The Great Sunscreen Debate! What to Do?

By now you have likely read it, listened to it or seen it on television...the debate over whether or not we are doing ourselves a favor or harm by using sunscreen. The approach of using some degree of sun protection is a good idea, but the way we have been going about it has clearly not been the skin disease panacea that we were aiming for. According to the National Cancer Institute, the incidence of malignant melanoma in the U.S. has increased by 50% among Caucasian women aged 15 to 39. This July 2008 report ruled out the possibility that increased detection accounted for the increase in numbers by noting the trend in increasing late-stage melanomas. So how is it that we are seeing higher numbers of skin cancer with the successful promotion of sunscreen?

There are several influential factors, but likely the issues revolve around misinformation about how to use these products and a sense of safety which cannot in fact be delivered by them. The sun emits 3 forms of ultraviolet radiation, UVA, UVB and UVC. UVC radiation is filtered by the earth's atmosphere so virtually none of it's rays reach the surface. UVA and UVB, on the other hand, reach the earth's surface and our skin must act to protect us from them. It has been recognized in recent years that the majority of sunscreens are not broad-spectrum, meaning that they only protect us from the effects of the UVB rays. These rays are responsible for the sunburn that occurs after long exposure and contributes to sun damage, premature aging of the skin and some forms of skin cancer. UVA radiation does not cause reddening of the skin and was once thought to be benign. It penetrates deeply into the dermal layers where it causes indirect DNA damage that has been associated with the development of malignant melanoma. This is perhaps why statistics show that sun-block users have had a high incidence of this deadly form of cancer. Using a sunscreen that blocks the UVB burn but lets the damaging UVA rays has given outdoor lovers a false sense of safety and clearly this has created a problem.

So the most effective way to protect against sun damage is to cover up the skin after 20 to 60 minutes of sun exposure depending upon your skin type. Darker complexions can tolerate slightly longer exposure times, although there are still potential risks of skin damage. This means using big brimmed hats and light clothing that covers up the limbs. Or heading into the shade is a sure way to limit the effects of ultraviolet rays. The other key is to use sunblocks that provide broad-spectrum protection using physical rather than chemical barriers. These physical barriers are zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. They will give a slightly pale appearance to the skin which is the physical block in action. Sunblocks that use chemical barriers tend to be poor at protecting against UVA rays. Additionally, these chemicals can be causative of other health problems such as endocrine disruption according to EWG, an environmental research and advocacy group. See last year's sunscreen blog on this topic...
http://healthlinksclinic.blogspot.com/2009/08/whats-in-your-sunscreen.html

On the flipside, we need a bit of sun so we can synthesize the critical nutrient, vitamin D. We just need to understand how to play it safe and not have a false sense of protection from poorly functioning yet well marketed products. Visit the link below to Environmental Working Group's website for a list of effective and safe sunscreens so you can enjoy the benefits of a bit of sunshine. Remember to use this option after you have found a way to cloth lightly and find some shade!
http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/

Take a Hike! Find a Bit of Healing in Nature

In Colorado we are fortunate to have weather that affords us a bit of outdoor time throughout the year. But spring ushers forth a diversity of plant life that can be healing to even the most downtrodden souls. It is in times of difficulty that we seem to benefit so profoundly from our connection to nature and most of us get a sense of stress release from being in the outdoors. For many in Colorado, this means a hard ride or a steep trek up the side of a mountain. The reality is, this is just one way to go. There are many easy and accesible trails in this area for those whose energy and exercise capacity is on the less aggressive side of the scale.

These following trails are relatively level and some have improved surfaces so there is little uneven ground to negotiate. And the flowers are just beginning to bloom! So get out and breath in the warm spring air and beautiful natural fragrances!

Follow the links for more information:

Pella Crossing - wide/level gravel trail in old quarry which is now a nature preserve
http://www.bouldercounty.org/openspace/recreating/public_parks/pella_cross.htm

South Mesa Trail - this southern end of the Mesa Trail is a wide/mild to moderate grade gravel trail that can access several other trails
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3035&Itemid=1035

Anne U. White - single-track trail that is mostly level with some rocks to negotiate
http://protrails.com/trail.php?trailID=42

Beautifully Colorful Hair...Naturally!

Most women would love to maintain their hair's beautiful brown, red or blonde lustre forever. And of course the inkling to spruce up our hair, whatever the color, adds a nice spice to life. But at what cost? That depends entirely on which product you choose.

Hair dyes are popular with women of all ages and so the potential risk of toxicity is elevated with years of exposure to these chemicals. Nearly all salon brands are petroleum-based while some contain higher quantities than others. The biggest chemical offenders in hair dye products are coal tar (which is less common after the FDA's warning in 1993), PPD's, toluene, lead, resorcinol and ammonia and peroxide. The latter two seem relatively safe on their own, but are are toxic in combination. So how does this affect us? A 1994 report by the National Cancer Institute stated that dark hair dyes used over a long period of time increases the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma. A study published in 2001 in the International Journal of Cancer found that individuals who use dark hair dyes have twice the risk of contracting bladder cancer than those who do not. And in 1991 a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that hairstylists had triple the risk of developing breast cancer when they worked with hair dyes of any sort for five years or more, but did not draw a link with cancer and consumers.

So what does all of this tell us? It tells us that at some baseline level of exposure an individual's chances of getting cancer increases by some measurable amount. So most health professionals can agree that salon workers are at risk for cancer while consumers may be at risk. Given the tremendous number of environmental variables that play into the initiation and promotion of cancer, any additional insult to the body is a risk that none of us should take.

So is it growing gray gracefully or are there other options? If you intend on using permanent dyes, you should know that none of them are completely free of the above mentioned chemical offenders and so the elevated risk is there. There are semi-permanent dyes that still contain some combination of these chemicals, but tend to have more plant-based chemicals that reduce your exposure. The only truly safe hair coloring agents are those that are plant-based that color by coating the hair since it is the chemicals that are necessary to penetrate the hair shaft and make the color more permanent. Pure henna and other 100% pure botanical coloring products will be short-lived, but they are substantially easier on you hair and ultimately on the rest of your body.

The Environmental Working Group has a list of hair dye products that are rated in order of safety. If you choose not to go with 100% pure henna or other botanicals, this is a great resource for you to understand your relative risk. Visit the following website:

http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/browse.php?category=hair+color+and+bleaching

And then there is the other way of looking at it. Your beauty is more than skin (hair) deep and the beauty you exude will be the beauty people see, so stick with what you've got!

Mushrooms In The Raw? Bad Idea

While we are becoming increasingly aware of the tremendous medicinal properties of certain types of mushrooms, we should also understand that they can deliver a not-so-healthy punch if prepared improperly. And certain varieties of mushrooms don't contain the touted immune-boosting properties and yet they still contain high quantities of toxins.

So which ones do we choose and what do we do with them? It's a good idea to limit the consumption of mushrooms from the Agaricus family which includes buttons, portobellos and criminis. These varieties contain higher amounts of natural carcinogens called hydrazines and don't provide the profound immune boosting effects of other varieties such as shiitake, maitake, reishi, cordyceps and enoki. Furthermore, the button variety is often used raw in salads which means your exposure to this natural carcinogen is quite high. Cooking is thought to inactivate the hydrazines, yet there is some debate that heating may not remove all of these compounds. So sticking to the medicinal mushrooms is a wise choice to avoid this, but there is yet another consideration with these varieties. The composition of mushroom cell walls, called mycochitin, is different than the cellulose walls of plants and is difficult for humans to digest. However, cooking mushrooms makes them more digestible and also releases the beneficial nutrients within.

So adding medicinal mushrooms to your cooked meals is a marvelous idea. Eating raw is a recipe for problems.

Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 - What Does It Mean To You?

Did you know that there are over 80,000 chemicals that are used in consumer products in the United States of which the FDA has required safety testing of only 200? Could this lack of regulation be putting our health at risk? The answer is yes, according to the President's Cancer Panel as stated in a May 2010 report. This panel was established by the National Cancer Act of 1971 under President Richard Nixon. Since this time "there has been a systematic effort to minimize the importance of environmental factors in carcinogenesis," said Philip Landrigan, MD, MSc, director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. The report's authors wrote a letter to the president urging his office "to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our Nation's productivity, and devastate American lives". This statement bites off a big chunk of the environmental problems associated with the many diseases that are becoming ever-increasingly common, including cancer. The report lends strength to a new bill that has been introduced in congress that all of us should learn more about.

The "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" was introduced on April 15th by Senator Lautenberg and Representatives Waxman and Rush. This piece of legislation has been presented to give a major overhall to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 which has been an ineffective bill which essentially allows manufacturers to walk all over the EPA. With the thousands of chemicals that are used daily by the American population, this kind of consumer protection is long overdue and will address the range of chemicals that the public is relatively unaware of. BPA is one chemical that has received attention with good reason. As the public becomes increasingly aware of the studies that are raising eyebrows among scientists and doctors the efforts to clean up our environment and our health will not go in vain. As of yet we can't quantify the role that chemicals in our beauty, cleaning products and other consumer goods play in the development of cancer. However, we do know that there is a critical role that these chemicals play in immune and endocrine dysfunction which have known links to the initiation of cancer. This piece of legislation, along with the President's Cancer Panel statement, are making big waves that need to keep coming if we are going to make strides is controlling the epidemic of cancer. Here are some of the key points of the new bill.

-Requiring chemical companies to develop and make publicly available basic health and safety information for all chemicals.

-Requiring chemicals to meet a safety standard that protects vulnerable sub-populations, including pregnant women and children.

-A new program to identify communities that are “hot spots” for toxic chemicals and to take action to reduce exposures.

-Expediting safety determinations and actions to restrict some of the most notorious chemicals, like formaldehyde, vinyl chloride, and flame retardants.

This bill could even go further to protect the American public from the carelessness of chemical manufacturers, but it makes a great shift from the lack of effective action of our government up til now. To read more about it, visit http://www.saferchemicals.org/2010/04/landmark-chemical-legislation-introduced-to-protect-the-health-of-american-families.html for more details.

Join Healthlinks Clinic for their May 20 seminar on "Detoxifying Your Beauty Products" for an indepth look at the dangerous chemicals we apply to our skin every day.

If you would like to follow the progress of this bill and related information, please e-mail us at wellness@healthlinksclinic.com.

High Fructose Corn Syrup - Is It The Bain of The Western Diet?

You may have come across the May 2nd article in the NY Times about corn syrup getting an earful. We happen to think that it should! High fructose corn syrup is used in abundance because of it's low cost of production and it's relatively sweet taste. It has been defended by manufacturers stating that it is no worse for you than other sugars and because fructose is the most common form of sugar in fruits, it is argued to be benign. While there may be a small element of truth to this, there are several holes in this assertion.

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) does not elevate blood sugar because of its relatively high ratio of fructose to glucose. Because fructose causes a very mild blood sugar response this appears to solidify the argument that it is ok. If it were used in very small quantities the effect might not be so profound, but HFCS is used in sodas, juices and sweets in such high concentrations that this should be considered. It also sneaks its way into foods like whole grain bread, ketchup, mustard and pasta sauces which emphasizes how pervasive it is. Furthermore, the way that fructose is broken down in the body creates a demand on the liver unlike other sugars which is why it may be a causative agent in high cholesterol. If the liver is so bogged down dealing with fructose, it has little time to address elevated cholesterol in the bloodstream.

So then should fruit get a bad rap as well? Only if it is your only source of food and you are literally eating pounds of fruit a day! A medium apple contains 19 grams of sugar and a twelve ounce coke contains a whopping 40 grams and many people who consume soda are drinking much more than 12 ounces. This doesn't even consider the point that soda and many HFCS-containing foods are completely void of nutrition while fruit contains a myriad of phytochemicals that support vital functions in our body.

One of the most critical arguments against the consumption of HFCS is the origin of the sweetener. As the name indicates, it is produced from corn which is from genetically modified plants. The research on GMO's are not as abundant now as it will be in years to come, but there is one thing researchers are certain of. According to Megan Forbes, HealthLinks registered dietician, GMO's are linked to an increase in food allergies. When these foreign substances enter our digestive tract, the immune system mounts a defense and this initiates inflammation in our bodies that leads to poor intestinal function which is often the source of food allergies.

So comparing HFCS to other sugars is not apples to apples. And perhaps one of the oft overlooked pieces of advice when we get caught up in the rhetoric of "food science", is the importance of eating unadulterated whole food. A few pieces of fruit as mother nature intended is part of a healthy diet that includes lots of fresh veggies. Sugars should be kept at a minimum regardless of source. But this highly inflammatory version is something that our bodies would never miss!