MotoMatt

Archive for January, 2013

Coca-Cola Rolling Out New Misinformation Campaign to “Combat Obesity”

by on Jan.31, 2013, under Health

 

 

By Dr. Mercola

 

A new Coca-Cola ad campaign that encourages people to come together to fight obesity is drawing fire from consumer advocates and obesity experts.1, 2

 

Coke says it’s trying to make consumers more aware of the healthy choice beverages Coke makes; critics say Coke is simply doing damage control.

 

There can be no doubt that soda is one of the primary beverages responsible for skyrocketing obesity rates. As Dr. Sanjay Gupta told CNN:3

 

“…the scientific community has …reached a consensus that soft drinks are the one food or beverage that’s been demonstrated to cause weight gain and obesity. And if we’re going to deal with this obesity epidemic, that’s the place to start.”

 

Granted, no one is forcing anyone to drink them, but there simply has not been enough public education about the dangers of excessive fructose consumption. In fact, the industry has fought tooth and nail to minimize or flat out deny these health dangers, very similar to the tobacco industry denying the risk of lung cancer..

 

A perfect example of this ongoing denial is Coca-Cola’s reply to the video below, The Real Bears, produced by CSPI. The company called the short-film “irresponsible” and “grandstanding” that will not help anyone “understand energy balance.”

 

I cannot think of any instance where you might need a soda in order to maintain correct “energy balance.” You can achieve optimal health without any added sugar or artificial sweeteners. In fact, if you want to understand energy balance, read up on how to become fat-adapted rather than being a sugar burner. This requires cutting out virtually all added sugars.

 

Still, their vehement refusal to accept responsibility for leading you astray does not surprise me. Just take a look at the history of Coca-Cola’s advertising, and you’ll quickly realize that this leopard is not about to change its spots anytime soon. Two sites offering this history lesson include Arandilla’s “Coca-Cola Advertising Through the Years” blog4, and NPR’s blog page5, “Vigor, Brain Power and Other Health Claims From Coke’s Advertising Past.”

 

Now, Coca-Cola, the leading beverage brand in the world, realizes it’s losing the information war and is trying to shift your attention to its 180 different no- and low-calorie beverages. Well, this certainly is NOT going to address the obesity problem. On the contrary, artificial sweeteners have been shown to produce even MORE weight gain than regular sugar and even high fructose corn syrup.

 

Coke Advocating Flawed, Outdated Calorie-Counting Advice

 

Evidence of just how behind-the-times Coca-Cola is, their brand new multi-million dollar campaign focuses on the sentiment that:

 

“…beating obesity will take action by all of us, based on one simple, common-sense fact: All calories count, no matter where they come from. …And if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you’ll gain weight.”4

 

This “conventional wisdom” has been firmly debunked by science. Not all calories count equally. And the “calories in, calories out” hypothesis for maintaining weight has equally been shown to be incorrect. It is in fact FAR more important to look at the source of the calories than counting them.

 

In short, you do not get fat because you eat too many calories and don’t exercise enough. You get fat because you eat the wrong kind of calories. At the end of the day, your consumption of carbohydrates, whether in the form of grains and sugars (especially fructose), will determine whether or not you’re able to manage your weight and maintain optimal health. This is because these types of carbs (fructose and grains) affect the hormone insulin, which is a very potent fat regulator. Fats and proteins affect insulin to a far lesser degree. Kudos to The Atlantic5 for calling Coca-Cola on its misleading tactics in its recent article titled, Coke’s Unconscionable New Ad:

 

“Coca-Cola’s latest attempt to position itself against the rising tide of concern about the role of sodas in the obesity epidemic is unconscionable, because of this statement: ‘All calories count. No matter where they come from including Coca-Cola and everything else with calories.’

 

For Coca-Cola to suggest that all calories are equal flies in the face of reality as best as we can determine it… Coca-Cola wants us to ignore the considerable research confirming that sugary soda is a major contributor to obesity, and that it has no nutritional value… Coca-Cola could use its considerable advertising muscle to promote healthy exercise, yes, but when it does so as a ploy to confuse the public about the dangers of its products, that’s not a public service, that’s unethical.”

 

The video above is from Youtube and is available to the public for information and entertainment purposes only.

Mercola.com does not own and did not produce this video.

 

Why Calorie Counting Doesn’t Work

 

Dr. Robert Lustig, an expert on the metabolic fate of sugar, explains that fructose is ‘isocaloric but not isometabolic.’ This means you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or glucose, fructose and protein, or fructose and fat, but the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count. This is a crucial point that must be understood.

 

Fructose is in fact far worse than other carbs because the vast majority of it converts directly to FAT, both in your fatty tissues, and in your liver. And this is why counting calories does not work… As long as you keep eating fructose and grains, you’re programming your body to create and store fat.

 

Furthermore, research by Dr. Richard Johnson, chief of the Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension at the University of Colorado and author of The Sugar Fix and The Fat Switch, demonstrates that large portions of food and too little exercise are NOT solely responsible for why you are gaining weight. Rather it’s fructose-containing sugars that cause obesity – not by calories, but by turning on your “fat switch,” a powerful biological adaptation that causes cells to accumulate fat in anticipation of scarcity (or hibernation). According to Dr. Johnson, based on his decades of research:

 

“Those of us who are obese eat more because of a faulty ‘switch’ and exercise less because of a low energy state. If you can learn how to control the specific ‘switch’ located in the powerhouse of each of your cells – the mitochondria – you hold the key to fighting obesity.”

 

According to Beverage Digest, soda consumption in the US has been on a steady decline since 1998.6 A recent article in The Atlantic7 shows consumption of soda “in freefall,” with US consumption having declined by 40 percent since 2003. Unfortunately, many are simply switching to no- or low-cal beverages, which Coca-Cola is now trying to boost, and quite frankly, if I had to choose between these two evils, I’d choose regular soda, as artificial sweeteners are even worse for your long-term health, and have been linked to increased weight gain when compared to calorie-containing sweeteners.

 

No- or Low-Cal Beverages CONTRIBUTE to Obesity Problem

 

While soda consumption has gone down, consumption of artificially sweetened “diet” beverages has risen in that same time, according to an October 11, 2012 report by USA Today.8 The industry has effectively convinced people that diet drinks are a healthier choice because they lack any calories. However, if you’re concerned about your weight and health, switching to artificial sweeteners is NOT a wise move.

 

Mounting research shows that diet soda is not a “guilt-free” treat at all. For example, two studies published in 2011 linked diet soda to poor health outcomes. In one study, people who drank two or more diet sodas a day experienced waist size increases that were six times greater than those of people who didn’t drink diet soda. A second study that found that aspartame (NutraSweet) raised blood sugar levels in diabetes-prone mice.

 

As you may know, your waist size is not only a matter of aesthetics, but also a powerful indicator of a build-up of visceral fat, a dangerous type of fat around your internal organs that is strongly linked with type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Your waist size is a far more accurate predictor of your heart risks than your body mass index (BMI). Nearly eight years ago, research by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH9 (who was also involved in the newer studies noted above) found that your risk of obesity increases by 41 percent for each can of diet soda you drink in a day. Furthermore, for diet soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:

 

36.5 percent for up to 1/2 can per day

57.1 percent for more than 2 cans per day

 

For regular soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:

 

26 percent for up to 1/2 can per day

32.8 percent for 1 to 2 cans per day

47.2 percent for more than 2 cans per day

 

How Decreasing Sugar Intake Can Impact Body Weight

 

In related news, recently published research10 shows that decreasing sugar consumption can help you lose weight. The researchers examined outcomes from 71 studies on sugar consumption and body fat. The duration of included studies ranged from two weeks to one year. According to the authors:

 

“In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg/1.8 lb); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg/1.7 lb).

 

Isoenergetic exchange of dietary sugars with other carbohydrates showed no change in body weight . Trials in children… in relation to intakes of sugar sweetened beverages after one year follow-up in prospective studies, the odds ratio for being overweight or obese increased was 1.55 (1.32 to 1.82) among groups with the highest intake compared with those with the lowest intake. Despite significant heterogeneity in one meta-analysis and potential bias in some trials, sensitivity analyses showed that the trends were consistent and associations remained after these studies were excluded.”

 

Skyrocketing Obesity is Related to Misleading You on Health Issues

 

Obesity is the result of inappropriate lifestyle choices, and unfortunately, our government has done an abysmal job at disseminating accurate information about diet and health. It’s one thing for corporations to put out misleading ads – honesty is not in the self-interest of the processed food and beverage industry. It’s another when the government falls in line with for-profit deception and becomes a propagator of corporate propaganda. And this is exactly what has happened… For example, conventional advice that is driving public health in the wrong direction includes:

 

Cutting calories: Not all calories are created equal, and counting calories will not help you lose weight if you’re consuming the wrong kind of calories

Choosing diet foods will help you lose weight: Substances like Splenda and aspartame may have zero calories, but your body isn’t fooled. When it gets a “sweet” taste, it expects calories to follow, and when this doesn’t occur it leads to distortions in your biochemistry that may actually lead to weight gain

Avoiding saturated fat: The myth that saturated fat causes heart disease has undoubtedly harmed an incalculable number of lives over the past several decades, even though it all began as little more than a scientifically unsupported marketing strategy for Crisco cooking oil. Most people actually need at least 50 percent of their diet to include healthful saturated fats such as organic, pastured eggs, avocados, coconut oil, real butter and grass-fed beef in order to optimize their health

Reducing your cholesterol to extremely low levels: Cholesterol is actually NOT the major culprit in heart disease or any disease, and the guidelines that dictate what number your cholesterol levels should be to keep you “healthy” are fraught with conflict of interest — and have never been proven to be good for your health

 

This is just a tiny sampling of the misleading information on weight and obesity disseminated by our government agencies. A more complete list of conventional health myths could easily fill an entire series of books. The reason behind this sad state of affairs is the fact that the very industries that profit from these lies are the ones funding most of the research; infiltrating our regulatory agencies; and bribing our political officials to support their financially-driven agenda through any number of legal, and at times not so legal, means.

 

Could Warning Labels Be Part of the Answer?

 

According to Dr. Harold Goldstein, executive director of the non-profit group The California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA), “43 percent of the increase in daily calories Americans consumed over the last 30 years came from sugary drinks.” The CCPHA has published a list of seven things soda makers could do to create “meaningful change,” such as11:

 

Cease all advertising of sugary drinks to children under 16

Add warning labels to containers stating the link between soda consumption and obesity, diabetes and tooth decay, just like cigarettes must declare its connection to lung cancer

Declare number of teaspoons of sugar the container contains, in large print

Quit marketing sports drinks as healthy beverages

 

You Can Avoid Becoming a Statistic

 

Perhaps one of the most powerful scientific discoveries to emerge in the past several years is that the old adage “a calorie is a calorie” is patently false. Furthermore, the idea that in order to lose weight all you have to do is expend more calories than you consume is also false… The research clearly demonstrates that even if you control the number of calories you eat, if those calories come from fructose, you are at increased risk of developing metabolic syndrome, or prediabetes, which includes insulin resistance, fatty liver, high blood pressure and high triglycerides.

 

Conventional thinking tells us that metabolic syndrome is the outcome of obesity, which is simply the result of eating too many calories and not exercising enough. However, Dr. Johnson’s research, discussed above, shows that a high fructose diet is the key to developing metabolic syndrome, and that as soon as you throw fructose into the mix, “calories in versus calories out” is no longer a functional equation.

 

In short, avoiding fructose in all its forms, along with other sugars, is imperative in order to avoid “flipping the fat switch” that can trigger your body to accumulate excess fat. So please, do yourself and your family a favor, and don’t get swept up in Coca-Cola’s multi-million dollar ad extravaganza. The entire campaign is based on flawed, inaccurate, misleading, and patently false conventions of thinking.

 

Let’s not forget: Coca-Cola spent $1.2 million to defeat California Proposition 37 last November, which would have required genetically engineered (GE) foods to be labeled as such (which could have included soda containing GE high fructose corn syrup). That, in and of itself, is proof positive that Coca-Cola has no concern for health conscious consumers.

 

Prop 37: Right to Know

 

Leave a Comment more...





Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force Demo Bike

by on Jan.28, 2013, under Customers Bikes

Newly finished at Adrenaline Bikes.
If you want more information Call and ask for Matthew. 1-800-579-8932

IMG 6649 300x225 Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force  Demo Bike

Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force demo bike

IMG 6644 300x225 Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force  Demo Bike

Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force demo bike

IMG 6645 300x225 Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force  Demo Bike

Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force demo bike

IMG 6646 300x225 Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force  Demo Bike

Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force demo bike

IMG 6647 300x225 Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force  Demo Bike

Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force demo bike

IMG 6648 300x225 Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force  Demo Bike

Litespeed 2011 C1 Sram Force demo bike

Leave a Comment more...

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

by on Jan.27, 2013, under My Bikes

IMG 6685 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon With WheelsI Built

IMG 6686 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon With WheelsI Built

IMG 6687 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

American Classic Hub Sapim CX Ray Spokes Crest 650B Rim Alloy Nipples
IMG 6688 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

Woodman Seat Post

IMG 6666 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb
IMG 6667 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

IMG 6668 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

IMG 6669 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

IMG 6670 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

IMG 6671 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

IMG 6672 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

IMG 6673 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

IMG 6674 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

IMG 6662 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

IMG 6661 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

 

 

IMG 6633 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels 17.28 lb / 7850 kg

IMG 6632 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels 17.28 lb / 7850 kg

IMG 6634 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels 17.28 lb / 7850 kg

IMG 66301 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels 17.28 lb / 7850 kg

 

 

IMG 6629 300x225 KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels I built 7690kg,16.93lb

KHS Sixfifty Team 650B Carbon Frame With Wheels 17.28 lb / 7850 kg

 

Leave a Comment :, , , more...

Maintain Your Muscles with Protein

by on Jan.27, 2013, under Health

By Kimberly Beauchamp, ND
Most adults need at least 0.8 grams of protein per day for every kilogram of body weight
none Maintain Your Muscles with Protein

Adding some protein to your workout protocol could help you keep the muscle you’ve gained from regular exercise sessions, says a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Muscle-building basics
Protein is required for normal muscle development, function, and recovery after exercise and injury. Resistance exercise, such as weight training, helps build muscle, too, but only if there’s enough dietary protein around to replenish muscle protein losses after a workout.

While we know that protein can help boost muscle gain after a single workout, less is known about protein’s long-term effects on muscle mass and strength in people who work out regularly.

Pack a punch with protein
Researchers from the Netherlands combined the results of 22 trials to examine the effects of protein supplementation on muscle mass and strength in 680 people who took part in prolonged resistance-training programs (two or more exercise sessions per week for six or more weeks). The results were separated by age: “younger” people were about 23-years-old, and “older” people were 62-years-old, on average.

On top of their normal diet, the people supplemented with about 50 grams of additional protein per day during the trials. The studies assessed the people’s fat-free mass (includes muscle, bone, and water), muscle fiber size, and muscle strength.

  • Compared with placebo, protein supplementation significantly increased fat-free mass in younger people.
  • Muscle fiber size also increased by up to 54% and muscle strength improved by 20% in younger participants.
  • Fat-free mass increased by 38% and muscle strength improved by 33% in the protein-supplemented older group compared with the placebo group.

“The greater increase in muscle mass and strength will allow older individuals to more rapidly regain their functional capacity, thereby reducing the risk of falls and fractures and, as such, supporting a more active independent lifestyle,” commented the researchers.

Are you getting enough protein?
Many people, especially seniors, come up short of their daily protein requirements. Most adults need at least 0.8 grams of protein per day for every kilogram of body weight. For a 150-pound person, that’s about 54 grams of protein per day. Protein requirements increase with exercise, so ask your doctor about how much is right for you. Here’s an easy reference for everyday living:

  • 1 cup of milk contains 8 grams of protein.
  • Meat and fish contain about 7 grams of protein per ounce.
  • 1 egg contains 6 grams of protein.
  • 1 ounce of almonds contains 5 grams of protein.
  • ½ cup of beans contain 7 to 10 grams of protein.

(Am J Clin Nutr 2012;96:1454–64)

 

Kimberly Beauchamp, ND, received her doctoral degree from Bastyr University, the nation’s premier academic institution for science-based natural medicine. She co-founded South County Naturopaths in Wakefield, RI, where she practiced whole family care with an emphasis on nutritional counseling, herbal medicine, detoxification, and food allergy identification and treatment. Her blog, Eat Happy, helps take the drama out of healthy eating with real food recipes and nutrition news that you can use. Dr. Beauchamp is a regular contributor to Healthnotes Newswire.

Lose Weight–and Keep It Off–on a High-Protein Diet
By Maureen Williams, ND

Evidence shows that high-protein, low-carb diets aren’t just a fad.

waistmeasure sm Maintain Your Muscles with Protein

Researchers found that women on a high-protein diet kept more weight off at the end of a year than women on a high-carb diet.

Weight-loss diets that push protein and restrict carbohydrates have become increasingly popular in the past decade, but do they work? This study says they can. Researchers found that women on a high-protein diet kept more weight off at the end of a year than women on a high-carb diet.

High protein = high rewards:
In the never-ending quest to lose extra weight, ideas about the best way to diet come and go. Low-fat diets that emphasize carbohydrates (typically starches and grains) were the standard not long ago, but more recently there has been a shift to low-carb diets that emphasize protein. A number of studies have found that carbohydrate restriction can lead to more rapid weight loss than low-fat diets, but findings from other studies suggest that this difference evens out after one to two years.

The new study followed overweight women between ages 40 and 58 for a year after they finished a three-month weight-loss program:

  • either a high-protein diet, with 34% of calories from protein, 46% from carbohydrate, and 20% from fat,
  • or a high-carb diet, with 64% of calories from carbohydrate, 17% from protein, and 20% from fat.

At the end of the year, the women who managed to keep their protein portion up had more sustained weight loss: about 14 pounds (6.5 kg), compared with about 8 pounds (3.6 kg) for those eating the high-carb diet.

It is interesting to note that markers of heart health improved in women on both diets, including total cholesterol, LDL and HDL cholesterol, glucose, insulin, C-reactive protein, and homocysteine levels. These changes were associated with weight loss, but not with the protein content of their diet, suggesting that the road to weight loss might not be as important as the weight loss itself for keeping the heart healthy.

Power proteins
Try the following food sources and recipes for surefire ways to up the protein in your diet:

(Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:23–9)

Maureen Williams, ND, received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania and her Doctorate of Naturopathic Medicine from Bastyr University in Seattle, WA. She has a private practice in Quechee, VT, and does extensive work with traditional herbal medicine in Guatemala and Honduras. Dr. Williams is a regular contributor to Healthnotes Newswire.

Leave a Comment more...

Soybean Oil: One of the Most Harmful Ingredients in Processed Foods

by on Jan.27, 2013, under Health

By Dr. Mercola

Processed food is perhaps the most damaging aspect of most people’s diet, contributing to poor health and chronic disease. One of the primary culprits is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the dangers of which I touch on in virtually every article on diet I write.

The second culprit is partially hydrogenated soybean oil.

These two ingredients, either alone or in combination, can be found in virtually all processed foods and one can make a compelling argument that the reliance on these two foods is a primary contributing factor for most of the degenerative diseases attacking Americans today.

Part of the problem with partially hydrogenated soybean oil is the trans fat it contains. The other part relates to the health hazards of soy itself. And an added hazard factor is the fact that the majority of both corn and soybeans are genetically engineered.

As the negative health effects from trans fats have been identified and recognized, the agricultural- and food industry have scrambled to come up with new alternatives.

Partially hydrogenated soybean oil has been identified as the main culprit, and for good reason. Unfortunately, saturated fats are still mistakenly considered unhealthy by many health “experts,” so rather than embracing truly healthful tropical fats like coconut oil, which is mostly grown outside the US. The food industry has instead turned to domestic US alternatives offered by companies like Monsanto, which has developed modified soybeans that don’t require hydrogenation.

Why Hydrogenate?

Americans consume more than 28 billion pounds of edible oils annually, and soybean oil accounts for about 65 percent of it. About half of it is hydrogenated, as soybean oil is too unstable otherwise to be used in food manufacturing. One of the primary reasons for hydrogenating oil is to prolong its shelf life. Raw butter, for example, is likely to go rancid far quicker than margarine.

The process also makes the oil more stable and raises its melting point, which allows it to be used in various types of food processing that uses high temperatures.

Hydrogenated oil1 is made by forcing hydrogen gas into the oil at high pressure. Virtually any oil can be hydrogenated. Margarine is a good example, in which nearly half of the fat content is trans fat. The process that creates partially hydrogenated oil alters the chemical composition of essential fatty acids, such as reducing or removing linolenic acid, a highly reactive triunsaturated fatty acid, transforming it into the far less reactive linoleic acid, thereby greatly preventing oxidative rancidity when used in cooking.

In the late 1990’s, researchers began realizing this chemical alteration might actually have adverse health effects. Since then, scientists have verified this to the point of no dispute.

Beware that there’s a difference between “fully hydrogenated” and “partially hydrogenated” oils. Whereas partially hydrogenated oil contains trans fat, fully hydrogenated oil does not, as taking the hydrogenation process “all the way” continues the molecular transformation of the fatty acids from trans fat into saturated fatty acids. Fully hydrogenated soybean oil is still not a healthy choice however, for reasons I’ll explain below. The following slide presentation explains the technical aspects relating to the hydrogenation process.

The Health Hazards of Trans Fats Found in Partially Hydrogenated Oil

The completely unnatural man-made fats created through the partial hydrogenation process cause dysfunction and chaos in your body on a cellular level, and studies have linked trans-fats to:

Cancer, by interfering with enzymes your body uses to fight cancer Chronic health problems such as obesity, asthma, auto-immune disease, cancer, and bone degeneration
Diabetes, by interfering with the insulin receptors in your cell membranes Heart disease, by clogging your arteries (Among women with underlying coronary heart disease, eating trans-fats increased the risk of sudden cardiac arrest three-fold!)
Decreased immune function, by reducing your immune response Increase blood levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL), or “bad” cholesterol, while lowering levels of high density lipoprotein (HDL), or “good” cholesterol
Reproductive problems by interfering with enzymes needed to produce sex hormones Interfering with your body’s use of beneficial omega-3 fats

 

As usual, it took many years before conventional health recommendations caught up and began warning about the use of trans fats. Not surprisingly, as soon as the FDA required food manufacturers to list trans fat content on the label — which took effect on January 1, 2006 — the industry began searching for viable alternatives to appeal to consumers who increasingly began looking for the “No Trans Fat” designation. It didn’t take long before Monsanto had tinkered forth a genetically engineered soybean that is low in linolenic acid, which we’ll get to in a moment.

Beware that some food manufacturers have opted to simply fool buyers — a tactic allowed by the FDA as any product containing up to half a gram of trans fat per serving can still legally claim to have zero trans fat2. The trick is to reduce the serving size to bring it below this threshold. At times, this will result in unreasonably tiny serving sizes, so any time you check a label and a serving is something like 10 chips or one cookie, it probably contains trans fats.

The Health Hazards of Soybeans

Besides the health hazards related to the trans fats created by the partial hydrogenation process, soybean oil is, in and of itself, NOT a healthy oil. Add to that the fact that the majority of soy grown in the US is genetically engineered, which may have additional health consequences. When taken together, partially hydrogenated GE soybean oil becomes one of the absolute worst types of oils you can consume.

Years ago, tropical oils, such as palm and coconut oil, were commonly used in American food production. However, these are obviously not grown in the US. With the exception of Hawaii, our climate isn’t tropical enough. Spurred on by financial incentives, the industry devised a plan to shift the market from tropical oils to something more “home grown.” As a result, a movement was created to demonize and vilify tropical oils in order to replace them with domestically grown oils such as corn and soy.

The fat in soybean oil is primarily omega-6 fat. And while we do need some, it is rare for anyone to be deficient as it is pervasive in our diet. Americans in general consume FAR too much omega-6 in relation to omega-3 fat, primarily due to the excessive amount of omega-6 found in processed foods. Omega-6 fats are in nearly every animal food and many plants, so deficiencies are very rare. This omega-6 fat is also highly processed and therefore damaged, which compounds the problem of getting so much of it in your diet. The omega-6 found in soybean oil promotes chronic inflammation in your body, which is an underlying issue for virtually all chronic diseases.

What About Organic Soybean Oil?

Even if you were fortunate enough to find organic soybean oil, there are still several significant concerns that make it far from attractive from a health standpoint. Soy in and of itself, organically grown or not, contains a number of problematic components that can wreak havoc with your health, such as:

    • Goitrogens – Goitrogens, found in all unfermented soy whether it’s organic or not, are substances that block the synthesis of thyroid hormones and interfere with iodine metabolism, thereby interfering with your thyroid function.
    • Isoflavones: genistein and daidzein – Isoflavones are a type of phytoestrogen, which is a plant compound resembling human estrogen, which is why some recommend using soy therapeutically to treat symptoms of menopause. I believe the evidence is highly controversial and doubt it works. Typically, most of us are exposed to too much estrogen compounds and have a lower testosterone level than ideal, so it really is important to limit exposure to feminizing phytoestrogens. Even more importantly, there’s evidence it may disturb endocrine function, cause infertility, and promote breast cancer, which is definitely a significant concern.
    • Phytic acid — Phytates (phytic acid) bind to metal ions, preventing the absorption of certain minerals, including calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc — all of which are co-factors for optimal biochemistry in your body. This is particularly problematic for vegetarians, because eating meat reduces the mineral-blocking effects of these phytates.

Sometimes it can be beneficial, especially in postmenopausal women and in most adult men because we tend to have levels of iron that are too high which can be a very potent oxidant and cause biological stress. However, phytic acid does not necessarily selectively inhibit just iron absorption; it inhibits all minerals. This is very important to remember, as many already suffer from mineral deficiencies from inadequate diets.

The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume, and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans.

  • Natural toxins known as “anti-nutrients” — Soy also contains other anti-nutritional factors such as saponins, soyatoxin, protease inhibitors, and oxalates. Some of these factors interfere with the enzymes you need to digest protein. While a small amount of anti-nutrients would not likely cause a problem, the amount of soy that many Americans are now eating is extremely high.
  • Hemagglutinin — Hemagglutinin is a clot-promoting substance that causes your red blood cells to clump together. These clumped cells are unable to properly absorb and distribute oxygen to your tissues.

Worst of All — Genetically Engineered Soybean Oil

The genetically engineered (GE) variety planted on over 90 percent of US soy acres is Roundup Ready — engineered to survive being doused with otherwise lethal amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The logic behind Roundup Ready crops such as soy is that you can decrease the cost of production by killing off everything except the actual soy plant.

However, animal studies reveal there may be significant adverse health effects from these GE soybeans, including progressively increased rates of infertility with each passing generation. By the third generation, virtually all the hamsters in one feeding study were found to be infertile. Second-generation hamsters raised on GE soy also had a five-fold higher infant mortality rate.

Are Low-Linolenic Soybeans the Answer?

We now also have other Monsanto-made soy crops to contend with. Responding to the growing demand for healthier diets, Monsanto launched Vistive low-linolenic soybeans in 2005. Most soybeans contain roughly seven percent linolenic acid. The new varieties contain one to three percent. As explained by Monsanto3:

“The oil from these beans can reduce or virtually eliminate trans fat in processed soybean oil… Vistive low-linolenic soybeans have lower levels of linolenic acid. Because of these lower levels, which were achieved through traditional breeding practices4, the oil produced by Vistive low-linolenic seeds does not require hydrogenation, the process that is used to increase shelf life and flavor stability in fried foods, baked goods, snack products and other processed foods.”

Yet another soybean variety created by Monsanto is the high stearate soybean, which also has the properties of margarine and shortening without hydrogenation. But are these soybeans any better or safer than either conventional soybeans or Roundup Ready soybeans, even though they don’t have to go through partial hydrogenation, and therefore do not contain trans fat? No one knows.

Another Hazard of GE Soybeans: Glyphosate

I keep stacking health risks upon health risks, and here’s another one: Research has shown that soybean oil from Roundup Ready soy is loaded with glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup — the broad-spectrum herbicide created by Monsanto.

According to a report in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. GE soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg.5 That’s 10 times lower than the MRL.

This is an alarming finding because glyphosate is easily one of the world’s most overlooked poisons. Research published in 2010 showed that the chemical, which works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications.6 The malformations primarily affected the:

  • Skull
  • Face
  • Midline and developing brain
  • Spinal cord

When applied to crops, glyphosate becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. And once you eat this crop, the glyphosate ends up in your gut where it can decimate your beneficial bacteria. This can wreak havoc with your health as 80 percent of your immune system resides in your gut (GALT – Gut Associated Lymph Tissue) and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria. Separate research has also uncovered the following effects from glyphosate:

Endocrine disruption DNA damage
Developmental toxicity Neurotoxicity
Reproductive toxicity Cancer

To Avoid Harmful Fats of All Kinds, Ditch Processed Foods

If you want to avoid dangerous fats of all kinds, your best bet is to eliminate processed foods from your diet. From there, use these tips to make sure you’re eating the right fats for your health:

  • Use organic butter (preferably made from raw milk) instead of margarines and vegetable oil spreads. Butter is a healthy whole food that has received an unwarranted bad rap.
  • Use coconut oil for cooking. It is far superior to any other cooking oil and is loaded with health benefits.
  • Be sure to eat raw fats, such as those from avocados, raw dairy products, olive oil, olives, organic pastured eggs, and raw nuts, especially macadamia nuts which are relatively low in protein. Also take a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fat, such as krill oil.

Following my comprehensive nutrition plan will automatically reduce your trans-fat intake, as it will give you a guide to focus on healthy whole foods instead of processed junk food. Remember, virtually all processed foods will contain either HFCS (probably made from genetically engineered corn) and/or soybean oil — either in the form of partially hydrogenated soybean oil, which is likely made from GE soybeans, loaded with glyphosate, or from one of the newer soybean varieties that were created such that they do not need to be hydrogenated. They’re ALL bad news, if you value your health.

Leave a Comment more...

Sweet ‘N’ Lowdown

by on Jan.26, 2013, under Health

NUTRITION & WEIGHT LOSS

Cycling Nutrition
Sweet ‘N’ Lowdown
Alternative sweeteners are used in everything from cocktails to energy bars, but can they satisfy a sweet tooth, whittle the waistline, and energize your ride? Here’s the bitter-sweet truth.
BySelene Yeager

Advertised as: A healthful, natural carbohydrate that’s 40 percent sweeter than table sugar and ranks low on the glycemic index

 

Comes from: Sap from a Mexican cactus, cooked to 140 degrees to concentrate the liquid

 

Uses: In teas, health drinks, nutrition bars, desserts, and cocktails

 

Lowdown: One serving has 16 grams of carbs (the same as white sugar) and one gram of fiber. The rest is sugar, up to 90 percent of which is fructose. “Too much fructose is associated with weight gain, elevated blood pressure and triglycerides, and other health problems,” says Lisa Davis, PhD, vice president of scientific and clinical affairs for Medifast Inc., a national weight-loss service.

 

Conclusion: “It may taste good, but it won’t help you lose weight,” says Davis.

 

BROWN RICE SYRUP
Advertised as: One of the healthiest sugar substitutes on the market, all-natural, and nearly always organic

 

Comes from: Rice that’s fermented with enzymes until the starch disintegrates and turns into sugar, then strained and cooked until it thickens

 

Uses: In baked goods, cereals, prepared foods, candies, seasonings, and sauces

 

Lowdown: It delivers a steady stream of glucose over a prolonged period, so you’re not spiking and crashing. “The glucose enters your bloodstream almost immediately, while the maltose in brown rice takes up to an hour and a half to digest completely,” says Davis. The complex carbs in the syrup take up to three hours to digest.

 

Conclusion: It provides consistent, long-lasting energy, but at 55 calories per tablespoon, it can add pounds if you don’t use it sparingly.

 

STEVIA
Advertised as: A natural, no-calorie sweetener

 

Comes from: The Stevia rebaudiana plant, an herb native to Central and South America

 

Uses: In coffee and tea as a tabletop sweetener, and in baked goods, sodas, and other foods—sometimes combined with sugar alcohols, such as erythritol, to dilute its sweetness (it’s 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar but can have a bitter aftertaste)

 

Lowdown: After some initial concerns about toxicity, a refined preparation method was instituted and designated “generally recognized as safe” by the FDA, which in 2008 approved stevia as a food ingredient.

 

Conclusion: If cutting back on sugar calories is your weight-loss strategy, stevia’s no-calorie claim is legitimate.

 

SUCANAT
Advertised as: A 100-percent organic whole-food sweetener and the most nutritive option on the market

 

Comes from: Pure cane sugar with the liquid removed, so it still contains its nutrient-rich molasses

 

Uses: As a tabletop sweetener or substitute for brown sugar

 

Lowdown: Because it’s dark and grainy, it can change the color and texture of baked goods. It’s also less sweet and has a stronger flavor than refined sugar.

 

Conclusion: It may have trace amounts of vitamins and minerals such as iron, potassium, calcium, and magnesium, but it’s still sugar, so keep your intake in check.

 

SUCRALOSE
Advertised as: Splenda, which is “made from sugar so it tastes like sugar”

 

Comes from: Pure cane sugar that has been chemically altered, resulting in something that’s 600 times sweeter

 

Uses: For cooking and baking because it holds up to heat; as a tabletop sweetener

 

Lowdown: Splenda is the result of sucralose being combined with dextrose and maltodextrin. Also, chlorine is added during processing, which the FDA classifies as nontoxic.

 

Conclusion: Sucralose is probably safe, but “despite the advertising claims and its sugarlike taste, it is not a ‘natural’ sweetener,” says Davis. Still, a small amount in your daily java isn’t going to pack on the pounds.

Leave a Comment more...

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Blogroll

A few highly recommended websites...

Archives

All entries, chronologically...