Phototherapy- Archive

Phototherapy, Light and Health – All Posts

Increasingly the health benefits of light are being appreciated and verified in the scientific literature. Whilst many people know that ultraviolet produces vitamin D in the skin, few realise that for much of the day and most of the year the sunlight contains too little UVB to make vitamin D. Recent research shows that ultraviolet light also releases nitric oxide and reduces blood pressure. The harmful effects of ultraviolet light are mitigated by certain foods that protect the skin. Finally, visible light, and especially red light is proving to have remarkable healing effects on the skin, hair, muscles, brain and eyes.


Red light phototherapy (3/3): Hair regrowth, Pain reduction, Wound healing and Practical applications (10/9/2016) - In part 3 we look at NASAs original work on red light and pain reduction, recent discoveries about wound healing, and finish with a range of simple things you can do to benefit from red-light at home. Continue reading
Red light phototherapy (2/3): Brain, Muscles and Eyes (9/10/2016) - Red light stimulates mitochondrial function. We look at the accumulating evidence that phototherapy can improve brain function in Alzheimer's, schizophrenia and Parkinson's. Plus red light enhances muscle endurance and a has major role in eye health. Continue reading
Red light phototherapy (1/3): The Skin (8/25/2016) - Research is uncovering a huge range of beneficial effects of red light. In part 1 I look at the remarkable protective effects of red light on the skin. Continue reading
Why April 15th is D-Day in the south of England (4/12/2015) - To get your vitamin D levels up you need to get out in the sun at the right time of day. Continue reading
Animal products that protect you from UV damage (11/2/2014) - Evidence that compounds in a range of animal products can protect the skin from UV damage and cancer. Continue reading
Human photosynthesis – beyond vitamin D (11/2/2014) - New evidence demonstrates that sunshine on the skin synthesises nitric oxide, leading to significant cardiovascular benefits. Continue reading
Seventh Food & Health Group Meeting – Vitamin D (8/12/2013) - By contrived coincidence our vitamin D talk was held on the Summer Solstice June 21st. In the first set of slides, above, we look at the role of vitamin D in the body, vitamin D status – as indicated by the levels of … Continue reading

Recent Posts

Salt and cardio-vascular disease: Policy and Science clash

The recent video we posted of Dr SalimYusuf’s PURE study had a section on sodium intake, where he showed that the lowest risk of cardiovascular events, cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality was associated with an intake between 3000 and 6000 mg of sodium per day (equivalent to 7 to 15g salt per day). The current US average sodium intake is 3800 mg placing the general population nicely within this sweet spot, although towards the lower end.

Current US and UK dietary recommendations recommend an upper limit at 2300mg of sodium (6g of salt) whilst cardiovascular recommendations by bodies such as the American Heart Association aim to reduce sodium intake to 1500 mg per day (approx 3.75 g salt). If the PURE study is right (and it is not alone in questioning the current guidelines), then these aspirations would do more harm than good.

How did such discrepancy arise? The problem may be the use of surrogate markers. The thinking goes like this: Salt raises blood pressure. Raised blood pressure increases CVD risk, so salt increases CVD risk. This kind of thinking was evident in 2011 when the American Heart Association (AHA) called for salt targets to be reduced to 1500mg per day.At the time MedPage Today explained:

The evidence linking salt intake with blood pressure — and the major adverse outcomes of heart disease, stroke, and kidney disease — is “impressive,”…

That evidence includes more than 50 trials assessing the blood pressure effects of salt, as well as a meta-analysis showing that cutting salt intake by about 1,800 mg per day lowered blood pressure by 5 mm Hg systolic and 2.7 mm Hg diastolic.

This is a “critically important public health issue,” according to Appel and colleagues, and this AHA advisory must be considered “a call to action.”

On the basis of this ‘A leads to B leads to C, therefore A leads to C’ thinking initiatives were instigated all round the world to reduce public consumption of salt. A task force of concerned scientists even formed a lobby group to put pressure on food manufacturers, which successfully led to reductions in added salt in manufactured foods.

However, within a short time of the AHA call to action reports started coming in contradicting this advice.

Over this period it is clear that scientists were becoming more and more irritated with the dogmatic approach of the AHA and government bodies, and by the last article were publicly calling the AHA anti-scientific!

Despite all of the research questioning the validity of further salt reduction US and UK policy remains stubbornly wedded to the ‘less is best trajectory’. In their 2016 survey the UK government reported proudly that average sodium consumption fell from 3500mg in 2005 to 3200 mg in 2014.

Their report claimed “Too much salt in the diet can raise blood pressure which increases the risk of heart disease and stroke. A reduction in average salt intake from 8g to 6g per day is estimated to prevent over 8000 premature deaths each year and save the NHS over £570million annually.”

Yet contrary evidence from studies including PURE would suggest that this is not simply futile but probably harmful. You would think that with the swathe of research challenging the low salt dogma that public policy would be questioning the wisdom of further reductions. Not a bit of it. Dr Alison Tedstone, chief nutritionist at Public Health England, makes no bones about it:

Our analysis makes clear that there is a steady downward trend in salt consumption. While people are having less salt than 10 years ago, we are still eating a third more than we should.

Many manufacturers and retailers have significantly reduced the salt levels in everyday foods. However, more needs to be done, especially by restaurants, cafes and takeaways.

The intransigence of health policy makers leads researchers to exasperation and despair. As one writer put it:

…the ‘salt hypothesis’ is rather like a monster from a 1950s B movie. Every time you attack it with evidence it simply shrugs it off and grows even stronger. – Malcolm Kendrick

In an interview with MedPage today researchers who found that patients with heart failure who ate more salt did better than those who ate less made the following statement which we have published before, but is such a gem it deserves another outing:

“We have had no basis for any of our recommendations regarding sodium restriction during the past 50 years, although these recommendations have changed a great deal (for no good reason). After this report, we still have no basis for any of our recommendations regarding sodium restriction. We were ignorant before; we are not any smarter now. Did we really need this report to tell us that we lack evidence for our recommendations regarding dietary sodium in patients with heart failure?”
Milton Packer, Professor in the Division of Cardiology, UT Southwestern

Further reading:

  1. Aloe vera plants – why every home should have one 2 Replies
  2. Salt vs sodium measurements Leave a reply
  3. Cardiologist attacks diet dogma at 2017 Symposium 1 Reply
  4. February News Round-Up Leave a reply
  5. Kids eat sugar. But no one knows how much. Apparently. 2 Replies
  6. Whole grains? Not a health food say these researchers Leave a reply
  7. Fish n Chips a l’Afifah 2 Replies