|Posted by Chad on May 13, 2011 at 9:19 AM||comments (1)|
Ok, so I used a line from Jimmy Buffett's classic to get your attention. Well, it's in the news again. Salt. Is it bad for you? How much is too much? What happens when you eat too much salt, or too much calories?
According to this article, yet another study is saying that salt intake did not affect heart disease directly. I know, I know, so who are we supposed to believe? Well, take everything you read with a grain of well, salt, and look at this paper written by Gary Taubes taking ALL research to task: http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/rice/Stat2/salt.html
"The case against salt begins with physiological plausibility. Eat more salt, and your body will maintain its sodium concentration by retaining more water. "If you go on a salt binge," says Harvard Medical School nephrologist Frank Epstein, "you will retain salt and with it a proportionate amount of water until your kidneys respond and excrete more salt. In most people, you will detect a slight increase in blood pressure when body fluids are swollen like this, although there is a very broad spectrum of responses."
Behind this spectrum is a homeostatic mechanism that has been compared to a Russian novel in its complexity. The cast of characters includes some 50 different nutrients, growth factors, and hormones. Sodium, for instance, is important for maintaining blood volume; potassium for vasodilation or constriction; and calcium for vascular smooth muscle tone. Increase your caloric intake, and your sympathetic nervous system responds to constrict your blood vessels, thus raising your blood pressure. Decrease your calories, and your blood pressure falls...
...no diagnostic test exists for salt sensitivity other than giving someone salt and seeing what happens, which still won't predict whether the sensitivity is lifelong or transitory."
In a 1972 paper, a scientist wrote about a study where he had given rats what would be the equivalent to 500 grams to the average size human body--that's right, 500 grams of salt--to these rats. (Remember that the recommended daily intake of salt for a human is less that 2000mg.) Oh, and the results of the blood pressure? All of the rat's had an increase...no way!
What are these scientists thinking? What's more...what is the media thinking by picking up these studies that are meaningless and touting them as gospel?? Certainly not anyone who I want to listen to for my information.
Salt. From what I have read, leave the table salt alone, use sea salt if you want. Use it sparingly because it has more flavor. Don't eat packaged crap that has tons of preservatives in them, and flavor REAL foods with spices. Eat like your great grandmother would.
|Posted by Chad on April 12, 2011 at 5:02 PM||comments (0)|
I can give you something more potentially harmful, and addictive than that. Sugar. They knew it long ago.
A dentist in 1912 claimed, "sugar has brought about entirely new diseases. The sugar of commerce is nothing else but concentrated cystallized acid. If, in former times sugar was so costly (more on this later) that only the wealthy could afford it, it was of no consequence. But today, when because of its low cost, sugar has caused a degeneration of people, it is time to insist on a general enlightenment. The loss of energy through the consumption of sugar in the last century has left its mark on the race. Alcohol has been used for thousands of years and has never caused the degeneration of a whole race. Alcohol does not contain destructive acids. What has been destroyed by sugar is lost and cannot be recoverd."
The cost of this drug? It actually has mirrored morphine in cost through the years. At its introduction in Britian, it cost $25 per pound, a man's yearly salary. In the 1600's the price was cut in half. In 1662 Britian imported 16 million pounds per year. By 1800 it was 160 million. By 1900, Britons were spending as much on sugar as they spent for bread! The cost of sugar and morphine have dropped considerably over the centuries.
Opium and sugar became the staples of commerce in America. By 1858, morphine, the refinement of opium, became a cure for everything, including this brand new disease called sugar diabetes...go figure.
Once you learn the death that is associated with sugar, maybe you will not be as inclined to partake.
Change your family's diet...GO!
|Posted by Chad on March 22, 2011 at 9:00 AM||comments (0)|
Upton Sinclair said that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
What organization, or who, does that statement make you think of? Learning a concept is an amazing thing. Which problems in this country, in this world, could be fixed if these people/groups would allow themselves to learn.
It's sad to know that studies you read have been skewed to come up with the researcher's conclusion already in mind. Science? I don't think so.
Don't be stagnant, folks. In your career, family, or anything else that is important. Once you've reached the point you don't want to learn anything new, move on to something else. I hope you all continue to thrive in your health...now find something new to learn.
|Posted by Chad on February 18, 2011 at 6:22 AM||comments (1)|
Listen to what she has to say, please. I can't say enough how these 10 mistakes that I hear most people say drive me crazy!
If you don't want to listen to me, listen to this lady. She comes from a more astute background in food science than I do, yet I understand what she has to say, and can agree with her beliefs!
FInd some time to read this article I have posted from her, and make your own conclusions; unbiased conclusions. Remember, is junk food REALLY ok in moderation? No. Especially if your hormones are all whacked up! It's hard to hear the truth. You can't just keep going from doctor to doctor hoping to finally find one that tells you what you WANT to hear.
|Posted by Chad on February 11, 2011 at 6:57 AM||comments (0)|
Surely they are joking...April fool's day has come early right??
Let's start with number one, shall we?
Here we have a government backed pyramid who has had to change their wording on this pyramid because the SUGAR INDUSTRY TOLD THEM TOO! http://activeconcepttraining.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4032276-food-it-s-content-and-does-it-sustain-us-
How are we supposed to believe a pyramid that goes by the money, not the science? Oh, and the same agency that tells us what to eat, tells cigarrette companies AND food companies it's ok to put the same chemicals in their products. Hmmm.
Who gives carbos to diebetics? You guessed it...the ADA. They spew out information that is not quite up to snuff. I wouldn't let my mom listen to them. But I think they are trying to help...maybe?
They are kidding right? No influence? Well, maybe they are right about that, however the influence comes from MISGUIDED research from Campbell himself.
Well, the consumer lab is something I have heard of years ago, and heard good things about it. However, since most information online is FREE, I have yet to pay for the right to gander through their website. But it is probably ok.
I can't argue with anything these guys are trying to convey. Planning is crucial, as is shopping and of course eating mostly at home will help with both of those!
So, as we've seen before, don't believe everything you read, especially from the government agencies who listen to who gives them the most money!!
|Posted by Chad on December 3, 2010 at 7:01 AM||comments (0)|
This guy resigned because enough was enough. Is it your turn yet?
So is it not so far fetched an idea that if there are so many things about nutrition and health that they aren't telling us, could this global warming thing be a farce too? I don't know. What other subjects could we have been given bogus information, and our judgements of the truth were made on this information?
We already know that the FDA controls what goes into our mouths, both with food and medicine...is this contradictory? I am leaning toward the common sense side of yes. When there is money involved, there's no holds barred...right?
For our children's sake I hope not.
|Posted by Chad on October 22, 2010 at 9:00 AM||comments (0)|
Did you know that Chinese leaders around the 100's b.c., began to feed their monks soy-based tofu. Why? They noticed that their 'randy' behavior went away after a while. What they didn't know, as we do now, is that soy decreases testosterone in men. They knew back then!!
That's the answer. Meat isn't bad for you, but PROCESSED meat is! I understand if politically or environmentally you may not want to eat miss piggy or bessie the cow, but health-wise? There is no reason to give up meat. The science just isn't there. The common sense, just isn't there.
The common sense approach to healthy eating is this...does it sustain a culture over thousands of years? http://activeconcepttraining.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4032276-food-it-s-content-and-does-it-sustain-us-
Guess what, the way WE eat today, has not, and it will not! Find some fresh lamb, or cow, or fish from a local provider, and have a feast!
|Posted by Chad on October 19, 2010 at 7:03 AM||comments (0)|
"So the whole wheat sandwiches you've been eating increase blood sugar and insulin, leading to visceral fat. (And, yes, whole wheat bread increases blood sugar higher than Milky Way bars and Snickers bars.) The more visceral fat grows, the more resistant to the effects of insulin you become, further escalating blood sugar. Estrogen increases, testosterone drops, mammary gland tissue grows, normal male breasts grow to B- or C-cup size.
Yet again, an entire industry is growing from the unintended consequence of conventional advice. In this instance, the advice to "eat more healthy whole grains" leads to this booming industry of male breast reduction efforts from surgery to medications to clothing. The REAL solution: Eliminate the foods that start the process in the first place."
You can read more at Dr. William Davis' blog at...
(above is visceral fatty liver)
So here is my question--if this knowledge is there for anyone to see, why is it taking so long for those in 'authority' to say "yes, we were wrong."????? Are we a society of such narcisitic standings that we can't say we were wrong? Or is it just the government and those in power? Aha! I know...they are afraid of being sued if they admit the information they were spouting was incorrect.
Ok. So what if we as a nation sign a letter stateing that we will not sue the government for any past transgressions as it pertains to what they've told us to eat. Would that work? Well, write your congress man/woman...your grandkid's life is at stake.
|Posted by Chad on October 11, 2010 at 9:57 AM||comments (0)|
"Models with more variables
So apparently comparing wheat + one other independent variable isn’t enough to explain the Wheat Effect. Not even a little bit. But maybe, just maybe, a bigger combination of variables will do the trick. Perhaps wheat-eating regions just host a collection of heart-harming factors (low folate, low vitamin D, low EFAs, and so forth) that, together, are more powerful predictors of disease than the variable wheat.
Here are the variables I’m interested in looking at. Some could be causative and some could be preventative:
Incidentally, one model had the best fit out of all the others for explaining heart disease:
1.Wheat consumption (r = 0.62, p<0.001)
2.Apolipoprotein B (r = 0.38, p<0.001)
3.Total cholesterol (r = -0.22, p<0.05)
Note that the number for total cholesterol is inverse, meaning higher cholesterol was associated with less heart disease—at least in this specific model. Unless you’re an Ancel Keys groupie, this may actually be quite plausible.
Anyway, here’s the important point. No matter what variables I adjust for, I can’t make the correlation between wheat flour and heart disease go away. Sorry, wheat! Neener neener..."
So, here again, another scientist going over numbers brought about by a the China Study, and how the numbers from it's own study, provide basis for a strong case for not eating wheat!
Read for yourself in the above link.
|Posted by Chad on September 26, 2010 at 8:38 AM||comments (0)|
" •Stop eating synthetic chemicals without nutritional value as though they were food.
We are taught at a very young age not to put things that aren't food into our mouths. Why would we think it is any different now that we are grown up. If it isn't food spit it out. This applies especially to all the varied and highly marketed synthetic sweetners. Their is insufficient time to cover this area in detail, rather than my saying "trust me, I'm a doctor ... and I once worked for the government," I would say, while I haven't gotten around yet to discussing his work yet, one place to start would be to Google "Dr. Russel Blaylock." Also avoid artificial food dyes, for heaven's sake, they won't even say what is in them all we know is they aren't food. While it is sometimes easy to slip-up and find one has eaten some non-food item that has been marketed to you, don't sweat it, these chemicals are in lots of foods, even one's you might not suspect at first. But it makes a good rule of thumb as an absolute pre-requisite to any healthy diet to only eat food, in fact I will call it, Dr. Maher's first rule for a healthy diet, "Make sure you are eating food."
Above are the chemicals found in cigs. Would you be surprised to know that chemicals found in food can be the same?
Many years ago Europe declared food dyes undesireable in all food. They wouldn't let their food companies put them in food because there is a link between them and children's behavior. For an orange tint, they used carrot extract, for example. Now, who knows. Their version of the FDA (the FSA) has been taken to task for doing their job well. Go figure.
Go write your congessman. Hold up a sign. Hit 'em where it hurts, fight them with your wallet by buying real food!