Lots of pictures coming back on FB and Twitter. I remember — like it was yesterday — our first trip to San Fran for what was then called, The New Supervisors Convention. When those two free airline tickets showed up for Glenda and me, we just couldn’t believe it. When we got there and saw all those New Supervisors, we were pumped. It’s a rush!

I actually had a chance to meet Dr. Shaklee, and of course, lots of very excited people who became great friends over the years.

The same thing is happening right now. Friendships are being forged that will last a lifetime, and the way these New Directors “see” Shaklee will never be the same again.

I have had the good fortune of speaking at several Shaklee International Leadership Conventions, in countries around the world, and it’s always a thrill, and a great honor, to address your peers, but I can honestly say the most exciting and memorable speaking opportunities came at New Supervisor Conventions … just like the New Director Convention going on now in Pleasanton.

The energy flowing from all those New Directors who are just beginning their Shaklee career is something no other venue can offer. It’s electric. It’s fun. It’s an experience you never forget … nor would you want to.

If you’ve been there … done that … you know what I’m saying. If not, and you’re just getting started on your Shaklee journey, do whatever it takes to get to this special event.

If you plan to chow down tonight at a big chain restaurant, there’s a better than nine-in-10 chance that your entree will fail to meet federal nutrition recommendations for both adults and kids, according to a provocative new study.

A whopping 96% of main entrees sold at top U.S. chain eateries exceed daily limits for calories, sodium, fat and saturated fat recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, reports the 18-month study conducted by the Rand Corp. and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“If you’re eating out tonight, your chances of finding an entree that’s truly healthy are painfully low,” says Helen Wu, assistant policy analyst at Rand who oversaw the study. It examined the nutritional content of 30,923 menu items from 245 restaurant brands across the USA. “The restaurant industry needs to make big changes to be part of the solution,” she says.

The restaurant industry is “employing a wide range” of healthier-living strategies, says Joan McGlockton, vice president of food policy at the National Restaurant Association. Among them: putting nutritional information on menus, adding more healthful items and launching a 2011 program at nearly 100 brands in more than 25,000 locations that offers children’s meals in line with 2010 dietary guidelines.
How much is too much?

Even then, the restaurant industry-supported “Healthy Dining” seal of approval is too generous on sodium, Wu says. It allows up to 2,000 milligrams of sodium for one main entree, while the USDA’s daily recommended limit for most adults is 2,300 milligrams, she says.

Other highlights of the study, which is posted on Public Health Nutrition:

•Appetizers can be calorie bombs. Appetizers — while often shared — averaged 813 calories, compared with main entrees, which averaged 674 calories per serving, Wu says.

•Family restaurants fared worse than fast-food. Entrees at family-style restaurants on average have more calories, fat and sodium than fast-food restaurants. Entrees at family-style eateries posted 271 more calories, 435 more milligrams of sodium and 16 more grams of fat than fast-food restaurants, Wu says.

•Kid “specialty” drinks often aren’t healthy. Many drinks offered on kids’ menus have more fat and saturated fat on average than regular drinks. While regular menu drinks had a median of 360 calories, the median number of calories in kid specialty drinks, such as shakes and floats, was 430. The message to parents, Wu says: “It’s the little extras you order that add up.”

After all, we don’t live in a third world country. None of us have serious nutritional deficiencies. Maybe we don’t eat as well as we might, but could a multivitamin actually improve our mental acuity and our ability to multitask?

Two recent studies by Dr. David Kennedy of Northumbria University in England suggest that we should give the simple multivitamin a second look if we want our mind to function like a well oiled machine.

The first study looked at 81 healthy children between the ages of 8 and 14 who were given either a chewable multivitamin or a placebo for a 12-week period (Haskell et al, British Journal of Nutrition, 100: 1086-1096, 2008).

The children were given sophisticated online mental function tests just prior to the 12 week period and again at 4, 8 and 12 weeks.

For example, one of the tests (the Arrow test) required them to press the left or right arrow key in response to a 1-3 second picture of an arrow on the computer screen.

A second test (The Arrow Flankers test) required them to press the left or right arrow key in response to a 1-3 second picture of an arrow flanked by distracters, which could include arrows pointing in the opposite direction.

In both cases the response time and accuracy of the responses were measured. Not surprisingly, the multivitamin group showed a significant improvement in both reaction time and accuracy during the 12 week period compared to the group just taking the placebo.

The second study was with 216 females in the 25 to 50 year old age range. Again, the participants were given either a multivitamin or a placebo – in this case for a 9 week period.

This study looked at on the effect of multivitamin supplementation on the ability of the women to multitask. It also looked at whether multivitamin supplementation could reduce the fatigue and anxiety associated with extended periods of multitasking.

The multitasking test was actually quite interesting. The computer screen would display four windows – each with a different task the continuously required responses – and the women had to complete all four tasks simultaneously. Once again the researchers measured the speed and accuracy with which the women completed the tasks.

(You can see why this study was done with women. We guys would have had a hard time with two tasks – and four tasks would be out of the question!)

After 20 minutes of this multitasking test the women were asked to fill out questionnaires that assessed things like tiredness, alertness, calmness and anxiety.

And the results were similar to those seen with children. The women taking the multivitamin performed significantly better on the multitasking test and experienced less fatigue and anxiety after completing the test than the women taking the placebo.

So what do these studies mean for you and me?

The effects seen were small. These studies do not mean that taking a multivitamin will make you a genius or prevent Alzheimer’s.

However, the kinds of mental functioning seen in the children’s study fall in the category of what are known as pre-cognitive learning skills – which mean that they can, in the proper learning environment, improve the ability of those children to acquire new knowledge.

And, in today’s workplaces multitasking is almost a requirement – not an option.

It is studies like these that suggest that, if nothing else, we should consider taking a daily multivitamin to fill in the gaps in our diet.

To Your Health!
Dr. Stephen G Chaney

Jessica Hardy is still fuming.

Four years after her energy-drink sponsor allegedly spiked Hardy with a banned substance, disqualifying her from the 2008 Olympics, Hardy is still swimming angry. When others reminisce about medals they won in Beijing, her fury grows.

“I hear about (those medals) all the time,” says Hardy, enraged at the thought of someone else wearing the gold and silver medals she believes she would have won in Beijing.

Is angry any way to swim?

Jim Wood thinks so. If an athlete can maintain control of form, argues Wood, the former president of USA Swimming, then anger can be converted into high-speed fuel.

But Hardy herself is convinced that anger will hurt her cause. To free herself of negative thoughts and emotions that she says create debilitating toxins, she has hired psychologists to put her through drills. “When my muscles get that toxin it is harder to swim,” she says.

In her effort to redeem herself, Hardy—the 25-year-old world record holder in the 100-meter breast stroke—will take a significant step this weekend at the Charlotte UltraSwim, the last major competition ahead of the U.S. trials next month. Swimmers from around the world will be competing for jockeying rights in Charlotte ahead of the Olympic Games.

For her part, Hardy will be seeking to reestablish her dominance in the 100 breaststroke—possibly amid whispers of “cheater.”

“I’ve done everything I can to clear my name,” says Hardy, a 25-year-old Southern California native. “I can’t control other people’s opinions of me.”

The impossibility of proving a negative means that a cloud of suspicion may hang forever over Hardy, who was found to bear trace amounts of a stimulant called clenbuterol. But few if any experts who have studied Hardy’s case believe she intentionally ingested a performance-enhancing drug.

Like nearly everyone in amateur sports, Hardy consumed a so-called recovery product after workouts; Michael Phelps, for instance, drinks a post-swim concoction called Pure Sport. In Hardy’s case, the drink of choice was called Arginine Extreme, made by a Texas company called AdvoCare. In exchange for making testimonials about it, Hardy received Arginine and other considerations for free.

After flunking the dope test, Hardy examined the source of everything she ate and drank and concluded that the least-policed item was Arginine Extreme. Sure, she had passed previous drug tests while consuming the product. But was every batch the same?

To find out, Hardy hired Don Catlin, former director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Lab and a foremost authority on drug testing. Catlin said he found “trace amounts” of the substance in the batch of Argenine Extreme that Hardy had been using. In an interview, Dr. Catlin says he believes the stimulant’s presence in the product is accidental. He said, “Supplements have a supply line of materials and that supply line can get contaminated.”

After Hardy blamed Argenine Extreme, AdvoCare sued her claiming defamation. She countersued charging the company with supplying her with the contaminated product. Allison Levy, general counsel for AdvoCare, said the company conducted its own tests on the batch of supplements Hardy claimed was contaminated, and those tests came up clear of any banned substances. “We are confident there is nothing wrong with our products, with this batch or with any other batch,” Levy said.

In early 2009, an American Arbitration Association panel heard her case, including Dr. Catlin’s evidence of allegedly contaminated sport drink. Ultimately, in what many regard as an exoneration, the panel halved Hardy’s ban to the sport to one year from two.

“The impossibility of proving a negative means that a cloud of suspicion may hang over Hardy.”
For her part, Hardy partly blames herself for having taken a supplement composed of unknown ingredients. Now, she is rare among Olympic athletes for taking no supplements at all. “If you are a competing athlete facing the possibility of being tested, you should understand that most of these supplements do nothing,” said Gary Wadler, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) Prohibited List and Methods Sub-Committee. “It’s just not worth the risk to take them.”

In Charlotte this weekend, the Olympic events that Hardy will swim are the 100-meter breaststroke, and maybe the 100-freestyle. If these trials follow the results of the 2008 U.S. trials and recent world competitions—Hardy will finish first in the 100-meter breast, while placing high enough in the 50- and 100-meter freestyle to vie for a place on relay teams. Conceivably, she could win three medals in London.

But she must overcome any thought that her best shot might have been lost, as happened to Zach Lund in recent years. The world’s top-ranked skeleton racer heading onto the 2006 Winter Games, Lund was disqualified at the start of those competitions for having used a hair-restoration product that only recently had entered the list of forbidden products, and that stayed on that list only long enough to keep Lund from competing in the Torino Games.

Four years later, in the 2010 Vancouver Games, Lund finished fifth.

As before Beijing, Hardy approaches the U.S. trials as a world favorite in the 100-meter breaststroke. But this time, the wild card for her is whether she can control the anger she harbors about having been disqualified.

A born sprinter, Hardy is prone to fading after 50-meters when her legs begin to feel heavy. She says she knows can’t finish strong while wasting energy on rage.

Hardy never used to be an angry person. But after the disqualification fiasco, her coach, Dave Salo of the Trojan Swim Club in Los Angeles, says she became prone to “act out and storm off” after occasional bad swims. Sometimes she lashed out at him when he demanded a particularly torturous workout, such as a 14 100-meter sprints with three seconds between.

Studies show anger produces the hormone norepinephrine, which increases blood pressure, heart rate and the flow of blood to the large muscles in the arms and legs. That sounds beneficial for exercise. However, that same process pulls blood from the brain, and science increasingly has shown that smart swimming outperforms strong swimming, that technique matters more than brute strength.

Determined to manage her anger, Hardy sought individual therapy as well as consulted sports psychologists to find techniques to help clear her brain of any negative thoughts that might creep in during competition. She learned to perform exercises that include quick, deep cleansing breaths and brief conversations with herself.

Hardy also spent the past year “brain training” at a Southern California research center, where she plays videogames with sensors attached to her head that map her tension level as she completes a series of agility and focus exercises. After studying the map of her brain waves, she says she has mastered anger-control techniques amid the most challenging parts of the videogames. Coach Salo says, “She is ready.”

Matthew Futterman: Wall Street Journal

NOTE: Shaklee supplements have been used by hundreds of world class athletes and Olympians for more than 30 years with never a single issue. Shaklee-powered Olympians have won 125 medals, including 65 Gold Medals.

And I know there are people selling online systems who DO make money. But the goal is not to make money for the other guy, it’s to build an organization that will generate a lifetime of residual income.

The internet is a great tool, no doubt about that … but that’s all it is … a tool to connect and communicate and share information. The better the tool, and the better we learn to use it, the more effective we will be — but to rely on the internet as the only tool you use to grow your business — in my humble opinion — is a big mistake.

This post by the brilliant Seth Godin is about trying to make money on the internet. But of course, as I read it, I couldn’t help think how this wisdom applies to building a rock solid Shaklee business.

SETH GODIN

The first step is to stop looking for, “how to make money online.” Not because you shouldn’t want to make money online, but because the stuff you’re going to find by doing that is going to help you lose money online. Sort of liking asking a casino owner how to make money in Vegas…

Don’t pay anyone for simple and proven instructions on how to achieve this goal.

Get rich slow.

Focus on building trust. Trust is even more scarce than attention.

Don’t quit your day job. Start evenings and weekends and figure it out with small failures.

Build a reputation. A good one, and be sure that you deserve it, and that it will hold up to scrutiny.

Obsessively specialize. No niche is too small if it’s yours.

Connect the disconnected.

Lead.

Build an online legacy that increases in value daily.

Make money offline. If you can figure out how to create value face to face, it’s a lot easier to figure out how to do the same digitally. The web isn’t magic, it’s merely efficient.

Become the best in the world at something that people value. Easier said than done, worth more than you might think.

Hang out with people who aren’t looking for shortcuts. Learn from them.

Fail. Fail often and fail cheaply. This is the very best gift the web has given to people who want to bootstrap their way into a new business.

Make money in the small and then relentlessly scale.

Don’t chase yesterday’s fad or the program of the week.

Think big, act with intention and don’t get bogged down in personalities. If it’s not on your agenda, why are you wasting time on it?

Learn. Ceaselessly. Learn to understand new technologies, to bring out the best in your team, to find underused resources and to spot patterns.

This is not a zero sum game. The more you add to your community, the bigger your piece gets.

A recent study raised serious questions about the safety of osteoporosis drugs

A better choice is to address the cause of bone loss in 3 simple steps:

First: Supplementation
OsteoMatrix ( calcium plus nutrients for the matrix of the bones )

Vita D-3: 1000 IU (take 1 or 2 a day) Vita-D3 not only improves bone density, but studies showing helps lower risk for cancer, alzheimers, depression, heart disease — and more.

Vita Lea Gold: A great multi-vitamin

Second: Diet
And changing the diet to remove those foods that deplete calcium from the bones (sugar, refined carbs, meat, and especially soda pop).

Third: Weight-bearing exercise

NEW CAUTIONS ABOUT LONG-TERM USE OF BONE DRUGS
By TARA PARKER-POPE | May 9, 2012

An X-ray shows a fracture in the femur of a woman who used Fosamax for seven years.

In an unusual move that may prompt millions of women to rethink their use of popular bone-building drugs, the Food and Drug Administration published an analysis that suggested caution about long-term use of the drugs, but fell short of issuing specific recommendations. The F.D.A. review, published in The New England Journal of Medicine online on Wednesday, was prompted by a growing debate over how long women should continue using the drugs, known as bisphosphonates, which are sold as generic versions of brands like Fosamax and Boniva, as well as Novartis’s Reclast.

The concern is that after years of use, the drugs may in rare cases actually lead to weaker bones in certain women, contributing to “rare but serious adverse events,” including unusual femur fractures, esophageal cancer and osteonecrosis of the jaw, a painful and disfiguring crumbling of the jaw bone.

Although the concerns about the long-term safety of bone drugs are not new, the F.D.A. performed its own systematic review of the effectiveness of bisphosphonates after years of use. The agency’s analysis, which found little if any benefit from the drugs after three to five years of use, may prompt doctors around the country to rethink how they prescribe them.

The F.D.A. review analyzes only long-term use and does not address whether a woman should be prescribed a bone drug in the first place to reduce her fracture risk. Because serious complications are so rare, most doctors believe that for women with documented osteoporosis who are at very high risk for spinal fractures, the benefits of the drugs far outweigh the risks.

However, some women with moderate bone density and no other risk factors continue to take the drugs for years even though they are unlikely to gain any benefits. “I think a lot of people are going to come off this drug,” said Dr. Clifford J. Rosen, an endocrinologist and researcher at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute. Bones are in a constant state of remodeling, but after age 30 or so, a woman’s bones start to dissolve faster than they can be rebuilt, and after menopause she may develop thin, brittle bones that are easily broken.

Bisphosphonates slow this process. The drugs are incorporated into newly formed bone and can persist there for years, long after a patient stops taking them. The F.D.A. report offered little specific guidance about long-term use, saying that the decision to continue or stop treatment should be based on an individual assessment of risks, benefits and preferences discussed between a patient and her doctor.

The agency did say that women at low risk for fracture or with a bone density near normal may be good candidates to stop therapy after three to five years, but older patients at higher fracture risk and bone density “in the osteoporotic range” may benefit from continued therapy.

But an accompanying article by Dr. Rosen and others, also published in The New England Journal of Medicine, offers more specifics, concluding that the women most likely to benefit from long-term use of the drugs are those who, after three to five years of treatment, continue to have very low bone density, as measured by something called a “T score” that is lower than minus 2.5. Women with a history of spinal fracture or with an existing fracture also are most likely to benefit from long-term use of the drugs, the researchers concluded.

However, many women who are prescribed bone drugs have been given a diagnosis of osteopenia, moderate to low bone density that is not low enough to be called osteoporosis. These women are unlikely to benefit from long-term use and should probably stop taking the drugs after about three years, the researchers said.

It is not clear how many women would be affected based on those recommendations, but many women tire of the therapy and stop taking it on their own anyway, partly because of inconvenient requirements like remaining upright after taking the drugs and common side effects of heartburn, nausea and flulike symptoms. Even so, the researchers estimate that perhaps 60 percent to 70 percent of current users would be candidates for stopping the drugs after three to five years.

The recommendations are based on findings from two industry-sponsored studies led by the University of California, San Francisco, that focused on long-term use of the drugs. A study of Fosamax, which is sold generically as alendronate, continued for 10 years, and a study of Reclast, an injectable form of the drug zoledronic acid, continued for six years. According to the F.D.A. analysis, both studies showed significant reductions in fracture risks during the first three to four years of use but little or no benefit with longer use.

In the Fosamax trial, 10.6 percent of Fosamax users suffered a fracture during the first three years of use, compared with 21 percent of those in the placebo group, according to the F.D.A. analysis. But there was no benefit seen among women who continued the drug for the next 5 to 10 years. In the Reclast trial, 9.8 percent of women taking the drug suffered a fracture in the first three years of the study, compared with 20 percent of women who were taking a placebo. By four to six years, the benefit had narrowed, with 8.6 percent of Reclast users suffering fractures, compared with 12 percent in the placebo group.

The two studies did not show any increased risk of serious side effects with long-term use of bisphosphonates, but experts say the studies simply were not large enough to detect a relatively rare adverse event. Even so, there have been numerous case reports of the unusual fractures and other side effects, prompting widespread concern about the risks with long-term use.

No one knows how common the femur fractures are, but estimates have ranged from 1 in 10,000 users to 10 in 10,000. Women should be reassured that serious complications are rare, said Dennis M. Black, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at U.C.S.F. and the lead author of the article that accompanied the F.D.A. report.

“The reality is there is a lot of uncertainty in this situation,” Dr. Black said. “The F.D.A. report was very general, and we tried to be much more specific and use evidence from the best trial available. Hopefully people who are using this drug will be reassured.” Dr. Rosen said that even though the F.D.A. report was vague on specific recommendations, he was pleased to see the analysis published.

“It’s a very new thing that they submit a paper to The New England Journal that presents all sides of the argument,” Dr. Rosen said. “I think it’s a good thing, because I’ve been on these advisory committees for years, and we get a big crowd in Washington, but the doctors never see the results.”