Forest Bathing

A Japanese immunologist spent 20 years proving that the chemicals trees release into the air walk into your bloodstream, hunt down your stress hormones, and arm your immune system in ways no therapist or pharmaceutical has ever matched, and most of the data has been sitting in Japanese medical journals for two decades waiting to be translated.

His name is Qing Li.

He is a clinical professor at Nippon Medical School in Tokyo and the president of the Japanese Society of Forest Medicine. The Japanese government has been funding his research since 2004, and the body of work he has produced is the reason forest bathing is now an officially prescribed clinical therapy in Japan and Korea.

The story actually starts in 1982, when the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries coined the term shinrin-yoku to describe the practice of slow, mindful walking in a forest. They did it for a practical reason.

Japan was urbanizing fast, stress-related illness was climbing, and the country had thousands of square kilometers of forest sitting unused. The idea was to give people a reason to walk into the trees… They had no idea what was actually happening to the human body during those walks until Qing Li ran the first proper experiment in 2005.

He took twelve healthy adult men on a three-day, two-night trip to a forest park. They walked for a few hours each day. Nothing strenuous. No prescribed routes or breathing exercises. They simply walked slowly through the trees, breathing the air, looking at the forest.

Li drew blood and urine samples before the trip, on the second day, on the third day, on day seven after returning home, and again on day thirty.

The numbers that came back from the lab were not what anyone expected.

The activity of a specific type of immune cell called the natural killer cell, which is the cell your body uses to hunt down cancer cells and virus-infected cells before they can spread, had jumped by roughly 50 percent during the forest trip. The actual number of natural killer cells circulating in the bloodstream had increased significantly.

Three different anti-cancer proteins that those cells produce, called perforin, granzymes, and granulysin, had all risen sharply. And the effect did not disappear when the men went home. The immune boost was still measurable on day seven and was still partially present on day thirty.

Two hours a day in a forest had upgraded the immune system for a full month.

Li ran the same experiment with women a year later and found nearly identical results. Then he ran it with a control group who took a three-day trip through an urban area with the same amount of walking, the same hotel quality, and the same diet.

The urban group showed no measurable change in natural killer cell activity at all. The forest was doing the work, not the vacation.

The mechanism turned out to be a class of airborne molecules called phytoncides. Trees produce these compounds to defend themselves against insects, bacteria, and fungi. Pine, cedar, oak, and cypress trees release them in particularly large amounts, especially in warmer weather and after rainfall.

When you walk through a forest, you are inhaling those molecules into your lungs and absorbing them through your skin, and once inside your body they appear to directly stimulate the production and activity of the very immune cells Li was measuring in his lab.

Roughly 50 percent of the health benefit of a forest walk, according to Li’s data, comes from the chemistry of the air itself. The other half comes from what the forest is doing to your nervous system.

This is where it stops being only about the immune system and starts being about stress.

A separate Japanese research team measured cortisol, the body’s main stress hormone, in 84 participants across 35 different forest sites. They drew samples before and after a 30-minute walk in each forest and compared them to control walks in matched urban environments. The cortisol levels of the people who walked in the forest were lower than the cortisol levels of the people who walked in the city by a significant margin. Their heart rates were lower. Their blood pressure was lower.

The activity of their parasympathetic nervous system, which is the part responsible for rest and recovery, had gone up. The activity of their sympathetic nervous system, which is the part that drives fight or flight, had gone down.

Then a researcher at the University of Michigan named MaryCarol Hunter ran the cleanest version of this experiment ever done. She recruited participants from a city and told them to take a nature pill three times a week for eight weeks.

They were free to choose the time, the place, and the duration of the nature experience, as long as it was outside, in daylight, and free of phones, conversations, and aerobic exercise. They sent her saliva samples before and after each session so she could measure cortisol changes accurately and rule out the normal daily drop in stress hormones that happens to everyone.

The result was that participants experienced a 21.3 percent drop in cortisol per hour spent in nature, with the biggest payoff happening between minutes 20 and 30 of the walk.

After that, the cortisol kept dropping, but more slowly. The threshold dose for measurable stress relief was just 20 minutes outside in something that looked and felt like nature.

What none of this means is that nature is a substitute for therapy or for medication when someone genuinely needs them. Therapy treats different things than a walk does, and Li himself has been careful in interviews to call forest bathing a complementary intervention rather than a replacement for clinical care.

But what the research has settled is that the human body has a physiological response to being among trees that operates on the same biological systems modern medicine is trying to reach with drugs and clinical protocols, and that response is fast, measurable, and free.

The strangest part of Li’s work is the implication he keeps repeating in interviews. The average person now spends more than 90 percent of their life indoors. Their cortisol stays elevated. Their natural killer cells stay sluggish.

Their parasympathetic nervous system rarely gets a chance to take over. The system that was tuned by millions of years of life under a canopy of trees is being asked to run permanently inside a box made of drywall and screens.

Your body has not forgotten what it is supposed to do in a forest. It is waiting for you to walk into one.

Quote of the Day

“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”
Albert Einstein – Physicist (1879 – 1955)

Resistance Training

Dr Pete Sulak writes:
A new study dropped last week that I want to put in front of you.

Harvard’s School of Public Health followed 147,000 adults for thirty years, tracking exactly how much strength training they did each week and how long they lived. The paper was just published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Cleanest data we’ve had on this question.

The headline: 90 to 120 minutes of strength training per week is the longevity sweet spot.

Not five hours. Not daily heavy lifting. 90 to 120 minutes. Roughly two 45-minute sessions, or three 30-minute sessions a week.

At that range, the data showed:

13% lower all-cause mortality
19% lower cardiovascular death
27% lower death from neurological disease (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS)

Here’s what surprised me. More didn’t help. Past 120 minutes a week, the curve flattened. People doing five and ten hours of resistance training a week got no additional longevity benefit over people doing two.

That’s a different message than most of us absorbed from the fitness industry.

Here’s why it matters for the audience reading this. Lean muscle mass is one of the strongest predictors of long-term outcomes in nearly every chronic disease category, cancer included. Sarcopenia (the muscle loss that accelerates with age) is one of the most overlooked drivers of decline, and one of the hardest things to reverse once it sets in.

This study put a specific, doable number on what it takes to protect against that. Two hours a week. Two or three sessions. Loading your muscles against resistance.

Bodyweight counts. Resistance bands count. Filled water bottles count. Two-pound cans of soup count. The thing that matters is the resistance, not what’s supplying it.

If you’ve been telling yourself you’d start when you have time, the floor turned out to be lower than most of us thought.

I’ll be praying for you today.

Standing with you,

Dr. Pete

Colonoscopies

Tommy Wells posts:

Did you see the new 2026 Paper? About the survival benefit of colonoscopies? Nobody else did either. Because mainstream science likes to bury data that doesn’t fit their narrative. That’s how they herd the sheep in preferred directions.

So here’s what happened in the study. Here:
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736/26/00508-8/abstract

About 13 years ago, researchers set up a large randomized controlled trial where they split participants into two groups:
* One group was invited to colonoscopy screening
* The other group was not.

Then they followed both groups for 13 years. Here are the numbers:
In the group invited to colonoscopy screening, about 15 people per 1,000 developed colorectal cancer. In the group that was not invited, about 18 people per 1,000 developed colorectal cancer.

A difference of roughly 3 cases per 1,000 people over more than a decade.
And what about survival differences?

Over the same 13-year follow-up, colorectal cancer deaths were low in both groups.

For those who had colonoscopies, about 4 to 5 people per 1,000 died from colorectal cancer. For those with no colonoscopy, about 5 to 6 people per 1,000 died.

So in regards to survivability it was not statistically significant. Which means colonoscopies do not save lives, despite what the experts have been telling us for decades. Which is why the elitists are so quiet.
Now as to their assertion that colonoscopies may have prevented a small number of cancers. Let’s look at their trickery.

In their minds, if they take out a polyp, that necessarily counts as a cancer prevented. Despite the fact that the vast majority of polyps are harmless and would have never turned into cancer. (see the paper below)

The reality is that the small, mushroom-type polyps, which typically occur in the left side of the colon (and are usually quite visible during scans) are overwhelmingly harmless. Almost all of them are benign and would never cause harm.

At the same time, the larger, flat-type polyps that occur on the right side or in the transverse section of the colon are much harder to see during a colonoscopy (and thus, easy to miss) and are also more dangerous. But even still, chances of metastasis are still very low, as stated by the paper below, which blows the lid off the whole colonoscopy scam:

The paper found that small polyps had a 0.4 percent chance of abnormal growth along with 0% rate of metastasis. Even larger polyps had a less than 1% chance of being malignant. Here’s how they put it:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20304097/

Conclusions:
“Small (6–9 mm) polyps rarely contained high-grade dysplasia (0.4%); none was malignant. The malignancy rate for large (1–2 cm) colorectal polyps was less than 1%. These findings indicate the potential for less aggressive management of lesions detected by CTC.”

~~~~~~~~~~

So basically any small or medium sized polyp poses virtually no risk.

But the point is, when their models and analysis of the 13-year study ASSUMES or infers that burning or digging out polyps prevents cancer it’s nothing but a deception based on their underlying flawed assumptions.

Something else important: Polyps are designed to keep heavy metals and other poisons sequestered. That’s their job. Like a warehouse. So as soon as a doctor shaves them off, suddenly their integrity is obliterated and all the contents go spewing out into the colon, into the gut lining, and into the blood stream.

I’m not saying that colonoscopies should never be done. But in my opinion, they should never be done in people who aren’t experiencing concerning digestive symptoms.

Dr. Andrew Huberman On Lights

Dr. Andrew Huberman On Lights

Dr. Andrew Huberman just confirmed a “wild conspiracy theory” about incandescent lights and LED bulbs.

The long wavelengths found in incandescents increase your metabolism and “charge your mitochondria.”

Conversely, the LED bulbs that most of you have in your house are “causing disruptions in mitochondrial function.”

DR. ANDREW HUBERMAN: “Your mitochondria function better, you increase ATP production, your metabolism increases in the presence of red light, long wavelength light to the skin.”

“Shine long wavelength light on somebody, watch blood glucose levels in a blood glucose test, and it’s blunted.”

“Now, the LED lights that are commonly used now… that short wavelength light, in the absence of long wavelength light, has been shown to damage the mitochondria.”

“This used to be considered crazy. This was like chemtrail crazy, right?”

“But now we’re starting to see from animal studies and human studies, from Glenn Jeffreys and others, that people’s vision gets better when they get in front of an incandescent bulb once a day.”

“If they get sunlight, which also has long-wavelength light, your vision improves because of improvements in mitochondria.”

The Biden administration quietly pushed incandescents out of the market through aggressive energy regulations.

But you can still find them online today if you look hard enough.