showing the data that death rates are lowest for the overweight
just to add in extra contradiction). So it's a current topic.


begin rant/

I haven't seen that particular article yet, so I'm just speculating
based on previous information I have on this subject - but I rather
expect that nothing has changed in the last few years. The lowest
death rate at "slightly overweight" info has been around at least 5
years.

BUT - The old "ideal weights" were based on a study by the
Metropolitan Life Insurance company back a long time ago (1935?
Something like that.) The ideal weight was DEFINED as "the weight
where people had the longest life expectancy" for given heights.

In the past 70 (or whatever) years, medical science has advanced on
many fronts. Treatment for heart attacks and strokes in particular
have gotten better, along with detection and prevention by heart
bypass operations, stents and so on.

Now, there was NOTHING SCACRED about those old numbers. They
indicated the longest life expectancy UNDER THOSE OLD CONDITIONS. But
if the studies done more recently (say, 2000 and beyond) indicate the
greatest life expectancy around higher numbers, WHY ARE WE CALLING
THAT OVERWEIGHT?!?!?

(I believe some places did loosen up the numbers a bit in the 70s. So
they changed numbers a bit after 40 years. Well, here it is another
30 years later and it's past time to change again.)

Using the same standards as the old system where the longest life
expectancy DEFINED the "ideal weight", then these numbers are not
"overweight". Yes, they are higher than the old numbers, but that's
because medical science and the American diet has changed and the
typical lifestyle has changed. SINCE LIFE EXPECTANCY IS HIGHER +NOW+
AT THE NEW NUMBERS, THEY SHOULD BE LABELED AS THE NEW +IDEAL WEIGHTS+.

Not "overweight". "Ideal weight." Until something changes again.

A Life Insurance Company, which wishes to minimize payment on claims,
would heartily agree. They would want people to be at the weight
where they live the longest (and pay premiums the longest). I think
the rest of us might reasonably want to be at the weight where we live
the longest as well. But for some reason those old numbers seem to get
treated as SACRED, a matter of FAITH and NOT TO BE CHALLENGED.

Bull.

The new numbers apply to today's conditions. They might go up or they
might go down depending on Medical Advances, the typical American Diet
and Lifestyles changes and several other factors - but they ARE the
new "ideal numbers".

The medical community should grow up and deal with it. The diet
industry should grow up and deal with it. And the American public
should grow up and deal with it. It's hard enough for many people to
aim towards the new ideal weights, let's not try to force them to aim
10 pounds below it.

/rant