x
12 ways to look and feel younger

Want to hold on to — or recapture — your youth? These simple steps promise maximum vitality.

Experts on aging agree — there are positive steps you can take to make your “golden years” healthier and more enjoyable. And, they might just add as much as a decade or more to your life… So read on, and act now!

Phase Out Destructive Habits
The single best thing you can do for your health and longevity is quit smoking. Smoking has been indicted for a laundry list of ills from heart disease to lung disorders, all of which can foil your longevity plans.
Drink only in moderation. Alcohol infuses every cell, damaging genes and inflaming your liver. A glass of wine a day for women and maybe two for men, but no more, may be mildly beneficial.
Get your Zzzz’s. Your body needs down time to repair cells and rest your heart. And your mind needs dreaming to stay sane.
Find a doctor who specializes in geriatrics or anti-aging. Barbara M. Morris, RPh, author of Boomers Can Really Put Old on Hold, recommends an anti-aging doctor. But according to Marc R. Blackman, MD, chief of the laboratory of clinical investigation of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (part of the National Institutes of Health), a geriatrician would be more mainstream and recommend fewer unproven treatments. “Anti-aging is like saying anti-puberty or anti-pregnancy. This is a natural process,” he says. Whatever his or her style, your new doctor may recommend yearly assessment of various biomarkers, including lipids, DHEA, estrogen, cortisol, thyroid, lung function, and micronutrient assays.
Cut saturated fat, up omega-3 fats. It’s gospel by now: eat less or no red meat; lose the cake and ice cream; consume more complex carbs, such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables; and get plenty of fatty fish. The healthy fats in salmon, mackerel, and sardines help keep oxygen free-radical molecules from damaging your cells.
Consider moderating your total food intake. Studies in rats show that a 30% calorie restriction means longer life (no, it doesn’t just seem longer!). Blackman also cites studies in rhesus monkeys showing a gain in years from a reduction in food. Obviously, losing excess pounds means less strain on your system.
Be careful when tweaking your hormones. Morris swears by controversial human growth hormone — for her. Blackman is no fan. “There have been big studies to determine the relationship between decreases in human growth hormone and thinner bones, more body fat, and mood swings. Giving growth hormone can build muscle, but it has not been shown that the muscle is any stronger.” HGH has also been associated with water retention, carpal tunnel syndrome, high blood pressure, and blood-sugar fluctuations. “[HGH science] is not at a point where any responsible provider could recommend it,” Blackman says. And what about the other substance — a steroid called DHEA — often recommended for aging? “Dramatically less evidence than HGH!” exclaims Blackman. As for estrogen and progesterone replacement, it’s been in all the papers. The combo therapy may increase, rather than cut, the risk of cancer and heart disease. Many natural alternatives to these substances exist — your own situation should dictate your decision, but always consult your doctor.
Supplement, supplement, supplement. Most of us suffer from “overconsumption malnutrition” — too much of the wrong things, Morris says. She takes a fistful of vitamins and minerals each morning. Even the cautious American Medical Association recently endorsed taking a daily multivitamin. In addition to the effective antioxidant vitamin C, Morris says CoQ10, vitamin E, alpha lipoic acid (another antioxidant), and perhaps some of those “mental acuity” mixtures in the health-food store should be in your medicine cabinet. Again, your doctor can help you fashion routine.
Reprogram your vision of old age. A study at Yale recently showed that those with a positive view of growing older lived seven years longer than those who griped about it. Morris works with young people and “they forget things all the time and never refer to ‘having to a junior moment.'”
Kick guilt out of your life! Laura Berman Fortgang, author of Living Your Best Life, says: “Be future-minded. Guilt and regrets are part of the past. Evolving and changing is how we stay young.”
Don’t be afraid to make a big change. Fortgang says it’s never too late to move, join the Peace Corps, change careers, get married, or get a divorce. “Don’t say you’re too old,” she says. “Sometimes [earlier] decisions need to be changed.” She and Morris also say plastic surgery can be life-enhancing if you do it to look and feel better, not to change your life overnight.
Morris also half-jokingly advises that people never retire. “Retirement is a contagious, debilitating disease.” Take some time off for a vacation and smell the roses, she advises. But don’t get so intoxicated by the roses that you don’t come back and do something useful. “Those roses could turn into daisies,” she says, “as in pushing up daisies.”

This article was originally found here: https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/features/promote-the-aging-process#2

Leave a reply
    x
    “An overview of Why We Import half of our products”

    Banned in Europe, Safe in the U.S.

    “Who determines whether chemicals are safe — and why do different governments come up with such different answers?

    June 9, 2014 — In the United States, children can drink fruit juice beverages made with Red Dye No. 40 and eat macaroni and cheese colored with Yellow Dye No. 5 and No. 6. Yet in the U.K., these artificial colorings have been taken off the market due to health concerns, while in the rest of Europe, products that contain them must carry labels warning of the dyes’ potential adverse effect on children’s attention and behavior.

    ADVERTISING

    Atrazine, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says is estimated to be the most heavily used herbicide in the U.S., was banned in Europe in 2003 due to concerns about its ubiquity as a water pollutant. Also widely used by U.S. farmers are several neonicotinoid pesticides that the European Commission says pose “high acute risks” to bees and has placed under a two-year moratorium. These pesticides — with which about 90 percent of the corn planted in the U.S. is treated — have been identified in numerous scientific studies as toxic to bees and are considered likely contributors to the alarming global decline of these essential pollinators.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration places no restrictions on the use of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing ingredients in cosmetics or personal care products. Yet formaldehyde-releasing agents are banned from these products in Japan and Sweden while their levels — and that of formaldehyde — are limited elsewhere in Europe. In the U.S., Minnesota has banned in-state sales of children’s personal care products that contain the chemical.

    Use of lead-based interior paints was banned in France, Belgium and Austria in 1909. Much of Europe followed suit before 1940. It took the U.S. until 1978 to make this move, even though health experts had, for decades, recognized the potentially acute — even deadly — and irreversible hazards of lead exposure.

    These are but a few examples of chemical products allowed to be used in the U.S. in ways other countries have decided present unacceptable risks of harm to the environment or human health. How did this happen? Are American products less safe than others? Are Americans more at risk of exposure to hazardous chemicals than, say, Europeans?“The policy approach in the U.S. and Europe is dramatically different.” — Stacy Malkan

    Not surprisingly, the answers are complex and the bottom line, far from clear-cut. One thing that is evident, however, is that “the policy approach in the U.S. and Europe is dramatically different,” says Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

    An Ounce of Precaution

    A key element of the European Union’s chemicals management and environmental protection policies — and one that clearly distinguishes the EU’s approach from that of the U.S. federal government — is what’s called the precautionary principle.

    This principle, in the words of the European Commission, “aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative” decision-making. In other words, it says that when there is substantial, credible evidence of danger to human or environmental health, protective action should be taken despite continuing scientific uncertainty.

    In contrast, the U.S. federal government’s approach to chemicals management sets a very high bar for the proof of harm that must be demonstrated before regulatory action is taken.

    This is true of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act, the federal law that regulates chemicals used commercially in the U.S. The European law regulating chemicals in commerce, known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals), requires manufacturers to submit a full set of toxicity data to the European Chemical Agency before a chemical can be approved for use. U.S. federal law requires such information to be submitted for new chemicals, but leaves a huge gap in terms of what’s known about the environmental and health effects for chemicals already in use. Chemicals used in cosmetics or as food additives or pesticides are covered by other U.S. laws — but these laws, too, have high burdens for proof of harm and, like TSCA, do not incorporate a precautionary approach.

    Same Study, Different Conclusions

    What does this mean in practice? In the case of Red Dye No. 40, Yellow Dye No. 5 and Yellow Dye No. 6, it means that after considering the same evidence — a 2007 double-blind study by U.K. researchers that found that eating artificially colored food appeared to increase children’s hyperactivity — European and U.S. authorities reached different conclusions. In the U.K., the study persuaded authorities to bar use of these dyes as food additives. The EU chose to require warning labels on products that contain them — greatly reducing their use, according to Lisa Lefferts, senior scientist with the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. In the U.S., the study prompted the CSPI to petition the Food and Drug Administration for a ban on a number of food colorings. But in its review of these dyes, presented in 2011, the FDA found the study inconclusive because it looked at effects of a mixture of additives rather than individual colorings — and so these colors remain in use.

    While FDA approval is required for food additives, the agency relies on studies performed by the companies seeking approval of chemicals they manufacture or want to use in making determinations about food additive safety, Natural Resources Defense Council senior scientist Maricel Maffini and NRDC senior attorney Tom Neltner note in their April 2014 report, Generally Recognized as Secret. “No other developed country that we know of has a similar system in which companies can decide the safety of chemicals put directly into food,” says Maffini. The standing law that covers these substances — the 1958 Food Additives Amendment to the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act — “makes requiring testing [of chemicals] more cumbersome than under TSCA,” says Neltner.

    The two point to a number of food additives allowed in the U.S. that other countries have deemed unsafe. Reliance on voluntary measures is a hallmark of the U.S. approach to chemical regulation.Among these are “dough conditioners,” additives to enhance flour’s strength or elasticity. The International Agency for Research on Cancer considers one such chemical, potassium bromate, a possible carcinogen. This has led the EU, Canada, China, Brazil and other countries to ban its use. Although the FDA limits the amount of these compounds that can be added to flour and has urged bakers to voluntarily discontinue their use, it has not banned them. Earlier this year, the sandwich chain Subway made headlines by announcing it would discontinue using the dough conditioner azodicarbonamide, which is approved by the FDA but whose breakdown products have raised health concerns.

    Do-It-Yourself Decision Making

    Reliance on voluntary measures is a hallmark of the U.S. approach to chemical regulation. In many cases, when it comes to eliminating toxic chemicals from U.S. consumer products, manufacturers’ and retailers’ own policies — often driven by consumer demand or by regulations outside the U.S. or at the state and local level — are moving faster than U.S. federal policy. On June 3, the California-based health-care company Kaiser Permanente announced that all its new furniture purchases — worth $30 million annually — would be free of chemical flame retardants. The same day, Panera Bread announced that the food served in its 1,800 bakery-cafés would be free of artificial additives by the end of 2016. Any number of large manufacturing companies and retailers — Nike, Walmart, Target, Walgreens, Apple and HP to name but a few — have policies barring chemicals from their products that U.S. federal law does not restrict.

    This is also true of a number of cosmetic ingredients — for example, chemicals used in nail polish. After the EU banned a plasticizer called dibutyl phthalate from nail polish due to concerns over potential endocrine-disrupting and other adverse health effects in 2004, many global brands changed their ingredients. So while the FDA has not issued a regulation on its use, DBP is now found in fewer nail cosmetics sold in the U.S. In fact, the FDA actually bars only a specific handful of ingredients from cosmetics due to their toxicity.

    Industry performs copious testing, but current law does not require that cosmetic ingredients be free of certain adverse health effects before they go on the market.

    “Cosmetics regulations are more robust in the EU than here,” says Environmental Defense Fund health program director Sarah Vogel. U.S. regulators largely rely on industry information, she says. Industry performs copious testing, but current law does not require that cosmetic ingredients be free of certain adverse health effects before they go on the market. (FDA regulations, for example, do not specifically prohibit the use of carcinogens, mutagens or endocrine-disrupting chemicals.) So, even though the personal care products and cosmetics products industry has extensive voluntary ingredient safety guidelines — and obvious incentives to meet them — they are not legal requirements.

    Warnings, Advisories and Voluntary Phase-outs

    Also worth noting is that U.S. laws regulating chemical use in food and cosmetics were first developed to protect American consumers from being sold “adulterated,” mislabeled or otherwise dishonestly marketed products — rather than with an eye on toxicity (though the two goals often coincide). The law continues to work along those lines. For example, when certain hairstyling products were found to contain formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing agents at levels causing health problems for salon workers, the FDA issued a warning saying that the products should be labeled (either on the product container or company website) with an appropriate caveat about the products’ potential health hazards. As a result, despite ample scientific evidence about adverse respiratory health effects of formaldehyde exposure and that formaldehyde is a skin irritant and potential occupational carcinogen, these hairstyling products continue to be sold in the U.S.

    The process for restricting chemical use under TSCA can also take years; in fact, only a handful of chemicals have ever been barred under TSCA.For the FDA to restrict a product or chemical ingredient from cosmetics or personal care products involves a typically long and drawn-out process. What it does more often is to issue advisories — as it has recently for the antibacterial ingredient triclosan, which is used in many soaps. In the meantime, based on growing scientific evidence of problematic health and environmental impacts — and indications that triclosan may not make hand-washing more effective — a number of manufacturers, among them Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble, decided to eliminate the ingredient from their products. This spring, Minnesota became the first state to legally restrict its use.

    The process for restricting chemical use under TSCA can also take years; in fact, only a handful of chemicals have ever been barred under TSCA. Instead, the Environmental Protection Agency, which administers TSCA, often works with companies on voluntary phase-out programs — which also take years to complete — as it has with the flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs.

    Meanwhile, U.S. companies manufacturing products that range from electronics to office products, sports gear, automobile parts and trendy clothing have been following the emerging science — along with international regulations, local policy and consumer demand — and developing policies and products that eliminate use of chemicals with well-documented hazards. While these voluntary efforts are resulting in products that contain fewer chemicals of concern, they do have limitations. One is transparency: Companies don’t always fully disclose such policy details. Another is that such policies don’t cover all products on the market, leaving many consumers — often those buying at lower prices — without comparable protection.

    “It’s something in our psyche,” says John Warner, president of the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, of the American predilection for deferring to marketplace rather than government solutions.

    Options and Solutions

    Consumer demand and concern, often from mothers worried about the implications of certain chemicals for children’s health, has effectively pushed certain products — such as baby bottles made with bisphenol A — off the market. Such action is harder to effect with pesticides, but public outcry has been instrumental in moving the U.S. away from use of DDT and other such chemicals. Currently, public awareness of neonicotinoids’ adverse effects on bees has been raised dramatically by pollinator health advocacy campaigns. Actually shifting the agricultural market away from these products is a more difficult proposition. While the EU has promulgated policy using the precautionary principle and called a temporary halt to some of these pesticides’ use, the EPA is slowly continuing its review of these products — while at the same time approving new pesticides also toxic to bees.

    When it comes to determining chemical safety of a consumer product, Warner sees fundamental flaws in the current approach.What such an approach does not include is any guarantee of safer alternatives. Neither TSCA nor FDA regulations include such provisions. Many recently passed U.S. state chemical regulations, including California’s Safer Consumer Products program, have been written to address this concern, with language specifying that replacements for restricted chemicals be without adverse environmental health effects. That U.S. federal policies do not require as much pre-market information about chemical used in consumer products as does the EU system, adds to the difficulty of choosing safer alternatives.

    When it comes to determining chemical safety of a consumer product, Warner sees fundamental flaws in the current approach. Restriction of hazardous chemicals in the U.S., EU and elsewhere — and in most corporate policies — is based on lists of chemicals of concern. By focusing on these lists, explains Warner, we fail to consider those chemicals not listed, a process that leads to what’s often referred to as regrettable substitutions. Instead, Warner advocates testing whole finished products and scoring them for health effects. Does a product exhibit carcinogenicity? Is it a neurotoxicant? Does it produce birth defects or adverse hormonal effects? Answering these questions would yield safer products more efficiently and effectively than our current system, says Warner, and would yield data that could be used objectively.

    The global marketplace is playing a big role in turning one jurisdiction’s more stringent standards into industry standards because it’s often too costly to make different versions of the same product for different markets.Screening methods that incorporate a comparable approach to rating chemicals’ toxicity by health endpoint, such as the non-governmental organization Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen, are now being used by many companies to assess individual chemicals. Warner argues that looking at whole finished products through this lens would help flag problematic chemicals not previously singled out for scrutiny, whether they are long-used existing compounds or brand new materials such as those he and other green chemists are now formulating.

    So what’s the bottom line? Again, it’s complicated. When it comes to manufactured products such as computers and cosmetics, the global marketplace is playing a big role in turning one jurisdiction’s more stringent standards into industry standards because it’s often too costly to make different versions of the same product for different markets. Similarly, individual U.S. state policies restricting chemicals not regulated comparably at the federal level have motivated companies to respond with new formulations that end up being sold nationwide. At the same time, built into the U.S. chemical regulatory system is a large deference to industry. Central to current U.S. policy are cost-benefit analyses with very high bars for proof of harm rather than a proof of safety for entry onto the market. Voluntary measures have moved many unsafe chemical products off store shelves and out of use, but our requirements for proof of harm and the American historical political aversion to precaution mean we often wait far longer than other countries to act.

    Shifting policy, particularly in a way such as Warner advocates, is perhaps an even slower proposition. But as Stacy Malkan points out, consumer demand for safe products isn’t going away any time soon.”

    This article was found at https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/banned-europe-safe-us/

    Leave a reply
      x
      Colorado Health and Wellness Center

      It is with Great pleasure that we introduce to you Dr. Rick Munn and The Colorado Health and Wellness Center at My Hair Trip, the Sustainable Beauty Shop.

      As many of you know, our space is rather large and we have space to spare. We have a large gallery that in the past, we have rented to photographers, massage therapists, Yoga and dance instructors, etc.

      We have always hoped that the gallery would be used by someone permanently. We posted a public request for any renters needing space and that’s how we met Dr. Rick and Nicole Munn from The Colorado Health and Wellness Center.

      We are thrilled that our shop will now also be home to Dr Rick and The Colorado Health and Wellness Center! We invite all to come down and check out what they are all about this Friday during the Art walk from 6 – 9pm. Dr Rick will be offering a FREE computerized spinal stress check for anyone interested, as well as, HALF OFF their First visit! So if you know anyone who is interested or who you think might benefit from Network Spinal Analysis this is a valuable and fun way to have them check it out!

      What Dr Rick does is called Network Spinal Analysis (NSA – formerly known as Network Chiropractic) care helps people “break the cycle” of chronic pain, tension, overwhelm, exhaustion, and being stressed out, so they can fully express their vitality, passion, and clarity.
      By creating novel, embodied strategies for new levels of health and personal growth, studies demonstrate that NSA care can help people with conditions ranging from back pain, ADHD, and infertility to PTSD and substance abuse.

      It can also predictably enhance physical health, emotional/mental well being, and life enjoyment across the board. People engaged in Network Care tend to make healthy lifestyle changes more easily and spontaneously.

      My Hair Trip and Colorado Health and Wellness are a match made in heaven! Thank you for taking the time to read this update and we hope to see you this Friday at 8th and Santa Fe!

      Look Good. Feel Good. Be Good.
      -The My Hair Trip Family –

      New Place, New Hours, New Collaboration!
      Come enjoy Colorado Health and Wellness’s New Center located in the Santa Fe Art District. This is a whole new direction and collaboration for 2016!

      New location:
      773 Santa Fe Dr., Denver CO 80204 (Santa Fe & 8th)

      New Hours – We asked, You spoke, We listened!

      Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays & Thursdays: 3:30pm – 6:30pm
      Tuesday & Wednesday Additional Morning Hours: 11:00am – 1:00pm

      Ample street parking until 5:00pm then parking lot is available after 5:00pm located behind the center (access via alleyway, you can park in ANY slot after 5pm!).

      The Santa Fe Art District is a hip and trendy location! Our New Center is no exception! You will be greeted by our friendly receptionists, upbeat music, and art everywhere. We are excited about this new collaboration! We look forward to seeing you there!

      If you have any question or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.
      720-570-2500 (It’s the same number 🙂

      Leave a reply