One evening in 1987 — young comedian, Jim Carrey, drove his beater Toyota up Mulholland Drive and stopped to overlook the Los Angeles skyline. 

 Things weren’t going as he hoped – but he still dreamed of real success.  Carrey has written that he took a very unique action at that moment.  He wrote himself a check for$20 million dollars.   He dated it “Thanksgiving, 1995″ — and wrote on the memo line: “For acting services rendered.” 

 It turned out his figure was conservative.   Once he’d been discovered, his price skyrocketed to $20 million per film, by his third film.

 Now, my numbers are not even close to those of  Jim Carrey.  But I do have a similar story…

 As a young man, I was dead broke with no bright future in sight. I lived in a small town in Eastern North Carolina — (population several).   Glenda and I were married in our senior year of high school.  I worked full time for a 500 watt radio station. We shut it down at sundown and signed on the next morning at 6am…  That was my job — sign on at 6 in the morning — work  till 8am – then off to school. I was back on the air from 3 to 6 PM…

 I made $65 a week. I was — as they say — financially embarrassed.   

The owner of the radio station — my lifelong friend – encouraged me to attend the Dale Carnegie Seminar…  That lead to my reading the book — Think and Grow Rich.  That lead to my setting a written goal to make $50,000 a year.

 That goal seemed impossible to reach — no one in my family as far back as I could find — ever made that much money in one year.  I didn’t write myself a check — but I did write $50,000 in red letters on the front page of my calendar — and I looked at it every day — just following what I learned from the book.

 Fast forward for many years now, my Shaklee check has been well over$50,000 a month.   

The point of this little story … the story of Jim Carrey … and a similar story for millions of people who have gone from desperation to higher levels of success…

 “What you think about, you bring about.”

So here’s the question…  How big a Shaklee bonus check can you see your name on?  Write that check out today and put it somewhere you can see it every single day!

All the best,

Dan

January 4, 2011 — Daily consumption of 3 portions of whole-grain foods (WGF) is linked to lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in healthy, middle-aged people mainly by lowering blood pressure (BP), according to the results of a randomized controlled dietary trial reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“Three daily portions of whole-grain foods could lower cardiovascular disease risk, but a comprehensive intervention trial was needed to confirm this recommendation,” write Paula Tighe, from the Division of Applied Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, and colleagues. “We aimed to assess the effects of consumption of 3 daily portions of whole-grain foods (provided as only wheat or a mixture of wheat and oats) on markers of cardiovascular disease risk in relatively high-risk individuals.”

After a 4-week run-in period during which volunteers followed a refined wheat diet, they were randomly assigned to continue the refined diet (control) or to switch to a whole-wheat diet or to a whole-wheat plus oat diet, for 12 weeks. The main endpoint of the study was the effect of dietary intervention with whole grains on cardiovascular risk factors, including concentrations of lipid and inflammatory markers, insulin sensitivity, and BP.

Of 233 volunteers recruited, 3 were excluded, and 24 volunteers withdrew from the study. Compared with the control group, the WGF groups had a significant reduction in systolic BP (6 mm Hg) and a significant reduction (3 mm Hg) in pulse pressure. Cholesterol concentrations decreased slightly but significantly in the refined group, but other systemic markers of CVD risk remained unchanged.

“Daily consumption of 3 portions of whole-grain foods can significantly reduce cardiovascular risk in middle-aged people mainly through blood pressure–lowering mechanisms,” the study authors write. “The observed decrease in systolic blood pressure could decrease the incidence of coronary artery disease and stroke by ≥ 15% and 25%, respectively.”

Limitations of this study include significant differences in baseline BP between the groups, but the significant decreases in BP resulting from the interventions were not artifactual because they were not in a direction that could be explained by regression to the mean.

“Although the mechanisms by which WGFs decrease BP remain unclear, our findings have important public health implications and provide a sound scientific basis for advising the daily consumption of 3 servings of WGF to combat CVD,” the study authors conclude. “In addition, dietary intervention with whole grains along with pharmacologic treatment of hypertension may have significant cost benefits to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and decrease drug-related side effects.”

The Food Standard Agency and the Scottish Government (Rural and Environment Research and Analysis Directorate) supported this study. Paterson Arran Ltd, Livingston, United Kingdom, provided oat cakes used in this study. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92:733-740. Abstract

Furthermore, the science behind the second warning has never been very strong. The concerns that soy might stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells was based primarily on cell culture experiments and one experiment in mice – even though a second experiment in mice came to the exact opposite conclusion.

However, the possibility that soy isoflavones could stimulate the growth of estrogen- responsive breast cancer was biochemically plausible because soy isoflavones bind to the estrogen receptor and have a very weak stimulatory effect (much weaker than estrogen itself). 

Even that evidence was not definitive because soy isoflavones also turn on several tumor suppressor pathways in breast cells and help strengthen the immune system – so they could just as easily inhibit the growth of beast cancer cells.

However, because the concerns were plausible and had not been definitively disproved, most experts, including me, have recommended that women with estrogen-responsive breast cancer might want to avoid soy protein.

Well a definitive study has finally been performed and it turns out for women with breast cancer, consumption of soy foods actually decreases their risk of breast cancer recurrence and dying from breast cancer.

The study was reported in the December 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association by researchers at Vanderbilt University and Shanghai Institute of Preventive Medicine.

It was a large, well designed, study that enrolled 5042 Chinese women aged 20 to 75 years old who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and followed them for an average period of 3.9 years.

The women were divided into four groups based on the soy content of their diet (ranging from 5 grams/day to 15 grams/day).

The results were clear cut. Breast cancer survivors with the highest soy intake had 25% less chance of breast cancer recurrence and 25% less chance of dying from breast cancer than the women with the lowest soy intake.

The effect was equally strong for women with estrogen receptor-positive and estrogen receptor negative cancers, for early stage and late stage breast cancer and for pre- and post-menopausal women.

In short this was a very robust study.

The study also showed that soy protein intake did not interfere with tamoxifen. The reduction in the risk of breast cancer recurrence & death was just as great whether the breast cancer survivors were taking tamoxifen or not.

In fact, tamoxifen was protective only for women with low soy intake. It conferred no extra protection for the women at the highest level of soy intake.

What does this mean for you if you are a breast cancer survivor?

I personally feel that this study is clear cut enough that breast cancer survivors no longer need to fear soy protein as part of a healthy diet.

However. it is important to recognize that this is a single study. It is a very good study, but it is just one study.

As a scientist and a cancer researcher I would like to see this study confirmed by other studies before recommending that all women who have had breast cancer should add soy protein to their diets. It may turn out that some women will benefit much more from using soy protein than others.

Similarly, this study suggests that soy protein does not interfere with tamoxifen.

But the use of tamoxifen after breast cancer remission is a medical treatment – and all medical treatments should be discussed with your doctor.

Finally, I would like to point out that a number of previous studies have suggested that isolated isoflavones may not have the same benefits as soy protein foods containing the isoflavones – so I don’t recommend skipping the soy protein and opting for an isoflavone supplement instead.

Dr. Stephen G Chaney

http://www.chaneyhealth.com

FYI:  I have two COPD customers.  Roy,  the first one has been on VIVIX, Vitalizer, Nutriferon, extra optiflora, and Cinch since late April.  His lung capacity has increased to the point that he no longer need supplemental Oxygen,  nor does he need a Nebulizer.  All that equipment has been removed from his home.

 His three Doctors have demanded to talk with me.

The other COPD customer has improved so much in three weeks on VIVIX, VItalizer and Nutriferon that his wife called me yesterday –so excited because for the first time in years he is climbing stairs, running errands for her, cooking on the grill (despite the smoke), and agreeing to go to parties and be with people again.   

His sense of humor has come back.  He got on a ladder and put up her FLAG for 9/11.  She was ecstatic.   You see,  she is 68 — married a younger man = 58 and was watching him slowly disappear.

 Roy is the first COPD customer above — and his macular degeneration has improved so much.  He went from not being able to see anything out of one eye,  and had to use magnification to see anything out of the other eye……to,  being able to see out of both eyes, reading of the TV screen, & reading books in normal print.  Needless to say, this 82 year old man is very excited about Shaklee.

 Debbie and I will be glad to share information with you.  Contact us at debloveless@bellsouth.net or 770-532-9160 and leave a message if we are not home.

From Dr. Stephen G. Chaney

Many of you have been asking me about recent headlines saying that calcium supplements may boost heart attack risk.

You’re asking me “What’s up with that?” “I thought calcium supplements were good for me.”

Let’s forget the hype and start by looking at the study itself.

The actual study was published online in the British Medical Journal on July 29, 2010 (M.J. Bolland et al, BMJ, 341: c3691). It was a meta-analysis, which combines the results of multiple clinical studies, and is generally considered to be a very strong way of analyzing the data from published clinical studies.

However, the validity of a meta-analysis is limited by the studies that it excludes. You can come to a very misleading conclusion if you exclude too many perfectly valid studies.

In this case the authors excluded all studies using calcium supplements containing vitamin D because, as the authors stated in their paper, “vitamin D supplementation has been associated with decreased mortality”.

I think you can see where the authors were trying to go with this study!

And with this exclusion criterion, their meta-analysis only included 15 out of 11,363 clinical trials of calcium supplementation.

And, it wasn’t only vitamin D that was excluded. A brief review of available supplements shows that when you exclude vitamin D you also exclude magnesium, vitamin K and all of the other nutrients needed for bone formation.

What you are left with is just calcium alone – calcium carbonate, calcium citrate, calcium phosphate, “chelated” calcium or some combination of the four.

“What’s wrong with that?” you might ask.

It brings me to another one of my pet peeves. Most companies evaluate calcium supplements by how much calcium gets into the bloodstream – not how much of that calcium gets into the bone.

Those of you who have been around for a while may remember a time when doctors were saying “Forget about those expensive calcium supplements. Just take Tums.”  After all, Tums (pure calcium carbonate) are cheap and easily absorbed (a lot of the calcium gets into the
bloodstream). What’s not to like?

The short answer is plenty!

To help you understand why, let me start by reminding you of a study that Shaklee commissioned a number of years ago. They asked Dr. Albanese of the University of
Albany to compare the effect of 800 mg of calcium from calcium carbonate and 600 mg of calcium from Shaklee’s Vita-Lea (Shaklee’s multivitamin supplement containing
vitamin D, magnesium, vitamin K, boron and all of the trace minerals required for bone formation in addition to the calcium) on bone density in post-menopausal
women.

His study showed that the 600 mg of calcium from Shaklee’s Vita-Lea was twice as effective as the 800 mg of calcium from calcium carbonate at preserving bone density – and that study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Society (You can check Shaklee’s published list of clinical studies for the exact reference)

We know that when you take a supplement containing calcium alone (something like a calcium carbonate supplement, for example) a lot of calcium is getting into the bloodstream. That brings us to the really important question:

If that calcium isn’t getting into the bone, where is it going?

The answer is that some of it is excreted in your urine – which is OK as long as you are drinking enough water and getting enough magnesium and vitamin B6 to prevent kidney stone formation.

But the rest of it is deposited in your soft tissue and your arteries.

The calcium that is deposited in your soft tissue can lead to inflammation and arthritis.

The calcium that is deposited in your arteries causes hardening of the arteries, which can increase your blood pressure and increase your risk of heart attack and stroke.

So the bottom line is that getting a lot of calcium into your bloodstream is not necessarily a good thing unless that calcium is actually incorporated into your
bones – and supplements containing calcium alone are only effective at getting calcium into the blood stream.

The bottom line is that the study was accurate in describing the safety of calcium-only supplements, but the headlines should have read “BAD calcium supplements
may boost heart attack risk.”

My concern is there are literally thousands of clinical studies showing that calcium supplementation increases bone density and decreases the risk of osteoporosis.

The inaccurate reporting of the conclusions of this one study may deter many people from taking the calcium supplements they need to prevent the crippling effects of osteoporosis.

To Your Health!
Dr. Stephen G Chaney

Quoting Mark Palen, District 2 Public Health. 

“What we have found is if you look at the different places where H1N1 has hit and where it has had its most profound impact is … in places where folks don’t get proper nutrition, where (they’re) not likely to be involved in a wellness program.”  

What Debbie and I have found over the last 15 or so years is that proper nutrition and supplementation with quality products has kept us out of the doctor’s office and off any medications.  We host Shoo The Flu and other health related meetings including “Are You Living In A Toxic Home?” on Monday and Thursday evenings.  Join us for one – we just need to know you are coming and your topic of interest.

Subject: BREAST CANCER … amazing information!

 BREAST CANCER:  In October, 2006, I was diagnosed with Breast Cancer.  I had 2 lumpectomies; went through chemotherapy, herceptin and radiation; also, had a partial hysterectomy.  When I finished the chemo, I restarted my Nutriferon, Vita-Lea, Osteomatrix, and Sustained Release Vita-C, and 6 months prior to my last check up I started on VIVIX .  My physician, who is  Head, Surgical Oncology in the Breast department, at Moffitt Cancer Center, in Tampa, Florida said my blood work and exam were EXCELLENT!

 I asked if they were any closer to a cure for breast cancer.  The doctor said “No”, but that a substance has been found to treat the individualized expression of breast cancer, such as, Herceptin for non-hormonal breast cancer.  They feel it will prevent the re-occurrence of breast cancer and prostate cancer.

 Moffitt has just put in for a one-million dollar grant for a clinical trial of this substance. When I asked “What is the substance”, the doctor said it was resveratrol!

 I said I have been taking Shaklee’s Vivix (Resveratrol) for 6 months; can I be a part of the study? The doctor looked surprised and said “You’re the first person that we have ever seen that had such great results with resveratrol. Since you’ve been on it already, I will request for you be a patient advocate during the testing”. If the grant is approved I would be thrilled that I will be helping the Susan B. Komen Foundation in this study. 

 Once you have experienced breast cancer (a disease that has no cure, yet—other than by using Shaklee products-(including the Shaklee soy-that blocks the xenoestrogens and the body’s own estrogens from causing too much estrogenic activity—the soy and other vegetable phytoestrogens show a protective effect against the other thousands of times stronger estrogens of the body and the environmental toxins we are exposed to in growing numbers-LD), at every checkup, you can’t help but have an underlying fear.  Taking Vivix, Nutriferon and the other supplements take the edge off knowing that they may prevent the re-occurrence of cancer.

Barbara W, Seminole, FL 9/17/2009

 Thanks to Lorri Kreuscher

For information about these products, visit our website