Saturday, April 29, 2017

Chemicals used in common home cleaners are dangerous

Important information about household cleaners!

This podcast can be used as part of our "Learn and Earn". Simply listen, email us 3 important things you learned, and we'll apply a 10% coupon to any Shaklee cleaning products you would like to order

Jen Armento is a wildlife biologist who really knows her stuff. I knew many of the chemicals used in common home cleaners were dangerous, but Jen really put a fine point on it. I left this call resolved to be more proactive in getting the word out about our cleaners as an answer to the extraordinary dangers of common home cleaners that few people are aware of.

Have a great weekend
Chris and Rose

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Listen to these and get free Shaklee

When we first started our Shaklee business 12 years ago, we used something called the TOP 20 CD program.  It was a program for you to listen to 20 of our top Shaklee talks and then have earned $85 worth of free Shaklee.  It was a time consuming process that included mailing CD's and verification forms back and forth until the 20 CD's were complete

Well we are updating it and bringing it back, saving you time and saving you money!  Now you can access our TOP 20 via podcast on our podcast site click here . You can also submit your verification forms online through our verification form click here .

How it works:
  • Begin listening to podcasts on our site click here
  • Turn in verification forms for each of the podcasts click here
  • When you listen to 20 podcasts you will receive $85 worth of Shaklee products from us
  • This program must be completed in a 30 day period
  • Purchase 100PV of Shaklee product through us during your 30 day period 
Want to get started? Simply visit our site and start listening!  click here

Monday, January 16, 2017

In defense of protein powders

This blog is from Shaklee's Naturally Blog
In Defense of Protein Powders
Once again, the NY Times is fear-mongering about nutrition. This time, in a Dec. 6, 2016 article entitled “Can You Get Too Much Protein?” the target is protein powders. Think about it. You can get too much vitamin A, vitamin B6, sugar, even water; nutrition is powerful, and many nutrients have defined safe upper limits of intake. So it should come as no surprise that it’s possible to consume too much protein. If someone asks you “Is excessive X harmful?”, the answer is straightforward even if you know nothing about X; you only need to understand the meaning of excessive. The NYT article reads a bit like that, raising alarms but not shedding light. The article’s implication that people are doing themselves harm by high protein intake, and that the cause of the high protein intake is protein powders, is poorly supported by the contents of the article or by the scientific literature.
Let’s begin by considering what protein is: an essential nutrient. You can’t live without consuming some minimal amount of available protein that provides all nine essential amino acids in adequate amounts. The article correctly states the Institute of Medicine’s (IoM) adult Dietary Reference Intakes for protein, 56 g per day for men and 46 g per day for women. It would have provided useful perspective if the article had also mentioned the IoM’s additional guidelines on acceptable macronutrient ranges. Protein in adults, according to the IoM, can range from 10-35% of calories. Based on a 2000 calorie diet, that translates to 50-175 g per day. And let’s keep in mind there is nothing sacred or historically relevant about the 2000 calorie diet. I’m currently enjoying a book by Jane Ziegelman & Andrew Coe, A Square Meal: A Culinary History of the Great Depression. Ziegelman and Coe cite a 1923 survey of Midwestern farm families, which found these farmers consumed more than 4300 calories per day, “more than enough calories and protein to perform their arduous work.” Throughout most of recorded history humans were more physically active than our modern lifestyles require — or in many cases, allow.
Protein powders are described in the article as a relatively new invention. That’s a true statement if you consider space flight or color TV a relatively new invention. Protein powders have been on the market since at least the early 1960s. The article makes minimal attempt to distinguish between possible downsides of consuming protein from animal based “whole foods” such as bacon, relative to the option of for example a plant based protein in powder form. It also fails to mention the evidence that protein intake is better when evenly distributed across one’s daily meals, as opposed to heavily weighted towards one meal. Since many breakfast options are low in protein, or only contain reasonable amounts of protein when accompanied by a good deal of calories and saturated fat, there is a good rationale for a protein powder as the foundation of a healthy breakfast.
For the second time in recent weeks a NY Times article concerned with excess nutrient intake has failed to mention the importance of meeting the requirements during pregnancy and lactation. While the Dietary Reference Intake for protein for adult women is only 46 g, for women who are pregnant or lactating the figure increases to 71 g – a 54% increase. It’s truly unconscionable that the higher requirement at a critical life stage received no mention. There is also ample evidence that the protein requirement is higher in the elderly. The article mentions that protein intake in the elderly “falls short,” but only hints at the need for more protein in this age group by having the point raised by an academic “whose research has been supported by trade groups like the National Dairy Council and the National Cattleman’s Beef Association.” Why doesn’t the NY Times rise above ad hominem arguments and consult the scientific literature? Muscle loss in the elderly (sarcopenia) is a serious health issue.
Finally, I cringed at the technically flawed statements in the article; in some cases, I hope the experts were misquoted. For example, whole grains, fruits and vegetables are not “macronutrients” as stated in one quote. Citing one “recent small trial” is far short of a literature review when joined to the conclusion that high protein intake might block improvement in insulin sensitivity (I could easily mention several studies with findings to the contrary). And the press should always be careful when citing epidemiology studies to clearly state for the benefit of lay readers that such studies do not establish causality.

Bruce P. Daggy, PhD, FACN, Chief Science Officer & SVP R&D, Shaklee Corp.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Are Supplement Companies Dishonest?

This article outlines exactly why we chose Shaklee and continue to promote it to others.  There are too many companies that have ineffective products.  People that use Shaklee see and feel the "Shaklee Difference" See the Shaklee Difference video here 
Chris and Rose

Are Supplement Companies Dishonest?  

Do They “Cherry Pick” Scientific Studies? 

Dr Stephen Chaney

Cherry PickingWhen we buy a food supplement from a company we assume that it will provide a benefit. We are trusting that company to be honest in their product claims. But… 

  • What if they were lying to us?
  • What if they had no clinical studies done with their product?
  • What if they were just quoting studies done with ingredients found in their product?
  • What if they were “cherry picking” the studies they listed to support the claims they wanted to make? 
Unfortunately, that happens far too often in the nutraceutical industry. As an example, I came across an article in a recent issue of about a FDA warning letter to a noni juice company. In case you are wondering, noni fruit is the latest in a long line of “magical fruits” that is going to cure everything that ails you.

The thing that brought this company to the FDA’s attention in the first place was the health claims the company made on their website. The company claimed or implied that their product would cure cancer, cure gout, cure arthritis, lower cholesterol, and help fight infections. Claims like that always invite FDA scrutiny.

What caught my attention, however, was the quote by an attorney specializing in FDA compliance issues that the studies cited on their website were “cherry picked” to support their claims. He said that the studies they cited “…do not meet the standards of third party literature…You have to include a full range [of published studies], and not just cherry pick the positive studies. It has to be a balanced presentation. It looks like they just did a literature search on noni and included only the positive studies.”

That statement caught my attention because it doesn’t just apply to just this one company. It is a practice that is common in the nutraceutical industry. Many supplement companies cherry pick studies from third party literature. They list only the studies that support their product claims and ignore the rest. That is misleading because it implies a level of proof for their product claims that does not exist. It is fundamentally dishonest.

Using Borrowed Science

PinnochioThe noni juice company cited in the FDA letter had no clinical studies to support their claims. Instead they quoted studies done with ingredients found in their product. This is what I call “borrowed science”.

I call this “borrowed science” because the studies were not actually done with their products. They were simply trying to “borrow” results done with individual ingredients and pretend that they applied to their product.

Let me be clear. Third party studies done with ingredients found in a company’s product are of little value in predicting whether that product will provide any benefit to you. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

There are several reasons for that. 
  • In many cases, the amount of that ingredient provided by the supplement does not match the amount actually used in the clinical study they quote. The ingredient may or may not be effective at the dose provided in the supplement. 
  • More importantly, a supplement usually contains multiple other components that may influence how a single ingredient works in your body. The other components may enhance the effectiveness of the ingredient in question, or they may inhibit it. 
  • Without clinical trials done with their product, companies actually have no idea whether their product works or not. 
Unfortunately, I see this practice all too frequently in the nutraceutical industry. Clinical trials are expensive. It’s cheaper and easier to search the literature for published studies you can “borrow” to support your product.

“Cherry Picking” Studies

DishonestEven worse, many companies cherry pick studies from the literature to support the product claims they want to make.

To understand what that statement means you need to know a little bit about the scientific method. Most scientists design their experiments to disprove what other scientists have published. This is a self-correcting process that is a strength of the scientific method. 

However, it also means that you will find articles in the literature supporting and refuting the benefits of almost every nutraceutical ingredient. The scientific community waits until enough studies have accumulated and then relies on the weight of evidence before drawing any conclusions.

Unfortunately, unscrupulous supplement companies decide first on what claims they want to make and quote only the studies that support those claims. This is what is referred to as “cherry picking” the studies.

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (otherwise known as DSHEA) is very clear about that. Section 5 of DSHEA states “…scientific journal articles, books and other publications can be used in the sale of dietary supplements provided…[they] are presented with other materials to create a balanced view of the scientific information…”

In plain words this legalese simply means that you can’t cherry pick studies. You can’t select only the studies that support your product claims and ignore those that don’t.

This is another practice that I see all too often in the nutraceutical industry. It is dishonest. It is disgraceful

Are Supplement Companies Dishonest?  

The bad news is that there are lots of supplement companies that do no clinical studies of their own. Instead they rely on borrowed science from studies that really do not provide proof that their products are either safe and effective. Even worse, many of those companies cherry pick only the studies that support their product claims and ignore studies that do not. This is a practice I regard as clearly dishonest. Those are companies I would avoid. 

The good news is that there are a few companies that actually support clinical studies on their key products and publish those studies in peer reviewed scientific journals. Those are companies worthy of your consideration. 

There are other things to take into account in selecting the best of the best – things like the number of studies and the quality of the studies. However, that’s a topic for another day.

Many Blogs Cherry Pick As Well

P.T. BarnumI can’t leave this topic without pointing out that many popular health and nutrition blogs, including those written by some well-known doctors, do exactly the same thing. 

The pressures that lead to this behavior are obvious. The very popularity of these blogs depends on them being sensational week after week. 

Unfortunately, true science is rarely sensational. It’s usually pretty wishy-washy. If you do a complete search of the literature, you usually find articles that are both for and against any point of view you wish to express. Occasionally, enough evidence accumulates on one side of an issue that scientists are willing to come to a definitive conclusion, but that conclusion is hardly ever sensational. 

The only way that the authors of these popular blogs can make sensational claims each week is to cherry pick only the studies that support their point of view and ignore everything else. 

Unfortunately, the average reader doesn’t realize this. They see the list of references supporting the claims and believe what they read. Then these bizarre claims get reposted over and over until the general public actually starts believing that they are true. 

It really is a shame that DSHEA doesn’t apply to blogs. If it did they wouldn’t be nearly as sensational, but they would be much more accurate. They would have report on the whole body of scientific literature, rather than cherry picking just the studies that support their point of view.

The Bottom Line

1)    The FDA recently sent a warning letter to a noni juice company for making unsupported health claims for their product. The company was claiming their product could cure things like cancer, gout and arthritis. Whenever a company makes claims like that they can expect to draw the attention of the FDA.

2)    An outside attorney specializing in FDA compliance pointed out that the company also had no good evidence to support their product claims. The company had done no clinical studies on the products. Instead they had “borrowed” the results of third party studies done with ingredients found in their product. Even worse, they had cherry picked only the studies that supported their product claims and ignored the studies that did not. 
  • Third party studies done with ingredients found in a company’s product are often worthless in predicting whether that product will provide any benefit to you. I discuss the reasons for that in the article above. 
  • Cherry picking only the studies that support a company’s product claims runs afoul of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) requirement that companies provide a balanced view of the scientific literature relating to their products. It is also misleading and dishonest. 
3)    Unfortunately, the practice of using “borrowed science” from third party studies and cherry picking only the studies that support their product claims is common in the nutraceutical industry. Supplement companies that rely on this kind of evidence to support their product claims are dishonest and should be avoided.

4)    For products you can trust choose companies that support clinical studies on their key products and published those studies in peer-reviewed journals. You should also look at the number and quality of studies, but that is a topic for another day.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
Dr. Steve Chaney
Health Tips From the Professor 

About The Author

Dr. Steve ChaneyDr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.  Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”. Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

3 Reasons You Won't Lose Weight

Disclaimer: This is not meant to be mean. It's meant for us to be honest about our situation

If you are really honest with yourself, you can figure out why you haven't and you won't lose the weight you want to.
You eat too much.  That's pretty self explanatory. Eat too many calories and you will gain weight. Don't cut your calories and you will not lose weight.  Solution: track your calories. There are several apps and websites that will help you do this.  I like MyPlate by Livestrong (for reasons I'll share next)

You eat the wrong foods.  For healthy and permanent weight loss, you have to eat right.  Along with cutting calories, look to have a 30/30/40 ratio of fat/carbs/protein to achieve this.  The MyPlate app calculates this in a nice little graph for you to see on the app's main screen.

You don't exercise.  Exercise helps you burn calories and build muscle. Building muscle increases your metabolism.  Metabolism helps you burn calories more efficiently.  Cardio for 30 minutes or more 3+ times a week along with strength building exercises can help you achieve this.  Along with running and cycling, I like to use an app for core workouts.  Here are some apps to help you with that.

Lastly, consider adding supplementation to your attempt to losing or maintaining weight.  We recommend Shaklee.  They are the #1 Natural Nutrition Company in the U.S. and have an impeccable record and history.  Their products are safe, proven to work, and come with a money back guarantee...if you don't see a difference in your health in 30 days, they'll refund your money. 

We began using these products 13 years ago and have consistently done so ever since.  See our Shaklee website

Thursday, August 18, 2016

20 Questions that Could Change Your Life

Your Personalized Health Builder

Your health goals are unique to you, which is why you need a plan designed specifically for you to achieve optimal health. Shaklee Healthprint is a powerful tool that harnesses the work of award-winning Shaklee doctors, scientists, and nutritionists to create nutrition plans customized for you. Answer a few questions and we’ll recommend a combination of products that are personalized for your individual needs. We’ll also provide you with health insights and recommendations to help point you down the path to a healthier life.
Take the Health Print test in August and receive FREE SHIPPING on your August order

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Here is how we did it and keep doing it

Its about long term healthy weight loss

Here is the program we use

12 years ago we were introduced to Shaklee products.  We have consistently used their products everyday.  Initially we both lost weight but when Shaklee 180 came out (then called CINCH) we lost additional weight and have kept it off ever since.

Rose lost a total of 32lbs and over 24" off her body
Chris lost a total of 30lbs and over 12" off his body

We both have since been able to maintain this weight loss over the years.  If  you are ready to give Shaklee 180 a try we have two offers for you.
  1. Save 10% when you order Vita lea, B-Complex and any of our proteins. Offer good through July 14th, 2016
  2. We currently have 2 bottles of Vita Lea 120ct, 2 bottles of B-Complex 120ct, and 4 Chocolate Life Shakes.  While they last we are selling them for the following prices.
  • Normally the Vita Lea is $23.05 but we are selling for $19.85
  • Normally the B-Complex is $21.70 but we are selling for $18.70
  • Normally the Life Shakes are $40.80 but we are selling for $35.00
If you are ready to get serious about feeling more energized and being at a healthier weight give these products a try.

Have great end to your week!
Chris and Rose