Archive for October, 2013

White Industries Hubs H Plus Son Archetype Rims DT Competition Spokes Brass Nipples 1650gr

by on Oct.30, 2013, under Wheels I Built for Customers

IMG 0996 300x225 White Industries Hubs H Plus Son Archetype Rims DT Competition Spokes Brass Nipples 1650gr

White Industries Hubs H Plus Son Archetype Rims DT Competition Spokes Brass Nipples 1650gr

IMG 0997 300x225 White Industries Hubs H Plus Son Archetype Rims DT Competition Spokes Brass Nipples 1650gr

White Industries Hubs H Plus Son Archetype Rims DT Competition Spokes Brass Nipples 1650gr

IMG 0998 300x225 White Industries Hubs H Plus Son Archetype Rims DT Competition Spokes Brass Nipples 1650gr

White Industries Hubs H Plus Son Archetype Rims DT Competition Spokes Brass Nipples 1650gr

Leave a Comment more...

Hadley Hubs Crest 29er Rims D.T. Swiss Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1650gr

by on Oct.30, 2013, under Wheels I Built for Customers

IMG 0993 300x225 Hadley Hubs Crest 29er Rims D.T. Swiss Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1650gr

Hadley Hubs Crest 29er Rims D.T. Swiss Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1650gr

IMG 0994 300x225 Hadley Hubs Crest 29er Rims D.T. Swiss Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1650gr

Hadley Hubs Crest 29er Rims D.T. Swiss Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1650gr

IMG 09952 300x225 Hadley Hubs Crest 29er Rims D.T. Swiss Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1650gr

Hadley Hubs Crest 29er Rims D.T. Swiss Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1650gr

Leave a Comment more...

White Industries Hubs Pacenti SL23 Rim DT Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1640gr

by on Oct.30, 2013, under Wheels I Built for Customers

IMG 0990 300x225 White Industries Hubs Pacenti SL23 Rim DT Competition  Spokes Alloy Nipples 1640gr

White Industries Hubs Pacenti SL23 Rim DT Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1640gr

IMG 0992 300x225 White Industries Hubs Pacenti SL23 Rim DT Competition  Spokes Alloy Nipples 1640gr

White Industries Hubs Pacenti SL23 Rim DT Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1640gr

IMG 0991 300x225 White Industries Hubs Pacenti SL23 Rim DT Competition  Spokes Alloy Nipples 1640gr

White Industries Hubs Pacenti SL23 Rim DT Competition Spokes Alloy Nipples 1640gr

Leave a Comment more...

As the EU Launches Shocking Fructose Health Claim Label, Oreos Are Found to Be as Addictive as Cocaine

by on Oct.30, 2013, under Health

By Dr. Mercola

When you eat refined processed sugars, they trigger production of your brain’s natural opioids — a key ingredient in the addiction process. Your brain essentially becomes addicted to stimulating the release of its own opioids as it would to morphine or heroin.

This addictive nature of sugar and processed food has again been confirmed by a psychology professor and a team of students at the College of Connecticut,1, 2 who showed that Oreo cookies are just as addictive as cocaine or morphine.

The study, which was designed to investigate the potential addictiveness of high-fat/high-sugar foods, also found that eating Oreos activated more neurons in the rat brain’s pleasure center than exposure to illicit drugs did. According to professor Schroeder:

“Our research supports the theory that high-fat/ high-sugar foods stimulate the brain in the same way that drugs do. It may explain why some people can’t resist these foods despite the fact that they know they are bad for them.”

The idea for the study originated with neuroscience major Jamie Honohan, who wanted to know how the high prevalence of junk foods in low-income neighborhoods might contribute to the obesity epidemic.

Indeed, it’s quite revealing to note that, in contrast to third-world countries, in the US the poorest people have the highest obesity rates. This seeming contradiction is, I believe, a clear indication that the problem stems from the diet itself.

Something in the cheapest and most readily available foods is creating metabolic havoc, and that’s exactly what researchers keep finding. As reported by Connecticut college:

“…Oreos activated significantly more neurons than cocaine or morphine. ‘This correlated well with our behavioral results and lends support to the hypothesis that high-fat/ high sugar foods can be thought of as addictive,’ said Schroeder.

And that could be a problem for the general public, says Honohan. ‘Even though we associate significant health hazards in taking drugs like cocaine and morphine, high-fat/ high-sugar foods may present even more of a danger because of their accessibility and affordability,’ she said.”

Please note that I do not agree with the comment that everything that is considered high-fat is bad for you. Oreo cookies and virtually every other processed snack are bad because they use highly processed omega-6 vegetable oils, the wrong type of fat. However it is possible to make a healthy high-fat snack using oils like coconut oil.

Processed Foods Are DESIGNED to Be Addictive

Indeed, scientific research into the addictive nature of certain foods, combined with shocking “insider” exposés,3 tells us that Americans are not necessarily lacking in self control when it comes to their food consumption. Rather, food companies have perfected food concoctions that are addictive. And they know it.

Most people blindly believe that food companies will do the right thing; that they would never produce food that might be toxic or harmful. This, we’ve learned is not the case.

The food industry is well aware of its role in creating obesity, and they’re not ignorant as to the reason why Americans can’t seem to get enough junk food. They even insist on selling foods to the American market with ingredients that have been banned for health reasons in other countries…

Most processed foods are actually created to be addictive—whether we’re talking about cookies or pasta sauce—through the masterful use of addictive ingredients like salt, fat, sugar and a wide variety of proprietary flavorings.

In a previous New York Times article,4 investigative reporter Michael Moss wrote about the extraordinary science behind taste and junk food addiction, and how multinational food companies struggle to maintain their “stomach shares” in the face of mounting evidence that their foods are driving the health crisis.

In it he mentions a 1999 meeting between 11 CEOs in charge of America’s largest food companies, including Kraft, Nabisco, General Mills, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Mars, where their role in the increasingly poor health of Americans was addressed head-on. Moss writes in part:

“James Behnke, a 55-year-old executive at Pillsbury… was engaged in conversation with a group of food-science experts who were painting an increasingly grim picture of the public’s ability to cope with the industry’s formulations —

From the body’s fragile controls on overeating to the hidden power of some processed foods to make people feel hungrier still. It was time, he and a handful of others felt, to warn the C.E.O.’s that their companies may have gone too far in creating and marketing products that posed the greatest health concerns.“

SHOCKING! EU Approves Health Claim for Fructose

With everything we now know about the metabolic disaster that is fructose, it’s absolutely SHOCKING to learn that the European Union has approved a health claim for fructose,5 slated to take effect as of 2014. Many of my readers are scattered through the EU nations, and for you, understanding the ramifications of this label is crucial.

As of 2014, food manufacturers that replace at least 30 percent of the glucose and/or sucrose content in their food with fructose will be allowed to put a health claim on their product, stating that it has a positive effect on carbohydrate metabolism and insulin sensitivity.

There’s no doubt in my mind that such a health claim will promote an avalanche of chronic disease, as food manufacturers start switching from the lesser to the greater of two evils… As reported by Ingredients

“[F]ood and beverage manufacturers can expect a healthy upward surge in sales for products with fructose from the 2nd of January 2014 when the European Union’s fructose health claim comes into effect. …[T]he fructose declaration promises to be truly ground breaking for food and beverage manufacturers. Manufacturers who substitute at least 30 percent of glucose or sucrose with fructose can now claim that

‘Consumption of foods containing fructose leads to a lower blood glucose rise compared to foods containing sucrose or glucose.’ …fructose’s ability to emphasize fruity flavors also makes the news particularly favorable for manufacturers of beverages, fruit preparations, fruit flavored ice-cream, yogurts and more.

Since the EU’s game-changing step, validating fructose benefits, the industry’s attention has focused with increased urgency on the opportunities presented by incorporating non-GMO crystalline fructose into different food and beverages products…”

Why Fructose Is Worse for You Than Other Sugars

One of the primary problems with refined fructose is that it is isocaloric but not isometabolic. What this means is that while you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or any other nutrient, including glucose, the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count.

While it is true that refined fructose creates a lower glycemic response immediately after eating it, compared to sucrose or glucose, to say that it is therefore healthier for you is a gross and seriously misleading claim that wholly ignores its overall metabolic consequences.

In short, the fact that refined fructose produces a lower immediate glycemic response is completely irrelevant, because the overall metabolic effects are far more destructive. In my view, this label is dangerous, and may set the EU up for an out-of-control spiral of chronic disease.

Refined fructose actually affects your body in ways similar to alcohol, hence the rise in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease—and, again, addiction. Fructose and ethanol both have immediate, narcotic effects associated with their dopaminergic properties. In the same way that alcohol can lead to the downward spiral of compulsive overconsumption, fructose tends to generate an insatiable and intense sensation of pleasurable sweetness, often driving us to consume far more than our body can handle; even while it damages multiple organ systems.

The EU Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies even spells out the consequences in their Opinion paper,7 while still agreeing with the proposed health claim for fructose:

“The Panel considers that in order to bear the claim, glucose or sucrose should be replaced by fructose in sugar sweetened foods or beverages. The target population is individuals who wish to reduce their post-prandial glycaemic responses. The Panel notes that high intakes of fructose may lead to metabolic complications such as dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance and increased visceral adiposity.“ [Emphasis mine]

What You Need to Know About Fructose versus Glucose Metabolism

Again, while refined fructose creates a lower glycemic response in the short term, compared to other sugars, in the long term, it causes greater metabolic havoc than sugar. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in scientific studies. One of the most recent ones, published in the journal Nature,8 again concluded that while refined fructose and glucose have the same caloric value, they are metabolized differently, and fructose causes more harm of the two. Below is a summary of the main differences between glucose and fructose metabolism, which explains why I keep repeating that fructose is by far the worst type of sugar there is:

With fructose, 100 percent of the metabolic burden rests on your liver. But with glucose, your liver has to break down only 20 percent When you eat 120 calories of glucose, less than one calorie is stored as fat. 120 calories of fructose results in 40 calories being stored as fat. Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!
Every cell in your body, including your brain, utilizes glucose. Therefore, much of it is “burned up” immediately after you consume it. By contrast, fructose is turned into free fatty acids (FFAs), VLDL (the damaging form of cholesterol), and triglycerides, which get stored as fat The metabolism of fructose by your liver creates a long list of waste products and toxins, including a large amount of uric acid, which drives up blood pressure and causes gout
The fatty acids created during fructose metabolism accumulate as fat, both in your liver and skeletal muscle tissues, causing insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Insulin resistance progresses to metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes Glucose suppresses the hunger hormone ghrelin and stimulates leptin, which suppresses your appetite. Fructose has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain’s communication with leptin, resulting in overeating
Fructose is the most lipophilic carbohydrate. In other words, fructose converts to activated glycerol (g-3-p), which is directly used to turn FFAs into triglycerides. The more g-3-p you have, the more fat you store. Glucose does not do this In addition to fructose’s dopamine modulating activity, there appears to be a fructose-opiate connection. While both glucose and fructose are capable of creating pain killing effects, researchers have found that fructose is more potent than glucose in accomplishing these effects, suggesting it may be more addictive
Cancer Researcher Issues Stark Warning
Dr. Lewis Cantley, a cancer researcher and head of the Cancer Center at New York’s Weill Cornell Medical College, explains why a high-sugar diet is so dangerous—in particular to children. First, it’s important to know that the factor that links obesity, diabetes, and cancer is insulin and leptin resistance. Insulin and leptin resistance, and even full-blown type 2 diabetes, is now becoming increasingly prevalent in children and teens—something that was virtually unheard of 50 years ago. As Dr. Cantley says, type 2 diabetes is referred to as “late onset diabetes” for the precise reason that it typically didn’t strike until you were in your 60s.

If diabetes at 60 is evidence of a lifetime of higher-than-ideal sugar consumption, then the fact that teenagers are now developing type 2 diabetes tells us that the amount of sugar in the average diet, starting from infancy, is exceptionally high—so high that the ramifications become evident several decades sooner than before! This in turn exponentially increases the child’s risk of developing cancer at some point in his or her life. Dr. Cantley warns:

“This correlation of earlier and earlier type 2 diabetes, that means you now have 20, 30, 40 years of high insulin levels, which could potentially drive the growth of tumors. It really does make us very worried that advances we’re making in treating cancer is going to be completely offset by this dramatic increase in cancers that are associated with diabetes and obesity… The more I learn about it, the more compulsive I become about avoiding sugar.”

Think about it… Sugar used to be available to our ancestors only as fruit or honey—and then only for a few months of the year—compared to today, when fructose (primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup) is added to virtually all processed foods and drinks; even items you normally would not think of as being high in sugar. Tragically, many infant formulas even contain more than 50 percent sugar! This, I believe, gets your child hooked on sweets virtually from day one, and sets the wheels in motion for metabolic dysfunction.

If you received your fructose only from vegetables and fruits (where it originates) as most people did a century ago, you’d consume about 15 grams per day. Today, the average is 73 grams per day, which is nearly 500 percent higher a dose and your body simply can’t tolerate that type of biochemical abuse. Furthermore, in vegetables and fruits, the fructose is mixed in with fiber, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and beneficial phytonutrients, all of which help moderate the negative metabolic effects.

This is why, as a general rule, I advise keeping your daily fructose consumption, from ALL sources, including whole fruit, below 25 grams per day. If you are overweight and/or have insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure or other chronic disease, you’d be wise to limit it further—down to 15 grams a day.

Take Control of Your Health, and Don’t Fall for Grossly Misleading Fructose Health Claims

For the first time in history, “lifestyle” diseases — diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers — are killing more people than communicable diseases. According to, scientific studies have linked fructose to about 78 different diseases and health problems.9 Select the hyperlinks provided to review how fructose may:

Raise your blood pressure, and cause nocturnal hypertension Insulin resistance / Type 2 Diabetes Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
Raise your uric acid levels, which can result in gout and/or metabolic syndrome Accelerate the progression of chronic kidney disease Intracranial atherosclerosis (narrowing and hardening of the arteries in your skull)
Exacerbate cardiac abnormalities if you’re deficient in copper Have a genotoxic effect on the colon Promote metastasis in breast cancer patients
Cause tubulointerstitial injury (injury to the tubules and interstitial tissue of your kidney) Promotes obesity and related health problems and diseases Promotes pancreatic cancer growth

As previously reported in a New York Times10 opinion piece on the dramatic health care savings promised by healthier lifestyle habits and diet:

“The INTERHEART study of 30,000 men and women in 52 countries showed that at least 90 percent of heart disease is lifestyle related; a European study of more than 23,000 Germans showed that people with healthier lifestyles had an 81 percent lower risk.”

Treating these entirely preventable illnesses costs more than one-seventh of the US gross domestic product (GDP). It stands to reason then that preventing these diseases could save the US health care system around one trillion dollars a year!11 One of the primary, and likely most effective ways of preventing these diseases would be to curb the outrageous over-consumption of sugar.

Your Lifestyle Will Make or Break Your Health

Unfortunately, processed foods are HUGE business with great profit margins—maximized, I might add, by designing foods with addictive qualities, through the use of salt, sugar, fat and other secret, proprietary flavor formulas. The food industry as a whole has NO incentive whatsoever to switch to selling and marketing whole foods—unless the market absolutely demands it.

I believe the current situation can change, but only if enough people understand the simple truths of healthy eating and refuse to buy sugar-laden processed foods. If you want to protect your health, and the health of your family, my most urgent recommendation is to do just that—replace the processed foods with homemade meals, made from scratch using whole ingredients.

Remember, insulin and leptin resistance are core factors in obesity, which in turn is a risk factor for cancer and may boost tumor growth. Insulin and leptin resistance is also at the root of most other chronic diseases. To safely and effectively reverse insulin and leptin resistance, you need to:

Avoid, sugar, fructose, grains, and processed foods
Eat a healthful diet of whole foods, ideally organic, and replace the grain carbs with:
Large amounts of vegetables
Low-to-moderate amount of high quality protein (think organically raised, pastured animals)
As much highly quality healthful fat as you want (saturated and monosaturated). Most people need upwards of 50-70 percent fats in their diet for optimal health. Good sources include coconut and coconut oil, avocados, butter, nuts, and animal fats. Also take a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fat, such as krill oil
As I’ve said before, about 80 percent of the health benefits you reap from a healthy lifestyle comes from your diet, and the remaining 20 percent from exercise – but it’s a very important 20 percent, as it acts in tandem with and boosts the benefits derived from a proper diet. For maximum benefits, you’ll want to make sure to include high-intensity interval training, which is at the heart of my Peak Fitness program. To learn more, please see my previous article: “The Major Exercise Mistake I Made for Over 30 Years.

Leave a Comment more...


by on Oct.30, 2013, under Health

By Greg Arnold, DC, CSCS, October 7, 2013, abstracted from “Multicomponent exercises including muscle power training enhance muscle mass, power output, and functional outcomes in institutionalized frail nonagenarians” in the September 13, 2013 issue of Age

In the elderly, the combined loss of muscle (sarcopenia) and bone density (osteopenia/osteoporosis) is called Frailty Syndrome and significantly increases the risk for falls which lead to disability, hospitalization, and death (1). In addition, fat become deposited in muscles (called fat infiltration) and leads to a decrease in overall muscle range of motion (2), causing impaired muscle function and manifests as low walking speed, fatigue, and low grip strength (3).

Fortunately, exercise programs in the elderly produce significant health benefits, with a recent review finding that 70% of studies showed a reduction in the incidence of falls, 54% showed improvements in walking ability, 80% showed improvements in balance, and 70% showed increases in muscle strength (4).

Now a new study (5) suggests exercise may improve health outcomes in the very elderly, even those in their 90’s (nonagenarians). In the study, 24 patients between the ages of 89 and 97 who satisfied Fried’s criteria for frailty (the presence of three or more of the following components: slowness, weakness, weight loss, exhaustion, and low physical activity (6) underwent either an exercise program (11 patients) or a control program (13 patients).

The exercise group completed a 12-week, twice-weekly program of weight training, with each exercise using weight at 40-60% of their maximum strength for 10 repetitions combined with balance and walking retraining exercises. There were at least 2 days of rest between exercise sessions; each session lasted 40 minutes and the subjects were supervised at all times.

For the control group, subjects performed mobility exercises 30 minutes per day, four days per week. The exercises consisted of small active and passive movements applied as a series of stretches in a rhythmic fashion to the individual joints.

By the end of 12 weeks, those in the weight training group saw significant improvements in four different strength and coordination tests compared to the control group:

– 5-meter habitual gait velocity: Those in the weight training group saw a 5.2% increase in their walking velocity over 5 meters (0.76 to 0.80 meters/second) compared to a 11.2% decrease in the control group (0.68 to 0.60 m/s, p <0.05). - TUG: Called “Time Up and Go” task, those in the weight training group saw a 5.6% decrease in the time needed to complete TUG (19.9 to 18.8 seconds) compared to a 18.4% increase in the control group (18.4 to 21.8 seconds, p < 0.01) - Rise from a chair: When asked to do as many rises from a chair in 30 seconds as they could, those in the weight training group saw a 58% increase (6.2 to 9.8 times in 30 seconds) compared to a 14.3% decrease in the control group (6.3 to 5.4, p < 0.01) - Balance: Using the FICSIT-4 tests of static balance (Frailty and Injuries: Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques), those in the weightlifting group saw a 50% increase in their overall balance score (0.44 to 0.66) compared to a 16.7% decrease in the control group (0.36 to 0.30, p < 0.05). Perhaps most important, those in the weightlifting group saw a complete eradication of falling episodes (defined as events where the participant unintentionally came to rest on objects that prevented the center of mass from exceeding the base of support (7). In the weightlifting group, subjects went from 0.70 falls per day to 0.00 falls per day compared to a 14% decrease in the control (0.93 to 080 falls per day, p < 0.001). For the researchers, “routine multicomponent exercise intervention composed of resistance training, balance training, and gait exercises should be included for nonagenarians because it seems to be the most effective intervention for improving the overall physical outcomes of frail nonagenarians and preventing disability and other adverse outcomes.” Greg Arnold is a Chiropractic Physician practicing in Hauppauge, NY. You can contact Dr. Arnold directly by emailing him at or visiting his web site at Reference: 1. Rodríguez ML. Viña J. Vega E, on behalf of the FOD-CC group (2012) Searching for an operational definition of frailty: A Delphi method based consensus statement. The frailty operative definition-consensus conference project. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2012; 68:62–67 2. Visser M, Goodpaster BH, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, Nevitt M, Rubin SM, Simonsick EM, Harris TB. Muscle mass, muscle strength, and muscle fat infiltration as predictors of incident mobility limitations in well-functioning older persons. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2005; 60:324–333 3. Garcia-Garcia FJ, Gutierrez Avila G. Toledo Study Group. The prevalence of frailty syndrome in an older population from Spain. The Toledo study for healthy aging. J Nutr Health Aging 2011; 15:852–865 4. Cadore EL, Rodríguez-Mañas L, Sinclair A, Izquierdo M. Effects of different exercise interventions on risk of falls, gait ability and balance in physically frail older adults: a systematic review. Rejuvenation Res 2013; 16:105–114. doi: 10.1089/rej.202.1397 5. Cadore EL. Multicomponent exercises including muscle power training enhance muscle mass, power output, and functional outcomes in institutionalized frail nonagenarians. Age (Dordr) 2013 Sep 13. [Epub ahead of print] 6. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Waltson J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, Seeman T, Tracy R, Kop WJ, Burke G, McBurnie MA (2001) Frailty in older adults: Evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2011;56:146–155 7. Wolf SL. Reducing frailty and falls in older persons: an investigation of Tai Chi and computerized balance training. Atlanta FICSIT Group. Frailty and injuries: Cooperative studies of intervention techniques. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996; 44:489–497

Leave a Comment more...

GMO Labeling Has Its Day in Court

by on Oct.29, 2013, under Health

By Dr. Mercola

We’re now only DAYS away from the next big GMO-labeling vote in the United States; this time in Washington State, where citizens will cast their votes for the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” on November 5.

As in last year’s California Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign, the opposition from industry is fierce, with millions of dollars being poured into the anti-labeling campaign.

This year, they’ve really outdone themselves, being caught in a money laundering scheme designed to protect the identity of food companies contributing money to defeat Initiative 522. As reported by

“The food industrial giants gave individually in California last year, contributing to a $46 million war chest that narrowly turned back the labeling measure.

In planning the anti-522 campaign, however, Grocery Manufacturers Association CEO Pamela Bailey recommended creation of a fund — which became the Defense of Brand Strategic Account — in part to ‘better shield individual companies from attack.’ Donations would be laundered through the account.”

Most of the funding for the anti-labeling campaign in Washington State was donated by the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America (GMA). The big food and beverage companies that spent millions on last year’s No on Prop 37 campaign, however, remained curiously absent from any list of donors throughout most of this year’s No on Initiative 522’s campaign.

Attorney General Files Suit Against Grocery Manufacturers Association

On October 16, Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit2 against the GMA in Thurston County Superior Court on behalf of the State of Washington, alleging the association had violated the state’s campaign disclosure laws. According to the press release:3

“Ferguson alleges the GMA illegally collected and spent more than $7 million while shielding the identity of its contributors. The funds were spent to express opposition to Initiative 522…

‘When Washington state voters overwhelming approved Initiative 276 in 1972, they voiced their desire for transparency and openness in elections,’ Ferguson said. ‘Truly fair elections demand all sides follow the rules by disclosing who their donors are and how much they are spending to advocate their views.’

… The AGO [Attorney general’s office] is preparing to seek a temporary restraining order asking the court to order the GMA to immediately comply with state disclosure laws. The AGO is also requesting civil penalties and costs of investigation and trial, including reasonable attorney’s fees, injunctive relief and any other relief the court deems appropriate.”

According to the filed complaint, the GMA began plotting and planning how to best defeat Initiative 522 back in December of 2012, placing particular emphasis on the establishment of a separate GMA fund to “combat current threats and better shield individual companies from attack.”

You can find a summarized timeline of the development of the anti-labeling campaign in Joel Connelly’s article on For example, in it he reveals that:

“The Grocery Manufacturers Association names its fund the ‘Defense of Brand Strategic Account’ and determines that association members would be assessed, separate from their normal association dues. The account would be segregated…”

The Attorney General has requested the Superior Court impose the following penalties on the GMA, which, according to Ferguson, are meant to serve as deterrents in future state elections as well:

Assess a penalty for failing to comply with state campaign finance laws in a “timely properly” manner
Pay for the costs of the investigation, plus the state’s attorney fees
If found guilty of intentionally violating state campaign finance laws, be ordered to pay triple the damages
Who’s Trying to Block Your Right to Know What’s in Your Food?

As you may recall, after defeating Prop. 37 in California by a tiny margin, several companies that had contributed to the anti-labeling campaign suffered significant repercussions—from being barraged by critical press and humiliating attacks by angry consumers on social networks like Facebook.

To sweeping boycott campaigns. General Mills, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Heinz and Campbell Soups were among last year’s anti-labeling campaign contributors. As one parent stated in a comment on Cheerios Facebook page at the time:

“So sorry that the food my kids loved as toddlers is one I can’t support anymore. I can’t believe that General Mills has the well-being of its customers in mind when it contributes to movement against labeling of GMOs.”

Recent polls show that 64-66 percent of likely voters in Washington State strongly support GMO labeling. No wonder many of the same companies wanted to circumvent having to reveal their unchanged stance on this issue. Now they’ve been forced to reveal themselves however, and I suspect the backlash could very well become even greater than before.

On October 17, in response to the Attorney General’s suit, the GMA established a political committee to oppose the GMO labeling initiative, aptly named Grocery Manufacturers Association Against I-522.5 A list of the committee’s donors has also been disclosed to the Public Disclosure Commission. According to a statement issued that same day:

“In the spirit of continuing cooperation and in an effort to provide Washington voters with full transparency about GMA’s funding for the ‘No on 522’ campaign, the association has voluntarily decided to establish a Washington State political committee and to file reports with the PDC disclosing the source of all funds used in connection with Washington State elections.”

As of this writing, the list of donors and amount of each company’s donation submitted to the Public Disclosure Commission includes the following, which totals up to $7,222,500.6, 7 Looks like Pepsi, Coke, and Nestle are the top funders trying to hide their identity. Quite the triangle of authority of junk food producers, and purveyors of chronic disease:

Company Amount donated Company Amount donated
Abbott Nutrition 127,459 Bimbo Bakeries USA 94,693
Campbell Soup Co. 265,140 Bruce Foods Corp. 3,006
Cargill Inc. 98,601 Bumble Bee Foods 36,073
Coca-Cola 1,047,332 Bunge North America 94,993
ConAgra Foods 285,281 Clement Pappas & Co. Inc 21,043
Dean Foods 120,245 Clorox Company 12,024
Bush Brothers & Co. 16,233 Flowers Foods 141,288
Del Monte Foods 86,576 Hormel Foods 52,908
General Mills 598,819 J.M. Smucker Co 241,091
Hershey 248,305 Knouse Foods 14,429
Hillshire Brands 97,398 Welch Foods 28,859
Kellogg 221,852 Land O’Lakes 99,803
Moody Dunbar 1,804 McCormick & Co 102,208
Nestle USA 1,052,743 Mondelez Global 144,895
Ocean Spray, Cranberries, Inc. 55,313 Pinnacle Foods Group 120,846
PepsiCo 1,620,899 Rich Products Corp 24,049
Sunny Delight Beverages Co. 21,043 Shearer’s Foods, Inc. 25,251
Beware: Big Business Will Try to Dilute the GMO Label

Big Biotech is seeing the end of their game now and are scrambling to rescue what they can, by any means possible. Such “backup plans” appear to include carefully selected mouthpieces writing “independent” opinion pieces, ostensibly agreeing that labeling is a good idea, while simultaneously proposing plans that would significantly dilute the value of the label. One way to do this would be to make it ubiquitous, i.e. so prevalent that you encountered it on virtually every single food item in every single store, regardless of whether the food actually contained traces of it or not in the final product.

This tactic was suggested by one of Biotech’s primary spokespeople, Mark Lynas, in a recent article.8 In it, he states that people are “getting increasingly scared of GMOs precisely because the industry is fighting a rearguard battle not to tell people which foodstuffs contain them,” calling the industry’s fight against labeling “the worst PR strategy ever.” Correctly, he also states that this is “the opposite of advertising – instead of telling people about the benefits of your product and encouraging them to seek it out, you have to smuggle your core products into peoples’ shopping baskets so that they can only buy them either unknowingly or by mistake.”

This epic fail of a strategy has been incredibly successful up until this point though. Keeping you in the dark about what’s in your food and calling it ‘natural’ has been the number one “sales strategy” of junk foods producers utilizing heavily subsidized ingredients since the inception of genetically engineered food crops. And had educational and labeling campaigns by concerned citizens, scientists and organic organizations failed, the “worst PR strategy ever” would have been left in force indefinitely.

The Prop 37 campaign was the first truly effective education campaign in this regard, which is why you cannot look upon it as a failure. It raised an enormous amount of awareness about this issue. Before last year, many Americans had no idea what genetically engineered food was, or that they were eating it daily, or that it might be a component causing their health problems. Now that labeling is reaching the point of inevitability, Big Biotech are trying to find a way to label that will still permit them to exist and make a profit. But how to dilute the label to where people don’t care if a product is labeled or not?

“Consumer right to know, however unjustifiable on scientific grounds, is an argument that – once a critical mass of people are demanding it – it is be political suicide to oppose. However, simply giving in is not an option either,” Lynas writes.

“Having different laws in every state would indeed be a short-cut to prohibition, which is exactly why the labeling activists have chosen it as their strategy. So those of us who want to defend science and who understand the true potential of biotechnology have no option – we have to change the game… And maybe, just maybe, the most powerful weapon the antis have in their arsenal will ultimately turn out to be their Achilles heel.”

Industry Will Seek Refuge in Ubiquity

In his article, Lynas proposes a way forward that would virtually guarantee GMO label ubiquity. Quite simply, you’d be hard-pressed to find an item that didn’t have one, and it would hit you all at once. In short order, you’d be so used to seeing the GMO label, and so overwhelmed by lack of options (or so their reasoning goes) the GMO label wouldn’t even register as an item calling out for a choice to be made. To accomplish this kind of saturation to the point of complacency, GMO labeling must be:

Mandatory; industry-wide; and operated at the federal level
Designed in such a way that there’s no implication of health or safety issues
Process-based, so that the label must be used whether the final product contains any residue of GMO or not
According to Lynas, “ubiquity is surely the industry’s safest refuge.” Personally, I believe the industry may be underestimating the depth of the concerns that people have about the safety of genetically engineered foods and the giant chemical companies that make them.

The FDA battle will be significant, but the existing European standards along with a few state laws will set a bar that will likely need to be matched or result in political disaster for the administration. I have never supported FDA labeling strategies as a first step as they are too highly influenced by lobbyists, you can bet the agency is receiving pressure from the biotech and junk food industry to set a standard before they lose more ground through state and international laws– an FDA ruling is inevitable.

Recent history has shown that food companies will relent and change their ingredients once they realize that you, and millions of others, really don’t want GMO’s in your food, and won’t buy it if it contains GMO ingredients. There are alternatives, but biotech companies like Monsanto have been so efficient in their takeover of agriculture, even to the point of buying up seed companies to eliminate competition, that many food manufacturers now have a hard time obtaining non-GMO ingredients. The upshot, of course, is that increased demand for non-GMO ingredients by major food companies will encourage farmers to revert back to conventional, non-GMO crops.

Yet another tactic that industry could reach for is labeling similar in its requirements as those for other nutrients, like sodium or trans fats. Oftentimes, if a product contains less than a certain amount per serving, it doesn’t have to be disclosed on the label. This is why you oftentimes find products listing ridiculously tiny serving sizes. Many products containing GMOs could slip below the radar this way as well.

Wild Card Could Shift the Status Quo on GMOs

Unforeseen wild cards could come into play too. The American press has been anything but astute in its reporting on GMOs. This could quickly change however, should Pierre Omidyar and Glenn Greenwald’s new media organization aimed at providing independent in-depth journalism take off, for example.9 At that point, any journalist interested in a career would have to quit regurgitating industry propaganda and start digging around for the real story. In the case of GMOs, the tipping point for genetically engineered foods would quickly be reached were the real story to hit the masses as part of their daily news feed.

As Jeffrey Smith explained in a previous interview:

“In January 1999, the biotech industry boldly predicted that within five years 95 percent of all commercial seeds in the world would be genetically modified and patented. They did not anticipate the gag order of a scientist being lifted three weeks later in Europe.

A firestorm of media reported on his results of a GMO-feeding study. Over 700 articles were written within a single month in the UK. In 10 weeks, the tipping point of consumer rejection was achieved in Europe – heralded not by the European Commission banning GMOs, but by Unilever banning GMOs, then Nestlé, and then virtually everyone in Europe because they realized that using genetically modified ingredients had become a marketing liability.”

Monsanto Sponsors Food Prize… and Awards It to Itself

Before I wrap this up, there’s a related story that is too hilarious not to include, in light of these discussions about transparency, honesty and integrity. On October 17, Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer, Robert T. Fraley, a scientist with Syngenta, along with a third scientist from private industry, were awarded the World Food Prize10 at a fancy red carpet event. The prize, totalling $250,000, was awarded for “feeding a growing global population.”

A testament to growing public awareness on these issues, the move was widely ridiculed as a joke taken straight from the parody publication The Onion. Why? Well, first of all, Monsanto itself donated $5 million to the fund. Syngenta is also a financial backer. Besides such obvious conflicts of interest, Eric Holt-Gimenez of Food First11 commented that awarding the World Food Prize to monopolies that profit from hunger is like giving the Nobel Peace prize for going to war—noting, with some irony, that this too has been done in the recent past…

“The World Food Prize has become a corporate celebration of self,” he writes. “Even The New York Times12 suggested that this award may be a PR attempt to counter the growing global backlash against GMOs. It is also an effort to fibrillate the industry’s flat economic performance that has followed the heady days of the 2008-09 food crisis (in which they made record profits while a billion people were pushed into the ranks of the hungry).”

Kuai Ousts GMOs

While Big Biotech pays their lackeys to pat themselves on the back, yet another area of the world has taken a firm stand against genetically engineered foods. According to the Huffington Post:13

“After a marathon hearing, the Kauai County Council passed a hotly debated bill… that could lead to prison time or fines for employees of agricultural companies if they don’t divulge specifics about pesticide use, abide by strict setback rules for spraying chemicals or disclose when they grow genetically engineered crops… The law is set to take effect in nine months — with or without the mayor’s signature, because bills receiving five or more votes are veto-proof.

… Attorneys for the biotech companies said during the hearings that aspects of the bill are ‘vague and ambiguous’ or amount to an ‘illegal taking’ of property. Council members said that they expect biotech companies to file lawsuits in response to the bill’s passage. (Small farmers are exempt from the bill’s pesticide provisions.)

Earlier this month, nine local attorneys, including prominent environmental lawyers, released a statement urging council members not to bow to pressure from the biotech companies. ‘We believe that Bill 2491 is sound, and the mere threat of a lawsuit by industry interests should not prevent the council from taking action they believe is important to their community,’ the statement read.”

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

Donate Today!

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting!
For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

Leave a Comment more...

Fatal Flaws in Federal Nutrition Guidelines Promote Obesity

by on Oct.26, 2013, under Health

By Dr. Mercola

According to a new study1 by the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, 40 years of the NHANES American nutrition research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be completely invalid.

The reason for this, the researchers say, is because the method used to collect the nutrition data is seriously flawed. According to the study’s lead author, exercise scientist and epidemiologist Edward Archer:2

“These results suggest that without valid population-level data, speculations regarding the role of energy intake in the rise in the prevalence of obesity are without empirical support.”

It’s no secret that childhood obesity has become a lethal epidemic in the US and many other parts of the world. The trend is so serious, some food advocates, like British chef Jamie Oliver,3 are taking more “dramatic” measures to inspire a collective and cultural U-turn.

Above is the first episode of Oliver’s TV show Food Revolution, which began airing in 2010. A major part of the problem, which Oliver addresses head-on, is that our food culture has changed so drastically over the last 30 years that a majority of today’s youth do not know what fresh, whole food is.

They don’t know where food comes from, or what the food they do eat is made of. Even many adults are at a loss when it comes to understanding the difference between synthetic chemicals added to foods during processing, and bioavailable nutrients found in unprocessed foods.

Tackling one town at a time, Oliver is on a mission to reeducate the masses about what real food is, and how to cook meals that will promote health and longevity rather than obesity and chronic disease. I’m hard-pressed to think of a more noble effort. But as you will see, it’s not an easy task.

Resistance to change—even positive, life-affirming change—can be fierce, and when it comes to altering school lunches, it’s made worse by having to adhere to federal nutritional guidelines that are fatally flawed in more ways than one.

According to the featured study, caloric intake has been under reported for the past four decades, and the rise in obesity isn’t necessarily a side effect of increasing calorie consumption—it might just be an artifact of slight improvements in the reporting.

If that’s true, then what is really at the root of the obesity problem? Not addressed in this study is the fact that the entire “calorie in/calorie out” hypothesis is a myth as well! You don’t get fat because you eat too many calories. You gain weight because you eat the wrong kind of calories, which I’ll get into in a moment.

Federal Nutrition Data Found to Be ‘Physiologically Implausible’

In the US, nutrition and health data is compiled by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).4 It collects self-reported food and beverage consumption data of children and adults, along with physical examinations to evaluate the health status of the participants. This information is then used by researchers studying the effects of nutrition and diet on the health of Americans.

Now, researchers evaluating the NHANES data and collection methods have concluded that the data is simply “not physiologically credible,” and that blaming obesity on excessive calorie consumption is “without empirical support.” According to the featured article:5

“The study6 examined data from 28,993 men and 34,369 women, 20 to 74 years old, from NHANES I (1971 – 1974) through NHANES (2009 – 2010), and looked at the caloric intake of the participants and their energy expenditure, predicted by height, weight, age and sex.

The results show that – based on the self-reported recall of food and beverages — the vast majority of the NHANES data ‘are physiologically implausible, and therefore invalid,’ Archer said. In other words, the ‘calories in’ reported by participants and the ‘calories out,’ don’t add up and it would be impossible to survive on most of the reported energy intakes.

This misreporting of energy intake varied among participants, and was greatest in obese men and women who underreported their intake by an average 25 percent and 41 percent (i.e., 716 and 856 calories per-day respectively).”

The failure to provide accurate estimates of Americans’ habitual caloric consumption can have far-reaching ramifications when it comes to federal nutritional guidelines. First of all, it points out the limited ability to create public policy that accurately reflects the connections between diet and health.

It also suggests that much of the nutritional research produced over the past four decades is unreliable at best, as it’s not an accurate reflection of people’s actual calorie intake. According to Archer:

“The nation’s major surveillance tool for studying the relationships between nutrition and health is not valid. It is time to stop spending tens of millions of health research dollars collecting invalid data and find more accurate measures.”

Reality Check—Health Is Dependent on Real Food

I agree we should stop wasting money on collecting invalid data. The question is, what would constitute “more accurate measures”? I’ve long advocated against counting calories at all, as they’re a poor way to evaluate the actual healthfulness of your meal.

You’re not going to improve your health by eating fewer cookies than you did before if your entire diet consists of different kinds of pastries. If you really want to lose weight and, more importantly, improve your health, then you must replace “empty” calories from processed, denatured foods with nutrients from real, whole foods—especially healthful fats, which I’ll address below.

Three decades ago, the food available was mostly fresh and grown locally. Today, the majority of foods served, whether at home, in school or in restaurants, are highly processed foods, filled with sugars and chemical additives. During that same time, childhood obesity has more than tripled. In the US, more than one-third of children and adolescents are now overweight or obese.

Regardless of whether our federal nutrition guidelines are based on accurate calorie intake or not, cutting down on calories alone is not going to fix the problem of childhood obesity and the alarming rise of chronic disease in children and teens. Children need to be fed properly, and Oliver’s TV show clearly pinpoints what’s wrong with the American diet.

Why Counting Calories Doesn’t Work

In a nutshell, it’s FAR more important to look at the source of the calories than counting them. Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT need 45-65 percent of your daily calories in the form of carbs, as recommended by the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.7

It’s these kinds of nutritional guidelines that are responsible for promoting obesity in the first place! It would be one thing if the recommendation was that half of your diet should consist of vegetable carbs, but that’s not the case. No, the federal recommendations for carbs touted by health agencies and nutritionists around the country include starches, fiber, grains, sugar alcohols, and naturally-occurring and added sugars—the very things that drive obesity and chronic disease rates skyward… According to the 2010 Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,8 the top 10 sources of calories in the American diet are:

1. Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars), 139 calories a day 6. Alcoholic beverages
2. Yeast breads, 129 calories a day 7. Pasta and pasta dishes
3. Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes, 121 calories a day 8. Mexican mixed dishes
4. Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks, 114 calories a day 9. Beef and beef-mixed dishes
5. Pizza, 98 calories a day 10. Dairy desserts

Looking at this list, it should be fairly easy to see the dietary roots of the American weight problem. Four of the top five sources of calories are carbs—sugars (primarily fructose) and grains—just as recommended. And while soda has dropped down to number four (it used to be number one), I still believe a lot of people, particularly teenagers, probably get a majority of their calories from sugary beverages like soda.

To Optimize Your Health, Pay Attention to the SOURCE of Your Calories

In order to curb the current obesity epidemic, we do not need more accurate reporting of calories; we need to start focusing on eating the right kind of calories. I firmly believe that the primary keys for successful weight management and optimal health are:

Severely restricting carbohydrates (sugars, fructose, and grains) in your diet
Increasing healthy fat consumption
Unlimited consumption of non starchy vegetables. Because they are so low calorie, the majority of the food on your plate will be vegetables
Limit the use of protein to less than one half gram per pound of body weight
Healthful fat can be rich in calories, but these calories will not affect your body in the same way as calories from non-vegetable carbs. As explained by Dr. Robert Lustig, fructose in particular 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. Eating dietary fat isn’t what’s making you pack on the pounds. It’s the sugar/fructose and grains that are adding the padding.

So please, don’t fall for the low-fat myth, as this too is a factor in the rise in chronic health problems such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s. Your brain, heart and cardiovascular system need healthy fat for optimal functioning. In fact, emerging evidence suggests most people need at least half of their daily calories from healthy fat, and possibly as high as 70 percent. My personal diet is about 60-70 percent healthy fat. Add to that a small to medium amount of high-quality protein and plenty of vegetables. You actually need very few carbs besides vegetables; so you see, the federal guidelines are about as lopsided as they could be… pushing you toward obesity and poor health, if you follow them.

Hunger Can Be Used as a Guide to Determine How Much Fat You Need

Many do not realize this, but frequent hunger may be a major clue that you’re not eating correctly and are using carbs as your primary fuel. Not only is it an indication that you’re consuming the wrong types of food, but it’s also a sign that you’re likely consuming them in lopsided ratios for your individual biochemistry, and the timing of your eating may benefit from adjustment. Fat is far more satiating than carbs, so if you have cut down on carbs and feel ravenous, thinking you “can’t do without the carbs,” remember this is a sign that you haven’t replaced them with sufficient amounts of fat. So go ahead and add a bit more. You do want to make sure you’re adding the correct types of fat though. And vegetable oils like canola and corn oil, with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends is NOT on the healthy list… Sources of healthy fats include:

Olives and olive oil Coconuts and coconut oil Butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk
Raw nuts, such as almonds or pecans Organic pastured egg yolks Avocados
Grass-fed meats Palm oil Unheated organic nut oils

Another healthful fat you want to be mindful of is animal-based omega-3. Deficiency in this essential fat can cause or contribute to very serious health problems, both mental and physical, and may be a significant underlying factor of up to 96,000 premature deaths each year. For more information about omega-3s and the best sources of this fat, please review this previous article.

Healthy Eating Starts at Home

Home used to be the heart of passing on food culture. This rarely happens anymore, and children are suffering the consequences. School lunches also used to be far more nutritious. Today, as evidenced in the video above, most of the food served at school is processed food, requiring only to be reheated.

Sadly, many parents today don’t even know how to cook with fresh ingredients, because their parents embraced the novel convenience of the TV dinner back in the 50s. I’ve said this for many years, and it’s worth repeating many times over because it’s one of the main solutions to the obesity epidemic—Cook your food from scratch, at home!

Many people are under the mistaken impression that cooking from scratch is an extremely complicated affair that takes lots of time and costs more than they could possibly afford. Part of Jamie Oliver’s mission is to show the fallacy of this kind of thinking. There are plenty of sources for simple recipes, many of which are free if you have access to the internet. In a previous article, Colleen Huber offers a list of helpful guidelines on how to cook whole food from scratch while keeping your day job.

It does require some pre-planning in many cases, but remember that learning to plan your meals may actually reduce your stress levels rather than increase them! Many people resort to fast foods and processed foods simply because they’re too frazzled at the end of their work day to figure out what to cook. Planning a menu and shopping ahead could actually turn meal time into a more relaxed time spent with family.

Also, remember that whatever money you think you’re saving now by using processed foods, you’ll end up paying many times over later on when your health begins to fail. Proper nutrition, consisting mainly of whole, fresh foods, really is your number one health insurance policy. Likewise, children will not know which foods are healthy unless you, as a parent, teach it to them. Please, understand that poor eating habits at home, combined with poor food selections at school, may set your child up for long-term physical and behavioral problems.

Are You Trying to Eat Healthy on a Budget?

While it may not be immediately obvious for people who have grown up relying on ready-made, pre-packaged foods and snacks, you can replace those foods with something equally satisfying that will support, rather than wreck, your health. This requires some strategy, especially if you’re working with a tight budget, but it can be done:

Identify a person to prepare meals. Someone has to invest some time in the kitchen. It will be necessary for either you, your spouse, or perhaps someone in your family prepare the meals from locally grown healthful foods. This includes packing lunches for your kids to take to school.
Become resourceful: This is an area where your grandmother can be a wealth of information, as how to use up every morsel of food and stretch out a good meal was common knowledge to generations past. Seek to get back to the basics of cooking – using the bones from a roast chicken to make stock for a pot of soup, extending a Sunday roast to use for weekday dinners, learning how to make hearty stews from inexpensive cuts of meat, using up leftovers and so on.
Plan your meals: If you fail to plan you are planning to fail. This is essential, as you will need to be prepared for mealtimes in advance to be successful. Ideally, this will involve scouting out your local farmer’s markets for in-season produce that is priced to sell, and planning your meals accordingly, but you can also use this same premise with supermarket sales.
You can generally plan a week of meals at a time, make sure you have all ingredients necessary on hand, and then do any prep work you can ahead of time so that dinner is easy to prepare if you’re short on time in the evenings.

It is no mystery that you will be eating lunch around noon every day so rather than rely on fast food at work, before you go to bed make a plan as to what you are going to take to work the next day. This is a marvelous simple strategy that will let you eat healthier, especially if you take healthy food from home in to work.

Avoid food waste: According to a study published in the journal PloS One, Americans waste an estimated 1,400 calories of food per person, each and every day. The two steps above will help you to mitigate food waste in your home. You may also have seen my article titled “14 Ways to Save Money on Groceries.” Among those tips are suggestions for keeping your groceries fresher, longer, and I suggest reviewing those tips now.
Buy organic animal foods. The most important foods to buy organic are animal, not vegetable, products (meat, eggs, butter, etc.), because animal foods tend to concentrate pesticides in higher amounts. If you cannot afford to buy all of your food organic, opt for organic animal foods first.
Keep costs down on grass-fed beef. Pasture-finished beef is far healthier than grain-fed beef (which I don’t recommend consuming). To keep cost down, look for inexpensive roasts or ground meat. You may also save money by buying an entire side of beef (or splitting one with two or three other families), if you have enough freezer space to store it.
Buy in bulk when non-perishable items go on sale. If you are fortunate to live near a buyer’s club or a co-op, you may also be able to take advantage of buying by the pound from bins, saving both you and the supplier the cost of expensive packaging.
Frequent farmer’s markets or grow your own produce. You may be surprised to find out that by going directly to the source you can get amazingly healthy, locally grown, organic food for less than you can find at your supermarket. This gives you the best of both worlds: food that is grown near to you, cutting down on its carbon footprint and giving you optimal freshness, as well as grown without chemicals, genetically modified seeds, and other potential toxins.
Just as restaurants are able to keep their costs down by getting food directly from a supplier, you, too, can take advantage of a direct farm-to-consumer relationship, either on an individual basis or by joining a food coop in your area. Many farmer’s markets are also now accepting food stamps, so this is an opportunity most everyone can join in on.

Leave a Comment more...

Ward Off Brain Shrinkage by Boosting Your Intake of These Nutrients

by on Oct.26, 2013, under Health

Posted by John Phillip
Alzheimer’s disease is pathologically characterized as a reduction in brain volume, commonly referred to as shrinkage, as well as amyloid protein tangles that prevent efficient communication between neurons by altering chemical and electrical signaling.

While select nutrients effectively cross the blood-brain barrier to counteract reduced brain volume and naturally clear protein clumps that threaten memory retention and normal cognitive well being, one class of vitamins continues to outshine the rest with its ability to reduce brain shrinkage.

B Vitamins Lower Homocysteine Levels to Help Prevent Brain Shrinkage, Dementia and Heart Disease

Researchers from the University of Oxford, publishing the result of a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences have determined that high-dose B-vitamin treatment can slow the atrophy of specific brain regions that are a key component of the Alzheimer’s disease process commonly associated with cognitive decline. Prior studies have identified elevated levels of the protein amino acid know as homocysteine with significantly increased risk of depression and development of dementia. Homocysteine is a toxic breakdown compound that is elevated in the blood due to a diet high in animal proteins, and also contributes to increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Elevated homocysteine levels persist when intake of the B vitamins, folic acid and B-12 are limited, commonly seen with a diet high in animal protein and lacking in vegetables and fruits. To conduct the study, scientists evaluated 156 elderly people with mild cognitive impairment. 80 participants were given a combination of vitamin B-12 (500 mcg), B-6 (20 mg) and folic acid for a period of two years. A second group received placebo pills.

Reduce Consumption of Animal Proteins and Supplement Daily with a High-Potency B-Vitamin Complex

Researchers found that those receiving the B vitamin treatment s demonstrated significantly less brain shrinkage as compared to the placebo group. Lead study author, Dr. David Smith commented, “In those with high homocysteine levels… disease shrank eight times more slowly in those taking B vitamins than in those on the placebo… this is strongly indicative that the B vitamins may be substantially slowing down, or even potentially arresting, the disease process in those with early stage cognitive decline.”

The research team noted that this is the first Alzheimer’s disease treatment shown to potentially arrest the advancement of pathology and symptoms, with no toxic pharmaceuticals or side effects. Dr. Smith concluded, “This makes the need for early screening for the first signs of cognitive decline from the age of 50… our study shows that those with a homocysteine level above 10mcmol/l, which is about half of all people over age 65, potentially may benefit with reduced brain shrinkage by taking high dose B6, B12 and folic acid.” Men and women over the age of 35 should have their homocysteine levels checked annually, and supplement daily with a high potency B-vitamin complex to dramatically lower the risk of developing dementia and cardiovascular disease.

John Phillip is a Certified Nutritional Consultant and diet, health and nutrition researcher and author with a passion for understanding weight loss challenges and encouraging health modification through natural diet, lifestyle and targeted supplementation. John’s passion is to research and write about the cutting edge alternative health technologies that affect our lives. Discover the latest alternative health news concerning diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia and weight loss at My Optimal Health Resource

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!


A few highly recommended websites...