Horsey Therapist

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Another topic: health!

This is an email sent by Linsey McLean to a group of horse people. She gave me permission to put this here on my blog. If you want to get more information, her website and contact info is at the bottom of what she wrote. Good stuff to ponder!


Fri Jul 14, 2006

The cause of the cause....again and again...

We all agree that many horses, dogs and humans are carb sensitive, meaning that they cannot handle even the smallest amount of carbs. But for a moment, let's look at the historical development of carbohydrate intolerance.....it has been increasing in frequency statistically in both animal and human populations for the last several decades. When I was teaching at a college in Mi back in the 1980's, I used a video series as an aid to teaching equine nutrition, made in Cambridge, England. Back then, the standard recommendation was 10 lb of standard 10% protein sweet feed plus 15 to 20 lb of mixed hay per day for the average horse. That's correct, your eyes are not reading wrong! I still have my teaching materials....that came at a time when the average teenager was some 15 lbs heavier than when I went to school back in the 60's, and when the average carb intake was found to be only 1 teaspoon of sugar difference from the calorie intake of the 60's. So we have to ask ourselves ... what has changed? What is it that is affecting not only our people but our animals and pets too? Why is the same diet that was fine for centuries not fine now?

Living in the infamously industrially polluted I-75 Corridor of SE Mi, where the morbidity and mortality stats were quoted by the British Medical Assoc and the CDC as the highest in the entire world, I saw the carb intolerance wave coming like a freight train on the horizon back then in the 1970's, and that is when I began studying the "why's" of the driving force. That is when I began clinical trials with morbidly obese middle age women, mostly diabetic, and most on a bushel basket of drugs for the other concurrent symptoms that arise from exposures to industrial pollutants. It was 1974 when I formulated Hi Pro for horses, which is simply removing the carb sources from the standard sweet feed widely used at that time. I began by reducing the carb sources, and continuing to reduce them down to nothing as the carb sensitive syndrome became ever worsening, and the horses became ever more sensitive to the continuing reduction of the carbs that were left. So, can you envision this scenario?

The living body is like a teacup, where one drop is added per day. Sometimes two drops go in ... over time, the teacup is filled to the top and the next drop makes the cup run over. Then everybody rushes to analyze the composition of the last drop that made the cup run over, without considering the million other drops that were already in the cup, setting the stage for an overflow. That drop was the same as all the others. The body/teacup can deal with toxins to a degree, but not an overload. The overload, accumulations from all the years of life's exposures will cause an overflow of symptoms, which is what we see as "sudden disease", which in reality, was not so sudden at all.

So the point I am trying to show understanding for, is that the bodies themselves have changed over time. Biochemistry has been slowly compromised in ways that make the old foods and feeds intolerant, namely carbs. High levels of arsenic, iron, and manganese, coupled with low levels of magnesium, selenium, iodine, copper, and zinc understandably cause carb metabolism to fail, in "any" body ... dog, cat, horse, human etc..

Back in 1976 when the laws were changed to allow heavy metals, dioxins, PCB's and radionuclides as hazardous waste from the chemical and pharmaceutical industries to be disposed of by adding them to the commercial fertilizers that grow our food, and our animals' food, there was already adequate data showing that the heavy loads of arsenic, lead, cadmium, nickel, mercury, iron, manganese, etc. interfered with the biochemistry of carbohydrate metabolism. For the few of us who knew what was actually going on with this practice, the coming IR [insuline resistance] stats and diabetes epidemics were quite expected. But nobody in high places listened when they should have to stop the practice, or at least elicit public outcry by educating the public. The huge amounts of monies moving from these industries into their subsidieries who take these wastes and put them into fertilizers and other ag products has corrupted even the overseerers of our health welfare. To this day, virtually nobody in the public really realizes and understands what is horribly going on with our food and feeds. My life's work has been oriented to educating the public. Without public outcry to overrule the corruption, this practice will continue to go on.

So, you see, we can argue till the cows come home about this sugar or that ... but the bottom line scenario is this: we do not have normal metabolism, as described in our textbooks, by the science of observation, and cumulative data mostly before the onslaught of chems in the environment after WW1. Our textbooks are basically obsolete -- they describe a paradigm that essentially does not exist any more. I have to say that my wonderful education at the Univ of Mich is obsolete. It was a nice foundation for the science I do now, but much of the biochem I learned there is obsolete. Everything is changed by the chemical interferences. That is why the drugs of conventional medicine do not work as well as expected, with more side effects. That paradigm of the living body has changed. Normal biochemical pathways that used to process this and that become compromised so that alternate pathways are sought, and these never work like the originals the body was designed for. Different food sources have to be employed, utilizing other natural pathways and bypassing those that are most compromised. That is what made the difference between my diet program and conventional ones that count overall food intake and calories. Mine does not. There is no counting of calories. The body eats until it is satisfied, just like Nature intended, and then stops. If the body can access and process the food correctly, then it takes very little food to survive and be satiated. But, if the body eats food that it cannot access, then it eats, and eats, and eats and continues to eat because even though it becomes obese, it is really in the starvation mode at the cell level. Is this understandable?

Here is a time line for what we are observing in the world today:

Post WW1 - Over 1 1/2 million new toxins enter our environment of air, water and foods as a result of industry.

1976 - The "recycling laws" passed, designed to protect big industry from environmental lawsuits, from the now well known dumpsites -- it is cheaper to spread them out and dump them this way than to spend monies on recovery and detox processes -- so the corps think. In the short run this is true, but in the long run the health effects of the population override the short term savings.

Late 1970's - Teachers now more and more calling kids they teach less intelligent than the kids they taught decades before, SAT scores plummet to lowest since the schools began testing around 1900. Schools blamed the teachers, "new math" invented, remedial reading, dropping phonics, etc., ADD and ADHD identified.

1980's - More emphasis on developing "diet drugs" as obesity stats begin to escalate, as a result of toxic livers not being able to regulate the internal blood sugar levels, causing sugar/carb cravings from without. So the toxicity comes first, driving the resulting behaviors ... rushes to McDonald's! But the awareness also leads to an explosive growth in health clubs and exercise gyms, as the blame is put squarely on the people and life styles.

1995 - Introduction of Genetically Modified Corn by Monsanto, followed by other GMO grains. Now with compromised abilities to regulate our blood sugar internally, the population seeks even more carbs. Data only coming after 10 years about the allergenic and toxic effects of GMO foods that have been in the market for a decade, and all on an already compromised population from the prior described exposures. Now we have inflammatory responses from all the drops already in the body teacup precipitating a host of "concurrent symptoms" like heart disease, cancer, autoimmune diseases of all sorts, as well as the newly described Syndrome X.

2000- Health club memberships falling like a bomb, health clubs closing for lack of business as the most affected and compromised people are too tired to exercise, see little results from it, but are not tired enough to sleep. This is the common response I have heard from my clients over the last decade.

2001 - The populations are being blamed for personality and character faults for their illness. Antidepressants are given for anything that medical science cannot address in a conventional way. ("Depression" is aptly named in that the biochemistry and speed of biochemical reactions is indeed depressed and slow, trying to go around all the toxic interferences.) Of the drugs that are chosen for these syndromes, most all are in some way "speed", to speed up metabolic rates.

2005 - Now the conventional medical industry has so many stats in front of their eyes that they cannot deny what is happening. Nobody wants to accept character fault blame anymore, so the attention is turned to genetics... Partially right in this approach, in that Dr. Pottinger proved nearly 100 yrs ago that faulty nutrition will indeed trip faulty genetics, and that it will take another 4 generations of good nutrition in the same population to trip those faulty genes back again. Problem is, there is not 4 generations of good, clean nutrition on our horizon if we fail to recognize the cause, of the cause, of the cause, of the biochemical flaws in living populations in the first place.

Linsey McLean
Biochemist
Vita Royal Prod. Inc
605-787-5488
http://www.vitaroyal.com (information only)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home