The Way I See It – John Hobbs

Comparing MLM Compensation Plans

network-marketing-compensation-300x300 In a previous article about home based business I talked about how I might evaluate a network marketing business opportunity. One of the factors that needs to be examined is the compensation plan. MLM compensation plans tend to be complex. But you need to understand how you can earn money.

Of particular importance to the new prospect is being able to make enough income early in their network marketing business to make it worth their time, before they have built a substantial team of distributors.

In looking at network marketing companies, Robert G. Allen, in his book Multiple Streams of Income, has a specific question: In the absence of growing your team, “how many customers would it take to earn $500/month in commission? The lower the number the better.” In my opinion, this rule of thumb has value.

Each sale takes effort. The average sales effort must account for sales attempts that fail.

If we assume that average sales effort is similar for different companies, the compensation plan that pays more for each successful sale is a better deal. For a distributor, they must feel that doing the business is worth the investment of their time. A higher average commission amount per sale tends to make it more worthwhile from a personal time investment perspective.

Furthermore, if a company’s compensation plan does not provide adequate incentive to make customer sales, what does that say about their overall philosophy? In my opinion, a distributor must have a reasonable expectation of being able to make a profit in a reasonable period of time without building a significant team of distributors. (Profit in this context means money in hand each month after all mandatory costs are paid. Mandatory costs include any administrative fees and any qualifying product/service purchases.)

If the new distributor can’t do that then there is a problem. The problem could be that the product or service is not deemed of sufficient value to the consumer and making sales is a challenge. The problem could be that the product/service is a commodity and there is not sufficient margin to cover an adequate commission rate. The problem could be that the company is more interested in building large teams at the expense of consumer sales. (This last one could become problematic from a legal/regulatory perspective.) Or it could be a combination of these and other issues.

The bottom line is that if the new distributor can’t make a reasonable amount of money from consumer sales in a reasonable amount of time, I would argue that, for them at least, the viability of this business opportunity has some issues.

To illustrate this analysis I have outlined two examples with which I am familiar. In keeping with the policies on this site, company names are not used.

Example 1

This is a well known network marketing company. Joining the company (acquiring a distributorship) is $499. The annual renewal fee is in excess of $100.

The compensation plan documentation uses a basic service price of $40 as the example. (The reality is closer to $30 but we will use their $40 for purposes of this discussion.)

The company pays between 1% and 10% commission on their main service. The exact rate depends on how many customer accounts you have, the more accounts the higher the percentage, with an absolute maximum of 10%.

If all were at the maximum rate, it would take 125 customers to earn $500 residual income per month. But with the sliding scale resulting in lower commission rates on the on the first 30 odd sales, the reality is that it would take in excess of 130 customers to earn our target $500 residual income per month.

Example 2

This is the company I represent. Joining the company (acquiring a distributorship) is $25. The annual renewal fee is $25.

The flagship product (and the one with the greatest overall sales) has its lowest autoship price (the most common price on actual orders) set to $65.

The company pays to distributors 25% of the autoship price (or $16.25).
If we use this commission amount, it would take marginally less than 31 customer orders to earn $500 residual income per month.

Recommendation

The Federal Trade Commission in the United States is looking at network marketing companies. Specifically they are looking at the degree to which companies are making sales to end customers as opposed to associates who are required to buy products/services. The push is for substantial sales to be to direct customers that actually use the product/service. It appears there may be a risk that those companies with compensation plans that pay scant attention to end customer sales may in future be classified as illegal pyramid schemes rather than legitimate MLM companies.

Look at the compensation plan in sufficient detail that you can understand how you can earn customer sales commission in the absence of recruiting new distributors. And understand how many such sales would be required to make a specific income target.

Team related commissions and bonuses are important. Certainly building a team is essential to make really significant income in network marketing. But the new distributor must be able to make a modest profit early in their network marketing business before and while they build a significant team. Compare compensation plans on the basis of the foundations applicable to new distributors. If those aren’t in place, the new distributor may never stay with the company long enough to become a leader of a large team. High attrition rates in many MLM companies are evidence of this issue.

Allen, Robert G. Multiple Streams of Income: How to Generate a Lifetime of Unlimited Wealth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2004

#wealth #mlm #entrepreneur

Is Network Marketing a Viable Retirement Strategy?

when-i-retire In February of 2016 the Broadbent Institute published a report entitled An Analysis of the Economic Circumstances of Canadian Seniors. Its findings were not pleasant.

The value of retirement assets of those aged 55 to 64 without an employer pension who earned between $25,000 and $50,000 had a median value of only $250.
For the same age group, those with incomes in the $50,000 to $100,000 range the asset value was only $21,000.

In April of 2015 the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis published a report entitled Are U.S. Workers Ready for Retirement? Its findings were equally discouraging.

Of those at or near retirement age “54% of American have too little saved to produce an income stream in retirement. Annualizing $50,000 for a single male turning 65 in 2014 yields only $70 a week. A married couple in which both members turn 65 in 2014 would receive only $58 per week.”

Most people in our society do not have enough assets to live on comfortably in retirement.

In 2014, Robert Laura published an article in Forbes on the topic of network marketing and retirement. Reading between the lines one gets the impression that Laura was skeptical about network marketing until he conducted his research.

In the end, however, he concluded that “the entire industry is poised for explosive growth and can be one of the most significant solutions to America’s current retirement savings crisis.” Here are some of the points he raised.

AARP estimates that half of all baby boomers are interested in starting a business, which has the makings of a massive trend.
Boomers are shifting their focus from accumulating a giant nest egg to a desire to be part of something bigger and better – to have a positive effect on others – and working in retirement.
Retirees are beginning to realize they need activities that keep them busy, relevant, in good health, and connected to others. In this context, the time, energy and cost to participate in these kinds of companies make them very appealing to large segments of the population caught up in these dynamics.

What he concluded resonated with me as I approach “retirement” after nearly five decades in traditional business. (I put “retirement” in quotes because I have no intention of retiring in the traditional sense of the word, meaning lazing about on permanent vacation.) I have a network marketing business that I will continue working on long after I end my traditional consulting career.

I can relate to one of the people Laura talked with in the course of his research. Staci Cahill says “The products I now offer has changed my life and that of others… and I find a lot of value in waking up and going to bed knowing that.”

It’s more than the money, although given the state of retirement savings it is still an important factor. One of my motivations for getting into this business originally was a healthy ongoing retirement income. What I find is that I get a lot more out of it than that.

I spend time socializing with some great people.
I enjoy helping people be successful starting a business.
Running a business can be challenging and helps keep me mentally active.
Over the years teaching and coaching people to help them develop has always felt good. I am able to leverage those skills to help my business partners and my team members improve.
But a sense of significance is perhaps the overriding factor. In my traditional career I helped many large bureaucratic organizations become more efficient and effective. The work was mentally challenging; but I rarely had a strong sense that I was making a fundamental difference in the world. In my network marketing business I know that my products are making a difference in people’s lives. That is very rewarding.

From my personal perspective, the answer to the question posed by the title of this article is a definite “Yes!” Network marketing can be a very viable retirement strategy.

It involves effort. It is running a business – not taking a vacation. But if you choose a company well, the effort does not seem like work because you enjoy what your are doing. And if you do it well you can get paid handsomely for your efforts.

#entrepreneur #retirement #economy

Cancer is Not a Disease

Time Cover 2004-02-23 There are probably more years behind me than in front of me. My analytical approach over that time caused me to observe random things and store them. Then later I would try to make sense of them – how did they fit together? Was there a pattern? One of the things I noticed, and I think epidemiologists would confirm it, is that there seems to have been an increase in the incidence of a variety of physical conditions that did not have as a root cause either bacterial infection or a virus. The pattern seems to have started shortly after World War II, but may have originated earlier. You may have noticed the same trend.

The Pattern

When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, asthma was rare and now it is common among young people. Autism was virtually unheard of and now the incidence seems to be higher than 1 in 100 male births in Western society. Cancer was not as rare, probably because smoking was a standard pastime, cigarettes were unfiltered at the time, and people were dying from lung cancer. But the rate of all different kinds of cancers has climbed dramatically over the past 50 years. The same holds true, to varying degrees, for things like Parkinson’s, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Fibromyalgia, Multiple Sclerosis and most other chronic diseases. What was going on? All of these conditions are quite different from each other; but they were all displaying a similar incidence pattern.

The ‘ah-ha’ Moment

Occasionally I like to do a bit of personal research in the area of science and health. Recently I came across an online article entitled What Is Cancer? And in the body of the article was the heading “Cancer is a symptom not a disease.” That brought me up short. And to be honest, I didn’t finish reading the article. My mind went off in a totally different direction.

Cancer is a symptom, not a disease. If that is true, of what is it a symptom? And could it also be true for those other conditions that were displaying this common incidence trend that I found intellectually irritating? I know that there are over 70 diseases and conditions associated with low glutathione. And all of the conditions displaying the trend are on the list. That commonality could not be a fluke.

Sometimes research involves serendipity. A few days later I saw that Time magazine, on the cover of its February 23, 2004 issue, had proclaimed “The surprising link between INFLAMMATION and HEART ATTACKS, CANCER, ALZHEIMER’S and other diseases.” The article inside said:

“What does a stubbed toe or a splinter in a finger have to do with your risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, suffering a heart attack or succumbing to colon cancer? More than you might think. As scientists delve deeper into the fundamental causes of those and other illnesses, they are starting to see links to an age-old immunological defense mechanism called inflammation…”

The Mechanism

There seems to be increasing agreement in the medical research community that cellular inflammation is a common cause of most chronic disease in the world. Here’s where things get interesting.

Most cellular inflammation results from oxidative stress.
Oxidative stress is caused by an over abundance of free radicals in the cell. In fact it is defined as the condition that occurs when the sum of free radicals in a cell exceeds the antioxidant capacity of the cell.
Free radicals are produced when the cell does some work. Work can include normal things like breathing, moving, and thinking (depending on the type of cell). The ‘work’ uses oxygen and the result of that process (the exhaust of the oxygen burn if you will) is the production of free radicals. But where things start to go wrong is when the work involved is the cell trying to deal with toxins and other substances that don’t belong in the cell. This activity represents a lot of work and produces huge amounts of free radicals.
Antioxidants are the compounds that rid the cell of free radicals. If there is an adequate supply of antioxidants in the cell, the level of free radicals can be maintained at a manageable level. However, if the level of free radical production is excessive (e.g. from the work of trying to deal with a buildup of toxins) the cell’s antioxidants are unable maintain a reasonable balance. The level of antioxidants decreases as they are used to get rid of the free radicals. In this situation, the cell works less and less efficiently, oxidative stress increases and, if left unchecked for a significant period of time, disease results.

Glutathione is the body’s master antioxidant. In addition to being an antioxidant in its own right it also facilitates the work of other antioxidants. For example, in the absence of glutathione Vitamin C would be unable to perform as an antioxidant. Glutathione is produced on demand in every living cell in the body. It is also a key component needed for many of the cell’s base functions to work. So if there is not an adequate supply of glutathione in the cell, not only is the cell unable to deal with free radicals but it is also unable to perform its main cellular functions at an optimal level.

Since glutathione is key to ridding the cell of free radicals, most researchers use the level of glutathione in the body as the primary measure of oxidative stress. Low levels of glutathione equals high levels of oxidative stress.

The Key Component

Glutathione is a tripeptide composed of three amino acids. These are glutamic acid, cysteine, and glycine. The cysteine amino acid contains a sulphur group responsible for many of the chemical properties of the whole glutathione protein.

Glutathione is produced on demand in the cell. The level of glutathione produced by the body is normally high during childhood and is at its natural peak at about age 20. The level then diminishes at an average rate of about 1% to 1.5% per year. Production is dependent on the availability of the raw materials – the glutamic acid, cysteine, and glycine. In most people there is an adequate supply of glutamic acid and glycine. The limiting factor is the availability of cysteine with an intact sulphur group. This compound is not normally found in abundant quantities in our diet.

The natural result of all of this is that by the time people reach their 40s and 50s they are starting to feel their age and the incidence of chronic disease increases dramatically. This is not surprising since their glutathione levels are half of what they were at 20. The level of exposure in our modern society to untold numbers of environmental toxins and other stressors makes the situation worse than it might be otherwise. So in recent decades we see the incidence of chronic diseases, that used to be associated with old age, occurring when people are younger and younger.

The Theory

It would seem that increasing intracellular glutathione (glutathione inside the cell, produced by the cell) would go a long way to reducing a variety of chronic diseases.

There are many ways to increase glutathione levels. Some have minimal effect while others increase intracellular glutathione considerably. I take a glutathione enhancing supplement that study results show increases intracellular glutathione levels several times more effectively than the next best method.

So if there is evolving consensus that cellular inflammation is the root cause of cancer and a variety of other chronic conditions, why have there not been studies done on treatment and prevention of these conditions with large amounts of antioxidants, including increasing glutathione levels within the cells?

The Black Hats

Such clinical studies can be expensive. Most of the money for treatment studies has traditionally come, in one form or another, from the pharmaceutical industry. But the pharmaceutical industry is big business, apparently in the Trillion Dollar range. In May of 2015, Forbes published an article with a headline that read “The Cancer Drug Market Just Hit $100 Billion And Could Jump 50% In Four Years”.

Mom, why isn't there a cure for cancer? Because Jimmy, there is far more money to be made treating a disease for a lifetime rather than curing it in a day. This means that a full 10% of big pharma revenue comes from cancer alone. It is not in the best interests of these companies to fund studies that could result in identification of effective cancer treatments that involve inexpensive natural antioxidants. In fact, it is in their interests to actively prevent that happening. And the committees that make funding decisions in the various disease-focused charities are heavily influenced by the medical and pharmaceutical industries.

It is interesting to note that, because most pharmaceutical drugs are toxic poisons, treatments for diseases like chemo for cancer end up making the cellular inflammation worse – for all the cells in the body, not just the lumps and bumps that they are trying to target. Does anybody wonder why when the doctors manage to kill a tumor, some time later in some formerly unaffected part of the body, a “new” cancer pops up? (But the doctor doesn’t tell you that. He says that the cancer spread.)

The Conclusion

There are many documented cases of non-traditional treatments being successful. The common thread that ties most of them together is each has elements that increase the body’s antioxidant levels significantly. These successes should be applauded and explored for broader adoption – not attacked.

Was the information in the Time article followed up at all with further research? Not that I can see. And it would appear that further articles on the same topic in other major publications were actively discouraged. I find the situation frustrating in the extreme! And if my suppositions are true, what is happening is criminal.

Cancer is not a disease. It is a symptom. First and foremost it is a symptom of prolonged periods of oxidative stress in the body. But it is also a symptom of unnaturally high levels of toxins in our environment, a symptom of a pattern that applies to many other diseases, and a symptom of a powerful segment of the business community putting profits ahead of human life.

What is your view? I urge you to leave a comment.

Fact vs. Hypothesis vs. Opinion

It is a fact that all forms of cancer and most other chronic diseases have cellular inflammation as a fundamental characteristic.

To verify this for yourself, you can use Pubmed. Pubmed is the U.S. government site, operated by the National Institutes of Health, that is a global library of published papers on medical science. Go to pubmed.gov and enter the search terms ‘glutathione’ and the name of any disease of interest (e.g., cancer, melanoma, asthma). You will get a (potentially long) list of published papers. Randomly look at the studies and you will see that all of them show low glutathione levels for those subjects with the condition. Virtually any researcher in the field will tell you that this indicates high levels of oxidative stress and consequently high levels of cellular inflammation.

The corollary is also true. If glutathione levels are raised to optimum levels in the cells in the presence of supporting nutrients, free radicals will be eliminated, oxidative stress will be reduced and cellular inflammation will be reduced.

It is my hypothesis that increasing intracellular glutathione levels to nominal levels will reduce the symptoms of the condition in question and possibly prevent the condition from occurring in the first place. This assertion is based on the logic that the body’s natural functions will protect itself if the necessary ‘raw materials’ are available to do the job. Low glutathione levels represent one such lack of ‘raw materials’. By having an optimum level of glutathione and other supporting antioxidants available in the cells, free radical levels will stay in healthy balance, energy will be available to the mitochondria, and the immune system will be able to function as it was designed.

It is my opinion, based on the mountain of evidence found in the Pubmed studies which suggest my hypothesis holds true, that the pharmaceutical industry is actively preventing the conduct of suitable studies to validate the hypothesis. The evidence that links inflammation to disease has been building for decades. I can’t believe I am the only person to have seen the pattern. The 2004 article in Time verifies that I’m not.

Forensic accountants always tell you to “follow the money” to look for motive. Who benefits from this lack of action? Clearly it is the pharmaceutical industry. More than $100 Billion EACH YEAR can buy quite a few votes in various legislative bodies around the world, can buy modified research results, can buy doctors willing to toe the line on what constitutes acceptable medical practice. Thus my opinion. It is a nasty conclusion to reach; but one I think is justified by the available facts.

#cancer #glutathione #chronicdisease #healthscience

Home Based Business? What You Need to Know

Networking Visual I have been running my businesses out of my home for about 30 years. I started by running a successful international information management conference for several years, I owned and managed two consulting companies, and I got involved with a network marketing company. That last one didn’t work out very well and I swore I would never get involved with another one again.

But the experience wasn’t wasted. I learned some things. And then a few years ago I was introduced to another network marketing business. I was very skeptical, because of my earlier unpleasant experience. But after considerable analysis and thought I realized that this one was different. I will likely continue to be involved with this venture for the rest of my life.

What this shows is that you can run many kinds of businesses from your home. But when we talk about home based business, we usually think of a network marketing or multi-level marketing (MLM) business. Network marketing or direct sales refers to the business model; and MLM refers to a type of compensation model.

In a network marketing business, you buy a distributorship which gives you the rights to sell the company’s products or services wherever the company is set up to do business. The way you do that is by approaching the people you know or meet in the course of living your life – your network of family, friends and acquaintances. This is word of mouth advertising (which is the most effective marketing method known) and it got its name because you are approaching your network of contacts. It is a very legitimate and effective business model.

Most (probably all) network marketing companies have a multi-level compensation plan. There are as many variations as there are companies. But the common theme is that you, as a distributor, in addition to selling your product or service also recruit other distributors. Because you were their sponsor, you are entitled to a small commission based on whatever sales they make. The exact rules are different for each company. Each of the distributors you recruit are independent businesses that can do just what you did, recruit more distributors. And they get a commission based on the sales of their team of distributors. This why it is called a multi-level compensation plan.

The MLM compensation plan is beneficial for the company in that they only pay for sales, not effort. It is much more efficient. It is beneficial for the distributor in that you can realize the advantages of exponential leverage. The more distributors in the various levels of your distributor team, the more total sales will be made and the more commission you can earn. As I said, the specific rules vary from company to company.

As long as compensation is based on actual sales of products or services this is a very legitimate compensation plan. (As a point of clarification, in a “pyramid scheme” the focus is on a distributor being paid for recruiting more distributors. In companies that do that, the product or service generally is secondary. In most jurisdictions in the world this is illegal. But some people still try to set up companies that do that; so exercise caution.)

There are literally thousands of network marketing companies out there. The vast majority of them I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole. As noted above, there are a few that are probably illegal – but only a few. The vast majority are legitimate companies with great products or services. But there are characteristics of many of them that, at least from my perspective, represent risk. The risk comes in two forms: risk of the long term viability of the company and risk that the income you earn may not be worth the effort you had to put in.

So what would I look for in a network marketing company?

Who are the owners? Who is in control?

Look at the founders of the company and those who have a significant stake in it. Did they have solid business experience with a sound track record of success in selling products or services before this network marketing company? Or did they just get into MLM to sell the product or service they came up with? Do they exhibit high levels of ethical behaviour or is it all about the money regardless of what might be right? Do they show, by their actions not just their words, that they respect and care about their customers and their distributors and their staff? Are they people you would be proud to be associated with?

If you are not able to answer positively to all of these questions, there is a risk that the company will not survive in the long run. Or if they survive, you may not be treated well. And those friends and relatives that you introduce to the company may not be treated well either.

I would walk away from such an opportunity because, for me, the risk to either my income or my sense of self worth would be too high. You are betting a large chunk of your future on these people. You must be able to trust them.

What about the product or service?

Is the product or service consumable? Network marketing and the MLM compensation model have residual income as a foundation. In order to ensure a steady stream of commission income month after month following a sale, the customer must be consuming the product each month. Something that is purchased once or only occasionally means you cannot rely on your residual income and you must expend more effort to make sales repeatedly or to repeatedly acquire new customers to maintain a steady income stream.

Is the product or service unique? If it is a commodity item then competition in the marketplace will drive the price down to the point that it is very difficult for the company to pay adequate commission to make it worth your while. For example, if you are in the nutritional supplement business and you are selling vitamin C, you won’t likely get much commission. There are two reasons. First, you won’t have customer loyalty because the local grocery store may have a special on this month that beats your price and they cancel their order. And second, the margins are so thin that there isn’t enough to pay commissions that make selling the product worth your time. If the company’s main selling proposition is saving a little on the price of a product or service, that is a dead giveaway that it is in the commodity space and I would stay away.

Are the product/service claims verifiable? For example, if you are considering a company that sells nutritional supplements, are their claims backed up not just by scientific studies paid for by the company, but by studies where the results are peer reviewed and published in respected professional journals.

If the product or service satisfies these criteria, then ask is the product or service strategic? Is there a large and growing market segment that has a need for what they are selling?

For example, the population is aging and they want to stay healthy and young as long as possible. Health and wellness products and services, if they address real needs, could do well. But a company selling training DVDs when the world is moving to solid state media and internet streaming might not be such a good bet.

Does the compensation plan make it worth your time?

Eric Worre, in his documentary video Rise of the Entrepreneur, says you need to ask three questions: Can you generate some income quickly? Can you develop moderate part-time income in a reasonable time? Is there a possibility of serious full time income?

Robert G. Allen, in his book Multiple Streams of Income, has an additional specific question: In the absence of growing your team, how many customers would it take to earn $500/month in commission? The lower the number the better. (You may want to refer to Comparing MLM Compensation Plans .)

Some company compensation plans are complex. Take the time to figure out the details. Walk through scenarios so that you understand enough to be able to answer these questions.

Also, network marketing is work. If the person trying to recruit you says you can get rich quick or make a lot of money without much effort, don’t walk away – run as fast as you can!

What about the people and supports?

Specifically, are there people and mechanisms in place for you to learn, be coached and be supported so that you can be successful?

Can your sponsor and others provide mentoring and coaching? Is there skills training as well as training on the company’s system? Does the company provide your own company web site? Is there a useful back office site for you to manage your business? Is there a capability (an app) for you to conduct your business from your mobile phone?

And what about the culture of the company? Is it friendly and supportive with distributors helping each other regardless of where they are in the organization? Or are the distributor teams competitive, where they help only those in their own downline?

Another characteristic to consider is, are the people trustworthy? To illustrate my point I’ll tell you a brief story. Recently I attended an opportunity meeting. The presenter had been a customer of the company for a few years but became an associate less than a year ago. He spent the first third of the presentation knocking the competition’s products. It doesn’t say much about your products if their best selling feature is how bad the other guys are.

But what really got to me, and to me it is an ethical issue, is that he lied. Several times during the early part of the presentation he made a point of saying that this was not a network marketing business. Yet when he described how you could earn some money, it involved telling your network of contacts about the opportunity (network marketing by definition) and he outlined a layered compensation plan (MLM). If he was twisting the truth about something this fundamental, how could I have confidence in anything else he said?

Bottom line: Do you like the people and the culture? Would you be comfortable working with the people and the company?

It’s a Business – Not a Job

And finally, remember this is a business. It is based on a residual income stream. It is not a job. In a traditional job you are trading time for money – it is linear. You put in some hours and you get paid for them – end of story. In a non-linear residual income business model, you put in effort without getting paid until you make a sale. Then you get paid commission every month that the customer continues to order the product. And this happens without you having to put more effort into making that sale again. (Refer to Non-linear Income is Key to Wealth.) You need a different mind set when you are running your own business. Say yes now and learn it later

If you need to trade time for money in a job in order to survive, focus on that first. But then get serious about starting a home-based business on a part-time basis.

It can be worth it.

If you would like some help evaluating an opportunity, please contact me directly. I will help in any way I can, bringing to bear my understanding and experience with both the good and not so good.

Worre, Eric. Rise of the Entrepreneur – In Search of a Better way: A Documentary. Wichita: Go Pro Productions, LLC. 2014

Allen, Robert G. Multiple Streams of Income: How to Generate a Lifetime of Unlimited Wealth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2004

#wealth #mlm #entrepreneur

Taking a Breath

Asthma Puffer 234x234 Yesterday I was in the gym change room just getting ready to go home after a workout. A fellow came in after finishing his workout. There was a light clunk when he opened his locker, a few down from mine. On the floor between us was a small bottle, with a protrusion at right angles out the side of the bottle. I asked if that was his puffer.

It turns out he has had asthma from the time he was a small child. Given that he appeared to be in his mid-thirties, that meant he had been dealing with the condition for three decades or more. He told me he has not had any major episodes in recent years. But he said, “I always use my puffer when at the gym – so that I can breathe.”

According to the Mayo clinic:

Asthma is a condition in which your airways narrow and swell and produce extra mucus. This can make breathing difficult and trigger coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath.

For some people, asthma is a minor nuisance. For others, it can be a major problem that interferes with daily activities and may lead to a life-threatening asthma attack.

According to the Asthma Society of Canada, doctors generally prescribe inhaled corticosteroids over oral (tablet or liquid) corticosteroids, because the inhaled medication is more targeted. In other words, when it’s inhaled, medication goes directly into the lungs where it’s needed. The intent is to reduce the inflammation in the airways for a time.

However, this does not address the underlying issue of the inflammation itself. In the paper entitled Glutathione Redox Control of Asthma: From Molecular Mechanisms to Therapeutic Opportunities, the authors examined a range of studies that looked at the role of glutathione at the cellular level in people with asthma.

GSH and Reducing Free Radicals - 300x196 One of the conclusions seemed to be that if there is insufficient glutathione (GSH) available in the cell, the level of free radicals will increase. An imbalance represented by high levels of free radicals results in oxidative stress and cellular inflammation. This state of affairs diminishes normal cell function by interfering with internal cell signalling.

I mentioned before that glutathione is The Body’s Miracle Molecule. One of its functions is to act as the body’s master antioxidant, to maintain a proper balance of free radicals.

In addition to maintaining free radical balance, glutathione in the lungs is also instrumental in the transfer of oxygen from the airways to the bloodstream. A low level of available glutathione is likely to impede that function.

For most of us, breathing is so natural we don’t even think about it. But for someone with asthma, particularly children with smaller lungs, taking a breath is something they are always very aware of.

I was sorely tempted to dump all over this guy, whom I has just met, to tell him all about glutathione and the supplement I was taking that dramatically increased intracellular glutathione and how it might help with his asthma. But I resisted the temptation and bit my tongue. I can just imagine his reaction if I had done that. “Who is this nut case? How quickly can I get away from him?”

But you can bet that if I see him at the gym again I will try to get into conversation. At some point it might be possible to get to a state where he would be receptive to information that might help.

What I find difficult to understand is that our medical community does not seem to want to explore natural compounds as effective, and in many cases superior, alternatives to man-made chemicals. But that is a topic for another time.

Anne M. Fitzpatrick, Dean P. Jones, and Lou Ann S. Brown. Antioxidants & Redox Signaling. May 2012, 17(2): 375-408. doi:10.1089/ars.2011.4198.

#asthma #healthscience #glutathione