The Health Benefit of Tears ~ By Judith Orloff

For over twenty years as physician, I’ve witnessed, time and again, the healing power of tears. Tears are your body’s release valve for stress, sadness, grief, anxiety, and frustration. Also, you can have tears of joy, say when a child is born or tears of relief when a difficulty has passed. In my own life, I am grateful when I can cry. It feels cleansing, a way to purge pent up emotions so they don’t lodge in my body as stress symptoms such as fatigue or pain. To stay healthy and release stress, I encourage my patients to cry. For both men and women, tears are a sign of courage, strength, and authenticity.

In “Emotional Freedom,” I discuss the numerous health benefits of tears. Like the ocean, tears are salt water. Protectively they lubricate your eyes, remove irritants, reduce stress hormones, and they contain antibodies that fight pathogenic microbes. Our bodies produce three kinds of tears: reflex, continuous, and emotional. Each kind has different healing roles. For instance, reflex tears allow your eyes to clear out noxious particles when they’re irritated by smoke or exhaust. The second kind, continuous tears, are produced regularly to keep our eyes lubricated–these contain a chemical called “lysozyme” which functions as an anti-bacterial and protects our eyes from infection. Tears also travel to the nose through the tear duct to keep the nose moist and bacteria free. Typically, after crying, our breathing, and heart rate decrease, and we enter into a calmer biological and emotional state.

Emotional tears have special health benefits. Biochemist and “tear expert” Dr. William Frey at the Ramsey Medical Center in Minneapolis discovered that reflex tears are 98% water, whereas emotional tears also contain stress hormones which get excreted from the body through crying. After studying the composition of tears, Dr. Frey found that emotional tears shed these hormones and other toxins which accumulate during stress. Additional studies also suggest that crying stimulates the production of endorphins, our body’s natural pain killer and “feel-good” hormones.” Interestingly, humans are the only creatures known to shed emotional tears, though it’s possible that that elephants and gorillas do too. Other mammals and also salt-water crocodiles produce reflex tears which are protective and lubricating.

Crying makes us feel better, even when a problem persists. In addition to physical detoxification, emotional tears heal the heart. You don’t want to hold tears back. Patients sometimes say, “Please excuse me for crying. I was trying hard not to. It makes me feel weak.”

My heart goes out to them when I hear this. I know where that sentiment comes from: parents who were uncomfortable around tears, a society that tells us we’re weak for crying–in particular that “powerful men don’t cry.” I reject these notions. The new enlightened paradigm of what constitutes a powerful man and woman is someone who has the strength and self awareness to cry. These are the people who impress me, not those who put up some macho front of faux-bravado.

Try to let go of outmoded, untrue, conceptions about crying. It is good to cry. It is healthy to cry. This helps to emotionally clear sadness and stress. Crying is also essential to resolve grief, when waves of tears periodically come over us after we experience a loss. Tears help us process the loss so we can keep living with open hearts. Otherwise, we are a set up for depression if we suppress these potent feelings. When a friend apologized for curling up in the fetal position on my floor, weeping, depressed over a failing romance, I told her, “Your tears blessed my floor. There is nothing to apologize for.”

I’ve been this enthusiastic about crying for years. In fact, during my psychiatric residency at UCLA when supervisors and I watched videos of me with patients, they’d point out that I’d smile when a patient cried. “That’s inappropriate,” they’d say. I disagreed then; still do. I wasn’t smiling because my patients were depressed or grieving. I was smiling because they were courageously healing depression or other difficult emotions with tears. I was happy for their breakthrough. In my life, too, I love to cry. I cry whenever I can. Wish I could more. Thank God our bodies have this capacity. I hope you too can appreciate the experience. Let your tears flow to purify stress and negativity.

Judith Orloff is the author of the New York Times bestseller Emotional Freedom (Harmony Books, 2009) and the international bestseller Second Sight: An Intuitive Psychiatrist Tells Her Extraordinary Story.  Dr. Orloff synthesizes the pearls of traditional medicine with cutting edge knowledge of intuition and energy medicine, Emotional freedom and total wellness. www.drjudithorloff.com

[Originally posted at:http://omtimes.com/2010/09/the-health-benefit-of-tears/]

Cliff's Note:

Often people find themselves crying in my Naturopathic practice, and particularly when doing Psych-K and energy work. In spite of their best intentions to 'not cry' they end up having an emotional release related to the work we are doing in releasing negative and self limiting beliefs. I always tell my clients that there is nothing at all to be ashamed of, and that the release is simply a part of the natural process, and as we can see from Dr Orloff's article can be really beneficial for our health. I certainly have no embarassment when around people crying. I have cried enough in my life to recognise it's value and I simply want the best for my clients!

Especially as men we often feel very reticent to be in touch with our feelings. However when we look at the myriad joys of life, the things that bring us into contact with our feelings really are the stuff that life's made of! 

To remove ourselves from this is to separate ourselves from truly living. 

I believe that there is a place and a time for being 'tough'. A time for standing up and being counted. 

My friends and readers know that in my time in the ring and on the lifting platform I have been as masculine as any one else....but toughness is being able to stand up for what is right, being able to not worry about what others think when you are doing right, and doing it all with honesty, humility, loyalty...and love!

Being scared of our emotions is the exact antithesis of being tough! However having the strength to recognise, and yes - show - that we are human and vulnerable is, to my mind, what being 'tough' in the best sense of the word is. 

~ Cliff

Thanks to my wonderful friend Melissa Lawrence of Awakening Source for posting this article. 

Natural 'Cures' for Cancer May be Nearly as Ineffective as Chemotherapy!

A recent article on the Stuff website entitled 'Research Shows Natural Cancer Cures Don't Cure' quotes a speech at Victoria University by Professor Shaun Holt in which he states that there are no complementary natural therapies that could cure cancer. 

He goes on to state that his findings are not his opinion but were based on years of scientific research...


This reminds me of the mainstream medical communities constant criticism of complementary and natural medicine as not being 'evidence based medicine', in spite of existing and emerging research, and when the evidence backing mainstream medicine is not always very convincing


I will say that I was not at the lecture, nor do I know Professor Holt, and so I am only basing this reply on what has been reported.


How effective are mainstream methods?
Mainstream methods for treating cancer involve invasive and destructive protocols including surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy.
These are considered in mainstream medicine to be the best options for treating cancer.


A recent extensive research review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that the overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
The contribution to survival of this mainstream therapy is under 2.3% on average!


This study, undertaken by several respect oncologists, also over estimated chemotherapy effectiveness wherever data may have been uncertain. 


Relative Risk
Oncologists routinely express the benefits of chemotherapy in terms of 'relative risk'. 
Relative risk is a statistical means of expressing the reduction in risk - in relation to the rate of risk itself. Therefore if your risk of death from a condition was 5% before treatment and 2.5% after, the effectiveness of the treatment (in survival rate) would be 50%. When a 50% increase in survival is mentioned to patients it is easy to see what the likely decision for treatment will be. However the decision to undergo treatment might be quite different if the rate of improvement was given in absolute terms. 
One must also remember that physicians are often (inadvertently) misled by statistical sleight of hand. It is easy to understand the willingness of a physician to prescribe a treatment that offers a '50% improvement in survival rates..' 
In fact physicians are often more inclined to prescribe drugs (believing them more effective) when results of studies are expressed in relative rather than absolute terms (Bucher 1994) and physicians are more likely to recommend chemotherapy when presented with relative risk figures of effectiveness as compared to absolute risk statistics (Chao 2003).


We can see that the way that medical information is presented in the literature has a large role to play in whether a treatment will be a) recommended and b) uptaken by the patient (Note: 80% of patients choose what their oncologist recommends.)


In an example of how chemotherapy is oversold, the authors of the aforementioned study cite that in 1998 in Australia, out of the total of 10,661 women who were newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 4,638 women were considered eligible for chemotherapy. Of these 4,638 women, only 164 (3.5 percent) actually gained some survival benefit from chemotherapy. As the authors point out, the use of newer chemotherapy regimens including the taxanes and anthracyclines for breast cancer may raise survival by an estimated additional one percent — but this is achieved at the expense of an increased risk of cardiac toxicity and nerve damage.


Study End Points
The only statistic that really matters to cancer patients is long term survival. Secondary to that, but crucially important to is quality of life. 
Many studies set arbitrary (and often self serving) end points of the study that unfairly skew the results in favour of a curative effect. Highly toxic or highly invasive treatments that destroy cancerous cells, whilst wreaking havoc on the body will undoubtedly slow or remove tumorous activity in the short. But the effect on quality of life is huge, that rates of relapse are high, and underlying health factors that may have precipitated the disease are left to potentially reinstate the problem. 


The Placebo Effect
The placebo effect is often cited as a rationale for some of the improvements seen in natural therapies practice and research. 
However this point is moot for the following reasons:


Mainstream medicine is also largely based on the placebo affect
Drug therapy and even surgery have been conclusively demonstrated to be to a greater or lesser extent reliant upon the placebo effect for their effectiveness. 
Many drugs only slightly outperform placebo, and it is impossible to know whether the additional benefit is always as a result of the drug itself or because of an enhanced placebo effect due to side effects (if you feel an effect in the body - even if negative, you are more likely to 'believe' that it is working.)


The placebo effect by any other name is 'self healing'
The placebo effect is really an example of our ability to self heal. It shows that our beliefs drastically affect our physiology and indicates just how much power we have to positively affect our health status. 
The collective belief that we have in the 'healing' power of modern medicine and the physicians that prescribe to it's principles is sure to affect the efficacy of treatment. And this is not necessarily negative! If anyone is helping people to be healthier and to not be stricken by illness then that is a huge positive. But to use the placebo effect to deride, universally a whole paradigm of medicine whilst utilising it's effect to solidify your own is naive at best. 


Spontaneous Remission
There are countless examples of spontaneous remission from cancer sometimes from serious/terminal forms.

[Read about one cool example here!] 

These are generally discounted by the mainstream medical community as aberrations, and unlikely ones at that. But the rate of spontaneous remission in breast cancer for example may be as high as 22% (Zahl et al. 2008). These same researchers had previously performed research in Norway comparing breast-screened and non breast-screened populations, showing that breast cancers can remit spontaneously. (Therefore although not denying the value in breast screening there are cases where women do not realise they have cancer and it resolves itself without intervention.) 


A tantalising question arises for me when reading research like this ~ How many of us have had (and recovered from) cancer without even realising it?


The incidence of 'spontaneous remission' (perhaps a misnomer?) is related to many, many lifestyle and other factors. For example if someone decides to change their nutritional habits, exercise and reduce stress (all factors in the development of cancer) their likelihood of remission/regression should increase. However this may still  be included as a 'spontaneous' remission. It is also poignant to note the nutrition and lifestyle interventions are at the core of complementary medicine. 


If nothing else spontaneous remission throws an indictment over the practice of negative reinforcement still in practice. "You have 3 months to live" can become a self fulfilling prophecy (and there are several examples in the medical literature of cases where someone given a certain amount of time to live was subsequently found - post mortem - to have not actually had the 'terminal' illness.)


I have been told that to tell a patient that they might survive is giving them 'false hope' but that very 'false hope' could potentially turn into the 'belief' that the placebo effect has shown to be so powerful in potentially improving one's outlook and health. It could also be the trigger to make the lifestyle changes needed to improve and recover one's health. 


Picking and Choosing
In the Stuff article, Professor Holt mentions some of the alternative methods that do have validity in his opinion. He includes acupuncture, aromatherapy, massage and art therapy as modalities that can reduce 'symptoms' of cancer. He seems to be picking and choosing... 

He calls Reiki 'chanting mumbo-jumbo', in spite of the many studies showing reduction in pain, anxiety and other symptoms of both cancer and it's treatments from Reiki and other hands on healing modalities (Pohl et al 2007). For example one of the major contributing factors to reduced quality of life and a factor that influences recovery in cancer is fatigue. Fatigue may be reduced by Reiki treatments more than just rest (Tsang et al 2008).

 (Side note: As a master Reiki practitioner and intuitive energy worker I certainly don't chant when doing energy work!) So shouldn't Reiki and other treatments that give benefit be put in the category with the above rather than derided? 

Hands on energy healing has shown a high rate of effectiveness in encouraging small tumour remission in mice (Bengston & Krinsley 2000) and there is emerging research the various 'bio-energy' healing modalities may be efficacious for encouraging the remission of tumours. 


Research on distance healing is lacking but of the very small amount of studies done several show discernible improvements in health. A double blind study on AIDS patients showed that those undergoing distance healing (without their knowledge) had lower incidence of AIDS defined illness, less severity of symptoms, fewer doctors visits and fewer hospitalisations. 

(That being the case what is the harm! Energy healing modalities are safe, can be used in conjunction with other modalities and evidence suggests they may be extremely effective.)

I would say that mainstream medicine treats symptoms of being. Where lifestyle, genetics, actions and beliefs provide the mulitifactorial basis for dis-ease a set of symptoms will proliferate. 


Sometimes it may be necessary to utilise drugs and surgery to save lives and improve quality of life - and I am all for this. But the wholesale use of solely mainstream medicine without recognising the benefits of complementary modalities for prevention, support...and curative treatment of many illnesses is cavalier and irresponsible. 

Nobody Cures, Nobody Heals
No one 'cures' anybody else, and the term 'healer' is simply an easy description at times for people that help and facilitate a 'process of healing' (but one I am loathe to use.) 
In reality anyone has inordinate power within themselves to avoid illness, to recover from illness and to lead a happier, healthier life. 
Illness must be recognised for what it is - a symptom profile that has arisen dependent upon many factors. Because of the multifaceted nature of illness a multifaceted (ergo 'holistic') approach to treatment should be undertaken, and this requires utilising the resources available to us. There are pragmatic integrative practitioners in both mainstream and alternative medicine and we should consult with experts that will give us the best outcome for our health. 
It is hilarious to me to read in the conclusions of studies that show the efficacy of herbs that people should consult a 'medical doctor knowledgeable in the use of herbs'! While there may be doctors who are...there is also a whole profession (medical herbalism and naturopathic medicine) where that is exactly what we do! Would you consult your herbalist for information on how to best perform brain surgery?


In some respects I agree with Professor Holt, in that nothing, including both mainstream medicine and CAM, really 'cures'. 

It is the individual who co-creates their future reality in the now and provides the impetus for healing and recovery. 


About Cliff


Cliff Harvey is a Naturopath specialising in holistic nutrition and mind-body-spirit medicine. He has lectured at prestiges universities, colleges and industry conventions and his articles have been published in magazines around the world. He is the owner of Katoa Health Clinic (www.katoahealth.com) and is the author of 'Choosing You! How you can choose to live the life of your dreams.' Find out more about Cliff at www.cliffharvey.com

Creatine Does Not Promote Dehydration or Rhabdomyolysis in Athletes

WOODLAND PARK, CO, AUGUST 25, 2010 - Recent media reports have suggested that ingestion of the dietary supplement creatine monohydrate may have contributed to the hospitalization of several athletes from McMinnville High School in Oregon for rhabdomyolysis (i.e., a rapid breakdown of skeletal muscle due to injury that typically presents with marked elevations in the enzyme creatine kinase [CK] in the blood) and/or anterior compartment syndrome (ACS). It is well known that excessive exercise in hot and humid environments can promote dehydration, muscle breakdown, and result in marked elevations in muscle CK levels.  In severe instances, this may lead to exertional rhabdomyolysis particularly in athletes who have been engaged in intense exercise in hot and humid environments for several days and who become chronically dehydrated.  Additionally, excessive exercise in individuals unaccustomed to heavy training bouts can promote anterior compartment swelling, pain, and pressure.  It is well known that dehydration and/or heat illness can exacerbate this clinical course.  

According to press reports, the athletes in this case were engaged in a several day "immersion" camp.  The athletes began to complain about swelling in their arms after performing a series of push-up and chair dip exercises in a 30-second alternating bouts of repetitions for over 20 minutes until exhaustion in a hot and humid wrestling room.  Temperatures in the room were reported as high as 115-120°F.  Moreover, the athletes were reported to have to start a repetition scheme over again if all of the athletes did not complete their repetition goals.  Further, the athletes were not allowed to drink water during the training session.  None of the athletes indicated they took creatine (or any other supplement or drug).   Nevertheless, media reports indicated officials are investigating whether creatine may have been linked to this incident. 

The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) is the leading professional organization in the field of sports nutrition. In 2007, the Research Committee of the ISSN formed a team of sport nutrition researchers, dietitians, and physicians to extensively review the available scientific literature on creatine supplementation and exercise and to develop a Position Stand for the Society which was published in the Journal of the International Society of Sport Nutrition (see:http://www.jissn.com/content/4/1/6).   After extensive review of the literature, the ISSN adopted the following positions relative to this issue:

1.      Creatine monohydrate is the most effective ergogenic nutritional supplement currently available to athletes in terms of increasing high-intensity exercise capacity and lean body mass during training.

2.      Creatine monohydrate supplementation is not only safe, but possibly beneficial in regard to preventing injury and/or management of select medical conditions when taken within recommended guidelines.

3.      There is no scientific evidence that the short- or long-term use of creatine monohydrate has any detrimental effects on otherwise healthy individuals.

4.      If proper precautions and supervision are provided, supplementation in young athletes is acceptable and may provide a nutritional alternative to potentially dangerous anabolic drugs.

5.      At present, creatine monohydrate is the most extensively studied and clinically effective form of creatine for use in nutritional supplements in terms of muscle uptake and ability to increase high-intensity exercise capacity.

6.      Creatine monohydrate has been reported to have a number of potentially beneficial uses in several clinical populations, and further research is warranted in these areas.

Specific to the alleged association of creatine to development of rhabdomyolysis and ACS; a number of studies have evaluated the effects of creatine supplementation on dehydration, cramping, fluid retention, muscle injury, CK levels, and health status in athletes engaged in intense exercise (including football players engaged in intense training in hot and humid environments).  These studies have consistently indicated that creatine supplementation does not promote cramping, muscle injury, elevations in CK, and/or heat related injuries.  Conversely, studies report that creatine may improve the athlete's ability to tolerate intense exercise in hot and humid environments and lessen the incidence of injury.  Athletes have been using creatine on a widespread basis as a dietary supplement since the early 1990's.  No clinically significant side effects have been reported and a number of potentially beneficial medical uses are being studied.  It is the opinion of the ISSN that suggestions that creatine caused this incident is inconsistent with the scientific literature and implausible.  

According to noted sports nutrition scientist Richard Kreider, Ph.D., FACSM, FISSN of Texas A & M University, "Many studies have been done (since the early 1990's) that show creatine does not cause dehydration, muscle damage, or increase susceptibility to heat-related illness in athletes involved in intense training in hot and humid environments.  If anything, research shows that creatine promotes hyperhydration (i.e., whole body fluid retention) leading to less thermogregulatory stress during intense exercise in the heat.  It is unfortunate that individuals unfamiliar with the creatine literature are speculating that creatine caused this problem when the athletes indicated they did not take creatine and they ignore the obvious precursors: excessive and inappropriate training in a hot and humid environment." 

About the ISSN:  The International Society of Sports Nutrition is the only non-profit academic society dedicated to promoting the science and application of evidence-based sports nutrition and supplementation. www.theissn.org  

Cliff's Note

Creatine has been routinely touted as causing negative effects by the media over the years in spite of research to the contrary. Creatine is one of the most proven, and certainly most efficacious sports nutritional supplements on the market. I have heard several MDs quotes as saying that the 'long term effects are unknown' and that there 'isn't enough research yet...' - even though a PubMed search for 'creatine supplementation' yields over 1000 studies, many of which are long term studies of safety. 

Anecdotally I have been a performance nutritionist for hundreds of elite athletes; Olympians and World Champions amongst them and have never in practice seen deleterious effects in my athletes. 

Beware the media beat up!

Email me via my Naturopathic/Holistic Performance Nutrition Clinic for more info: info@katoahealth.com