ANTIOXIDANT CAPSULES IMPROVE HEALTH PARAMETERS AMONG ATHLETES IN TRAINING

A review of Bill Sardi's book The New Truth About Vitamins & Minerals is in order.  It is an excellent primer for newbies and regular supplement consumers to understand the complexities of the vitamin supplements.  It's not as easy as you think.  Some vitamin pills produce a better nutrient profile in the blood and tissue than certain foods.  We like to think that foods alone, the beautiful things grown in the verdue fields of Northern California are Nature's secret to good health.  Turns out that beta carotene alone in pill form is better absorbed than that the beta carotene in carrots.   

I want to start off with a statement I found at the close of Sardi's Chapter 3, "The Recommended Daily Allowance Is Obsolete."  The statement is found in a chart that I feel all parents and adults need to see.  Here's the chart:

SPECIAL NUTRITIONAL NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION THAT CANNOT BE MET BY THE BEST DIET OR MOST MULTIVITAMINS

Total US Population: ~280 Million

Athletes, exercisers: Untold millions. Exercise produces more oxidation within the body; countered by antioxidants.  [Cell Biochem Function 16: 269-75, 1998]  Antioxidant pills improve health parameters among athletes in training.  [Int J Sports Med 21: 146-50, 2000]

Heart Disease Patients: 50+ Million.  Vitamin E may be beneficial. [Archives Family Medicine 8: 537-42, 1999]

Hypertensive patients: 43 Million. 500 mgs Vitamin C daily reduces blood pressure similar to drugs. [The Lancet 354: Dec 1999]

Diabetics: 15.7 Million (798,000 new cases annually)  Vitamin E has protective effects.  [Am J. Clinical Nutrition 63: 753-59, 1996]

Hospitalized: 33 million annually. Hospitalized folks have increased need for antioxidant nutrients.  [Int Journal Vitamin Nutrition Research 54: 65-74, 1984]

Pregnant & Lactating Females: 4 Million US women give birth annually; offspring must obtain nutrients from mother.  Fertile women require folic acid before conception to prevent birth defects.

Tobacco Smokers: 66 Million. Smokers require 25 mgs of Vitamin C for each cigarette they smoke.  [Ann NY Academy Sciences 258: 156-67, 1975]

Elderly: 34 Million Older adults have increased nutritional needs. [Geriatric Nutrition, Raven Press 1998]

Retirees at Risk for Cataracts: 34 Million 10-year users of 250 mgs of Vitamin C have 45-83 percent reduction in risk.  [British Med J 305: 335-39, 1992]

I would have liked to have seen this chart when I was a young man playing baseball or running or basketball.  This is must-viewing for all athletes from elementary through to college level.  

The other thing about vitamins is that we're often misled from the beginning.  During the 1980s we were told that the cholesterol in eggs is bad for you.  We were told that a low-fat, high-carb diet is the healthy diet, so people were eating more pastas and more breads.  Cakes and cookies, too, by that logic must have had some benefit despite the sugars.  Then the '90s came and we got a correction.  Suddenly meat and cheese and butter, even eggs, were healthy again.  Almost overnight.  Alarms about sugar then began to surface.  And as common sense began to reclaim the dietary landscape, instances of some claims going too far emerged, like all-meat diets that produced ketones.  A ketogenic diet was touted as the key to weight loss and a top-tiered approached to curing cancer since its low-carbohydrate efforts positioned itself as the antidote to the '80's high-carbohydrate diet with its high sugar content as the previous avenue to health.  Pictures of carrots, broccoli, and eggs aside, the ketogenic diet may, in fact, help you to lose some weight.  The goal, however, in any diet regimen is health with weight management a beneficial and beautiful side effect of health.  Problem with a ketogenic diet is that people will eat more meat and fewer vegetables.  The antioxidants are in the leafy green and multi-colored vegetables, not in the tissue of the cow.  Animal protein is a superior form of protein, no doubt.  But the iron content of red meat is something to watch out for.  When we're young, iron, which is a growth mineral, is excellent for growing bodies.  At age 40 and beyond, we've accumulated enough iron and probably don't need supplementation of that mineral.  For young folks there is no better protein source than red meat.  But for us older folks, we need to manage mineral accumulation better for iron and iron accumulation is implicated in disease.  

But what about the cancer-prevention theory of ketogenic diets?  Sardi answers that question.  

Dave Bolton, age 35, diagnosed with stage 4 advanced brain cancer ditched carbohydrates and replaced them with protein and vegetables and experienced a shrinkage of his terminal brain tumor to the point where it is barely detectable.  Chemotherapy was also employed.  The scans of his brain are quite remarkable. [Daily Mail UK Aug 24, 2016]

Sadly, the ketogenic diet is often sold as a low-carbohydrate diet, which if not spelled out can be confusing and actually legitimize the consumption of some (and how much is "some"?) carbohydrates.  The carbohydrates you eat on a ketogenic diet are vegetables and some fruit.  Period.  Dot.  End of story.  That is if you want it to work.  Eating meat pinched between two slices of bread on sandwich ain't it.  That's an American diet.  But the point I wanted to make was that the absence of vegetables from your diet is what causes the production of unhealthy blood proteins called homocysteines.  And these are not good for your heart.  I like Bill Sardi's way of phrasing biological processes. 

Homocysteine is an undesirable blood protein whose levels are particularly high among individuals who do not eat fresh vegetables .  When homocysteine levels are intentionally elevated in small animals their memory is impaired whereas if the animals are pre-treated with very high doses of vitamins E and C, memory loss is prevented.  [Metab Brain Disease 17:211-17, 2002] 

And as he himself says, taking vitamins in isolation, like exclusively C without E or A or D, you won't be getting their true benefit, explaining that  

A significant percentage of adults only supplement their diet with Vitamin C or Vitamin E.  They are likely missing the many health benefits provided by a well-designed multivitamin.

So be careful with the ketogenic diet.  Eat your vegetables.  And what is of equal interest is the fact that some vitamins and antioxidants are better absorbed through pill form than through food.  This is important for anyone who believes, as this author once did, that nutrients are better absorbed through food.  

Get out of here!  

No, really.  It's true.

Sardi explains that "While Americans are frequently advised to ovtain essential nutrients from foods, a study conducted among women in an undeveloped country showed that a beta carotene pill improved Vitamin A status better than foods."  

Beta carotene pills may be superior to beta carotene in foods.  While Americans are frequently advised to obtain essential nutrients from foods, a study conducted among women in an undeveloped coutnry showed that a beta carotene pill improved Vitamin A status better than foods.  [The Lancet 346: 75, 1995]  This study reveals that beta carotene in pill form can often improve Vitamin A status better than dark-green leafy vegetables.  Furthermore, a recent report issued from the National Academies of Sciences shows it takes twice as much plant foods such as carrots, broccoli and sweet potatoes, as previously believed to produce a given amount of Vitamin A.  [Natl Acad Sci, Jan, 2001]  A carrot provides plenty of fiber which impedes beta carotene absorption whereas a beta carotene pill contains no fiber to interfere with absorption.  

 Beta carotene is not only beneficial because it produces Vitamin A.  Studies indicate beta carotene helps to keep cholesterol particles from oxidizing (hardening).  [Free Radical Biology Med 17: 537-44, 1994]  

So it's not over.  Sardi concludes his section on vitamin A by bottomlining it for us:

Multivitamins should provide vitamin A for well-nourished population solely in the beta carotene form.  Since there is no toxicity from beta carotene, no limit is suggested though there may be some competition for absorption between carotenoids (beta carotene and lutein/zeaxanthin), so balanced carotenoids are recommended.  Persons with chronic infections or other special circumstances such as night blindness should obtain vitamin A in its fatty form (retinyl acetate or palmitate). 

An important footnote is provided on the different brands that he lists.  That footnote reads like this, "Beta carotene is convereted to vitamin A in the liver and excesses are stored in the skin, which means beta carotene exhibits no liver toxicity [or] (liver buildup)."  How's that for reassurance?  Part of that same chart, he footnotes that the "Amount of vitamin A provided by the typical American diet: 5000 IU."  Which all that a healthy person needs in terms of a maintenance dosage.  He did say that only those who are sick or chronically sick should supplement with the fat soluble forms of vitamin A, "In conditions where dietary intake of the fatty form of vitamin A is insufficient and in states of chronic or prolonged infection, supplementation with less than 5000 IU is suggested."  So there.  He tells you when to supplement and how much to supplement with.  If the situation does not apply to you, then no need to supplement.  Then this, "Amount of vitamin A needed in food supplements: 0."  And finally, "Amount of vitamin A required to produce long-term side effects: 25,000 IU."  

So there you have it.  Just take heed on what he said about the other carotenoids,

Since there is no toxicity from beta carotene, no limit is suggested though there may be some competition for absorption between carotenoids (beta carotene and lutein/zeaxanthin), so balanced carotenoids are recommended.

HUMANS LOST THEIR ABILITY TO PRODUCE VITAMIN C LONG AGO

I recently read Bill Sardi's 2003 book, The New Truth About Vitamins & Minerals.  It is the perfect book for anyone wanting to pinpoint specific amounts of vitamins to take for this or that ailment so that you can get more effective use out of your supplements and make your dollars go further.  He gets you there by eloquently sorting through the hype, the fears, the exaggerated claims about vitamins.  I have read lots of online articles about this or that vitamin, what it can do for you, how it will work, and so forth and no one delivers on specifics the way Sardi does.  No one.  Not Mercola.  Not Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.  Few come close.  What makes Sardi's reporting remarkable in his signature specificity on dosage, application for a specific condition, the controversial histories on a particular nutrient compound, and so on.  He discerns the benefits of a nutrient compound at one at and for one group versus that for another group including an age group.  I can't find other nutritional journalists who do what he does or even come close to what he does.  So I turn to him often. 

His books examines a lot of the myths associated with different kinds of nutrients.  The one that seemed to monopolize all the press was Vitamin C, perhaps due to the controversary surround Linus Pauling and his claims that high dose Vitamin C "cured cancer."  Not only did Vitamin C get a questionable rap, but so did palliative theories advancing high dose nutrients.  But let's start with Vitamin C.  

His Chapter 4 is titled "Make Certain Your Multivitamin Is Potent," which reivews the kinds of C that are the most potent along with the dose.  And since RDI for Vitamin C is set by the amount required to prevent scurvy, which is very low at 30 mgs, Sardi starts there.  The section in his Chapter 4 on Vitamin C carries the subheading of "Antioxidants Rescue Brain Neurons."  This section should be read by any parent whose child is enrolled in an after-school sports program.  Even if it is running, where the child is not making any contact with other players, the parent needs to understand what the nutritional needs of their child is.  Therefore, they should memorize the details of this section on Vitamin C.  Protect your kids minimally with Vitamin C.  The antioxidants that Sardi lists are presented here.  Note, too, in a later chapter, Sardi explains that lasting benefits from vitamins and antioxidants comes when they are combined, like in the form of a multi-vitamin.  The best multi-vitamin I've found is his Molecular-Multi.  But here is the list of vitamins: 

Antioxidants, such as Vitamin C, Vitamin E, and glutathione, serve as anti-rusting agents, protecting brain cells from premature aging and disease.  In mice, the administration of high-dose Vitamin C completely prevented drug-induced amnesia.  [Neurobiology Learning Memory 64: 119-24, 1995] In Switzerland, adults age 65-94 years of age, higher circulating Vitamin C and beta carotene levels are correlated with improved memory and vocabulary.  [Journal American Geriatric Society 45: 718-24, 1997] 

So, Vitamins C, E, and glutathione are anti-rusting agents.  Note well, mom.  They also protect the brain from aging and from disease.  Mom, did you hear that?  Specifically, Vitamin C prevents amnesia.  Minimally that means that it helps your child's brain remember more and remember better, which certainly would be a strategic advantage while in school and beyond when he is in business.  That alone should stand out as a #1 reason why parents should be giving their children higher doses of C.  I think it's that word "higher" that scares a lot of people, left over perhaps from the controversy of Dr. Linus Pauling's work.  Sardi adds that low Vitamin E levels make it harder to recall details.  So up the E, Ma!

In an elderly population of US adults, the ability to recall events or facts was diminished with low circulating levels of Vitamin E.  [American Journal Epidemiology 150:37-44, 1999]

Okay, so these facts derail that myth that Americans or anyone for that matter are simply wasting their money by paying for supplements, that all they're doing is producing expensive urine.  People claim that you don't need that much Vitamin C, that all you need to do is eat an orange or two a day.  Maybe.  But as his characteristic thoroughness prevails, Sardi looks at dosage provide which level of protection.

How Much Vitamin C?
To prevent scurvy	30 mgs	Half an orange
Recommended intake	90 mgs	1 ½ oranges
Average dietary consumption	110 mgs	Almost 2 oranges
To prevent cataracts	300-2000 mgs	5-33 oranges
To control blood pressure	500 mgs	8 oranges
To replace Vitamin C in smokers (pack a day habit)	500 mgs	8 oranges

So Sardi answers that question of "How much of a vitamin do I need?"  The short answer is "It depends on your situation, on your condition, what you're experiencing."  So instead of pointing to an average daily requirement, Sardi considers your age, your sex, or any specific conditions.  In other words, no RDI is the same for everyone.  Got it?  This is a much better, personalized approach.  You won't waste time or money this way.  

Want to prevent cataracts?  Then 1,000 mgs/day.  But can you really eat 30 oranges a day?  This alone is the worth your time to read and evaluate his reviews.  Most journalists will state that Vitamin C fights cancer or cuts short the life of the cold.  But how many will provide you with a specific amount to target a specific condition?  That's what I thought.  

What is required to prevent scurvy?  30 mgs.  In fact, what is interesting is that the RDI for Vitamin C recommended by the FDA is set, get this,

by the absensce of scurvy . . . . 

Get that?  When supplement companies manufacturer the vitamins, they're obliged follow the FDA's RDI.  But for Vitamin C, the amount determined is merely by the absence of scurvy, which takes several weeks to manifest itself.  As scurvy takes a long time to develop, it means that our immunity, in the absence of Vitamin C, is woking based on other nutritional compounds and biological processes.  Sardi presents a very interesting chart by introducing it thus.

Scientists estimate humans need about 2000-4000 mgs of Vitamin C, taken at intervals through the day, to approximate what the human body once produced when Vitamin C was a hormone, not a vitamin.  [Medical Hypotheses 5: 711-21, 1979] 

Check out this chart.  It is fascinating:

Humans Lost Their Ability to Produce Vitamin C Long Ago Most Animals Produce Their Own Vitamin C by the Enzymatic Conversion of Blood Sugar to Ascorbic Acid* *Except for some species of guinea pigs, fruit bats, fish, and primates Daily Production of Vitamin C in Humans and Animals
Humans & Animals	Milligrams of Vitamin C produced per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight/per day	If humans were the same weight as these animals how much Vitamin C would humans produce per day? (in milligrams)
Snake	10	700
Tortoise	7	490
Mouse	275	19,250
Rabbit	226	15,820
Goat	190	13,300
Rat	150	10,500
Dog	40	2800
Cat	40	2800
Humans	0	--
*Chart provided courtesy of Rusty Hoge of cforyourself.com.  Cforyourself is the internet’s leading website about the nutritional benefits of Vitamin C for optimum health.  Visit cforyourself.com.

Given that gorillas in the wild consume many times more Vitamin C (4500 mgs per day) than modern humans and their diet is supplemented with 5000 mgs per day in captivity, is it any wonder Americans who consume about 100 mgs of Vitamin C from their daily diet and have a vitamin requirement of 60 milligrams, suffer from so many allergic disorders?  http://knowledgeofhealth.com/celiac-gluten-intolerance-are-we-chasing-wrong-villain/.  

He explains what supplemental Vitamin C does for blood pressure.  It reduces high blood pressure.  Specifically, 

500 mgs of supplemental Vitamin C, meaning oral Vitamin C, has been shown to help the blood vessels dilated or widen in response to stress and thus help maintain healthy blood pressure (Sardi, 61). 

Ergo, if you're prone to high blood pressure, keep some Vitamin C around the house.  

The question then that persists is how much Vitamin C should one take?  Let's see what Sardi's conclusions are and how he reached them.  He asks the question himself, 

How much Vitamin C should adults consume?

And he answers it 

   A lot more than many people think. 

So 30 mgs to prevent scurvy he says, adding that 

Most vitamin supplements provide at least 60 mgs of Vitamin C, and updated versions will provide 90 mgs sicne new guidelines call for 75 mgs for females and 90 mgs for males, and a bit more for smokers.  The average daily consumption of Vitamin C in the US Is about 109 mgs.  

He adds that 

However, the adequate amount of Vitamin C is determined by the absence of scurvy, which would be the minimal amount. 

What I find fascinating is that humans used to produce our own Vitamin C.  Sardi explains

Humans once produced Vitamin C in their own bodies.  Back in human history, prior to a universal genetic mutation, Vitamin C was a hormone produced in the human liver.  In reality, all humans are hopelessly vitamin C deficient because our early ancestors produced their own Vitamin C naturally by the enzymatic conversion in the liver of circulating blood sugars to ascorbic acid.  Most animals except for some species of fruit bats, fish, guinea pigs and some primates produce their own Vitamin C.

Humans have a defective gene in their liver which no longer produces the fourther enzyme (gulonolactone oxidase) required to produce Vitamin C. {Am J Med 26: 740-48, 1959]  Animals that produce Vitamin C live 8-12 times beyond their age of physical maturation.  Humans mature physically at about age 18 and live only 2.0-3.5 times beyond this.  Reinstallation of the gene for the missing enzyme would extend the human life span to hundreds of years.  Obviously, at some time in the past humans lived a lot longer than tney do now.  Maybe there is an element of truth to those Bible stories about Adam and Noah and Methuselah living so long. 

Absolutely, fascinating stuff.  So the final thing I will review from Sardi's book are the amounts produced by the different animal species.  You defeinitely need this book around the house.  It is a fascinating read.  And here I am talking only about his section on Vitamin C.  The other sections also will blow your hair back.  

Sardi points out that Vitamin C is primarily a stress nutrient.  It helps other animals to manage stress.  It helps us too for the same reasons from environmental stress, food stress, and other stresses.  He writes

Animals produce about 60 mgs of Vitamin C per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight, or for a 150 pound human would need about 4000 milligrams to reach the level once produced naturally within the body.  Think of what the human body would be like with continual production of Vitamin C.  Since increased stress hormones signal for the release of stored sugars into the blood circulation, under stress humans would produce more Vitamin C.  Humans would no longer be vulnerable to the physical consequences of stress-related disease.  There would be no diabetes since sugar would convert to ascorbic acid.  Humans would renew their tissues more readily since collagen production would be elevated.  Joints wouldn't wear out.  Blood vessels wouldn't weaken with advancing age.  Cataracts, kidney stones and other maladies would be a thing of the past.  Scientists estimate humans need about 2000-4000mgs of Vitamin C, taken at intervals through the day, to approximate what the human body once produced when Vitamin C was a hormone, not a vitamin.  [Medical Hypotheses 5: 711-21, 1979]

Sarid ends this section on Vitamin C with a question, "Why Humans Are Vulnerable to Stress?"  Excellent question.  He admits that 

even this amount [2000-4000 mgs] of Vitamin C may not be enough.

Incredible.  How much then? 

Stress triggers production of adrenal hormones which signals stored sugars and fats to be released into the blood circulation.  Upon passage through the liver, these sugars would then be converted into Vitamin C via an enzymatic process.  This is how Vitamin C is produced today, from corn syrup and enzymes.  In animals that produce their own Vitamin C, the more stress they experience the more Vitamin C their bodies produce.  An animal about the size of a human, such as a 160-pound mountain goat, produces about 13,000 milligrams of Vitamin C per day and more under stress.  [Med Hypotheses 5: 711, 1979]  Vitamin C is an anti-stress vitamin and requirement vary depending upon the level of physical or emotional stress.  A fixed intake level of Vitamin C does not take into consideration varying levels of stress.  

Answer: 2000 mgs 4 times per day.  We do this to make up for a genetic flaw. 

Next, I will review the myths associated with over dosing on vitamins.  Stay tuned.  

Here is his book

U.S. HEALTCARE EARNS a D MINUS

Dated article from Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH.  July 26, 2000

The fact is that the US population does not have anywhere near the best health in the world.  Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12^th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators.  Countries in order of their average ranking on the health indicators (with the first being the best) are Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Australia, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium, the United States, and Germany.  Rankings of the United States on the separate indicators are:

  Ø 13^th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages.

  Ø 13^th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall.

  Ø 11^th for post-neonatal mortality.

  Ø 13^th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)

  Ø 11^th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12^th for males.

  Ø 10^th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12^th for males.

  Ø 10^th for life expectancy at 40 years for female, 9^th for males.

  Ø 7^th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7^th for males.

  Ø 3^rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3^rd for males.

  Ø 10^th for age-adjusted mortality.

Okay, so it’s not good news if you live in the United States.  A World Health Organization report found that the United States ranked 15^th among 25 industrialized countries.  Could that figure be more condemning?  And who usually gets the blame for the country’s poor performance?  Healthcare practioners?  Nope.  Are you kidding?  Doctors and nurses and medical personnel get most of the praise.  Not, it’s the public that behaves badly and that’s why the US ranks 15 out of 25.  “Common explanations for this poor performance fail to implicate the health system.  The perception is that the American public “behaves badly” by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence.  The data show otherwise, at least relatively.  The proportion of females who smoke ranges from 14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it is 24% (fifth best).  For males, the range is from 26% in Sweden to 61% in Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best).” 

via Jon Rappoport

CANNABIS USERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT VIOLENT CRIME

from the Daily Mail

Study found there was a ‘more constant relationship’ between cannabis and violence than between alcohol or cocaine use and violence

Cannabis users are more likely to commit violent crime, pioneering research has shown.

It warned those who smoke the drug regularly run an increased risk of using violence against others.

The project is the first to demonstrate that cannabis is not only linked with violent crime but is the cause.

Violent incidents monitored by the study based on the lives of more than 1,100 American psychiatric patients included assaults, attacks with weapons and rapes.

PICTURED: A CCTV image of the Somali-born Muhiddin Mire, 30, (left) during a shocking rampage at Leytonstone Tube station. A court heard his addiction to skunk cannabis had altered his brain to make him believe he was being followed by MI5

Researchers said that cannabis causes violence and they found no evidence that the link is the other way round – ie that violent people are more likely to use cannabis.

There was no support, they added, for theories put forward by campaigners anxious to free the drug from the taint of links with crime.

The academics said the effect of cannabis use was clear and not diminished by other factors such as patients who were heavy drinkers of alcohol.

The study comes after a series of American states have decriminalised cannabis – despite it being stronger and more potent than the hash smoked by hippies in the Sixties – or made it available for medical use. 

A number of influential figures have backed a campaign for British laws banning the drug to be relaxed, including Richard Branson, Sting and former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

Even Prince William gave a boost to the liberalisation lobby last month when he asked a group of recovering addicts at a drugs charity about legalising banned drugs.

The Prince observed: ‘There’s obviously a lot of pressure growing on areas about legalising drugs.’  

THE SHOCKING TOLL OF ATTACKS LINKED TO CANNABIS USERS

A string of serious crimes has been committed by users of skunk cannabis.

Muhiddin Mire, 30

The schizophrenic was jailed for life for the attempted murder of commuters at Leytonstone Tube station, East London, in 2016. A court heard his addiction to skunk cannabis had altered his brain to make him believe he was being followed by MI5.

Walter Pantellaro, 27 

The kung fu champion was tried for kicking his way into a London flat in March and attacking a woman, 22, with a knife. She was saved by her 15-year-old brother, who was hurt as he defended her with a chair.

Pantellaro, a schizophrenic who thought he was God, told police he had taken cocaine. But tests showed the only drug in his system was cannabis.

PICTURED: Walter Pantellaro, a schizophrenic who thought he was God, told police he had taken cocaine but tests showed the only drug in his system was cannabis.

Nicholas Salvador, 25 [see his story here]

A cage fighter, he was detained indefinitely at Broadmoor for beheading an elderly woman with a machete on a rampage through gardens in North London in 2015.  He was a heavy user of skunk cannabis and thought his victim was Adolf Hitler or a demon in the form of an old lady.

Matthew Graham, 29 

The office worker was detained after stabbing a prostitute in the neck with a seven-inch knife in Rochdale in 2015.  He struck her with such ferocity that the handle snapped off while the blade remained lodged in her neck. The court was told he was a schizophrenic whose attack had been triggered by his use of cannabis.

Michael Adebowale, 22

The Islamist extremist was jailed for the murder of drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, South-east London, in 2013. His trial heard that his symptoms of psychosis were increased by heavy use of cannabis.

Frederick Russell, 28  [here is his story]

He was tried for stabbing a homeless man near Putney Bridge Tube station, West London, in 2013. Russell was said to be a schizophrenic with a history of alcoholism and cannabis use.

Nicola Edgington, 32 [her story is here]

She was convicted of murder after stabbing a stranger Sally Hodkin, 58, in the street with a 12-inch butcher’s knife in 2013.  Edgington had been in detention for killing her mother but had been freed. Before the stabbing, she had told a psychiatric nurse she had stopped taking her medication and had used skunk cannabis.

The latest study by five researchers from institutes based in Montreal, Canada, examined the lives of 1,136 men and women who were patients at psychiatric hospitals in Missouri, Pittsburgh and Massachusetts.

Records were gathered from interviews carried out every ten weeks for a year after their discharge.

It said patients who were using cannabis at each of these five checks were nearly two-and-a-half times more likely to have turned to violence than those who had not used the drug.

The study pointed to ‘significant findings regarding the adverse effects of cannabis use on violence’.

It found there was a ‘more constant relationship’ between cannabis and violence than between alcohol or cocaine use and violence. The researchers said the link between cannabis and violence was not two-way but ‘uni-directional’.

Contrary to claims that violent people were drawn to use cannabis, researchers found ‘it was cannabis use that predicted future violent behaviour’.

The academics said psychiatrists and medical staff should watch for cannabis users among those who had been in hospital for mental health problems. The team, led by Dr Jules R Dugre, said existing evidence on the links between cannabis and violence was ‘limited’ but their project had ‘clinical and violence risk management implications’.

Kathy Gyngell, a fellow of the Centre for Policy Studies think-tank, welcomed the ‘definitive study’ and called for official action. ‘Government has been seriously negligent,’ she said.

‘Where is the public health campaign on the risks of cannabis? If ministers had any sense they would know that we cannot afford this public health and safety crisis.

‘It must lead the Government to review their community care policy for such potentially violent individuals to better protect the public.’

The study in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry flies in the face of claims of former drugs tsar Professor David Nutt.

He was sacked by the Labour government in 2009 for opposing the decision to reclassify cannabis from Class C to Class B. Prof Nutt has long argued that alcohol was ‘considerably more dangerous’ than the drug.

More than 20 US states have in recent years legalised cannabis for medical purposes.

Four–Colorado, Alaska, Oregon and Washington–have allowed its recreational use.

After the relaxation in 2012 in Colorado, cannabis use by students aged 12 to 18 has become the highest in the country. Figures show 57 per cent tested positive in high school tests.

Resveratrol is a better substitute.  See why and how here.

EXERCISE DOUBLES, EVEN TRIPLES NUMBER OF NEW [BRAIN] CELLS COMPARED TO SEDENTARY MICE

The evidence could not be clearer.  Get up.  Put on your workout clothes and running shoes and run.  Just run.  Have fun but run.  Run for fun.  Count the miles.  Do this every morning.  Track your progress.  Find out your improvements by week's end.  Just do it.

from the New York Times. 

Because we can never have enough reasons to keep exercising, a new study with mice finds that physical activity not only increases the number of new neurons in the brain, it also subtly changes the shape and workings of these cells in ways that might have implications for memory and even delaying the onset of dementia.

This is good.  Increasing the number of new neurons in the brain is a good thing.  

As most of us have heard, our brains are not composed of static, unchanging tissue. Instead, in most animals, including people, the brain is a dynamic, active organ in which new neurons and neural connections are created throughout life, especially in areas of the brain related to memory and thinking.

The brain is dynamic only if you're dynamic.  Get up.  Off your duff.  And get on with a dynamic, energizing day.  

Okay, this next point, if true, is amazing . . . 

This process of creating new neurons, called neurogenesis, can be altered by lifestyle, including physical activity. Many past studies have shown that in laboratory rodents, exercise doubles or even triples the number of new cells produced in adult animals’ brains compared to the brains of animals that are sedentary.

"Exercise doubles . . . even triples the number of new cells produced in adult animals' brains compared to the brains of animals that are sedentary."  So, what's the message?  Don't settle.  Incorporate this in your day.  I love this statement, 

But it has not been clear whether the new brain cells in active animals are somehow different from comparable new neurons in inactive animals or if they are just more numerous.

At least one difference between active and sedentary folks is that you'll have more brain cells!  Could there be a stronger indictment for folks sitting around?  If I had my druthers, I would be up and at 'em all day from running to swimming to hiking.  That is if I had my druthers. 

That question has long interested scientists at the Laboratory of Neurosciences at the National Institute on Aging, who have been examining how running alters the brains and behavior of lab animals.

Last year, in an important study published in NeuroImage, the researchers found for the first time that young brain cells in adult mice that spent a month with running wheels in their cages did seem to be different from those in animals that did not run. For the experiment, the scientists injected a modified rabies vaccine into the animals, where it entered the nervous system and brain. They then tracked and labeled connections between brain cells and learned that compared to the sedentary animals’ brain cells, the runners’ newborn neurons had more and longer dendrites, the snaky tendrils that help to connect the cells into the neural communications network. They also found that more of these connections led to portions of the brain that are important for spatial memory, which is our internal map of where we have been and how we got there.

Interesting.  So the new neurons had more and longer dendrites that build neuronal communication. 

Okay, so these results don't occur until after 1 month. 

This type of memory is often diminished in the early stages of dementia.

But these findings, while intriguing, involved animals that had been running for a month, which is the equivalent of years of physical activity by people. The researchers wondered whether such changes in neurons and connections might actually begin earlier and maybe almost immediately after the animals began to exercise.

Runners' brains teemed with far more new neurons than your aunt or uncle who prefers watching the morning news hours. 

So for the new study, which was published last month in Scientific Reports, most of the same researchers gathered a group of adult, male mice. (Males were used to avoid accounting for the effects of the female reproductive cycle.) The animals were injected with a substance that marks newborn neurons. Half were then allowed to run for a week on wheels in their cages, while the others remained inactive. Afterward, some were also injected with the modified rabies vaccine to track new synapses and connections between the neurons.

When the scientists then microscopically examined brain tissue, they found that the runners’ brains, as expected, teemed with far more new neurons than did the brains of the sedentary animals, even though the runners had been exercising for only a week.

Running makes your brain cells larger and more mature. 

Interestingly, these neurons also looked unique. They were larger and, as in the study of mice that ran for a month, displayed more and longer dendrites than similar neurons in the other animals. In effect, the young neurons in the runners’ brains appeared to be more mature after only a week of exercise than brain cells from inactive animals.

These young cells were better integrated into the overall brain circuitry, too, with more connections into portions of the brain involved in spatial and other types of memory. Most surprising to the scientists, these cells also proved to be less easily activated by neurochemical messages to fire rapidly, which is usually a hallmark of more mature neurons. They remained calmer and less prone to excitability than new neurons in the inactive animals’ brains.

So, wait, what does this mean, "neither [study looked] into whether the running mice thought and remembered differently than mice that were sedentary for most of the day"?  Does this mean that the shape and form were impressive, but the function of these nerves, at least in terms of how they execute learning or memory or other cognitive function, were not determined from this study?  It appears so.

What these differences in cell structure and connection mean for brain function remains uncertain, though, says Henriette van Praag, a principal investigator at the National Institutes of Health and senior author of this and the earlier study. Neither study was designed to look into whether the running mice thought and remembered differently than mice that were sedentary for most of the day.

So it's just a matter of the study being "more evidence" that brain cells are more numerous but with functionality are more, what, vigorous or efficient?

But the current study “provides more pieces of evidence that brain cells produced under running conditions are not just quantitatively but qualitatively different” than other neurons, she says, “and these differences are evident very soon” after exercise begins.

Well, now this is hopeful.  Folks with brain injuries can expect these exercised brain cells to "integrate into and bulk up portions of the brain . . . associated with memory loss and dementia."

Perhaps most important, the new brain cells in the runners tended to integrate into and bulk up portions of the brain that, if damaged by disease, are associated with early memory loss and dementia, she adds.

Oh, but because we're people and the study was done on mice, then the conclusions, all the fanfare or being "BREAKING NEWS" still only lives in the world of theory.

Of course, this experiment used mice, which are not people. While some past neurological studies with people have hinted that exercise might alter our brain structure in similar ways, she says, that possibility is still theoretical.

Still, she says, “I think it is a very good idea for the sake of the brain to be moving and active.” 

I think it's safe to say that running, walking, swimming, hiking, biking, yoga and others are going to build your brain. 

And don't forget the benefits of Benfotiamine to enhance your efforts.