How Bad are Eggs For You?

Recently I overheard some friends discussing their egg white recipes.  When I asked why they just used the egg whites, they said it was because the yokes were so bad for you. 

Well, I had just gotten the following in an email, so I passed it along to them.

Read on….

Are Whole Eggs or Egg Whites Better for You?

by Mike Geary, Certified Nutrition Specialist, Certified Personal Trainer
Author – The Truth About 6-Pack Abs 

I was on a weekend trip with some friends recently and one of my friends was cooking breakfast for the whole group. I went over to see what he was cooking and saw he was getting ready to make a big batch of eggs.

Well, to my shock and horror, I noticed that he was cracking the eggs open and screening the egg whites into a bowl and throwing out the egg yolks. I asked him why the heck he was throwing out the egg yolks, and he replied something like this…

“because I thought the egg yolks were terrible for you…that’s where all the nasty fat and cholesterol is”.

And I replied, “you mean that’s where all of the nutrition is!”

This is a perfect example of how confused most people are about nutrition. In a world full of misinformation about nutrition, somehow most people now mistakenly think that the egg yolk is the worst part of the egg, when in fact, the YOLK IS THE…..    Read More

whole eggs are a perfect food

Doctors Recommending Surgery for Profit Motive?

If your doctor is pushing you toward non-emergency surgery for the wrong reason?

Financial incentives sway doctors to send patients to surgery, study says

August 16, 2010 | Christina Jewett

Is a doctor who stands to profit from sending you to surgery more likely to suggest that you get a procedure? The answer is a resounding yes, based on one researcher’s analysis of five years worth of insurance claims in Idaho.

The study, published in the August edition of the Archives of Surgery, looked at the behavior of doctors who own all or part of a specialty hospital or ambulatory surgery center.

Researcher Jean M. Mitchell found that patients of facility-owner physicians are:

  • 54 to 129 percent more likely to get carpel tunnel repair
  • 33 to 100 percent more likely to get rotator cuff repair
  • 27 to 78 percent more likely to arthroscopic surgery

Mitchell concedes one weakness of the study is the gap in data about whether the surgeries were beneficial to the patients. One of the categories, arthroscopic surgery of the knee, was identified in one study to yield no better benefit than medical or physical therapy. Yet it costs $5,000 per case, twice to three times the cost of lower-intensity care.

Mitchell, who is a professor at Georgetown University, concludes “that financial incentives linked to ownership of either specialty hospitals or ambulatory surgery centers influence physicians’ practice patterns.”

Typically, “self-referral” is illegal in health care, Mitchell notes. However, federal law makes an exception for doctors referring patients to hospitals and surgery centers.

The findings, in a way, erode the notion that doctors always do what is best for the patient. And they build on work of other researchers highlighting the way capitalism and wellness do not always align.

One recent study by a Stanford researcher found that local MRI supply tends to drive MRI usage and incidence of lower back surgeries (as opposed to, say, actual need for such services).

And a University of California Davis researcher delved a case of money and politics mixing with medicine, resulting in a windfall for one company but no discernible benefit to patients. His study examined a medical device company’s role in lobbying for a mammography-screening process that increased false-positives but did little to increase cancer detection.

Medical research is amassing examples that Gordon Gecko would love. But whether they are best for patients is a matter that deserves more scrutiny and more debate.

Such debate started in earnest last week in Sacramento, when the New America Foundation hosted a crowded hearing in the Capitol about aligning incentives in medicine that ensure “effective care that takes into account the latest findings in medical science as well as the preferences of individual patients and the judgments of their healthcare providers.”

For now, one antidote to medical profiteering that’s being discussed in policy circles is the “accountable care organization,” which is essentially an HMO that rewards doctors for keeping patients healthy rather than racking up the fee-for-service bill.

Dr. Atul Gawande, a physician who pens long, thoughtful pieces in the New Yorker, called for a movement toward health systems where the temptation to make choices for profit disappears and the incentives are in line with what’s is best for patients:

Dramatic improvements and savings will take at least a decade. But a choice must be made. Whom do we want in charge of managing the full complexity of medical care? We can turn to insurers (whether public or private), which have proved repeatedly that they can’t do it. Or we can turn to the local medical communities, which have proved that they can. But we have to choose someone – because, in much of the country, no one is in charge. And the result is the most wasteful and the least sustainable health care system in the world.

Note:   The above was taken from

Doctor Recommending Surgery Profit Motive?

I was searching for a different article I had seen reporting that doctors who had financial interests in surgical clinics were more likely to recommend non-emergency surgery for conditions such as carpal tunnel syndrome, thoracic outlet syndrome, cubital tunnel syndrome, and others.

I haven’t found that article yet.  But here is this one…

Doctors with ownership in surgery center operate more often, U-M study finds

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — When doctors become invested in an outpatient surgery center, they perform on average twice as many surgeries as doctors with no such financial stake, according to a new study from the University of Michigan Health System.

“Our data suggest that physician behavior changes after investment in an outpatient facility. Through what some have labeled the ‘triple dip,’ physician owners of surgery centers not only collect a professional fee for the services provided, but also share in their facility’s profits and the increased value of their investment. This creates a potential conflict of interest,” says study author John Hollingsworth, M.D., M.S., a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar at the U-M Medical School.

“To the extent that owners are motivated by profit, one potential explanation for our findings is that these physicians may be lowering their thresholds for treating patients with these common outpatient procedures,” Hollingsworth adds.

The study looked at all patients in Florida who underwent one of five common outpatient procedures: carpal tunnel release, cataract excision, colonoscopy, knee arthroscopy and myringotomy with tympanostomy tube placement (a procedure to insert tubes in the ear).

The researchers determined which doctors were owners of a surgery center. They then compared surgery use among owners in two time periods—before and after they acquired ownership—with that of physicians who remained non-owners.

Results of the study appear in the April issue of Health Affairs. The findings include:

  • Owners operated on an average of twice as many patients as non-owners.
  • While caseloads increased overall between the earlier and later time periods for all physicians, the increases were more rapid and dramatic among owners.


The number of surgery centers has increased nearly 50 percent over the last decade, largely driven by the investment of physicians, who had a stake in 83 percent of these facilities. For doctors, investment may give them more control over their practice environment, from scheduling cases to purchasing surgical equipment. For patients, these centers often have shorter wait times than hospitals and may provide more amenities.

“There are some definite advantages for surgeons, as well as patients, associated with care at surgery centers. However, we need to better understand the implications of these new findings, in particular their overall effect on health care expenditures. Insofar as our results are due to lowered treatment thresholds, policymakers should consider, at the very least, requiring all physicians to disclose their financial interests to their patients,” Hollingsworth says.

Contact: Nicole Fawcett
University of Michigan Health System


Additional authors: Zaojun Ye, research associate in urology at U-M; Seth A. Strope, assistant professor of surgery at Washington University in St. Louis; Sarah L. Krein, research associate in internal medicine at U-M; Ann T. Hollenbeck, partner at Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP in Detroit; and Brent K. Hollenbeck, associate professor of urology at U-M

Funding: Hollingsworth is a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar; Hollenbeck is supported in part by a Mentored Research Scholarship Grant from the American Cancer Society

Reference: Health Affairs, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 2010

Quick Carpal Tunnel Remedy

Many years ago when I was developing hand problems, I was looking for answers to work on myself. 

The stretches I learned in massage school weren’t  helping.  Icing gave relief, but I knew there had to be a better, more lasting way than dipping my arm in alternating cold and hot water or applying ice packs.

Most books and articles weren’t very helpful. 

The first quick method that worked came from a most unusual source. 

Watch the Video to See What Changed Everything.

The video referred to is at Carpal Tunnel Treatment

Then I worked on ways to not have to use my thumbs.
Then I expanded the method.

Then I got numb fingers when I raised my arms to steering wheel level, but not when my arms were down.

This technique  didn’t solve that because the problem was coming from somewhere completely different. 

And so I worked out a self-massage technique for this new area, and the results were almost instant.