Timothy B. Neuschwander, MD; John Cutrone, MD; Brandon R. Macias, BA; Samantha Cutrone; Gita Murthy, PhD; Henry Chambers, MD; Alan R. Hargens, MD

Abstract

Study Design: This study is a repeated measures design to measure the lumbar spine response to typical school backpack loads in healthy children. The lumbar spine in this setting was measured for the first time by an upright magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to measure the lumbar spine response to typical school backpack loads in healthy children. We hypothesize that backpack loads significantly increase disc compression and lumbar curvature.

Summary of Background Data: Children commonly carry school backpacks of 10% to 22% bodyweight. Despite growing concern among parents about safety, there are no imaging studies which describe the effect of backpack loads on the spine in children.

Methods: Three boys and 5 girls, age 11 ± 2 years (mean ± SD) underwent T2 weighted sagittal and coronal MRI scans of the lumbar spine while standing. Scans were repeated with 4, 8, and 12 kg backpack loads, which represented approximately 10%, 20%, and 30% body weight for our sample. Main outcome measures were disc compression, defined as post- minus preloading disc height, and lumbar asymmetry, defined as the coronal Cobb angle between the superior endplates of S1 and L1.

Results: Increasing backpack loads significantly compressed lumbar disc heights measured in the midline sagittal plane (P < 0.05, repeated-measures analysis of variance [ANOVA]). Lumbar asymmetry was: 2.23° ± 1.07° standing, 5.46° ± 2.50° with 4 kg, 9.18° ± 2.25° with 8 kg, and 5.68° ± 1.76° with 12 kg (mean ± SE). Backpack loads significantly increased lumbar asymmetry (P < 0.03, one-way ANOVA). Four of the 8 subjects had Cobb angles greater than 10° during 8-kg backpack loads. Using a visual-analogue scale to rate their pain (0-no pain, 10-worst pain imaginable), subjects reported significant increases in back pain associated with backpack loads of 4, 8, and 12 kg (P < 0.001, 1-way ANOVA).

Conclusion: Backpack loads are responsible for a significant amount of back pain in children, which in part, may be due to changes in lumbar disc height or curvature. This is the first upright MRI study to document reduced disc height and greater lumbar asymmetry for common backpack loads in children.

Introduction

Over 92% of children in the United States carry backpacks that are typically loaded with 10% to 22% body weight.[1,2] Thirty-seven percent of children aged 11 to 14 years report back pain, the majority of whom attribute their pain to wearing a school backpack.[3] Previous studies in children with 10%, 20%, and 30% body weight loads indicate that these loads generate very high contact pressures under backpack straps as well as significant pain.[4]

Despite growing parental concern regarding heavy backpack loads in schoolchildren and their association with childhood back pain, there are no known radiographic studies of the pediatric spine response to backpack loads.[5] Radiation risk to normal subjects from detailed roentgenographic or computed tomography analysis has precluded such studies, and the current data set is limited to estimates made with anatomic markers.[5,6] Only a biplane radiographic vertebral analysis can appropriately describe changes in disc height, lumbar lordosis, and spinal asymmetry. There are several radiographic studies describing the effects of axial loading in the adult[7,8] and pediatric spine.[9] These studies compare supine and simulated upright lumbar spine loading but do not describe the increased loads caused by typical school backpack loads in children. A new standing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging device permits detailed radiographic analysis of the lumbar spine response to backpack loads without risk of radiation.

The purpose of this study is to measure lumbar disc compressibility and lumbar spine curvature in response to school backpack loads in children. We hypothesize that typical school backpack loads significantly decrease lumbar disc height and increase lumbar curvature.

Materials and Methods

This study is a repeated measures design to measure the lumbar spine response to typical school backpack loads in healthy children. The lumbar spine in this setting was imaged for the first time by an upright MRI scanner (FONAR Upright MRI, Melville, NY). Three boys and 5 girls, aged 11 ± 2 years (mean ± SD) were recruited by flyer distribution at local schools. Inclusion criteria were healthy children aged 9 to 14 with no history of back pain, scoliosis, or spine surgery. Written child assent and parental informed consent were obtained per UCSD IRB guidelines. Subjects weighed 44 ± 9 kg (mean ± SD) and were all between age-adjusted 25th and 75th percentiles for height and weight.

After resting for 30 minutes supine, subjects underwent sagittal T2 scans of the lumbar spine first supine, then standing. A Jansport backpack (San Leandro, CA) loaded with 4 kg of ceramic tiles was then placed on the subject’s shoulders in the standard, 2-strap condition, and sagittal T2 scans were repeated. The subject then repeated the measurements with 8 kg and 12 kg backpack loads. These loads represented approximately 10%, 20%, and 30% body weight for our sample population. The empty backpack weighed approximately 500 g.

Lumbar disc height on midline sagittal T2 images was defined as the average of anterior and posterior disc heights.[10] Data are presented in terms of compressibility, defined as postloading disc height minus supine disc height.[7] Lumbar lordosis was defined as the sagittal Cobb angle between the superior endplates of S1 and L1.[7] Lumbar asymmetry was defined as the coronal Cobb angle between the superior endplates of S1 and L1. Distances and angles were measured twice by a radiologist, and the 2 results were averaged. There was never a difference between the 2 results of >10%.

To compare loading among all 6 lumbar discs under study, a 6 × 4 (6 discs × 4 loading conditions) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, and significance was set at P < 0.05. A 1 × 4 one-way ANOVA was performed for lordosis and asymmetry data and significance was set at P < 0.05. Recumbent data for compressibility, lordosis, asymmetry, and pain were not included in ANOVA analysis in order to isolate the effects of load on disc height and spinal curvature. All pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Sidak test and a P-value of P < 0.05. A priori and post hoc power calculations were performed with G*Power[11] and all other statistical analyses were performed with SPSS software (SPSS, Chigago, IL).

Results

Disc Height Compression
Increasing backpack loads significantly compressed the T12-L1, L1-L2, L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 disc heights (Figure 1, P < 0.05, repeated measures ANOVA). In addition, the caudal lumbar discs were more compressible, with the L5-S1 disc about twice as compressible as the T12-L1 disc (Figure 1, P < 0.05, repeated measures ANOVA). Interaction between disc and load was nonsignificant, indicating that each disc responded to increasing loads similarly (P > 0.05, interaction between disc and load).

Figure 1.
Lumbar disc compressibility during backpack loading. Backpack loads of 4, 8, and 12 kg significantly compressed each disc (P < 0.05). Disc compressibility increased in the caudal lumbar discs (P < 0.05). Changes in compressibility (mm) are related to the control condition of supine posture.

With pairwise comparisons among discs, only 2 disc levels were significantly different, with L2-L3 significantly more compressible than L1-L2 (P < 0.05). With pairwise comparisons among loads, 4, 8, and 12 kg loads each caused significantly more disc compression than standing without a backpack load (P < 0.05), but differences among compression caused by each load were not significant. With pairwise comparisons between loads by disc, L4-L5 and L5-S1 demonstrated significant differences between standing and 4 kg loads, while L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 demonstrated significant differences between standing and 8 kg loads, and T12-L1, L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 demonstrated significant differences between standing and 12 kg loads. Disc level L3-L4 demonstrated a significant difference in compressibility between 4 kg and 12 kg loads.

As demonstrated in Table 1, backpack load correlated linearly with disc compressibility at each disc level, with r 2 ranging from 0.10 at T12-L1 and steadily increasing to 0.23 at L5-S1.

Lumbar Lordosis
Changes in lumbar lordosis were quite variable as children adjusted their posture to higher backpack loads (Figure 2). No significant changes in lumbar lordosis were seen in response to load (P = 0.767, 1-way ANOVA, post hoc power analysis = 0.35).

Figure 2.
Lumbar lordosis during backpack loading. The sagittal Cobb angle from the superior endplates of S1 and L1 was measured during all loading conditions. Backpack loads of 4, 8, and 12 kg did not significantly increase lumbar lordosis (P = 0.767, 1-way ANOVA). Lumbar lordosis was quite variable as children adjusted posture during each load.

Spinal Asymmetry
Backpack loads caused lumbar spinal asymmetry (Figure 3). The coronal Cobb angle from the superior endplates of S1 and L1 was measured during all loading conditions. Backpack loads of 4, 8, and 12 kg significantly increased lumbar asymmetry (P < 0.03, 1-way ANOVA). Four of the 8 subjects had Cobb angles greater than 10° during loading, and 1 subject had a Cobb angle of 21.1° (Figure 4) during the 8 kg load. Five subjects had a lumbar curve to the right, and 3 subjects had a lumbar curve to the left. All subjects maintained the same direction of curvature throughout the loading conditions. Although the correlation coefficient was small, lumbar asymmetry correlated linearly with backpack load (r 2 = 0.124, P = 0.015).

Figure 3.
Lumbar spinal asymmetry during backpack loading. Lumbar spinal asymmetry was assessed by coronal Cobb angle from the superior endplates of S1 and L1 during all loading conditions. Backpack loads of 4, 8, and 12 kg significantly increased lumbar asymmetry (P < 0.03, 1-way ANOVA).

Figure 4.
Example of lumbar asymmetry. Coronal T2 images demonstrating our most exaggerated example of backpack-induced lumbar asymmetry in a 9-year-old boy. A, Shows a child standing with no load. B, Shows a child standing with an 8-kg backpack load in the standard, 2-strap position. The Cobb angle from the superior endplate of S1 to the superior endplate of L1 in A is 0°. After loading (B), the Cobb angle increased to 21.1°.

Pain
Pain was associated with backpack loading (Figure 5). Using a visual-analogue scale to rate their pain (0-no pain, 10-worst pain imaginable), subjects associated backpack loads of 4, 8, and 12 kg with significant increases in back pain (P < 0.001, 1-way ANOVA). Pain was positively correlated with backpack load (r 2 = 0.711, P < 0.001).

Figure 5.
Pain during backpack loading. Backpack loads of 4, 8, and 12 kg significantly increased back pain (P < 0.001, 1-way ANOVA). Subjects rated their pain using a visual-analogue scale (0-no pain, 10-worst pain imaginable).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first upright MRI study to demonstrate decreases in lumbar disc height and increases in lumbar asymmetry due to typical school backpack loads in children.

Disc Compression
Kimura et al found decreases in L4-L5 disc height with a 50% body weight axial load, intended to mimic upright posture.[7] These investigators found disc height changes in the order of about 1 mm in the L4-L5 disc in young adult subjects. Our results for L4-L5 disc compressibility from supine to upright posture in children are similar (Figure 1). Macias et al found decreases in lumbar height with supine axial loading, but individual disc heights did not approach significance.[8] In a roentgenographic study of normal adolescent spines, Reuben and associates were unable to demonstrate a difference between standing and supine intervertebral disc heights.[9] These authors measured the central vertebral disc height rather than the commonly used Dabbs and Dabbs method.[10]

Lordosis
Kimura et al found increases in lumbar lordosis at L3-L4 and L5-S1 with a 50% body weight axial load, which was intended to mimic upright posture.[7] Macias et al also found that axial loading in a supine MRI caused increases in lumbar lordosis, measured from T12-L1 to L5-S1.[8] Chow et al found decreases in lumbar lordosis and increases in thoracic kyphosis with increasing load due to backpack weight while standing.[5] Although our comparable data are not significant, the trend is similar to published data. We postulate that lordosis is decreased in supine posture and that lordosis increases with standing and other axial loads. A backpack load is not an axial load, however, and for the load to stay balanced over the subject’s center of mass, thoracic kyphosis must increase. This causes a lever-arm effect as flexion occurs at the lumbar spine and lumbar lordosis decreases. Since many of our subjects moved frequently to change the load center of mass between image acquisitions, this may have introduced variability in our data.

Asymmetry
Most children will carry their backpacks with both straps,[3] but occasionally will carry their backpacks using only 1 shoulder strap.[12] It has been established that asymmetric load carrying in children due to using only 1 backpack strap likely contributes to low back pain.[6] Negrini and Negrini found that the postural response to a 1-strap asymmetric backpack load was to elevate the loaded shoulder and laterally deviate the trunk away from the load so as to reposition the load over the subject’s center of mass.[13] They did not find lumbar asymmetry with subjects wearing a pack in a 2-strap condition; however, anatomic markers were placed on the skin overlying every other spinous process. Pascoe et al also reported significantly increased lumbar asymmetry, about 17° with a 1-strap condition, but no lumbar asymmetry with a 2-strap condition.[12] Both studies used anatomic markers on the skin to quantify coronal asymmetry. Chow et al found that increasing backpack load was associated with increasing pelvic obliquity and rotation in normal children and children with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, but these investigators did not measure the lumbar spine itself since their anatomic skin markers that did not include the lumbar spine.[14] Studies with anatomic skin markers are unable to measure true Cobb angles and thus may not be able to detect lumbar spine asymmetry. A recent study found asymmetric load distribution in children wearing backpacks with both straps adjusted to equal length, with children tending to load the right shoulder significantly more than the left.[15] Asymmetric loading was not associated with handedness; this latter study had a small sample size.
Our study found that asymmetry increased with weight up to the 8 kg load, but subsequently decreased with the 12 kg load. Subjectively, we noted that our subjects could tolerate the 8 kg load with minimal postural adjustment. With the 12 kg load, however, most subjects attempted to readjust both posture and load before imaging. As with all loading conditions, subjects carried the load in the standard, 2-strap condition.

Pain
Correlating back pain with load was not a principal hypothesis of our study, and as such, we did not randomize loads. Thus, the linear correlation between pain and backpack load (r 2 = 0.711, P < 0.001) in this study may be a result of subjects’ awareness of increasing load. However, the correlation between back pain and backpack load is well-documented in the literature. A cross-sectional study of children from the metropolitan Los Angeles area found that heavier school backpack loads correlated with back pain.[3] In a recent review on school backpacks, Mackenzie et al summarized the following as risk factors for low back pain in schoolchildren: female gender, poorer general health, high levels of physical activity (including sports competition), time spent sitting, heavier backpack loads, greater time spent carrying a backpack, low physiologic maximum lumbar spine mobility, and a family history of back pain.[16] It is suggested that psychological factors play a role in low back pain occurrence in children.[17] Individuals with low back pain during childhood and family history of back pain have an 88% chance of developing low back pain as adults.[18]

Limitations
Our study has some limitations. A lumbar coil was used to image the lumbar spine. Because the entire spine was not imaged, coronal measurements did not accurately reflect a true scoliosis measurement, since the apex and endpoints of the curve were not identified. The coronal Cobb angles measured in this study likely underestimate the true coronal curvature of the spine under load. In addition, our study did not control for time of day, since the spinal column shortens throughout the day.[19] Each of our subjects had been ambulatory for at least an hour before the required 30-minute of supine rest. Since most of the daily disc height decrease occurs during the first hour after rising, the required supine rest period likely imposed some uniformity on the disc heights.[20] It would have been difficult to impose a longer period of rest on our sample population. The amount of time our subjects experienced load may underestimate the amount of time per day that children typically wear backpacks. Packs were worn for approximately 10 minutes at each load for a total of about 30 minutes, whereas children typically carry backpacks for between 30 and 60 minutes per day.[21] However, our loading times were contiguous whereas children typically wear their backpacks intermittently throughout the day. Since backpack loading induced coronal asymmetry, midline sagittal disc heights may have been oriented obliquely to the perpendicular axis. It is possible that we overestimated postloading disc height and therefore underestimated disc compression. Finally, our pain data were not specific to low back pain and likely captured shoulder, thoracic, and lumbar pain caused by the pack.

This study is the first radiographic analysis to describe the lumbar spine in children wearing backpacks. Lumbar asymmetry induced by backpack loading is a new and unexpected finding. Low back pain in children may be worsened by discogenic or postural changes. Future studies should be directed at upright MRI analyses of spine loading in children with idiopathic low back pain and compared with the present study of normal children.

References

1. Watson KD, Papageorgiou AC, Jones GT, et al. Low back pain in schoolchildren: occurrence and characteristics. Pain 2002;97:87-92.
2. Negrini S, Carabalona R, Sibilla P. Backpack as a daily load for schoolchildren. Lancet 1999;354:1974.
3. Skaggs DL, Early SD, D’Ambra P, et al. Back pain and backpacks in school children. J Pediatr Orthop 2006;26:358-63.
4. Macias BR, Murthy G, Chambers H, et al. High contact pressure beneath backpack straps of children contributes to pain. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:1186-7.
5. Chow DH, Leung KT, Holmes AD. Changes in spinal curvature and proprioception of schoolboys carrying different weights of backpack. Ergonomics 2007;50:2148-56.
6. Korovessis P, Koureas G, Zacharatos S, et al. Backpacks, back pain, sagittal spinal curves and trunk alignment in adolescents: a logistic and multinomial logistic analysis. Spine 2005;30:247-55.
7. Kimura S, Steinbach GC, Watenpaugh DE, et al. Lumbar spine disc height and curvature responses to an axial load generated by a compression device compatible with magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 2001;26:2596-600.
8. Macias BR, Cao P, Watenpaugh DE, et al. LBNP treadmill exercise maintains spine function and muscle strength in identical twins during 28-day simulated microgravity. J Appl Physiol 2007;102:2274-8.
9. Reuben JD, Brown RH, Nash CL Jr, et al. In vivo effects of axial loading on healthy, adolescent spines. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979;139:17-27.
10. Dabbs VM, Dabbs LG. Correlation between disc height narrowing and low-back pain. Spine 1990;15:1366-9.
11. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, et al. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39:175-91.
12. Pascoe DD, Pascoe DE, Wang YT, et al. Influence of carrying book bags on gait cycle and posture of youths. Ergonomics 1997;40:631-41.
13. Negrini S, Negrini A. Postural effects of symmetrical and asymmetrical loads on the spines of schoolchildren. Scoliosis 2007;2:8.
14. Chow DH, Kwok ML, Cheng JC, et al. The effect of backpack weight on the standing posture and balance of schoolgirls with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and normal controls. Gait Posture 2006;24:173-81.
15. Macias BR, Murthy G, Chambers H, et al. Asymmetric loads and pain associated with backpack carrying by children. J Pediatr Orthop 2008;28:512-7.
16. Mackenzie WG, Sampath JS, Kruse RW, et al. Backpacks in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;409:78-84.
17. Watson KD, Papageorgiou AC, Jones GT, et al. Low back pain in schoolchildren: the role of mechanical and psychosocial factors. Arch Dis Child 2003;88:12-7.
18. Harreby M, Neergaard K, Hesselsøe G, et al. Are radiologic changes in the thoracic and lumbar spine of adolescents risk factors for low back pain in adults? A 25-year prospective cohort study of 640 school children. Spine 1995;20:2298-302.
19. Tyrrell AR, Reilly T, Troup JD. Circadian variation in stature and the effects of spinal loading. Spine 1985;10:161-4.
20. Styf JR, Ballard RE, Fechner K, et al. Height increase, neuromuscular function, and back pain during 6 degrees head-down tilt with traction. Aviat Space Environ Med 1997;68:24-9.
21. Balagué F, Skovron ML, Nordin M, et al. Low back pain in schoolchildren. A study of familial and psychological factors. Spine 1995;20:1265-70.

Perhaps one of the most shocking pieces ever to appear on television this past April: a six-hour taping of a Congressional investigation into the relationship between vaccines and autism among American children.

This footage appeared on C-SPAN and was then archived on their website for a entire month.

On April 6, Rep. Dan Burton convened the Congressional hearing in which parents repeatedly told similar stories – how their normally developing babies, after MMR or DPT vaccinations, began displaying autistic behaviors, conditions that are often permanent. Happy, bright children were suddenly losing their abilities to learn, communicate or even recognize their parents.
Amazing testimony was given by experts in the field of autism:

Mary Megson, MD, explained how autism has gone from being rare (about one incident per 10,000 children in 1978), to epidemic proportions in 2000 AD: one case in every 300-500 children in many areas! Megson’s research has shown total deficiency of vitamin A in almost all autistic children. What depletes the body of vitamin A at 15 months? The MMR vaccine. In addition, Megson found that pertussis toxin from the DPT shot disrupted a certain protein that is necessary for retinal formation. This would account for the prevalence of night-blindness and loss of 3D vision so common among autistics.

John O’Leary, PhD, a world-class researcher and molecular biologist from Ireland, using state-of-the-art sequencing technology, showed how he had found the measles virus in the gut of 96% of autistic children, compared to 6.6% in normal children. This virus did not come from the natural disease, but from the measles vaccine. Dr. O’Leary found measles virus present in 75% of children with Crohn’s disease. Crohn’s has traditionally been an intestinal disease of adults, following years of dietary abuse. Its appearance in children is a new event, and Dr. O’Leary’s work points to the measles virus from vaccines as the likely cause.

V. Singh, MDM, a specialist from Utah State who has studied over 400 cases of autism, found that these children had experienced an autoimmune episode, in which their own bodies had been made to attack the linings of their nervous systems. Dr. Singh characterized the epidemic as a “hyperimmune response to the measles virus.” He stated that 55% of the families said that autism appeared soon after an MMR shot, and that 33% of families said it appeared soon after a DPT shot. Such neurologic damage is a well-established side-effect of the mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde used in these vaccines.

Andrew Wakefield, MD, a brilliant researcher from the UK, noted an almost 100% incidence of “lymphoid nodular hyperplasia” or swollen lumps throughout the intestinal tissue of autistics. Such a condition is rare in normal children. Intestinal pathology is characteristic of the autistic child, and the condition generally follows soon after the MMR shot. Dr. Wakefield explained that as the fragile, newborn intestine cannot function because of its swollen condition, undigested toxins from vaccines and drugs are allowed to get into the liver, which is also in a formative stage. Liver pathology is very common among autistics. Wakefield’s hypothesis is that these same “undegraded toxins,” having not been halted by the intestine or the liver, as normally happens, that these toxins are then free to attack the nervous system, and that autism may well be the result.

Kathy Pratt, PhD, director of the Indiana Center for Autism, stated that 1 in 400 children in Indiana were autistic! With 500,000 cases reported in the U.S., Dr. Pratt stated that autism is now more common than Down’s syndrome. Dr. Pratt points out that autism presently may disqualify a person for medical coverage for other, unrelated conditions.

Michael Goldberg, MD, a California pediatrician and researcher, explained how it was impossible to have an epidemic based solely on genetics. That’s the standard excuse the CDC and the NIH have been using to explain how autism has grown from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 300 in just 22 years.

Seeing the American democratic system in action in a live Congressional hearing, it soon becomes apparent how the control of information operates, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that we may well be poisoning our own children!
The requisite defenders of the status quo robotically read their predictable prepared statements, denying the possibility of any connection between autism and vaccines. These included MDs Paul Offit, Edwin Cook, Brent Taylor and others. After they uniformly denied the vaccine/autism connection, it was most illuminating when Burton asked each one of them point-blank about the money each received from the vaccine manufacturers. And these are members of the advisory committee who make the decisions about which vaccines are to be included in the mandated vaccination schedule.

Colleen Boyle was there to represent the Centers for Disease Control. After stumbling through her prepared statement in which she denied any connection between autism and vaccines, Boyle stated the present incidence to be “12 in 10,000.” Burton then stopped her cold by asking her one simple question: Did she think it was a conflict of interest for the same people who were funded by the vaccine manufacturers to be on the advisory board making decisions about which vaccines should be given to American children? Boyle was dumfounded and speechless. Burton repeated the question. Still no answer. Boyle’s mute portrayal of the career bureaucrat spoke volumes.

Equally inept and ill-prepared was Deborah Hirtz, MD, representing the National Institutes of Health. Losing her place in her written statement, Hirtz forgot what she was saying, and it seemed obvious she had not written it. Finally, she just barely managed to put across what she was sent there to say – that there could be no connection between vaccines and autism, but that the NIH was “looking into it.” The NIH has already spent some $40 million per year of taxpayer money “looking into it.” (Hirtz) Their answer: It needs further study. The performance of these representatives from the two government agencies who have almost sovereign power in the area of vaccines was frightening – their indifference; lack of information; condescension; and low level of intelligence. They gave no sign of having understood one word of the critically important breakthrough research that had just been so brilliantly expounded by Drs. Megson, O’Leary, and Wakefield. This is what power looks like – people who have been in their position so long that they know they don’t have to justify themselves to anyone lower down on the food chain.
Government agencies have the same answer to every problem: more committees; more money; more study; and more meetings. Meanwhile, 22 years have gone by, and all these people say is “we don’t know.” After 22 years and $100 million, we don’t know the incidence, the cause or the cure for autism. But we’ll definitely “look into it.” And, oh yes, it’s definitely “not vaccines.”

The shocking scientific findings of Wakefield and O’Leary obviously demand more research. So then, why are the vaccines not suspended until that research is done? The underlying assumption is that the vaccines will continue as normal until enough “research” proves it is dangerous, as with rotavirus and Quadrigen. Only then will MMR be suspended. This is the thinking that passes as logic. The key point here that no one seems to be pointing out is that research should be done before mandating a vaccine into the bloodstream of American children! You don’t just start mass-injecting something into a population and then stand back and defy independent scientists to prove it isn’t safe! That’s exactly what we’ve done here.

As a nation, as a government, and as parents, Americans should be very certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any substance being injected into an unformed little nervous system is absolutely safe and does no harm. That shoul be the minimum requirement. Drs. Wakefield, O’Leary, and Megson have shown startling results from some of the only scientific research on autism and vaccines in the entire world that has not been funded by the vaccine manufacturers. This research also shows a high likelihood that MMR and DPT vaccines may cause permanent intestinal destruction, liver damage, and autism. It presents a very plausible hypothesis for the horrific increase of autism since 1978. So, until we know for certain if they’re right, why are the vaccines not suspended?

Researcher Gary Null’s pert answer comes swimming to the surface; “It’s the money, stupid.” By the end of the hearing, Burton’s room was polarized into three groups:
• those who were convinced of a connection between autism and vaccines
• those who admitted the possibility
• those who angrily denied the possibility, affronted that anyone would question their “scientific” opinions

It was amusing to see which people in the room were trying to discover the truth, and which were trying their best to cover it up.
Despite Burton’s heroic efforts to bring these matters into public view, it’s an uphill struggle. The big money’s on the side of vaccines. Big money controls research, the press, “scientific” journals, and politicians. Seeing all these forces clash together in one room in just six hours has been the most instructive display of confusing the issues perhaps since the OJ trial. Watching a live congressional hearing like this, it soon becomes clear that for them, the real priority isn’t necessarily finding the truth, but rather showing who’s really in charge here. The viewer begins to understand how autism could have gone from being unknown in 1978 to being a household word in just 22 years with so little fanfare.

Without undue pessimism, the prospects for unbiased, objective scientific logic to prevail in deciding the future of MMR and DPT vaccines do not look bright. The mentality of the CDC and the NIH was well characterized in this videotape. The control of research and information by drug manufacturers was pervasive. Burton’s co-chairman, Henry Waxman, did his best to divert attention from the issues to himself, to waste time on “points of order,” and to prevent anyone who disagreed with him from being heard. Waxman’s science champion, researcher Brent Taylor,MD, has recently had an article published in Lancet that supposedly shows no possible connection between vaccines and autism. Now Taylor has refused to provide his data for the study when repeatedly asked by other researchers, like Dr. Bernard Rimland. Such a request is standard, and researchers commonly share their data when requested, unless they have something to hide. Taylor’s combination of fear and arrogance is characteristic of the way that research, and ultimately, decision-making on vaccines by the advisory committee. The researchers who have unlimited funding may ‘prove’ whatever they wish, get it published in the best journals, which are heavily advertised in by the drug companies, and then refuse to respond to valid objections, because they know that those opposing points of view will probably not be published.

Despite these formidable obstacles, doubts are creeping into the overall public “consciousness” from many different directions about the safety of vaccines. At one in 500, the fact of autism as an epidemic can no longer be covered up. The work of Wakefield, O’Leary, and Megson is going to be very difficult to explain away. The massive advertising campaign about the safety of vaccines in the popular media, which is certain to be stepped up in the next few months, is going to look very hollow in the light of clean, unbiased research that is not funded by parties who stand to make billions from certain predetermined results.
Author’s note: Excerpted from forthcoming third edition of the Sanctity of Human Blood, New West, Publisher.

References
1. http://www.c-span.org . Government Reform Committee hearing on vaccines and autism, 6 Apr 2000, Chairman: Representative Dan Burton.

2. Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, 6 Apr 2000: Hirtz D, National Institutes of Health

Megson M, MD, American Academy of Pediatrics
Wakefield A, MD, Royal Free University College Medical School.
O’Leary J, PhD, Coomb’s Women’s Hospital, Dublin.
Singh V, PhD, Utah State University
Boyle C, MD, National Institutes of Health
Offit P, MD, University of Pennsylvania
Taylor B, MD, Royal Free University College Medical
Rimland B, PhD, Autism Research Institute, San Diego
Goldberg M, MD, NIDS Research Institute

Reprints of testimony are available from the Office of Government Reform, Washington, DC (202) 225-2276 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (202) 225-2276      end_of_the_skype_highlighting Videotape available from http://www.c-span.org.

Tim O’Shea
San Jose, California
www.thedoctorwithin.com

Whoever coined the term food additives had it all wrong. Including something new in a food doesn’t always add up to more, at least when it comes to your health. Studies that test the safety of additives are based on animal trials. It is difficult to deduce whether the results of an animal study equate to human health, though many of these studies show that some additives could be cancer-causing.

1. Sodium nitrite
The list of the 12 most dangerous additives to red flag—until we know more—includes the preservative sodium nitrite, used to preserve, color, and flavor meat products. Sodium nitrite is commonly added to bacon, ham, hot dogs, luncheon meats, smoked fish, and corned beef to stabilize the red color and add flavor. The preservative prevents growth of bacteria, but studies have linked eating it to various types of cancer. “This would be at the top of my list of additives to cut from my diet,” says Christine Gerbstadt, M.D., M.P.H., R.D., L.D.N., a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association. “Under certain high-temperature cooking conditions such as grilling, it transforms into a reactive compound that has been shown to promote cancer.”

2. BHA and BHT
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydrozyttoluene (BHT) are additional additives to red flag. They are antioxidants used to preserve common household foods by preventing them from oxidizing. Both keep fats and oils from going rancid and are found in cereals, chewing gum, potato chips, and vegetable oils, but there is concern that they may cause cancer. “The structure of BHA and BHT will change during this process [of preserving food], and may form a compound that reacts in the body,” says Gerbstadt. “BHA and BHT are not stable or inert. They’re not just hanging out and being excreted by the body.” Gerbstadt says that they are obviously not added for the purpose of giving people cancer, but for some people, some of the time, there may be that risk.

3. Propyl gallate
Propyl gallate is another preservative to avoid. It’s used to prevent fats and oils from spoiling and is often used in conjunction with BHA and BHT. This additive is sometimes found in meat products, chicken soup base, and chewing gum. Propyl gallate has not been proven to cause cancer, but studies done on animals have suggested that it could be linked to cancer, so it is an additive to be concerned about. “It’s important to read the label,” says Gerbstadt. “You really have to carry a cheat sheet around in the supermarket. I try to buy as few foods as possible containing preservatives.”

4. Monosodium glutamate
Monosodium glutamate is an amino acid used as a flavor enhancer in soups, salad dressings, chips, frozen entrees, and restaurant food. It is commonly associated with Asian foods and flavorings. MSG
can cause headaches and nausea in some people, and animal studies link it to damaging nerve cells in the brains of infant mice. Gerbstadt recommends replacing MSG with a small amount of salt when possible. “Why bother using MSG when you can live without it?” she says. “MSG can cause migraine-like headaches and create other adverse affects for certain people. It is a flavor enhancer, but you’d be better off putting in a few grains of salt

5. Trans fats
Trans fat makes it onto our dirty dozen list because eating too much of it leads to heart disease. “Trans fats are proven to cause heart disease, and make conditions perfect for stroke, heart attack, kidney failure, and limb loss due to vascular disease,” says Gerbstadt. “It would be wonderful if they could be banned.” Manufacturers have modified product ingredients lists to reduce the amount of trans fats, and are required to label trans fats amounts, but restaurant food, especially fast food chains, still serve foods laden with trans fats. Experts recommend we consume no more than two grams of trans fat per day, an amount easily accounted for if you eat meat and dairy.

6. Aspartame
Aspartame, also known by the brand names Nutrasweet and Equal, is an additive found in so-called diet foods such as low-calorie desserts, gelatins, drink mixes and soft drinks. It also comes in individual packages used in place of sugar as a sweetener. The safety of aspartame, a combination of two amino acids and methanol, has been the focus of hundreds of scientific studies. Conclusions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, the ADA, and the Food and Agriculture Organization indicated that the additive is safe. Conversely, the Center for Science in the Public Interest gave it their lowest ranking in a review of food additives, quoting animal studies in 1970 and in 2007, which suggest that there is a link between aspartame and cancer. Gerbstadt, spokesperson from the ADA—an organization that supports the general safety of aspartame—says that the additive might be unhealthy for some people—especially those with the disease phenylketonuria, an enzyme disorder— because it contains phenalalanine. “Some people may be sensitive to it, and it’s easy to avoid,” she says.

7. Acesulfame-K
This is a relatively new artificial sweetener, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1998 for use in soft drinks. It is also found in baked goods, chewing gum, and gelatin desserts. Acesulfame-K—the “K” is the chemistry symbol for potassium—is considered 200 times sweeter than sugar. While Gerbstadt isn’t specifically concerned about this sweetener when used in moderation, there is a general concern that testing on this product has been scant. Some studies showed the additive may cause cancer in rats, but the substance makes top 12 lists of additives to avoid because further study is needed to conclude whether or not acesulfame-K is harmful.

8. Food colorings: Blue 1, 2; Red 3; Green 3; and Yellow 6
You may think that all dangerous artificial food colorings were banned by the FDA long ago, but there are five still on the market that are linked with cancer in animal testing. “Always opt for the product without the color, if you have a choice,” says Gerbstadt. “I’m not saying to avoid all coloring. Many are made from natural sources. But some specific dye colors do promote tumor formation, in the right combination and conditions.” Blue 1 and 2, found in beverages, candy, baked goods and pet food, are considered low risk but have been linked to cancer in mice. Red 3, used to dye cherries, fruit cocktail, candy, and baked goods, has been shown to cause thyroid tumors in rats. Green 3, added to candy and beverages, though rarely used, has been linked to bladder cancer. Studies have linked the widely used yellow 6—added to beverages, sausage, gelatin, baked goods, and candy—to tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney.

9. Olestra
Olestra, a synthetic fat known as the brand name Olean and found in some brands of potato chips, prevents fat from getting absorbed in your digestive system. This often leads to severe diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and gas. “If you eat fat when taking Olestra, the fat is going to go right through you,” says Gerbstadt. More significantly, though, Olestra inhibits healthy vitamin absorption from fat- soluble carotenoids that are found in fruits and vegetables and thought to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease. “It blocks fat absorption, but it also blocks vitamin absorption,” says Gerbstadt.

10. Potassium bromate
Potassium bromate is rare, but still legal in the U.S., and used as an additive to increase volume in white flour, breads, and rolls. Most bromate rapidly breaks down to an innocuous form, but it is known to cause cancer in animals—and even small amounts in bread can create a risk for humans. California requires a cancer warning on the product label if potassium bromate is an ingredient.

11. White sugar
Some foods, such as fruits and carrots, naturally contain sugar, but watch out for foods with added sugars, such as baked goods, cereals, crackers, even sauces and many other processed foods. Gerbstadt includes white sugar on the list of 12 because although it is non-toxic, large amounts are unsafe for our health and promote bad nutrition. “Simple sugars shouldn’t take up more than about 10 percent of the total calories you consume daily,” says Gerbstadt. Yet most Americans already are eating way over that
amount, consuming 20, 30, or 40 percent of their calories from simple sugars, she says. Too much sugar not only leads to problems with weight control, tooth decay and blood sugar levels in diabetics; it also replaces good nutrition. “In addition to providing unnecessary calories, your body needs nutrients to metabolize sugar, so it robs your body of valuable vitamins and minerals,” says Gerbstadt.

12. Sodium chloride
A dash of sodium chloride, more commonly known as salt, can certainly bring flavor to your meal. But salt is another hidden food additive that can lead to health issues. “Small amounts of salt are needed by the body and are beneficial in preserving food,” says Gerbstadt. “Excessive amounts of salt can become dangerous for your health, affecting cardiovascular function, leading to high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure.”

Why is soaking so important? In traditional diets, seeds, grains and nuts are soaked, sprouted in order to neutralize naturally occurring anti-nutrients in these foods, such as phytic acid, enzyme inhibitors, tannins and help “predigest” the macronutrients (proteins, complex carbohydrates, and fats). It essentially makes the food easier to digest, more nutritious, and less likely to cause any sensitivity in the body.

Whole Grains
Soak desired amount of grain in an equal amount of water. Cover and let sit at room temperature for at least 12 hours. When ready to cook, add remaining required amount of water or stock and cook. If preparing grain berries to grind your own sprouted grain, follow the same instructions as above, let the berries sit in a strainer for 24 hours, and use the drying instructions for the nuts. The best way to check for doneness is to crunch a berry between your teeth. If it doesn’t crunch they are not dry enough. This can takeanywhere from 12 to 36 hrs.

Raw Nuts
Place raw nuts in a bowl, add 1 tablespoon of sea salt, and cover with water. Leave at room temperature for 12 hours. Drain out the water. Place nuts on a cookie sheet and dry on low heat in the oven or a dehydrator (approximately 150). Option: In place of salt, add 1/4-cup tamari for tamari nuts.

Raw Beans & Lentils
Follow the same instructions as for whole grains, but POUR OFF the soaking water and replace with fresh water before cooking. Pour off and refill until there are no more bubbles on the top of the soaking water.

Vegetables
Steam your veggies for a few minutes then add butter or ghee, seasonings, and serve. You can also sauté your veggies in butter, olive oil, coconut oil, and then serve. Raw veggies with a homemade dressing are also good. Do not boil vegetables unless this is required to eat them.

Cookware and utensils:

All cookware should be made of stainless steel, good quality enamel, glass, or cast-iron. Clay is also an option. Avoid aluminum, cooper, and non-stick coated cookware. The elements in these utensils can get into the food and are unhealthy for your body.

The best cooking methods and appliances:

* To preserve as much nutrition in food one of the best ways to cook is with lower heat and longer duration. High heat can destroy nutrients.
* Two valuable cooking appliances for your kitchen are a crock pot (a great time saver) and a roaster.
* A wok for stir-frying (the kind that is placed right on the burner is best and only use stainless steel). The sloping sides and rounded bottom are designed so food can be quickly browned in the “belly” of the pan and them moved up to the sides where is finished cooking more slowly.
* A steamer (or a metal basket that sits in a pot) for steaming vegetables works great. Steaming cooks and seals in flavors and a great cooking method to preserve nutrients.
* A blender is valuable for making smoothies and mixing soups.
* Lastly a salad spinner helps dry green vegetables (e.g. spinach, lettuce, and kale).

* Standardize your breakfast and lunches. One of the easiest ways to be sure that you eat a healthy breakfast and lunch everyday is to PLAN! Get comfortable with about 5 to 7 breakfast and lunch meals that you enjoy and rotate them through your week.

* Keep healthy snacks available.

* Keep a running list on your fridge to help keep you stocked on the things you know you need. Right when you realize you are out of something you can right it down so you are prepared when you go to the grocery store.

* Bulk buy to save money. Usually when you buy bulk at a health food store you can get a discount. Good suggestions for bulk buying include: long storing winter vegetables in the fall (onions, garlic, winter squash, and potatoes) will last 6 to 8 months, whole grains can last up to 1 year in cool, dry container, and beans can last up to 2 years in cool, dry container. Join a food-buying club (or just get a group of friends together) to share items.

* Bulk cook when a meal or a “non-rushed” day lends the opportunity. Dishes that tend to freeze and re-heat well for a day you need a quick meal include: lasagna, muffins, waffles, small breads, pizza shells, soups, burritos, pot pies, and casseroles.

* Have a list of “no-brainer” healthy meals that you and your family enjoy. With these types of meals you tend to have the ingredients always available (or ingredients that will work) and they require minimal preparation time and effort.

Foods to Emphasize

Emphasize a whole foods diet. Choose and eat foods in their natural, whole form, or as close to how they occur in nature as possible. This means limit over-processed foods, which are often found in bags, boxes, or cans.

Increase omega-3 fatty acids, through foods like wild, cold-water fish, walnuts, grass-fed meats, eggs, and flaxseeds.

* Look for DHA rich eggs. Although eggs have some DHA, some egg producers will add DHA-rich marine algae into the hens’ feed, which naturally passes into their eggs. This makes the eggs more powerful at helping to control inflammation due to their fatty acid content.

* Use flaxseed meal generously. For optimum freshness, grind flaxseed as needed (a blender or mini-food processor work well). Sprinkle it over hot or cold cereal, soups, salads, rice, fruit, cooked vegetables or add it to cottage cheese, applesauce, yogurt, smoothies, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, spaghetti sauce, burgers, meatloaf, or granola.

* Eat grass-fed, naturally raised cattle graze on nutrient rich grass, which gives the end product a beneficial essential fatty acid ratio. Conventionally raised cattle are fed foods like corn and soy that they are not designed to eat.

* Consume copious amounts of vegetables, and fruits-especially berries, preferably organic. If fresh berries are not available or are too expensive, opt for frozen. Try berries mixed in yogurt or kefir, top your pancakes or waffles with berries mixed with maple syrup, add them to a blended smoothie, or make a blueberry or cheery pie for dessert.

* Steam your veggies or sauté them in olive oil, butter, ghee, or coconut oil.

* Choose the brightest and deepest colored veggies available. For example, kale has more nutrition than green leaf lettuce, red cabbage has more than green cabbage.

* Use the spices turmeric, rosemary, and ginger liberally in your cooking. Make tea using green tea leaves, rosemary, or ginger root.

* Eat pineapple and papaya when available.

* Eat hot chili peppers if they appeal to you and aid your symptoms.

* Drink clean, filtered water regularly throughout the day and avoid the “water-draining” beverages such as coffee, soda, and alcohol.

Foods to Avoid

Do away with pro-inflammatory foods, such as refined foods, sugar, white flour, damaged fats, and hydrogenated oils and any foods with these ingredients.

* Avoid coffee, alcohol, and other sugary beverages.

Find and eliminate your food sensitivities and see if symptoms improve. Try eliminating the suspected foods for a few weeks and add them back in one at a time and evaluate for symptoms. Be sure to keep a detailed food diary to help identifying the foods that work best with you and your unique needs.

Suggestions for Your Shopping List

Veggies and Fruits: Kale, Spinach, Red Cabbage, Carrots, Onions (red), Garlic, Broccoli, Hot peppers (if they agree with you), Sweet peppers, Zucchini, Tomatoes (unless sensitive), Cherries, BlueberriesRaspberries, Cranberries, Blackberries, Pineapple, Papaya, Apples

Grains, Nuts, and Seeds: Flaxseeds (organic bulk), Walnuts (organic bulk), Oatmeal, Whole grain flours for baking, Whole grain bread

Meats and Eggs: Wild, cold-water fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, tuna, sardines), Grass-fed beef, Buffalo, Eggs (optional: DHA rich versions), Whole milk, Plain yogurt (if not sensitive to dairy)

Fats, Oils, and Condiments: Extra virgin olive oil (organic), Butter or ghee – organic (unless sensitive to dairy), Organic coconut oil, Hot pepper sauce, Fresh ginger, Ground turmeric, Rosemary, Green tea

Snack foods and Sweets: Trail Mix (made with raw nuts and seeds, dried cranberries and dried coconut and chocolate chips), Stevia (herbal sweetener-be sure it is pure stevia with no additives), Raw honey (unfiltered and unpasteurized), Popcorn (popped in olive oil- unless sensitive to corn), Dried fruit (cranberries, blueberries, apples), Crystallized ginger, and Food Bars.

Note: This is a general overview of what you want to incorporate into a healing, disease preventing diet. This overview does not take specific conditions into consideration.

* Eliminate refined “whites” which include refined sugar, white flour, and white rice, etc. This includes foods like white bread, pasta, white tortillas, and baked foods. White, processed flour works in the body in the same way as white sugar.

* Consume whole grains like brown rice, quinoa, and barley. Also, choose whole grain breads and pastas. These foods are nutrient-rich and provide a good source of dietary fiber.

* Eliminate Refined and Artificial Sweeteners, which includes white sugar, brown sugar, pasteurized honey, corn syrup, or foods or drinks containing them. Sugar slows healing, accelerates tissue breakdown, aggravates symptoms, and deteriorates overall health.

* Eliminate Damaged Fats. This includes heated polyunsaturated oils, margarine, hydrogenated oils (i.e., vegetable shortening) or foods containing them. Deep-fried foods are off-limits because the high heat destroys the fat’s health properties and they are usually made with vegetable oils or hydrogenated oils.

* Use traditional “hard-to-damage” fats and oils in cooking and baking including butter and/or ghee (organic from grass-fed cows) extra virgin olive oil, expeller-pressed nut oils (walnut, sesame) and the tropical oils coconut and palm.

* Eat clean, naturally raised meats and animal products grown without hormones, antibiotics, and chemical-filled feed. This includes fish, seafood, poultry, eggs, and grass-fed beef, lamb, game.

* Eat whole, naturally-produced milk products from pasture-fed cows, preferably raw and/or fermented, such as whole yogurt, cultured butter, and whole (raw) cheeses. Choose full-fat varieties over low- or non-fat. Butterfat is in milk for a reason. In fact, without it, the body cannot absorb and utilize the vitamins and minerals found in this food.

* Eliminate or Minimize Unhealthy Beverages. This includes soda, coffee, processed teas, alcohol, and untreated water. Also fruit juice, which is a concentrated source of sugar.

* Drink pure, filtered water. It’s is your best beverage and necessary for optimal body function. Herbal teas can be healthful. There are also some cleaner, more natural sodas on the market that are good to substitute when the soda urge arises.

* Eat fresh vegetables and fruits, preferably organic, in salads and soups, or lightly steamed.

* Eat “super foods” like cod liver oil, Brewer’s yeast, spirulina, bee pollen, raw wheat germ, and kelp.

* Consume fermented foods like tempeh, sauerkraut, raw vinegar, fermented vegetables, full-fat plain yogurt.

* Use sea salt and other natural seasonings and assorted (non-irradiated) herbs and spices.

And finally….

* Personalize your diet to fit your unique biochemistry and lifestyle.What is YOUR best diet? There is no one diet suitable for everybody. The concept of biochemical uniqueness and personalized nutrition has been around for centuries. Taking the above principle factors into consideration can help in your healing process as well as in overall health and disease prevention. But ULTIMATELY – your body is still your best nutrition guide. You will need to pay attention to your own moods, feelings, and sensations when you eat different foods. Keeping a food diary may be a good idea.

The spine has a unique anatomical design, providing flexibility, balance, structural support, and a protective conduit for the spinal column and nerves carrying messages between your brain and the rest of your body. With a healthy spine, you can reach, stretch, bend and twist without much thought or pain.

Even if you have chronic spinal problems, or underlying conditions such as arthritis, osteoporosis, or disc injuries, you can perform activities more easily by practicing basic self-care measures as outlined in this brochure and instructed by your Doctor. With proper care and a consistent exercise program, you can experience improved spinal function and range of motion in your daily life.

What Can You Do?

When you initially visited us, a chiropractic evaluation was performed to locate the source of your pain and diagnose your condition. A set of x-rays may also have been taken to view the area of your complaint as well. Chiropractic manipulations or “adjustments” may have followed to realign your muscles, bones and joints to correct misalignments, or “subluxations.” These adjustments may have diminished the pain, or may have cured your problem completely. In either case, it is important that you continue to actively participate in a self-care program which includes proper body mechanics, spinal self-care, and specific exercises to strengthen the surrounding muscles and increase range of movement and flexibility.

These simple tips can lead you on your way to taking better care of your spine.

Sleeping

Sleeping on a soft bed or couch can strain neck and back muscles since the three curves of the spine are not adequately supported. Sleeping on your stomach is not recommended since it can cause additional strain on the neck and back. Make sure you have a firm mattress that keeps the spine aligned and supports the spinal curvatures. The best sleeping positions are on your back or side. A pillow can be placed under the knees when lying on your back to take pressure off of the lower back.

Standing and Walking

Standing or bending forward for long periods can cause increased spinal pressure— especially if you slouch. Bending over with straight legs increases the pressure in the lower back. High-heeled shoes may result in a “swayback,” which throws the natural curves out of alignment when standing or walking. When standing for extended periods, rest one foot on a small stool to maintain spinal curvature and relieve pressure. The knees should be bent when bending forward. Low-heeled shoes may help by maintaining spinal curvatures and cushioning your weight.

Sitting

Sitting in chairs that do not support your back may throw the natural spinal curvatures out of alignment and add extra stress to the neck and back. Slouching while sitting increases the strain even more. Sitting too far away from the steering wheel while driving also may increase stress to the neck and back.Use chairs that promote good posture and support your back. Rolling up a towel or placing a lumbar or low back support cushion in the lower portion of your back may help to support your lumbar curve. Reposition the seat of your car so that your knees are level with your hips.

Bending and Lifting

Bending forward with the legs straight causes a loss of the three natural spinal curves and puts undue stress on the lower portion of your back. Lifting and bending forward at the same time puts great strain on the muscles and increases the pressure inside the discs (the spongy materials between the bones of your spine) even more. When bending forward, keep your back straight while bending at the knees and hips. This will help to keep the three spinal curvatures in proper alignment. When lifting, keep your spine straight while using your legs to do the brunt of the work. Hold the objects being lifted close to your body to keep the weight on your spine to a minimum.

Turning

Keeping the feet, knees and hips stationary while turning the lower back increases the chances of a twisting injury to the spine or an injury to the discs. The shape of the vertebrae do not allow the joints of the spine to twist easily. Imagine your body as being one continuous unit from your shoulders to your hips. When turning, use your feet to make the turns, not your back. Concentrate on moving your feet first in the direction you wish to turn, while maintaining the natural curves in your spine.

Reaching

Do not stretch your arms or back for something beyond your normal reach. This type of movement decreases the natural curves of the spine, resulting in additional stress or strain. Move your body close to the item you are reaching for. A ladder or stool may be used to reach items above your head. A tool called a “reacher” can be used to grab hard-to-reach items. Always ask someone for help if the item is heavy or you don’t feel you can reach it yourself.

2. Eat a Healthy Diet — Proper nutrients allow the body to repair itself easier. Eat organic, unrefined foods and drink at least eight glasses of pure water every day. Avoid drugs, whether recreational or prescribed, including alcohol and caffeine.

3. Maintain Good Posture — Are you sitting up straight as you read this?

4. Sleep on Your Back or Side, Never Your Stomach — Avoid sleeping on your stomach, it twists your neck; avoid the fetal position, it reverses your spinal curves.

5. Invest in a Good Chair, Pillow and Mattress — When you think about the amount of time you use these things each day, it’s worth it.

6. Stretch Your Spine Before and After Sports — This will also help to loosen up the surrounding muscles.

7. Stretch Your Legs and Back After Each Hour of Sitting — whether in a car or at a desk, stretching regularly will help to keep you from tightening up or injuring yourself further.

8. Never cradle the phone between your neck and shoulder.

9. Do Not Overload Your Backpack, Purse or Wallet — Remember to carry it over both shoulders to balance the load (if possible). Keep your wallet out of your back pocket when sitting, especially when driving.

10. Remember To Visit Us Regularly — Especially if you are ill, under a lot of stress, pregnant or in an accident or trauma. Remember, it is much easier to prevent a problem than to correct one.