|Posted by Chad on June 5, 2011 at 8:00 AM||comments (0)|
From yahoo, yet another "nutritional tidbit" which I have to take to task...
1. Eat a good breakfast? Maybe. If you wake up hungry, eat a good breakfast. Whole grains DO NOT have to be a part of it every day. In fact, most days, don't worry about them.
2. Eat seasonally. Correct! I call it the century lifestyle...if it can't be produced or grown or killed within 100 miles, don't eat it!
3. Shop at the right time. Yep. Get to know your grocer, produce man, meat lady, fish monger, etc. Get to know when the freshest is going to arrive!
4. Avoid picking. Well, sort of. If you know a meal is coming around, and you are wanting to lose some inches, don't pick at food before meal time. The whole "grazing" idea is gone. So will your inches too, if you don't graze.
5. Savor your treat! YES! If you are going to waste your food intake on something sweet, it better be worth it. AND it better not be a lot!!!!
6. Add spices to make dishes better. YES! The restorative properties and good taste of lots of spices and herbs are well known. Instead of sugar and syrup, add these instead...MUCH better for you!!
7. Eat fish twice a week. SURE! Fish is a staple of this planet. Go for it. If your ancestors lived in an area where fish was prevalent, and the waters are clean (enough), and the fish are wild caught. Eat 'em up!
8. Stop when you are full. By all means, please stop. We eat too much as it is. Guys, forget trying to "bulk up" at eat as if there was just enough for you to keep, and barely build some muscle. The more food you ingest, the more likely it is a disease will come your way.
9. Get your kids involved in eating healthy. I don't know about you, but having to work for a living cuts down on my time with my kid. Why not spend quality time teaching and allowing your kids to learn how to cook with fresh ingredients, and fend for themselves when they move out! Actually, how many kids know where there food comes from? French fries are a vegetable...I don't THINK SO!!
10. Eat the rainbow. Eating a variety of veggies and fruits is just fine, as long as they fall in line with your pH balance. No matter what you eat, make sure it agrees with your body!
Wow. An article from Yahoo that I mostly agree with. Will wonders never cease.
|Posted by Chad on May 13, 2011 at 9:19 AM||comments (105)|
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 March 22, 2011 at 9:00 AM||comments (1)|
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 (3)|
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 January 6, 2011 at 6:39 AM||comments (0)|
"The overall point being that a rider can potentially utilise fat as a fuel up to a relatively high steady-state intensity if well adapted, and then when higher intensity anaerobic states occur, not all of the glucose/glycogen that is used up is lost out of the system - some of it is retained. For those who aren't fat-adapted, lacking in strength and therefore power, just coming up to a high aerobic speed, let alone launching into a sprint, will see the rider putting a high drain on glycogen stores, losing the vast majority out of the system, as energy, carbon dioxide, and water (rather than being able to reclaim it from lactate). "
Fat has 9 calories per gram, whereas carbos have 4 calories per gram. Which provides the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak? You're right...fat! So why wouldn't it be more efficient for our bodies to use fat as fuel rather than carbos?
Something worth pondering, as I think we don't eat enough fat in our diets now. We are missing out on lots of things our bodies need to work efficiently by not eating fat. Slowly, we are starting to understand this...
Grab some grassfed beef, or wild caught salmon, or some organic buffalo jerky, and eat it all!
|Posted by Chad on November 19, 2010 at 7:15 AM||comments (0)|
Taken from UCSF WATCH Clinic. Dr. Robert Lustig.
If you do nothing else, at least implement these strategies. They can at least give you a head start into making some life changes in the right direction. ESPECIALLY for your kids!
Make sure you eat some real food today!
|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.