I am not the world's biggest fan of professional wrestling.

As a matter of fact it's been a couple of decades since I watched the matches on TV. In those days Vince McMahon was just a backwater promoter with a tiny arena in Hamburg Pa, and some other similar locals.

With him at the helm, the sport has grown into a gigantic spectacle.

But not without cost.

The life of a professional athlete and entertainer is a harsh demanding one.

Anyone who happened upon the special done on Mick Foley would understand that these people live and die by the ratings.

And in the case of Eddie Guerrero, heart disease.

So the question remains.

How does a 38 year old man who makes a living out of working out die of heart disease.

Was it drugs?

Was it genetics?

Was it the long harsh schedules of training and performing on his way to the top?

I am certain the WWE will not allow the full story to be revealed as it would be bad for business.

In my professional opinion it was probably all of the above.

In the quest for the perfect body and super human strength, athletes take drugs in the ultimate sacrifice of their bodies to the game.

In the quest for fame and money, and in Mr. Guerrero's case probably family pride as well, they drive themselves past human endurance.

And almost universally they do not take into account the accumulation of free radical damage and inflammation that goes on in their bodies at an accelerated rate.

This is the same reason most top level marathoners will die before the national average age.

Even though a body is in shape and can clear things like lactic acid and provide oxygen with incredible efficiency.

The furnace that burns brighter, burns out faster.

Very few athletes of any level consider this factor.

What might have saved Eddie Guerrero from his untimely demise?

Taking better care of himself.

In terms of nutrition this would have meant fish oil and potent anti-oxidants to quench those free radicals.

In terms of other things it would have required a balance, both mental and physical, that did not exist in his life.

He said:

I'm an extremist and that's one thing I'd like to change in my life. It's good to be hard on myself but not to the point where I beat myself up about things. If I'm honest and look back at my mistakes then I was too hard on myself when I was carrying the title. I let things eat me up inside and I questioned myself when I shouldn't have, but it's a lesson learned and I won't make that mistake again.

credit The London Sun

In the end had he fixed these things, he might not have been champion.

Somehow I think if you would have asked him, being champion was probably worth it to him.

Rest in peace.

Dr Dave

Andrew Weil and I

Over the past couple days I have gotten a lot of emails asking me what I think of Andrew Weil.

One person asked me why I couldn't be more like him.

Another wanted to know what I thought of his information.

Someone else wanted to know if I agree with his philosophy.

Later I found out that this must have all been fueled by Dr Weil's appearance on the current issue of Time magazine.

Now I don't know Dr Weil personally but I have seen his face for a long time, probably at least 25 years now.
I am 100% certain that Dr Weil has never heard of me and probably never will.

That alone has to garner respect of some sort since to remain relevant in an ever changing public eye says volumes.

In terms of his work I really can't comment because I have only seen his advertisements and have not bought any of his books or products.

So in order to answer these questions I went out and bought the Time magazine and read the article.

Now keep in mind that you can't really adequately judge a person from one article but it is a start.

I am not like Dr Weil, not at all.

I am one of what he has referred to as "those anti-aging docs". It is no secret that Dr Weil doesn't believe in anti-aging medicine.

His reasoning is because it is unproven.

It's hard to argue with that since it will take decades or probably several lifetimes to prove that any treatment or lifestyle increases human life span.

Personally that is a risk I am willing to take.

The other day one of my friends commented on a photo of me taken at age 31 with my father beside me.

We both agreed I looked healthier, stronger and overall much better. I had done what Dr Weil encourages us to do. Age gracefully.

Truth be told I am feeling younger, smarter, stronger and better than I did when I was 31, mainly because of what I do and what I take in my daily life.

Dr Weil does not feel we should "fight" against aging because it is a natural process. While I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't aged I do intend to fight it tooth and nail.

Among my anti-aging colleagues there is a move to change the term "anti-aging medicine" to "age management medicine" or "youth preservation medicine".

Age management sounds like "waste management" to me. Youth preservation sounds like we are going to dump some toxic preservatives in our bodies.

I like "anti-aging medicine", verbally and philosophically, just fine.

Dr Weil refers to the anti-aging enterprise.

There is no denying that there is a significant industry built around the concept. Large cosmetics firms and food companies are starting to use the term in their advertising.

Surely this heralds the end of this term as a meaningful phrase.

Once it is in common usage it is sure to become meaningless in the eye of the fickle public very quickly.

So I think Dr Weil is right, we do need a new term, but not for the reasons he cites.

Dr Weil doesn't like the emphasis on looks and plastic surgery.

Well personally most of the anti-aging docs I know are not plastic surgeons although there are some. The choice of altering one's looks has been round a long time before anti-aging medicine came on the scene. Anti-aging medicine is "medicine" not surgery so I take issue with Dr Weil on that point.

Finally, it is hard for me to stomach what Dr Weil says about diet and exercise because to me he appears to be at least 50 pounds over weight.

Now that doesn't mean that his information is not useful, but come on, at least live what you preach!

In the final assessment I think Dr Weil has become the new generation of conservative doctor.

Years back he may have been a pioneer and we should give him credit for that.

Years back what he said may have been revolutionary but now we have all heard it all before ad infinitum.

Years back he might have been a maverick. Now he states we should look to the FDA and the drug companies for proof and guidance. The events of the past year alone should point out the fallacy of that logic.

No, my friend, I am not like Dr Weil at all and frankly I am pleased about that.

I believe in judging the tree by the fruit it bares, and
when I am 60 I don't want to look like he does.

When I am 60 I don't want to say what everyone already knows, I want to still be on the cutting edge of new discoveries.

When I am 60 I want to be talking about new things, making new friends and running, jumping, loving and playing like I do now.

I don't want to have to tell you I ache everyday and that my memory isn't what it should be but hey let's just accept it.

And I sure don't want to be authoring diet books when I am 50 pounds overweight!

In the end, the choice of what philosophy you believe is up to you. Sitting back and accepting things has never been my bag.

I have to go now; a press release just came across my desk. It is not newsworthy; rather it contains information about a new product line to help you stay young. It obviously cost someone a lot of money to get picked up by the wire service.

Who is it from? Some one with a multi million dollar enterprise. I'll let you guess who!

Best,

Dr Dave, a proud Anti-Aging Doc!