Study: Exercise Has Long-Lasting Effect on Depression

After demonstrating that 30 minutes of brisk exercise three times a week is just as effective as drug therapy in relieving the symptoms of major depression in the short term, medical center researchers have now shown that continued exercise greatly reduces the chances of the depression returning. Last year, the Duke researchers reported on their study of 156 older patients diagnosed with major depression which, to their surprise, found that after 16 weeks, patients who exercised showed statistically significant and comparable improvement relative to those who took anti-depression medication, or those who took the medication and exercised. The new study, which followed the same participants for an additional six months, found that patients who continued to exercise after completing the initial trial were much less likely to see their depression return than the other patients. Only 8 percent of patients in the exercise group had their depression return, while 38 percent of the drug-only group and 31 percent of the exercise-plus-drug group relapsed. “The important conclusion is that the effectiveness of exercise seems to persist over time, and that patients who respond well to exercise and maintain their exercise have a much smaller risk of relapsing,”said lead researcher, Duke psychologist James Blumenthal, who published the results of his team’s study in the October issue of the journal Psychosomatic Medicine.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The researchers are now using a new $3 million NIH grant to better understand the subtle factors that may explain the positive effects of exercise in a new trial that begins enrolling patients this month. “We found that there was an inverse relationship between exercise and the risk of relapsing - the more one exercised, the less likely one would see their depressive symptoms return,” Blumenthal explained. “For each 50-minute increment of exercise, there was an accompanying 50 percent reduction in relapse risk. “ Findings from these studies indicate that a modest exercise program is an effective and robust treatment for patients with major depression,” he continued. “And if these motivated patients continue with their exercise, they have a much better chance of not seeing their depression return.” Researchers were surprised that the group of patients who took the medication and exercised did not respond as well as those who only exercised. “We had assumed that exercise and medication together would have had an additive effect, but this turned out not to be the case,”Blumenthal said. “While we don’t know the reasons for this, some of the participants were disappointed when they found out they were randomized to the exercise and medication group. To some extent, this ‘anti-medication’ sentiment may have played a role by making patients less excited or enthused about their combined exercise and medication program.” He suggested that exercise may be beneficial because patients are actually taking an active role in trying to get better. “Simply taking a pill is very passive,” he said. “Patients who exercised may have felt a greater sense of mastery over their condition and gained a greater sense of accomplishment. They may have felt more self-confident and competent because they were able to do it themselves, and attributed their improvement to their ability to exercise.” Once patients start feeling better, they tend to exercise more, which makes them feel even better, Blumenthal said. The greatest risk for these patients, since they are older, would be to suffer an injury or illness that would interrupt their exercise routine, he added. While the researchers enrolled middle-aged and elderly people in their study, Blumenthal said it is logical to assume that the results would hold true for the general population, since older people tend to have additional medical problems or infirmities that might make regular exercise more difficult than for younger patients.

Researchers used the anti-depressant sertraline (trade name Zoloft), which is a member of a class of commonly used anti-depressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). Blumenthal cautioned that the study did not include patients who were acutely suicidal or had what is termed psychotic depression. Also, since patients were recruited by advertisements, these patients were motivated to get better and interested in exercise. The research team included, from Duke, Michael Babyak, Steve Herman, Parinda Khatri, Dr. Murali Doraiswamy, Kathleen Moore, Teri Baldewicz and Dr. Ranga Krishnan. Edward Craighead, from the University of Colorado at Boulder also participated.

For more information, contact: Richard Merritt | (919) 660-1309 | merri006@mc.duke.edu

Study reported September 22, 2000
© 2007 Office of News & Communications
615 Chapel Drive, Box 90563, Durham, NC 27708-0563
(919) 684-2823; After-hours phone (for reporters on deadline): (919) 812-6603

I’ve noticed on many commonly-seen bits on yahoo.com, and other “health tip” readings on the internet, for protecting yourself from getting beast cancer, there’s a huge chunk of scientific field and clinical data that is not being addressed, so I wanted to illuminate it a bit.

Many articles focus upon one thing – the heredity factor, as was posted today on yahoo (see “A Healthy Approach” below), but I would also like to be very clear that most research is now showing that less than 5% of cancer is due to heredity factors, most all others are environmental toxins. As a result of knowing this in my clinical studies, I have copied some great references of online discussions with doctors from a few different sources, so you can learn a bit more, and truly join the leagues of women who are proactively trying to remain cancer free. This subject hits close to home for me, as my Mom is a breast cancer survivor.… but it wasn’t easy. And by the way, NO one in our family had it before her… so here’s a little bit more information to digest and use to your advantage!

Enjoy-
Dr. Grace

A Healthy Approach
High Risk of Breast Cancer: 4 Factors
Posted by Lucy Danziger, SELF Editor-in-Chief on Mon, Oct 08, 2007, 11:45 am PDT
To get a quick snapshot of your own risk, based on your family history, Therese M. Bevers, M.D., medical director of the Cancer Prevention Center at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, suggests you ask yourself the four following questions:
1. Do you have at least two blood relatives who were diagnosed with breast cancer before menopause?

4. Is your family of Ashkenazi Jewish descent?
If you answered yes to 1, 2 or 3, or to 4 along with any other question, your family history of breast cancer implies a genetic predisposition, says Dr. Bevers.
Talk with your doctor about whether you should consider seeing a genetic counselor, who can give you a much more complete assessment of your risk. (You can also find a genetic counselor yourself at the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Other Factors that are equally, or more important than heredity:

Read the entire interview from National Radio’s 1997 “The Health Report” at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s205.htm

The following is an interview with Professor Mary Wolff of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York. She has been researching the pesticide vs. breast cancer debate for years, and has some very interesting things to report:

Mary Wolff: That’s right, and because we know that oestrogen is strongly related to breast cancer risk, that connection caused us to want to look further.
Norman Swan: You did what’s called a case control study. You compared women with breast cancer with women who didn’t, and looked at various factors including their exposure to pesticides.
Mary Wolff: That’s right. My collaborators at NYU Paolo Toniolo had a group of 14,000 women on whom he had drawn blood at one time point, and then followed them until they got cancer, and then compared them to other women in a cohort who don’t have cancer.
Norman Swan: And what were the findings?
Mary Wolff: In the initial study we did, we found that women with the highest 10% of DDT levels had about a fourfold increased risk of breast cancer, over women with the lowest 10% of DDT levels.
Norman Swan: Did you measure other synthetic chemicals as well?
Mary Wolff: We did. In that study we also looked at PCBs and we did not see a significant effect.
Norman Swan: Have other people tried to replicate them - what have they found?
Mary Wolff: There are more than 30 studies worldwide going on to look at the issue of pesticides and breast cancer, and some of them have been positive and some of them have been negative. Not all of the big studies have yet been published however.
Norman Swan: There is a significant gap in our knowledge in terms of risk factors for breast cancer. What’s the extent of our ignorance?
Mary Wolff: Well that again is something that has really propelled in a recent interest in looking at environmental exposures in breast cancer. That is that at most studies that try to explain breast cancer risk, come up with about 40% or 45% of risk, and most people think it’s lower than that and it’s like 30%. Most women who get breast cancer do not have any of the major risk factors. The major risk factors for breast cancer are age, country of birth, and family history. We also know that reproductive history - the time at which you get your first menstrual period and the time at which you have your first child, and the age of menopause, are important. And those are the big risk factors. All those together don’t explain all breast cancer risk, and most women who get breast cancer have none of those risks.
Norman Swan: What’s your guess as to the attribution of environmental factors?
Mary Wolff: My guess is that in some certain sub-groups of women who are susceptible or who were exposed at a very sensitive period of breast development, may have increased risk due to pesticides or to other environmental factors.

Here is a GREAT list of many factors from CBS.com interview with Dr. Debbie Saslow of The American Cancer Society.
Full story can be read at: http://www.cbs.com/cbs_cares/breast_cancer/

WHAT ARE THE RISK FACTORS FOR BREAST CANCER?
The American Cancer Society estimates that 75 % of breast cancer cases occur in women with no known risk factors, other than sex and age. However, the following factors increase your risk:

Over-use of antibiotics: More studies need to be conducted to determine the reason why excessive antibiotic use may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. One theory, provided on the National Cancer Institute’s website, is that antibiotics affect a body’s immune function. It needs to be emphasized that antibiotics are an important weapon to combat bacterial infections, but gratuitous or excessive use may increase breast cancer risk as well as making a person potentially less responsive to antibiotic treatments in the future.

One more woman educated, rather than vaccinated for no reason.

Over the last 2 years I have been monitoring the progress of the press releases and literature involving cervical cancer, and the advent of the first “cancer vaccine.” While reading one of my favorite website’s daily announcements for current scientific research, www.sciencedaily.com, I came across a study that declared that scientists had narrowed down the genetics of a virus called human papillomavirus (HPV), and were designing a vaccine for it, in order to contain it better after transmission. Low and behold, 6 months after that, a pharmaceutical company announced that it was on track for creating the first cancer vaccine. Not but 3 months after that, we see commercials all over the airwaves telling us to tell our daughters that we want them to “be one less” – meaning, one less case affected by the potential of developing cervical cancer.

While I was impressed with the marvels of scientific progress in locating and deciphering the various strains of HPV, and how they affect the body, I was also equally unimpressed by the “vaccine approach” that is being taken to do something about the infection.

Let me clarify a few things:
1. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and infection.
2. HPV can be completely avoided and reduction of infection is cheaply, effectively, and easily achieved through condom use and microbicides, decreased exposure to multiple sexual partners, and screening for, and treatment and removal of new infections as soon as possible, so they do not have the opportunity to become cervical cancer (Center for Disease Control 2006 report).
3. Proper education and monitoring of your child’s sexual activity and safe sex practices is the only side-effect free, safe and responsible way in which to “be one less.”

I found it very interesting that on the Gardasil website, www.gardasil.com, there was a lot of great information about what HPV is, but a conscious exclusion of how to prevent it through safe sex and proper education. For example, the following is directly from the site, and is also similar data extracted directly from the Center for Disease Control (CDC):

HPV Types 16 and 18 cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, and HPV Types 6 and 11 cause 90% of genital warts cases.

And from their FAQ section:

Q: How do people get HPV? A: HPV affects both women and men.
• Anyone who has any kind of sexual activity involving genital contact with an infected person can get HPV—intercourse isn’t necessary.
• Many people who have HPV may not show any signs or symptoms, so they can pass the virus on without even knowing it.
HPV is easily transmitted. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20 million people in the United States already had HPV in 2005. HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18 account for the majority of HPV-related clinical diseases.
3. Q: What is cervical cancer? A: Cervical cancer is cancer of the cervix (the lower part of the uterus that connects to the vagina). Cervical cancer is caused by certain types of HPV. When a female becomes infected with certain types of HPV and the virus doesn’t go away on its own, abnormal cells can develop in the lining of the cervix. If not discovered early and treated, these abnormal cells can become cervical precancers and then cancer.
4. Q: What are genital warts? A: Genital warts are flesh-colored growths that appear in or around the genital area. The types of HPV that cause genital warts are different from the types of that can cause cervical cancer. About 2 out of 3 people who have sexual contact with a person who has genital warts will get them. Even after treatment, there is a chance that the genital warts could come back if HPV is still present. In fact, 25% of cases come back within 3 months.

Now, the next paragraph goes directly into describing the vaccine. There is no information on non-invasive prevention and effective techniques that are simply a reflection of access to knowledge – education and application of safe sex practices and proper screening. There CERTAINLY is no information about mercury preservatives in our vaccines, like information about the following from www.thimersol.com:

Thimerosal, also and formerly known as Thiomersal, is a compound that most often contains approximately 49% mercury (by weight) and is used as an antiseptic and antifungal agent, commonly in for human vaccines, pet vaccines and in other animal vaccines.
Thimerosal was originally developed and marketed under the trade name Merthiolate before 1930 by Eli Lilly and Company. It has been and is still used today as a preservative in human vaccines, pet vaccines and in other animal vaccines, immune globulin preparations, certain skin test antigens, antivenins, ophthalmic and some nasal products, as well as tattoo inks.
Thimerosal was supposed to have been removed from or drastically reduced as a component in all vaccines that are commonly in use for children six (6) years of age and younger, with the exception of ‘inactivated influenza’ vaccines. A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine, which still contains trace amounts of Thimerosal, is still marketed for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines for children seven (7) years of age and older and vaccines containing the Mercury compounds as Thimerosal are in common availability also for adults.

So, be informed, really look at who is being benefited from new treatment protocols with little-to-no research and data supporting safety, and certainly be aware of the side effects that they already DO know exist – it’ll only get worse with time (ref.: Birth Control Pill blog entry, June 2007). As I said before, I’d rather be one less, too – but one less being a woman getting a pharmaceutically pushed treatment for a very preventable problem. Prevention through awareness and education is definitely my choice.

Electromagnetic Wave Frequency (EMF): Electric current flowing through a conductor, i.e. a power cord, a computer, or even celestial bodies, generates a magnetic field known as an EMF.

Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR): Residual and resultant energy produced from the interaction between flowing electricity, and its magnetic field. Such energy is emitted from its source and spreads out in concentric circular patterns, like ripples created in stagnant water when a solid object is dropped into the water – i.e. like radiation from a cell phone. EMR is composed of energy-carrying particles called photons. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency and the more photons – and therefore energy – the waves contain. When scientists refer to the “electromagnetic spectrum,” they are referring to the whole range of such EMR wavelengths.

Now that we know what these abbreviations mean, what do they do to the human body?

As the body is exposed to EMF’s and EMR’s, its cells start vibrating at the same frequency, and absorb the energy of the wave, rather than allow the wave to simply pass through. That’s the same concept that makes a glass break when a soprano sings. The molecules of the glass vibrate, and match her tone frequency, which causes their chemical bonds to rip apart. With the body, and EMR and EMF exposure, the process is more subtle, but just as real.

Now, how that affects the human system is largely in debate. There is one camp that believes, after evaluating studies like the one reviewing increased cancer rates (leukemia) in children living near a power center in San Francisco, that EMF’s and EMR’s are an insidious, unseen force that chip away at the body’s system, leaving disease states in their wake after years of exposure. Then, of course, there is the other camp who states that there is no evidence of tissue damage, even when areas of the body are objectively measured as heating up, after direct correlation to prolonged exposure. However, in one study in 1999, these same scientists were baffled when brain tissue that heated from EMR exposure, showed no actual tissue damage, but DID show that subject’s reaction times during the study were altered. They even were quoted in the article saying “technically, that’s impossible. We’re baffled”

My opinion is that waiting for science to completely understand how damage occurs may prove to be too little too late, in preventing subtleties in the body’s cell structure alteration. I would rather take a proactive approach to the EMR / EMF debate and do all I can now, to protect myself as technology encapsulates our world at an exceedingly, and impressively fast pace.

Short of going back to living in a cave, what can be done to enjoy our modern world’s marvels, yet remain healthy? Here are a few good tips:

• Be sure to get a good daily intake of vitamins C and E to help with free radical tissue damage reduction.
• Try and take breaks from computers, cell phones, televisions, anything emitting an EMF or EMR, to help reduce potential risk.
• Get back in touch with nature. The more you can get outside and get your bare feet on the earth, the more you’ll be able to reduce the build up of free radicals, excess heat and cortisol accumulation in the body that leads to cellular damage.
• Buy and wear EMF and EMR scattering magnets and pendants. Every little bit helps. In fact, small battery-operated machines now exist that scatter and eliminate unseen waves in your home or office, as well. I highly recommend those.

Not willing to accept this fate, I started looking
around for alternative routes to heal my injury. A
friend of mine referred me to Dr. Grace, singing her
praises and telling me she could work miracles on my
knee. I was looking for a miracle, so I contacted her
immediately. We started treatments right away, using Cold
Laser Therapy for ligament repair and proprioception training,
Cellular Ionic Cleansing to decrease inflammation and help
detoxify my system and restore function, as well as nutritional
support to control inflammation, and accelerate healing.

Not only did she help me physically, but emotionally
and spiritually as well. I was extremely depressed
from pain and lack of mobility and she championed me
daily while relieving my physical symptoms. Each day
the swelling and pain decreased and my ability to
exercise increased. Within 3 weeks I was moving around
with few limitations and she even had me back in high
heels!!!

When I returned to my doctor at Kaiser 6 weeks later,
he was floored. He performed a variety of exams on my
knee and could not wipe the shocked and elated look
from his face. I did not need surgery and he couldn’t
believe it. I basically told him that acting like a
15 year old helped my body heal like one, which he
thought was hilarious, but really I know that this
never could have happened without the amazing help of
Dr. Grace. Thanks to her, I will be headed to South America for a
month-long ski trip later this summer.
Thanks Dr. Grace!!!

By the way:
A couple weeks into my treatments I let Dr. Grace know
that my emotions were also off the charts, because I
was coming off of 10 years of birth control. Always
working miracles, she had a bottle of a Female Hormone
Balancing Panacea: an herbal blend of chinese herbs that had just
arrived in the mail specially formulated by her colleague, and partner,
an MD/Phd from Harvard and MIT.

I began taking them immediately, and within days was
feeling better. My emotions stabilized, and I actually
got my period at 28 days, and with no signs of
irregularity.

You are the New Miracle Worker!!

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/lybrel/DI00086

What happened? The Food and Drug Administration approved Lybrel, a new continuous-use birth control pill designed to eliminate menstrual periods for as long as a woman takes it.

The usual regimen for birth control pills is to take an active hormone pill once a day for 21 days, followed by taking an inactive pill once a day for seven days. During the hormone-free week, you get your period. Lybrel, on the other hand, is designed to be taken continuously, once a day for 365 days, with no break for hormone-free intervals. The pill contains low doses of a synthetic progesterone (levonorgestrel) and estrogen (ethinyl estradiol).

What does this mean to you? Continuous-use birth control pills relieve bothersome signs and symptoms of menstruation for some women, so the pills may be particularly welcome if you often experience severe pain, heavy bleeding or emotional problems during your periods. However, some women did experience irregular vaginal bleeding while taking Lybrel, so know that this might be a possibility for you too. Lybrel doesn’t protect against sexually transmitted diseases.

Stopping menstruation with continuous-use birth control pills doesn’t appear to have any greater risk of side effects than regular birth control

appear to have any greater risk of side effects than regular birth control pills. In a clinical study, Lybrel was found to be as safe and as effective as birth control pills in standard hormone and placebo regimens. In some cases, it took several months for women taking Lybrel to achieve amenorrhea — absence of menstrual periods. The longer a woman took Lybrel, the greater her chances of having no periods. A subset of women had higher incidences of unexpected vaginal bleeding throughout the study, regardless of how long they continued with the birth control regimen.

Many women find the monthly bleeding associated with traditional birth control pills a reassuring sign that they’re not pregnant. If you’re like these women, you might find it troubling not to have periods. The failure rate for all birth control pills is very small, but it’s not zero. If you’re interested in trying a continuous-use birth control pill, ask your doctor if Lybrel might be right for you.

From Dr. Grace:

Stuff like this really concerns me in that nature is never one to be ignored, or denied. The female body is designed for developing and harboring life, and when fertilization does not occur, we bleed. We, as women, also have a very delicate, intricate, and necssary hormonal cycle that is associated with menstruation, that time has shown, is agressive on creating disease states if it is exceedingly messed with, like this drug does.

Twenty years ago, women were given hormone replacement therapy to eliminate pesky menopausal symptoms. Now, multiple studies in accredited, peer-reviewed journals have shown an alarming, exponential increase in breast and uterine cancer as a direct result of the “therapy.” So much so, that medical science has turned it’s back on the thought of doing hormone replacement and even said “Oops, that was kind of a bad idea, let’s not prescribe this to women anymore,” and are now investing in actually learning what hormones are most affected in menopause. In fact, alternative methods now tend to be the most effective aid for menopause symptomatology, so MD’s are being forced to learn how to use herbal remedies to reduce the uncomfortable side effects, without altering a woman’s natural progression through the life cycle, which ultimately prolongs her natural, disease-free state of being, as well.

My advice with taking a drug that makes you stop having a period all together: Think twice, and wait. Wait for research to come out that isn’t subsidized by the company creating the drug (clearly biased), and wait for the social backlash of side effects - they will exist, but to what degree, and extent is yet unknown if time has not passed long enough to tell. For the women close to me in my life, I’d say don’t do it… I’d rather not see you be one of the statistics that makes the medical science community say “Oops, we shouldn’t have done that.”

Here is a basic synopsis of the major contributing factors to poor sleep issues.
Sleep issues facing people today, especially in our fast-paced, fast food society are truely the culmination of 2 very simple things:

1. Stress
2. Toxic overload

So what are our options for natural solutions?

1. Stress Reduction
Balance cortisol - via exercise, supplementation, grounding pads for restoring natural circadian rhythms
Balance of nervous system (get out of constant state of “fight or flight” mode) - via meditation, hypnotherapy, cold laser thrapy.

Balancing adrenal glands and hormones - herbal supplements.

2. Toxic Overload
Elimination of cellular toxin overload via Cellular ionic cleanse therapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

Reduction of trans fats and excitotoxins from diet.

Reduction of energy-storing foods like carbs and sugar.

Increasing Omega 3 essential fatty acids and anti-oxidants.

Sweet dreams-
Dr. Grace