Rather Be Healthy

Corn and soy—much of which are genetically engineered—are rapidly overtaking native grasslands in a number of US states. This is a trend that may have a not-so-insignificant impact on our environment and subsequently, our ability to secure our food supply long-term.

As discussed in a recent Mother Jones article,1 this conversion of grasslands to crop fields is the exact opposite of what might be in our best interest.

“…we should push Midwestern farmers to switch a chunk of their corn land into pasture for cows,” the featured article states.

“The idea came from a paper2 by University of Tennessee and Bard College researchers, who calculated that such a move could suck up massive amounts of carbon in soil—enough to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture by 36 percent.

In addition to the CO2 reductions, you’d also get a bunch of high-quality, grass-fed beef… Turns out the Midwest are doing just the opposite.”

Federal Policy Worsens Environmental Concerns

According to a recently published paper3 by South Dakota State University researchers, grasslands in the Western corn belt, which includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska, is being lost at a rate “comparable to deforestation rates in Brazil, Malaysia, and Indonesia.”

Between 2006 and 2011, nearly 2 million acres of friendly native grasses have been lost to corn and soy—two of the staples in processed foods that are driving chronic disease rates in an ever steepening upward incline. The same thing is happening in South America, where native forests are leveled in order to plant soy.

The researchers claim the land being converted into corn and soy fields is actually much better suited for grazing than crop agriculture, as it is “characterized by high erosion risk and vulnerability to drought.” So why would farmers opt to use such risky land for their crops?

According to the featured article:

“Simple: Federal policy has made it a high-reward, tiny-risk proposition. Prices for corn and soy doubled in real terms between 2006 and 2011, the authors note, driven up by federal corn-ethanol mandates and relentless Wall Street speculation.

Then there’s federally subsidized crop insurance, the authors add. When farmers manage to tease a decent crop out of their marginal land, they’re rewarded with high prices for their crop. But if the crop fails, subsidized insurance guarantees a decent return.

Essentially, federal farm policy, through the ethanol mandate and the insurance program, is underwriting the expansion of corn and soy agriculture at precisely the time it should be shrinking.”

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released a report titled: “Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States.” According to the report, our current agricultural system, which is dominated by corn and soy, is unsustainable in the long term. Should temperatures rise as predicted, the US could expect to see significant declines in yields.

Unfortunately, the USDA failed to analyze how reliance on monoculture might heighten our vulnerability to devastating crop loss. As a general rule though, the more crop diversity you have, the greater your food security, as different crops are affected differently. Our dependence on two primary crops is a recipe for disaster.

Monoculture—A Tremendous Threat to Global Food Security

The “faster, bigger, cheaper” approach to food is slowly draining dry our planet’s resources and compromising your health. The Earth’s soil is depleting at more than 13 percent the rate it can be replaced, and we’ve already lost 75 percent of the world’s crop varieties over the last century.

In the words of Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma and a number of other bestsellers: “Mother Nature destroys monocultures.” What is a monoculture? Monoculture (or monocropping) is defined as the high-yield agricultural practice of growing a single crop year after year on the same land, in the absence of rotation through other crops. Corn, soybeans, wheat, and to some degree rice, are the most common crops grown with monocropping techniques. In fact, corn, wheat and rice now account for 60 percent of human caloric intake, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.4 According to an article on GreenFudge.org, monoculture is detrimental to the environment for a number of reasons, including the following:
•It damages soil ecology by depleting and reducing the diversity of soil nutrients
•It creates an unbuffered niche for parasitic species to take over, making crops more vulnerable to opportunistic pathogens that can quickly wipe out an entire crop
•It increases dependency on chemical pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
•It increases reliance on expensive specialized farm equipment and machinery that require heavy use of fossil fuels
•It destroys biodiversity

By contrast, polyculture (the traditional rotation of crops and livestock) better serves both land and people. Polyculture evolved to meet the complete nutritional needs of a local community. Polyculture, when done mindfully, automatically replenishes what is taken out, which makes it sustainable with minimal effort. Unfortunately, government subsidies and fervent lobbying to favor patented seeds drive the monoculture train; the goal of which is to maximize profits as quickly and for as long as possible… At stake is our entire food supply, not to mention farmers who don’t want to use patented seed.

Monsanto: Why We Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds

In a recent article in CropLife,5 Monsanto “provides the ‘justification’ they use to explain why they are forced to protect their innovation.”

“Patents are necessary to ensure that Monsanto is paid for its products and all the investments it puts into developing products. This is one of the basic reasons for patents. A more important reason is to help foster innovation. Without the protection of patents there would be little incentive for privately-owned companies to pursue and re-invest in innovation. Monsanto invests more than $2.6 million per day in research and development that ultimately benefits farmers and consumers. Without the protection of patents, this would not be possible,” the article reads.

Contrary to the “law of nature,” when you purchase patented seed, such as those sold by Monsanto, you have to sign an agreement confirming you will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed you buy. This means you have to repurchase new seed from them each season, opposed to the ancient practice of saving seed from one season’s harvest to plant the next. However, patented crops don’t know they’re not supposed to spread like natural ones… Farms can easily become contaminated by wind- or insect-carried pollen from GE fields, thereby opening farmers up to patent infringement lawsuits.

Monsanto has aggressively waged war against farmers whose only crime was to grow crops out in the open… According to a report6 by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Monsanto had, as of December 2012, filed 142 patent infringement lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in more than 27 states. All in all, Monsanto has been awarded a staggering $23 million from their mafia tactics so far.7

According to Monsanto, only nine cases have gone through full trial, and in each of those cases, the jury or court decided in Monsanto’s favor. I’m sure it helps to have some of the most high-paid legal firms in the country representing them, and also to have insiders in the halls of justice… Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,8 appointed to the Supreme Court in 1991, is in fact a former Monsanto attorney. And he has yet to rule against his former employer.

Monsanto vs. Bowman

Not all cases are related to contamination however. On February 19, the US Supreme Court began hearing the appeal of 75-year old Indiana soybean farmer Vernon Bowman, in which he disputes Monsanto’s claim that his farm used the patented seeds without authorization. The central issue in this case is the extent that a patent holder can control its use through multiple generations of seed.9 According to a recent press release:10

“Farmer Bowman legally purchased seeds at a grain elevator, which bought them from farmers who had, with Monsanto’s authorization, used the genetically modified Monsanto seeds to grow their soybean crops. Monsanto claims that Mr. Bowman infringed its patents on herbicide-resistant plants and seeds by using the grain elevator seeds to grow his soybean crops. Mr. Bowman asserts that Monsanto’s sales of the original seeds to authorized purchasers exhausted Monsanto’s patent rights and therefore Monsanto cannot enforce its patents against second-generation and later seeds that resulted from planting the original seeds.”

So far, none of the Justices have been impressed with Bowman’s appeal. In fact, just seconds into Bowman’s attorney’s opening arguments, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted him by asking “why anyone would ever patent anything if Bowman were to prevail?” And just moments after that, Justice Breyer openly stated that “Bowman had infringed” on Monsanto’s patent, as if the case was already decided. In a summary of the case, patent attorney and founder of IPWatchdog, Gene Quinn, writes:11

“Justice Breyer, harkening back to the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, said: ‘There are three generations of seeds. Maybe three generations of seeds is enough.’ Justice Breyer acknowledged that it was a bad joke. Certainly a politically incorrect joke. The ‘joke’ referred to Holmes’ 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell,12 which was a case of forced sterilization. Holmes concluded in that case: ‘Three generations of imbeciles are enough.’”

Indeed, making light of the government’s right to sterilize mentally handicapped people is not just a bad joke, it’s a sick one when you consider that the case in question (Buck vs Bell) basically concluded that it’s okay for the federal government to sterilize whomever they want—primarily those they consider ‘imbeciles.’ In Buck vs Bell, Holmes made the case that so long as government can force vaccination, it can force sterilization. If they can force medical procedures on your body, what rights do you really have? Now they are establishing that corporations have a right to patent not just one life, but the future generations as well

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes… Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached.”

Jokes aside about government’s rights to do with life as it pleases, the Court appears sold on protecting patent rights for seeds through multiple generations. The judges’ decision will come by the end of June 2013. My guess is the Supreme Court only took this case to clearly protect the future of genetic engineering, and the rights to their products and of future generations. Justice Breyer and Justice Holmes appear to have a lot in common, and Americans can expect another moral injustice to our laws.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. 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. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

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, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•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.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Air pollution and chemicals found in common household and personal care goods are major sources of exposure that can lead to an accumulation of toxins in your body.

Forbes Magazine1 recently listed the 20 most polluted cities in the US. Topping the list is Fresno, California, where inhabitants are exposed to both groundwater pollution from agriculture and the worst year-round air particle pollution in the nation.

Number two and three on the list are Bakersfield, CA, the oil capital of the US, and Philadelphia, PA, known for its foul-smelling refineries and chemical plants.

The best advice I could give you should you happen to live in a heavily polluted area is to move, but I realize that isn’t always a practical option.

It’s tough to address environmental issues that you don’t have control over. It’s better to focus most of your attention on your immediate environment, which you have more, if not full, control over. After all, what you put on, in, and keep around your body on a daily basis is going to have the greatest impact on your health.

Landmark Study Links Common Household Chemicals to Human Disease

A typical American comes in regular contact with some 6,000 chemicals and an untold number of potentially toxic substances on a less frequent basis. There are about 75,000 chemicals regularly manufactured and imported by U.S. industries, so you could be exposed to any number of them. Disturbingly, many of them have never been fully tested for safety.

Some of the most pervasive chemicals are used in plastic products, and are known as endocrine disrupters. These chemicals are similar in structure to natural sex hormones, thereby interfering with their normal functions.

On February 19, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced2 a new report co-produced with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), titled: State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.

The report suggests aban of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) may be needed to protect the health of future generations. The joint study is touted as the most comprehensive report on EDCs to date, highlighting a wide variety of health problems associated with exposure, including:

Non-descended testes in young males

Breast cancer in women

Prostate cancer in men

Developmental effects on the nervous system in children

Attention deficit hyperactivity in children

Thyroid cancer

According to the report:

“The diverse systems affected by endocrine-disrupting chemicals likely include all hormonal systems and range from those controlling development and function of reproductive organs to the tissues and organs regulating metabolism and satiety. Effects on these systems can lead to obesity, infertility or reduced fertility, learning and memory difficulties, adult-onset diabetes or cardiovascular disease, as well as a variety of other diseases.”

The High Price of ‘Convenience’ Products…

The joint study flags several of the most common culprits, including Bisphenol-A (BPA), PCB’s, phthalates and agricultural pesticides. According to the report, animal studies have demonstrated that there’s “very strong evidence” BPA can interfere with thyroid hormones. Brain damage, decreased intelligence, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism were also found to be potential side effects. BPA is one of the world’s highest production-volume chemicals and is widely used in the production of:

Plastic water bottles

Tooth sealants

Plastic gallon milk bottles

Canned foods and soda cans (most have plastic lining in the cans)

Plastic microwavable plates, ovenware, and utensils

Baby toys, bottles, pacifiers, and sippy cups

Beware that many manufacturers have simply replaced BPA with bisphenol-S (BPS), an equally toxic chemical.3 Studies now show BPS is showing up in human urine concentrations at levels similar to those of BPA–an indication that manufacturers are simply switching one for the other, while still being able to advertise their products as “BPA-free.” A 2012 study4 found 81 percent of those tested from the United States and seven Asian countries had BPS in their urine.

An even more recent study5 has raised the alarm on BPS, showing the chemical estrogenic activity comparable to estradiol, the most potent human estrogen. It was also found to be capable of enhancing estradiol-mediated cell signaling, making it a particularly potent endocrine disruptor. Furthermore, the study showed BPS can induce apoptosis (cell death) and interfere with cellular secretion of prolactin (PRL)—a hormone that regulates hundreds of biological functions, including metabolism, reproduction and lactation.

Another chemical used in the manufacturing of plastics is phthalates, which make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They’re also one of the most pervasive endocrine disrupters so far discovered. These chemicals have increasingly become associated with changes in the development of the male brain as well as with genital defects, metabolic abnormalities and reduced testosterone in babies and adults. Phthalates are found in, among other things:

Processed food packaging

Lubricant and adhesives

Hoses

Detergents

Raincoats

Beauty products like nail polish, hair spray, shampoo, deodorants, and fragrances

Shower curtains

Cosmetics

Vinyl flooring and wall coverings

Toys

Three More Common Chemicals to Avoid…

“Research has made great strides in the last ten years showing endocrine disruption to be far more extensive and complicated than realized a decade ago. As science continues to advance, it is time for both management of endocrine disrupting chemicals and further research on exposure and effects of these chemicals in wildlife and humans.” said Åke Bergman, Chief Editor of the report.

If you’ve been a longtime reader of this newsletter, the findings of this UN report come as no surprise. Rather it’s a “better late than never” type confirmation that the evidence truly has stacked up to the point of being undeniable. Those of you who took action when these fears were initially raised are now years ahead of your friends and family. In addition to BPAs and phthalates, the following three are among the most widely used chemicals around that should be avoided as much as possible:
•PFOA: Non-stick cookware is the primary source of dangerous perfluorinated chemicals (PFOAs). Non-stick pans quickly reach temperatures that cause the coating to begin breaking down, releasing toxins that have been linked to cancer, birth defects and thyroid disease into the air in your kitchen. I highly recommend you throw away this type of cookware immediately and replace it with either ceramic or glass. My personal choice is ceramic cookware, because it’s very durable and easy to clean, and there’s virtually no risk of exposure to harmful chemicals.
•Formaldehyde: Formaldehyde, most commonly known as embalming fluid, serves a number of purposes in manufactured products. It is actually frequently used in fabrics to give them a variety of “easy care properties” as well as being a common component of pressed-wood products. Formaldehyde has been shown to cause cancer in animals, and may cause cancer in humans. Other common adverse health effects include fatigue, skin rashes, and allergic reactions. Choosing all natural materials for your clothing and furniture can help cut down on your exposure.

It would be also be wise to avoid all aspartame, as well as bottled or canned fruit juices as they have methanol which your body converts to formaldehyde. This is even more dangerous than the formaldehyde in products, as your body carries the methanol like a Trojan horse to sensitive tissues like your brain where an enzyme converts it to formaldehyde.
•PBDEs: These flame-retardant chemicals have been linked to altered thyroid levels, decreased fertility and numerous problems with development when exposure occurs in utero. PBDEs are commonly found in household items like upholstery and television and computer housings. Fortunately, several states now ban the use of PBDEs, so there is some progress toward reducing exposure.

Another common source of PBDEs is your mattress, and since you can spend up to a third of your life in bed, this is a significant health concern. Mattress manufacturers are not required to label or disclose which chemicals their mattresses contain. Look for 100 percent wool, toxin-free mattresses. Another viable option is to look for a mattress that uses a Kevlar, bullet-proof type of material in lieu of chemicals for fire-proofing. Stearns and Foster uses this process for their mattresses, which is sufficient to pass fire safety standards.

What Can You do to Reduce Unnecessary Chemical Exposure to Your Family?

Rather than compile an endless list of what you should avoid, it’s far easier to focus on what you should do to lead a healthy lifestyle with as minimal a chemical exposure as possible:
1.As much as possible, buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic foods to reduce your exposure to pesticides and fertilizers.
2.Rather than eating conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury, supplement with a high-quality purified krill oil, or eat fish that is wild-caught and lab tested for purity.
3.Eat mostly raw, fresh foods, steering clear of processed, prepackaged foods of all kinds. This way you automatically avoid artificial food additives, including dangerous artificial sweeteners, food coloring and MSG.
4.Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap and canned foods (which are often lined with BPA-containing liners).
5.Have your tap water tested and, if contaminants are found, install an appropriate water filter on all your faucets (even those in your shower or bath).
6.Only use natural cleaning products in your home.
7.Switch over to natural brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group has a great database6 to help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals. I also offer one of the highest quality organic skin care lines, shampoo and conditioner, and body butter that are completely natural and safe.
8.Avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances.
9.Replace your non-stick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
10.When redoing your home, look for “green,” toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings.
11.Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric, or install a glass shower door. Most all flexible plastics, like shower curtains, contain dangerous plasticizers like phthalates.
12.Limit your use of drugs (prescription and over-the-counter) as much as possible. Drugs are chemicals too, and they will leave residues and accumulate in your body over time.
13.Avoid spraying pesticides around your home or insect repellants that contain DEET on your body. There are safe, effective and natural alternatives out there.

Limiting Chemical Exposure is Important for Optimal Health

It is important to make these positive and gradual steps toward decreasing your chemical risk through healthy lifestyle choices. While you make the switch to remove and reduce chemicals around your home, remember that one of the ways to significantly reduce your toxic load is to pay careful attention to what you eat.

Organically-grown, biodynamic whole foods are really the key to success here, and, as an added bonus, when you eat right, you’re also optimizing your body’s natural detoxification system, which can help eliminate toxins your body encounters from other sources.

Environmental pollution is a massive problem, but for most there aren’t many immediate solutions to address it. Your time is better spent focusing on your immediate environment; your home, and all the products you use or come in contact with on a daily basis. Cleaning that up can go a long way to reduce your toxic load, and hence decrease your risk of chemical-induced health problems. The costs of inaction and not regulating and removing these pernicious toxins from our lives will have tremendous long lasting deleterious, health, environmental and economic costs. For more detailed reports you can review two comprehensive PDFs on the topic.
•Global Chemical Outlook and the
•The Cost of Inaction on the Sound Management of Chemicals

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Ketogenic Diet May Be Key to Cancer Recovery

To some, a ketogenic diet amounts to nothing less than a drug-free cancer treatment. The diet calls for eliminating carbohydrates, replacing them with healthy fats and protein.

The premise is that since cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and carbohydrates turn into glucose in your body, then cutting out carbs literally starves the cancer cells.

This type of diet, in which you replace carbs with moderate amounts of high quality protein and high amounts of beneficial fat, is what I recommend for everyone, whether you have cancer or not. It’s simply a diet that will help optimize your weight and health overall, as eating this way will help you convert from carb burning mode to fat burning.

Ketogenic Diet May Be Key to Brain Cancer Recovery

The featured video shows Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D, who is one of the leaders in teasing the details of how to treat cancer nutritionally. I am scheduled to interview him shortly and hope to have that interview up later this year. In the video, Professor Seyfried discusses how, as a metabolic disorder involving the dysregulation of respiration, malignant brain cancer can be managed through changes in the metabolic environment.

“In contrast to normal neurons and glia, which transition to ketone bodies (beta-hydroxybutyrate) for respiratory energy when glucose levels are reduced, malignant brain tumors are mostly dependent on non-oxidative substrate level phosphorylation due to structural and functional abnormalities in mitochondria. Glucose and glutamine are major fuels for malignant cancer cells.

The transition from glucose to ketone bodies as an energy source is an ancestrally conserved adaptation to food deprivation that permits the survival of normal cells during extreme shifts in nutritional environment. Only those cells with a flexible genome, honed through millions of years of environmental forcing and variability selection, can transition from one energy state to another.

We propose a different approach to brain cancer management that exploits the metabolic flexibility of normal cells at the expense of the genetically defective and metabolically challenged. This evolutionary and metabolic approach to brain cancer management is supported from studies in orthotopic mouse brain tumor models and from case studies in patients.

Calorie restriction and restricted ketogenic diets (R-KD), which reduce circulating glucose levels and elevate ketone levels, are anti-invasive, anti-angiogenic, and pro-apoptotic towards malignant brain cancer.”1

Current conventional cancer treatment typically involves chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Chemotherapy is a cytotoxic poison, and radiation is devastating to the human body. More often than not, the treatment is what eventually kills the patient. This can no longer be accepted as “the best we can do.” As Dr. Seyfried says:

“The reason why we have so few people surviving is because of the standard of care. It has to be changed, if it’s not changed, there will be no major progress. Period.”

Metabolic Therapy/Ketogenic Diet Being Investigated as Cancer Treatment

CBN News recently published an article on the ketogenic diet.2 Clearly, many people are realizing that what we have been doing in terms of fighting cancer is simply not working, and we cannot afford to continue in the same way. Prevention must be addressed if we ever want to turn the tide on the growing incidence of cancer across all age groups. But even more astounding, in terms of treatment, is that cancer may respond to diet alone.

“Dr. Fred Hatfield is an impressive guy: a power-lifting champion, author of dozens of books, a millionaire businessman with a beautiful wife. But he’ll tell you his greatest accomplishment is killing his cancer just in the nick of time,” CBN News writes. “The doctors gave me three months to live because of widespread metastatic cancer in my skeletal structure,” he recalled. “Three months; three different doctors told me that same thing.”

Dr. Hatfield was preparing to die when he heard of metabolic therapy, also known as the ketogenic diet. He had nothing to lose so he gave it a try, and… it worked. The cancer disappeared completely, and at the time of his interview (above), he’d been cancer-free for over a year.

The video above also features Dr. Dominic D’Agostino who, along with a team of researchers at the University of South Florida studies metabolic therapy. They found that when lab animals were fed a carb-free diet, they survived highly aggressive metastatic cancer better than those treated with chemotherapy. CBN reports:

“’We have dramatically increased survival with metabolic therapy,’ [Dr. D’Agostino] said. ‘So we think it’s important to get this information out.’ It’s not just lab mice. Dr. D’Agostino has also seen similar success in people – lots of them. ‘I’ve been in correspondence with a number of people,’ he said. ‘At least a dozen over the last year-and-a-half to two years, and all of them are still alive, despite the odds. So this is very encouraging.’”

How Does Ketogenic Diet Starve Cancer Cells?

Dr. D’Agostino explains how the ketogenic diet can have such a dramatic (and rapid) effect on cancer. All of your body’s cells are fueled by glucose. This includes cancer cells. However, cancer cells have one built-in fatal flaw – they do not have the metabolic flexibility of your regular cells and cannot adapt to use ketone bodies for fuel as all your other cells can.

So, when you alter your diet and become what’s known as “fat-adapted,” your body starts using fat for fuel rather than carbs. When you switch out the carbs for healthy fats, you starve the cancer out, as you’re no longer supplying the necessary fuel – glucose – for their growth. As D’Agostino explains:

“Your normal cells have the metabolic flexibility to adapt from using glucose to using ketone bodies. But cancer cells lack this metabolic flexibility. So we can exploit that.”

I’ve previously discussed ways to “starve” cancer, and eliminating sugar/fructose and grains (ie carbohydrates) is at the very top of the list. It’s the most basic step without which few other dietary strategies are likely to succeed. In order to be effective, you must first STOP doing that which is promoting cancer growth (or poor health in general), and then all the other preventive strategies have the chance to really have an impact.

What Makes for a Cancer-Fighting Diet?

Please remember addressing your diet should be at the top of your list. Naturally, processed foods and soft drinks do not belong in a cancer-preventive diet, as they are loaded with carbs that turn into fuel for cancer cells. Carbs also raise your insulin and leptin levels, and keeping your insulin and leptin signaling healthy is imperative if you want to avoid chronic disease of all kinds, including cancer.

Processed foods may also contain trans fat – the only type of fat you really need to avoid like the plague. They are also loaded with omega-6 fats which the featured otherwise excellent video failed to mention. Increasing the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio is another potent way to increase your risk of cancer cell proliferation.

What About Protein?

One of my primary mentors in the importance of insulin and leptin, Dr. Rosedale. was one of the first professionals to advocate both a low-carb and moderate protein (and therefore high quality fat) diet. This was contrary to most low-carb advocates who were, and still are, very accepting of, if not promoting, high protein, as a replacement for the carbs.

If you or someone you know is challenged with cancer, the healthiest option may be to replace the carbs with beneficial fats, and limit your protein to high quality organic/pastured sources only. Dr. Rosedale advises 1 gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass which for most people will be about 50 grams of protein a day (or 0.5 grams per pound of lean body weight). While you can take carbs to very low levels in ketogenic diets, you must have some protein every day to replace your body’s requirements. The key is to add healthy fat to replace the carbs and excess protein.

Olives and Olive oil

Coconuts and coconut oil

Butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk

Organic raw nuts, especially macadamia nuts, which are low in protein and omega-6 fat

Organic pastured egg yolks and pastured meats

Avocados

The Fallacies of Fats and Carbs

Coincidentally, Dr. Robert Lustig – another expert on the dangers of high carb diets – was recently interviewed by NPR radio’s Science Friday segment.2 His new book, Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, tackles the persistent myths about fat that is endangering the health of millions. It’s difficult to know just how many people have suffered poor health because they followed conventional low-fat recommendations, but I’m sure the number is significant.

The fact is that you’ve been thoroughly misled when it comes to dietary advice. Still today, many doctors, nutritionists, and government health officials will tell you to avoid saturated fat and keep fat consumption to below 10 percent while keeping the bulk of your diet, about 60 percent, as carbs. This is madness, as it’s the converse of a diet that will lead to optimal health. As an example, you’ve probably seen the whole grain label, which is certified by the American Heart Association3 of all things. Do whole grains support heart health? Hardly. The following outtake from the transcript addresses this head on:

“Flatow: …there’s something that came out yesterday released from Harvard… and it talks about one of the most widely used industry standards, the wholegrain stamp. [It] actually identified grain products [bearing the stamp] were higher in both sugars and calories than products without the stamp.

Lustig: Absolutely. And to be honest with you, wholegrain doesn’t mean much… Basically what it means is you start with a whole grain; that is the starch on the inside, the kernel, or the husk or the bran on the outside, and then whatever you want to do with it is perfectly fine. It’s still a whole grain. So if you pulverize it and add sugar to it, hey it’s still a whole grain because that’s what you started with. But you know what? All the benefits you get from whole grain are gone as soon as you pulverize it. So…. what it means is irrelevant because the definition is not helpful.”

Other Lifestyle Factors that Influence Your Cancer Risk

Other lifestyle factors that have been found to have an impact on chronic disease and cancer include:
•Vitamin D: There’s overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. You can decrease your risk of cancer by more than half simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure or a safe tanning bed. And, if you are being treated for cancer, it is likely that higher blood levels – probably around 80-90 ng/ml – would be beneficial. To learn the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, please review my previous article, Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency. In terms of protecting against cancer, vitamin D has been found to offer protection in a number of ways, including:
◦Regulating genetic expression
◦Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
◦Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
◦Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
◦Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
•Getting proper sleep: both in terms of getting enough sleep, and sleeping between certain hours. According to Ayurvedic medicine, the ideal hours for sleep are between 10 pm and 6 am. Modern research has confirmed the value of this recommendation as certain hormonal fluctuations occur throughout the day and night, and if you engage in the appropriate activities during those times, you’re ‘riding the wave’ so to speak, and are able to get the optimal levels. Working against your biology by staying awake when you should ideally be sleeping or vice versa, interferes with these hormonal fluctuations.

There’s a spike of melatonin that occurs between midnight and 1am that you don’t want to miss because the consequences are absolutely spectacular. Melatonin is not only a sleep hormone, but it also is a very powerful antioxidant. It decreases the amount of estrogen your body produces, and boosts your immune system. It also interacts with other hormones. So, if you go to bed after 10, it can significantly increase your risk of breast cancer.
•Effectively addressing your stress: The research shows that if you experience a traumatic or highly stressful event, such as a death in the family, your risk of breast cancer is 12 times higher in the ensuing five years. I believe energy psychology tools are ideal to address stressors in your life. My favorite is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), but there are many others available as well.
•Exercise: If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn’t immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer.

One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells. Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Your immune system is your first line of defense against everything from minor illnesses like a cold right up to devastating, life-threatening diseases like cancer.

The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. This is why it is helpful to view exercise like a drug that needs to be carefully prescribed to achieve its maximum benefit. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.

Additionally it is likely that integrating exercise with intermittent fasting will greatly catalyze the potential of exercise to reduce your risk of cancer and stimulate widespread healing and rejuvenation.

You CAN Beat ‘the System’…

Cancer is the second most lethal disease in the US after heart disease (not counting iatrogenic mortality, aka “death by medicine”). We all know that the war on cancer has been a dismal failure. Tragically, conventional wisdom is blind when it comes to cancer prevention and treatment and hundreds of thousands die prematurely every year as a result. They have little to no appreciation of the concepts discussed in this article. But you don’t have to fall into that trap as you know better and can take control of your health and ability to treat cancer in your own hands.

The ketogenic diet, which can be summarized as a high-fat, moderate-protein, no-grain-carb diet, has brought many back to health, even after being diagnosed with aggressive cancer, and given no hope of survival. Hopefully, research by the likes of Dr. D’Agostino will become more widely known. Until then, do your own research and take control of your own health, and that of your family.

Severely limiting sugar/fructose, processed foods of all kinds, sweetened beverages (as well as diet versions), and replacing carbs with healthy fats and high quality protein can do what no medicine can – it can prevent disease from setting in, and may even be the U-turn you’re looking for if you’ve been diagnosed with cancer or other chronic disease. Add to that appropriate sun exposure, sleep, effective stress management, and regular exercise, and you’ll be well ahead of the rest of the population.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Practicing “mindfulness” means that you’re actively paying attention to the moment you’re in right now.

Rather than letting your mind wander, when you’re mindful you’re living in the moment and letting distracting thoughts pass through your mind without getting caught up in their emotional implications.

Though it sounds simple, it often takes a concerted effort to remain in a mindful state, especially if it’s new to you. But doing so can offer some very significant benefits to both your mental and physical health.

Improve Your Focus and Cognitive Function With Mindfulness

Imagine how different your day may be if you were 100-percent focused on each task at hand. Your work or school performance may improve, as might your ability to achieve virtually any goal you set out to accomplish, from teaching your child to read, to cooking dinner or finishing a workout at the gym.

Mindfulness can help you to achieve this state of undistracted focus, according to new research. In a study of college students who took either a mindfulness class or a nutrition class for two weeks, those who took the mindfulness class improved reading-comprehension test scores and working-memory capacity, as well as experienced fewer distracting thoughts.1

Researchers noted:

“Improvements in performance following mindfulness training were mediated by reduced mind wandering among participants who were prone to distraction at pretesting. Our results suggest that cultivating mindfulness is an effective and efficient technique for improving cognitive function, with wide-reaching consequences.”

How do You Learn Mindfulness?

Mindfulness training courses are now widely available, although you don’t necessarily need a formal class to be “mindful.” For instance, you can add mindfulness to your workouts by paying attention to the sensations you are experiencing while you exercise. Likewise, the mindfulness class used in the above-mentioned study used techniques such as the following to become more mindful:2
•Paying focused attention to an aspect of sensory experience, such as the sound of your own breathing
•Distinguishing between simple thoughts and those that are elaborated with emotion (such as “I have a test tomorrow” versus “What if I fail my test tomorrow and flunk my entire class?”)
•Reframing emotional thoughts as simply “mental projections” so your mind can rest

In many ways, mindfulness is similar to transcendental meditation, the idea of which is to reach a place of “restful” or “concentrated” alertness, which enables you to let negative thoughts and distractions pass by you without upsetting your calm and balance.

This type of meditation is easy to try at home: simply sit quietly, perhaps with some soothing music, breathe rhythmically and focus on something such as your breathing, a flower, an image, a candle, a mantra or even just being there, fully aware, in the moment.

Some people prefer to close their eyes to block out visual stimulation. If you find that your mind starts to wander, direct it back to your focus point and continue from there.

Mindfulness Leads to Physical Benefits, Too

Being mindful is not solely a matter of improving your focus or boosting your mental cognition. Mindfulness training has also been found to reduce levels of stress-induced inflammation, which could benefit people suffering from chronic inflammatory conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and asthma.

This makes sense, since chronic stress heightens the inflammatory response, and mindfulness is likely to help you relieve feelings of stress and anxiety. In one eight-week study, people who received mindfulness training had smaller inflammatory responses than those who received a control intervention, which focused on healthy activities to reduce psychological stress but without particular instruction on mindfulness.3 The study revealed:

“… behavioral interventions designed to reduce emotional reactivity [mindfulness] may be of therapeutic benefit in chronic inflammatory conditions. Moreover, mindfulness practice, in particular, may be more efficacious in symptom relief than the well-being promoting activities cultivated in the HEP [control] program.”

Meditation is Another Tool to Improve Your Focus and Mental Function

As mentioned, practicing meditation is in many ways similar to practicing mindfulness, and the benefits, including improved focus, are similar as well. There is research showing meditation may lower blood pressure with just three months of practice,4 while at the same time decreasing psychological distress and increasing coping ability among young adults. Positive changes, including improvements in critical thinking, mental resilience, and behavioral coping, have also been noted after meditation.

Research from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) also supports the notion that meditation acts as a form of “mental exercise” that can help regulate your attention and emotions, while improving well-being. Even better, these changes may be permanent …It’s been found previously that meditation prompts changes in the amygdala, a region of the brain associated with processing emotion. Newer research suggests these beneficial brain changes persist even after the meditation session is over, resulting in enduring changes in mental function.5

Everyday Tips for Improving Your Focus

Mindfulness and meditation are among the best methods to boost your ability to focus. Ideally, start out your day with a mindfulness “exercise,” such as focusing on your breathing for five minutes before you get out of bed. This can help you to stay better focused for the rest of the day.

As the day goes on, try to minimize multi-tasking, as this is the opposite of mindfulness. If you find yourself trying to complete five tasks at once, stop yourself and focus your attention back to the task at hand. If emotionally distracting thoughts enter your head, remind yourself that these are only “projections,” not reality, and allow them to pass by without stressing you out.

You can then end your day with a 10- or 15-minute meditation session to help stop your mind from wandering and relax into a restful sleep.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Many environmental experts have warned about the unsustainability of fish farms for a decade now, and we have documented those objections in many previous articles. Unfortunately nothing has yet been done to improve the system.

As usual, government agencies and environmental organizations around the world turned a blind eye to what was predicted to become an absolute disaster, and now the ramifications can be seen across the globe, including in British Columbia, Canada.

Salmon Confidential is a fascinating documentary that draws back the curtain to reveal how the Canadian government is covering up the cause behind British Columbia’s rapidly dwindling wild salmon population. A summary of the film reads:1

“When biologist Alexandra Morton discovers BC’s wild salmon are testing positive for dangerous European salmon viruses associated with salmon farming worldwide, a chain of events is set off by government to suppress the findings.

Tracking viruses, Morton moves from courtrooms, into British Columbia’s most remote rivers, Vancouver grocery stores and sushi restaurants.

The film documents Morton’s journey as she attempts to overcome government and industry roadblocks thrown in her path and works to bring critical information to the public in time to save BC’s wild salmon.”

If you think watching a documentary about wild fish sounds boring, this film may well change your mind. It provides sobering insight into the inner workings of government agencies, and includes rare footage of the bureaucrats tasked with food and environmental safety.

It reveals how the very agency tasked with protecting wild salmon is actually working to protect the commercial aquaculture industry, to devastating effect.

Once you understand just how important wild salmon are to the entire ecosystem, you realize that what’s going on here goes far beyond just protecting a fish species. Without these salmon, the entire ecosystem will eventually fail, and in case you’ve temporarily forgotten, you are part of this system, whether you’re a Canadian or not…

‘Keystone’ Species Missing in Action by the Millions

As explained in the film, a “keystone” species is a species of animal that is essential to the functioning of the eco system. It’s a species that other animals cannot survive without. In British Columbia (BC), pacific salmon are a keystone species. They fill hundreds of streams and rivers, feeding hundreds of species, including humans. Alas, since the early 1990’s, salmon numbers have rapidly dwindled, coinciding with the introduction of aqua farms raising farmed salmon.

Each year, millions of wild salmon go missing, and many are found to have died before spawning. They can be found littering the shores of rivers and streams in BC in large numbers.

Biologist Alex Morton has followed and studied the unusual decline in salmon stocks for nearly 30 years. She noticed that as commercial fish farms moved into the area, they had a detrimental impact on wild fish. The most obvious was a dramatic rise in parasitic sea lice in juvenile salmon, which naturally do not carry the lice. But that was just the beginning.

Fish farms breed pathogens that can spread like wildfire and contaminate any wild fish swimming past. Norway has recognized this problem, and does not permit fish farms to be located in rivers or streams populated by valuable native species. In British Columbia, no such restrictions exist.

On the contrary, not only has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) never taken the spread of disease into account when approving salmon farms in sensitive areas such as the Fraser River, the agency is actually covering up the fact that fish farms are the cause of dwindling salmon stocks.

Wild Salmon Declines Traced Back to Salmon Farms

The film discusses the fate of Dr. Kristy Miller, head of molecular genetics at DFO, who, using DNA profiling, discovered that the fish that die before spawning have a number of DNA switched on that healthy fish do not. In a nutshell, the wild salmon are dying from leukemia, retroviruses, brain tumors, and immune system decay…

Salmon leukemia virus raged through fish farms in the area in the early 1990’s when the farms were first introduced. A retrovirus, salmon leukemia virus attacks the salmon’s immune system, so it dies of something else, much like the process of AIDS. At the time, it was discovered that virtually all the BC Chinook salmon farms were infected. They also discovered that the virus killed 100 percent of the wild sockeye salmon exposed to it. Yet nothing was done…

Instead, as soon as Dr. Miller traced the problem to fish farms, she became ostracized, and effectively put under gag order. When her findings were published in the distinguished journal Science in 2011, the DFO did not allow her to speak to the press, despite the fact that her findings were hailed as some of the most significant salmon research of the decade.

Two years earlier, in 2009, the Fraser River experienced the worst salmon run in recorded history. Some 10 million fish went missing, leaving traditional people living along the river without catch. In response to the public outcry, the Canadian government created the Commission of Inquiry Into the Decline of Salmon in the Fraser River, also known as the Cohen Commission. The inquiry cost $26 million dollars and spanned across 150 days of hearings. Theories presented for the mysterious disappearance of the salmon included overfishing, sharks, water temperature, pollution, even predatory giant squid!

It wasn’t until the very end that attention was finally turned to the most logical source: salmon farms.

Dr. Ian Fleming testified about Norway’s discovery that fish farms are a source of pathogenic disease that can decimate native fish, and therefore does not permit salmon farms in certain areas frequented by wild salmon. British Columbia, in contrast, has approved at least 10 farms in one of the narrowest channels that wild sockeye salmon migrate through, and disease risk was not considered when approving any of them.

Lethal Salmon Virus Found in Every Region with Installed Salmon Farms

Dr. Rick Rutledge, professor and fisheries statistician at Simon Fraser University worried about river inlet sockeye, which were also dwindling in numbers just like Fraser River sockeye. He discovered that the river inlet sockeye were infected with Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus (ISA), also known as salmon influenza. This highly lethal and much-feared virus has proliferated in every region across the globe where Atlantic salmon farms have been installed.

First detected in Norway in 1984, infection spread to other countries via egg imports. In Chile, ISA wiped out 70 percent of the country’s salmon industry, at a cost of $2 billion. But Chile has no native salmon to decimate. British Columbia does… And contrary to Chile, the wild salmon of BC are absolutely critical to the ecosystem and residents of the area. The locals don’t just make money off these fish; it’s a main staple of their diet.

According to Morton, at least 11 species of fish in the Fraser River have been found to be infected with European-strain ISA, yet the Canadian food inspection agency has aggressively refuted the findings, and even attacked the credibility of two of the most preeminent experts on ISA testing, who testified that positive results were found to the Cohen Commission.

In fact, everyone who has spoken up about these salmon viruses, which can be traced back to salmon farms, have been shut down in some way or another. And by muzzling scientists like Dr. Miller, the Canadian government has effectively put the entire BC ecosystem at grave risk, just to protect commercial fish farming and international trade. In so doing, they’re also allowing potentially contaminated farm-raised salmon to be sold, exported, and consumed.

You May Be Buying Salmon Infected with Dangerous Fish Viruses

Morton tested farmed salmon purchased in various stores and sushi restaurants around British Columbia, and samples tested positive for at least three different salmon viruses, including:
1.Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus (ISA)
2.Salmon alphaviruses
3.Piscine reovirus, which gives salmon a heart attack and prevents them from swimming upriver

The problem with this, aside from the unknown effects on human health from eating salmon with lethal fish viruses, is that viruses are preserved by cold, and fish are always kept frozen for freshness. Then, when you wash the fish, the viruses get flushed down the drain and depending on your sewer system, could be introduced into local watersheds. The environmental impact of this viral contamination is hitherto unknown, but it’s unlikely to be completely harmless.

“This is why it must become public,” Morton says. She insists that consumers, stores and trading partners must become aware of this problem, and be the ones to insist on proper testing and remedial action. It’s not just about protecting certain species of fish, it’s about the health of the ecosystem as a whole; it’s about human health and food safety as well.

How can you tell whether a salmon is wild or farm raised? As explained by Morton, the flesh of wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. It’s also very lean, so the fat marks, those white stripes you see in the meat, are very thin. If the fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is farmed.

Farmed Fish Pose a Number of Health Hazards to Your Health

Farm raised fish of all species can spell disaster for your health in a number of ways. It’s important to understand that ALL farm-raised fish – not just salmon — are fed a concoction of vitamins, antibiotics, and depending on the fish, synthetic pigments, to make up for the lack of natural flesh coloration due to the altered diet. Without it, the flesh of caged salmon, for example, would be an unappetizing, pale gray. The fish are also fed pesticides, along with compounds such as toxic copper sulfate, which is frequently used to keep nets free of algae.

Not only do you ingest these drugs and chemicals when you eat the fish, but these toxins also build up in sea-floor sediments. In this way, industrial fish farming raises many of the same environmental concerns about chemicals and pollutants that are associated with feedlot cattle and factory chicken farms. In addition, fish waste and uneaten feed further litter the sea floor beneath these farms, generating bacteria that consume oxygen vital to shellfish and other bottom-dwelling sea creatures.

Studies have also consistently found levels of PCBs, dioxins, toxaphene and dieldrin, as well as mercury, to be higher in farm-raised fish than wild fish. This fact alone would be cause to reconsider consuming farmed fish!

Wild caught fish have already reached such toxic levels, it’s risky to recommend eating them with a clear conscience. For example, according to a US Geological Survey study, mercury contamination was detected in EVERY fish sampled in nearly 300 streams across the United States. More than a quarter of these fish contained mercury at levels exceeding the EPA criterion for the protection of human health. So, when you consider the fact that factory farmed fish typically are even MORE toxic than wild-caught fish and also contain an assortment of antibiotics and pesticides, avoiding them becomes a no-brainer – at least if you’re concerned about your health.

To learn more about the differences between farmed salmon and wild salmon, specifically, please see my interview with Randy Hartnell, founder-president of Vital Choice Wild Seafood and Organics. I’m a huge fan of their wild sockeye salmon, and beside a fish dinner at a restaurant here or there, Vital Choice salmon is about the only type of fish I eat.

Download Interview Transcript

Buying Local Increases Food Safety and Food Security

Morton recommends buying local foods and wild fish. I couldn’t agree more. As mentioned in the film, disease in farm animals is one of the biggest sources of epidemics in humans. Therefore, the health of food animals cannot be treated as some sort of idealistic notion relegated to tree-huggers and animal-welfare crusaders.

Fish farms are the aquatic version of a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO), and just like their land-based cattle- and chicken farms, aquatic CAFO’s are a breeding ground for disease and toxic waste, and produce food animals of inferior quality. Due to the dramatically increased disease risk—a natural side effect of crowding—these animals are further contaminated with drugs, and in the case of salmon, synthetic astaxanthin, which is made from petrochemicals that are not approved for human consumption.

Wild salmon are dying from diseases cultivated and spread by salmon farms. Where is the sense in this? And instead of selling wholesome, nutritionally-superior wild salmon, Canada is selling inferior and potentially diseased salmon raised in fish farms. Who benefits, and who loses?

The industry will tell you the world needs inexpensive food, and inevitably, they insist that such foods can only be created using the latest technology and artificial means. The latest example of this craziness is the creation of what amounts to a vegetarian fish diet designed for carnivorous fish.2 Instead of fishmeal, the protein in this feed comes from bacteria, yeast or algae instead. This way, fish farms will not need to use valuable wild fish to feed farmed fish, and this, they claim, will help alleviate world hunger… Nevermind the fact that by altering a fish’s diet in such a drastic way, you’re undoubtedly altering its nutritional content as well.

So at what cost should we clamor for cheap foods? At the expense of our environment and, potentially, the very lives of our descendants? We cannot be so blindly arrogant as to think that we can survive as a species if we allow the ecosystem to fall apart.

The ramifications of our large-scale, mass-producing, chemical-dependent food system are incredibly vast, which is why I urge you to become more curious about your food. Where, and how was it raised, grown, or manufactured? These things do matter; for your health, and the health and future of our planet.

Like Morton, I am also very concerned about our vanishing freedoms and increasing “corpotocracy,” where citizens are ruled by multi-national corporations with just one goal in mind: Maximizing Profit. A glaring example of this loss of freedom was Bill 37—the inappropriately named “Animal Health Act” which, had Canada made it into law, would have made it a crime to report farm animal disease to the public. Under this bill, informants would face a $75,000 fine and two years in prison simply for naming the location of a disease outbreak. Fortunately, the Act was dropped, but could potentially be revived sometime in the future…

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Five ways to protect yourself from deadly antibiotic-resistant bugs

The unsettling news about antibiotic-resistant super-bacteria is gaining attention, as reports of outbreaks continue to surface in hospitals and other health care facilities across the nation. Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) appears to prey on the those with compromised immune systems, which is why it seems prone to take up residence in places like hospitals, where the sick presumably go to recover and feel better.

Instead of healing, however, and in addition to the many already questionable medications they receive while there, patients now also run the risk of exposure to the CRE bacteria and the potentially fatal infection that may follow — a condition for which conventional medicine is, by its own admission, incapable of treating. The bacteria is so named for its impressive tolerance of carbapenem antibiotics, drugs which are considered by doctors to be the very last line of defense. But as a defense against CRE, those drugs remain ineffective. As a result, people are dying. With a current mortality rate of 40 percent (meaning it kills that many of those who become infected), concern over CRE has swelled far beyond that of other less deadly, but similarly antibiotic-resistant infections like MRSA.

Furthermore, with no likely effective candidate among antibiotics currently in development and no real financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop one (there is more money to be made in the assisted perpetuation of chronic illness than in any one-time treatment, after all), the situation begins to look rather bleak. It is with that in mind that Natural News reminds its readers that a healthy immune system is always the best defense against any threat of illness. To accomplish this in a meaningful way, one must strengthen the entire body and not just one piece of it, so that it has the energy to heal and protect itself. With this holistic approach in mind, consider the following best practices to boost your immune system, help protect yourself from initial exposure, and give yourself a fighting chance against harmful invaders:

1. Reduce your exposure to harmful microorganisms
Whenever possible, do what you can to avoid giving CRE the home advantage. This means that keeping clear of hospitals and nursing homes (CRE’s preferred stomping grounds) is a very good start. Of course, accidents can happen, hospital trips are sometimes necessary and visits to loved ones are to be expected during the holiday season. So if you must go, do what you can to give yourself a fighting chance against possible attack (see steps 2-5). Staying out of harm’s way also means avoiding the use of antibiotics, since they tend to indiscriminately kill bacteria in the body, including the friendly bacteria necessary both for proper digestion and for keeping other internal bacteria and micro-organisms in check, making you more vulnerable to harmful invaders. For this reason, antibiotics are most often detrimental to the immune system and are best avoided unless the situation is life-threatening.

2. Embrace a diet rich in nutrients and minerals
One thing most health-minded folks agree on is that eating lots of fresh, organic vegetables rich in essential nutrients, vitamins and minerals is simply one of the best habits a person can have. And because they spend more time in the ground, root vegetables are a particularly good source of minerals, which are critical for cell permeability (which allows the body to make use of such nutrients) and yet alarmingly absent from most people’s diets, thanks in part to soil depletion. For this reason, eating more of these and other vegetables can help to boost the body’s overall nutrient uptake, contributing to a healthier body and a stronger immune system. For maximum benefit, however, you’ll want to simultaneously abandon the consumption of any processed, refined or junk foods, as they will only impede the progress you might otherwise make. Put simply, when your body must spend extra energy on normal everyday functioning, that means less energy is available for the strengthening of your immune system. Remember, the body’s first priority is survival, and many people are undernourished enough to lack the energy required for any meaningful healing. In time, though, a healthy diet can assist the body in a natural detoxification process, allowing it to dump heavy metals and other accumulated toxins, eventually healing current chronic infections and also reducing vulnerability to new ones.

3. Take naturally potent antibacterial supplements
The addition of powerful probiotics and nutritional supplements to an already healthful diet can be of great benefit to restoring the body and building up the immune system. Look for those with natural antibacterial and other well known healing properties, like colloidal silver, garlic, oregano, bee propolis, cinnamon, ginger root, turmeric, or seek out high quality extracts from foods rich in antioxidants (such as acai, blueberry, pomegranate and cranberry). Be sure to check recommended dosage and appropriate uses for whichever probiotics and supplements you choose.

4. Rest well and reduce stress
An adequately rested body is a healthier body. Sleep allows the body to enter the healing (parasympathetic) state, where it can best work to rebuild energy, detoxify naturally and protect against illness. In our stressful culture and times, many people can remain in the fight-or-flight (sympathetic) state for longer than is healthy for the human animal, contributing to the exhaustion of certain vital glands and organs. Because chronic and acute stress are a major contributing factor to disease and illness, a reduction of stress levels can help the body to be better prepared for future challenges to the immune system. At least 8 to 10 hours of sleep is recommended per night, and at least 12 hours per night for those who are currently ill.

5. Get regular, moderate exercise
A workout routine that’s too rigorous may actually do more harm than good, by perpetuating that sympathetic-dominant nervous state. For this reason, moderate to light exercise can be of greatest benefit during times of healing repair. Remember, too, to drink plenty of pure, clean water as well — not only to stay hydrated, but to help flush out toxins.

Sources for this article include:

http://drlwilson.com/articles/Immunity.htm

http://drlwilson.com/Articles/sleep.htm

http://healthyhead2toe.sheknows.com

http://www.jigsawhealth.com/resources/healthy-immune-system

http://www.realfooduniversity.com

http://drlwilson.com/Articles/why%20take%20supplements.htm

http://www.usatoday.com

http://www.guardian.co.uk

http://www.naturalnews.com

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Soda companies rake in $4 billion a year of taxpayer money via the government food stamp program (SNAP)

Sugary sodas and aspartame-laced diet sodas can all be purchased with taxpayer money via the federal food stamp program. It’s called the “Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program” (SNAP), and it provides free food credits to 42 million Americans who use the credits to purchase junk food, birthday cakes, sodas and more.

As a result, U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the soda industry to the tune of $4 billion a year while low-income food stamp recipients drink themselves into chronic diabetes and obesity.

What could possibly be wrong with such a program?

Food stamps routinely used to buy soft drinks, candy, cookies and ice cream
Far from what most people believe, the federal food stamp program (SNAP) isn’t a program to provide nourishment to people of low income. It’s actually a program engineered to keep the masses sick and diseased while pumping tens of billions of dollars each year into the processed food industry run by powerful corporations like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Kraft.

The USDA SNAP website admits, “Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items” and are therefore eligible for purchase using food stamps.

(Soft drinks are FOOD? Somebody at the USDA needs to wake up and smell the processed coffee…)

This means the U.S. government is subsidizing the aspartame industry as well. All the poisons that are put into these foods — sodium nitrite, MSG, petrochemical food colorings — are all being subsidized with your tax dollars.

Meanwhile, in order to block nutrition, the USDA program specifically forbids the use of food stamps to purchase vitamins. So while taxpayer money can be used to load up on Diet Coke, not a dime can be used to protect health with something like vitamin C. How’s that for making sure people stay sick?

Food stamps used to buy lobster and steaks, too
It’s not just junk foods that food stamp recipients can purchase with taxpayer dollars, either: it’s also luxury food items like lobster, shrimp and steaks. Once again, the USDA openly admits this, saying, “Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items.”

According to the USDA, “energy drinks” are also food and may therefore be purchased using food stamps. Birthday cakes are also considered “food” and are therefore eligible as well.

“Soda makers bag an estimated $4 billion a year in taxpayer money through the food stamp program,” reports Breitbart.com. “Efforts to kill the so-called “soda subsidy” have been met with fierce resistance and lobbying by the soda industry.”

The real purpose of the food stamp program is to keep Americans sick and dependent
Far from helping “poor, starving people” gain access to nourishment, the federal food stamp program is nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy to junk food and soda companies who are making the population sick and diseased.

When people consume these foods, they become riddled with diabetes, cancer and heart disease. This makes them easy prey for pharmaceutical companies who also operate on government subsidies (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare) to bilk taxpayers for billions more in ill-gotten gains.

This is what happens when you let the government run the food system and the health care system: You get nothing but crony capitalism masquerading as welfare. Certain corporations that have the lobbying power to influence Congress become the recipients of all the cash these programs are stealing from taxpayers. The original idea of all this — to have compassion and help prevent people from starving — has been utterly abandoned. Now, the SNAP program is nothing more than a national ANTI-nutrition program that keeps people sick while enriching wealthy junk food corporations.

A better solution: Limit food stamps to non-processed foods
An obvious solution to all this would be to limit the use of food stamps to only “non-processed” food items such as fresh fruits and vegetables, bulk bags of rice and beans, fresh meats and so on.

After all, if you really have compassion for people who are starving — which is largely a myth anyway, as the majority of the people on food stamps are obese — then why wouldn’t you want to help them with healthy foods?

Only in America are we so socially insane that we give out free credits for overweight people to purchase processed junk food that causes cancer, diabetes, obesity and heart disease. Then we wonder why our health care system is such a failure…

Remember: Obamacare is a subsidy to Big Pharma and the health insurance companies; food stamps are a subsidy to junk food and soda manufacturers.

Sources for this story include:
BOOMTOWN 2: Taxpayers Have Spent $15 Trillion on ‘War on Poverty’
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/05/BOOMTOWN-2-Taxpaye…

‘Soda Subsidy’ Gives Tax Dollars to Beverage Companies
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40452370

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039849_food_stamps_soda_subsidies_junk.html#ixzz2QHtcs04c

By Ronnie Cummins

A growing number of organic consumers, natural health advocates and climate hawks are taking a more comprehensive look at the fundamental causes of global warming.

It has led them to this sobering conclusion: Our modern energy-, chemical- and GMO-intensive industrial food and farming systems are the major cause of man-made global warming.

How did they reach this conclusion? First, by taking a more inclusive look at the scientific data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – not just carbon dioxide (CO2), but also methane and nitrous oxide.

Next, by doing a full accounting of the fossil fuel consumption and emissions of the entire industrial food and farming cycle, including inputs, equipment, production, processing, distribution, heating, cooling and waste. And finally, by factoring in the indirect impacts of contemporary agriculture, which include deforestation and wetlands destruction.

When you add it all up, the picture is clear: Contemporary agriculture is burning up our planet, and factory farms or, in industry lingo, Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), play a key role in this impending disaster.

The Global Impact of Factory Farming

The science behind global warming is complex. Without question, coal plants, tar sands and natural gas fracking have contributed heavily to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, the major cause of global warming. We must unite to shut down these industries.

Similarly, consumer overconsumption of fossil fuels represents another big piece of the climate-crisis equation. We absolutely must rethink, retrofit and/or redesign our gas-guzzling cars and our energy-inefficient buildings, if we want to reduce fossil fuel use by 90 percent over the next few decades.

But we also must address the environmental impact of factory farming.

Today, nearly 65 billion animals worldwide, including cows, chickens and pigs, are crammed into CAFOs. These animals are literally imprisoned and tortured in unhealthy, unsanitary and unconscionably cruel conditions.

Sickness is the norm for animals who are confined rather than pastured, and who eat genetically engineered (GE) corn and soybeans, rather than grass and forage as nature intended.

To prevent the inevitable spread of disease from stress, overcrowding and lack of vitamin D, animals are fed a steady diet of antibiotics. Those antibiotics pose a direct threat to the environment when they run off into our lakes, rivers, aquifers and drinking water.

How Factory Farms Affect Global Climate

CAFOs contribute directly to global warming by releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – more than the entire global transportation industry. The air at some factory farm test sites in the US is dirtier than in America’s most polluted cities.

According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, including 37 percent of methane emissions and 65 percent of nitrous oxide emissions.

The methane releases from billions of imprisoned animals on factory farms are 70 times more damaging per ton to the earth’s atmosphere than CO2.

Indirectly, factory farms contribute to climate disruption by their impact on deforestation and draining of wetlands, and because of the nitrous oxide emissions from huge amounts of nitrate fertilizers used to grow the genetically engineered corn and soy fed to animals raised in CAFOs.

Nitrous oxide pollution is even worse than methane – 200 times more damaging per ton than CO2. And just as animal waste leaches antibiotics and hormones into ground and water, pesticides and fertilizers also eventually find their way into our waterways, further damaging the environment.

CAFOs — A Major Contributor to Poor Health

Factory farms aren’t just a disaster for the environment. They’re also ruining our health. A growing chorus of scientists and public health advocates warn that the intensive and reckless use of antibiotics and growth hormones leads to factory-farmed food1 that contains antibiotic-resistant pathogens, drug residues such as hormones and growth promoters, and “bad fats.”

Yet despite these health and environmental hazards, the vast majority of consumers don’t realize that nearly 95 percent of the meat, dairy and eggs sold in the U.S. come from CAFOs. Nor do most people realize that CAFOs represent a corporate-controlled system characterized by large-scale, centralized, low profit-margin production, processing and distribution systems.

There’s an alternative: A socially responsible, small-scale system created by independent producers and processors focused on local and regional markets. This alternative produces high-quality food, and supports farmers who produce healthy, meat, eggs and dairy products using humane methods. And it’s far easier on the environment.

Why We Need to Label Factory-Farmed Food

Consumers can boycott food products from factory farms and choose the more environmentally-friendly alternatives. But first, we have to regain the right to know what’s in our food. And that means mandatory labeling, not only of genetically engineered foods, but of the 95 percent of non-organic, non-grass-fed meat, dairy and eggs that are produced on the hellish factory farms that today dominate US food production.

In 2013, a new alliance of organic and natural health consumers, animal welfare advocates, anti-GMO and climate-change activists will tackle the next big food labeling battle: meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised on factory farms, or CAFOs.

This campaign will start with a massive program to educate consumers about the negative impacts of factory farming on the environment, on human health and on animal welfare, and then move forward to organize and mobilize millions of consumers to demand labels on beef, pork, poultry and dairy products derived from these unhealthy and unsustainable so-called “farming” practices.

Opponents and skeptics will ask, “What about feeding the world?” Contrary to popular arguments, factory farming is not a cheap, efficient solution to world hunger. Feeding huge numbers of confined animals actually uses more food, in the form of grains that could feed humans, than it produces. For every 100 food calories of edible crops fed to livestock, we get back just 30 calories in the form of meat and dairy. That’s a 70-percent loss.

With the earth’s population predicted to reach nine billion by mid-century, the planet can no longer afford this reckless, unhealthy and environmentally disastrous farming system. We believe that once people know the whole truth about CAFOs they will want to make healthier, more sustainable food choices. And to do that, we’ll have to fight for the consumer’s right to know not only what is in our food, but where our food comes from.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. 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. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

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, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•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.

About the Author

Ronnie Cummins is the founder and Director of the Organic Consumers Association. He has been a writer and activist since the 1960s, with massive expertise in human rights, anti-war, anti-nuclear, consumer, labor, environmental, and sustainable agricultural areas. He is the author of several published articles, a children’s book series called Children of the World, and Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.

About the Organic Consumers Association

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 public interest organization promoting health, justice, and sustainability. It prides itself as the only organization in the United States focused on promoting the views and interests of the country’s estimated 76 million organic and socially responsible consumers.

The OCA participates in the important issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children’s health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, and other key topics. The Organic Consumers Fund, a 501(c)4, is the OCA’s grassroots action and lobbying arm.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The Truth About Saturated Fat

The first scientific indictment of saturated fat was made in 1953. Dr. Ancel Keys published an influential paper comparing fat intake and heart disease mortality in six countries: the United States, Canada, Australia, England, Italy, and Japan. The Americans ate the most fat and had the highest death rate from heart disease; the Japanese ate the least fat and had the fewest heart disease deaths.

But while data from those six countries seemed to support the diet-heart hypothesis, statistics were actually available for 22 countries. When all 22 were analyzed, the apparent link disappeared. The death rate from heart disease in Finland was 24 times that of Mexico, although fat-consumption rates in the two nations were almost the same.

This fascinating MSNBC article examines in depth why saturated fat has been unfairly demonized, and the truth about fats and heart health.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

I don’t know if you fell for it, but I certainly did — the low fat myth. I bought it hook line and sinker in the 70s and early 80s, and it was all based on flawed science. Low fat is actually quite good for the 1/3 of people who are carb nutritional types. Unfortunately it wasn’t very good for me at all and caused some health challenges.

Fortunately though, I continued to study and learn and eventually realized that fat was not the evil it was being made out to be.

A subset of the low fat myth that persists to this day is the belief that saturated fat will increase your risk of heart attacks. In 2002 the “expert” Food & Nutrition Board gave the following misguided statement: “Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol have no known beneficial role in preventing chronic disease and are not required at any level in the diet.”

Folks, this is simply another myth that has been harming your health and your loved ones for the last 30 or 40 years, ever since Dr. Keys managed to convince the establishment that his unproven hypothesis was fact.

Confusing the Facts is Part of the Problem

Part of the scientific confusion relates to the fact that your body is capable of synthesizing saturated fats that it needs from carbohydrates, and these saturated fats are principally the same ones present in dietary fats of animal origin. However, and this is the key, not all saturated fatty acids are the same. There are subtle differences that have profound health implications, and if you avoid eating all saturated fats you will suffer serious health consequences.

There are in fact more than a dozen different types of saturated fat, but you predominantly consume only three: stearic acid, palmitic acid and lauric acid.

It’s already been well established that stearic acid (found in cocoa and animal fat) has zero effect on your cholesterol levels, and actually gets converted in your liver into the monounsaturated fat called oleic acid.

The other two, palmitic and lauric acid, do raise total cholesterol. However, since they raise “good” cholesterol as much or more than “bad” cholesterol, you’re still actually lowering your risk of heart disease.

Why do You Need Saturated Fat?

Foods containing saturated fats include:
•Meat
•Dairy products
•Some oils
•Tropical plants such as coconut and palm trees

These (saturated) fats from animal and vegetable sources provide a concentrated source of energy in your diet, and they provide the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone like substances.

When you eat fats as part of your meal, they slow down absorption so that you can go longer without feeling hungry. In addition, they act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Dietary fats are also needed for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, for mineral absorption, and for a host of other biological processes.

Humans have eaten animal products for most of their existence on earth and therefore, they have consumed saturated fats for most of that time. If saturated fats were of no value or were harmful to you, why would breast milk produce saturated fats like butyric, caproic, caprylic, capric, lauric, myristic, palmitic and stearic acids, which provide a naturally perfected source of nourishment to ensure the growth, development and survival of your infants?

Saturated fats are also:
•The preferred fuel for your heart, and also used as a source of fuel during energy expenditure
•Useful antiviral agents (caprylic acid)
•Effective as an anticaries, antiplaque and anti fungal agents (lauric acid)
•Useful to actually lower cholesterol levels (palmitic and stearic acids)
•Modulators of genetic regulation and prevent cancer (butyric acid)

However, There IS Still a Link Between Fat and Heart Disease!

Now, it is clear that there is some association between fat and heart disease. The problem lies in the fact that most studies make no effort to differentiate between saturated fat and trans fat. I believe this is the missing link.

If researchers were to more carefully evaluate the risks of heart disease by measuring the levels of trans and saturated fat, I believe they would find a completely different story.

Trans fat is known to increase your LDL levels, or “bad” cholesterol, while lowering your levels of HDL, known as “good” cholesterol, which, of course is the complete opposite of what you need in order to maintain good heart health. It can also cause major clogging of arteries, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems.

Unfortunately, many food companies use trans fat instead of oil because it reduces cost, extends storage life of products and can improve flavor and texture.

Your body needs some amount of saturated fat to stay healthy. It is virtually impossible to achieve a nutritionally adequate diet that has no saturated fat. What you don’t need, however, are trans fats.

One point you should be aware of is the loophole used by many food companies to get around the labeling requirements for trans fats. See, they can still claim their product is trans fat-free if it has less than 500 mg trans fat per serving. So many have decreased their serving size to the point that the ratio of trans fat falls below 500 mg.

Therefore, if a serving size seems ridiculously low, it’s probably hiding trans fat content.

Contradictory Results SUPPORT Nutritional Typing

Studies also clearly show that despite great compliance to low saturated fat diets, there is a wide difference in biological responses. What could this mean? Is it just poor science or flawed studies?

Not necessarily, because for one, it absolutely supports nutritional typing, which predicts that one-third of people will do very well on low saturated fat diets (which supports the studies showing that they work), but another one-third of people need high saturated fat diets to stay healthy. I happen to be one of those who need a high saturated fat diet to stay healthy and warm.

I would agree with the final conclusion of this MSNBC article, that bad habits, such as lack of exercise and not eating the right foods for your biochemical needs cause more heart disease than any specific “bad food.” As Dr. Volek stated, “If you consistently consume more calories than you burn and you gain weight, your risk of heart disease will increase – whether you favor eating saturated fats, carbs, or both.”

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

How to Get Off Your Fat and Get the Fat Off!,

By Paul Chek, HHP, NMT
Founder, C.H.E.K Institute

Looking and feeling the way you”ve always wanted to is not nearly as tough as you may think it is. I regularly remind my patients and students that it doesn”t take any more effort to live a life of health and vitality, than it does to earn a life of disease, dysfunction, depression and fatigue. In this three-part series, I will tackle conventional wisdom with regard to how best to lose fat.

So that you can anticipate the following two parts of the article and schedule the necessary time to invest in this important education, I have provided an outline of the learning objectives that will be discussed in the series:

Part 1:
• Review the two common hurdles that must be jumped to get fat off for the long run.
• Critically review the misleading concept of counting calories. As Einstein once stated, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”
• To realize that many of you are actually dieting, without even realizing it and that instead of asking your doctor, what you should take, you should be asking, what should you take away?

Part 2:
• Understand how exercise, even in regular high doses, can make you fat.
• Recognize what displacement foods are and how they can antagonize the effects of an otherwise good exercise program.

Part 3:
• Recognize the limitations of aerobic exercise for reducing body fat and elevating metabolism.
• Appreciate the metabolic benefits of functional free weight training.
• Learn how to develop a fat burner resistance training circuit.

Part One

The Art of Balancing Calorie Consumption and Calorie Expenditure

There are many fads and fallacies regarding fat loss. The bottom line is this: You will not lose fat if you dramatically cut calories. The only way you will lose body fat (and keep it off) is by burning calories through a combination of these two actions:
1.Eating high-quality, whole foods in the correct proportions to your nutritional type
2.Regular exercise

With the exception of those on serotonin reuptake inhibitor drugs (most antidepressants) and others that disrupt metabolism, it really is that simple.

Figure 1

Figure 2

The part that everyone finds so challenging (including the experts) is determining the balance of calorie consumption and calorie expenditure. For example, people don”t know how many calories they should eat after a 2 -mile walk, after rowing for 20 minutes, or after using a step machine for 30 minutes. To do this, you will have two hurdles to jump:
1. Deprogram your mind of all the garbage information and hype from the media. This means being much more selective about believing what you hear from so-called health and nutrition experts on TV commercials, radio, magazine ads, books and even peer review journal articles.
Most of what you are being told by common media streams, industry scientists and many university professors consists of twisted or partial truths presented as scientific research, which is funded by food manufacturers, drug companies, product manufacturers and other big industry interests. If you take a closer look, you”ll notice most of the “experts” are overweight, obese, out of shape, pre-diabetic or diabetic and rarely ever practice what they preach.

2. Doing the work: Yes, you will have to look in the mirror and make a commitment to change. That may entail either doing more exercise than you”ve been doing, performing different exercises than you”ve been doing, or possibly even doing less if you”ve been over-doing it.
The bottom line is that I”ll coach you as to how to get the fat off. And no, this coach isn”t overweight. He has 8 percent body fat and is fit. (See Figure 1)

Counting Calories is a Dangerous Game

Today, you can see people running the streets, pounding away at their stepper or rowing away with little calorie-counting devices stuck to their arms and ankles, or nicely tucked away inside their exercise machines. Some make progress and then plateau, while others don”t make any progress at all and stay frustratingly fat, in spite of displaying the discipline of a Marine core drill instructor.

Sadly, most people don”t realize that eating an apple and two boiled eggs for breakfast (because their little gadget says they deserve 250 calories for the workout they just completed) is a sure-fire way to keep the diet industry booming. Refer to Figure 2, as we shed some much-needed light on this issue of counting calories.

Resting Metabolic Rate

First of all, what is generally overlooked by most people, yet highly important if you really want to change your body shape and be healthy in the process, is that just being alive costs you as much as 70 percent of your daily caloric expenditure. That”s right, just living accounts for as much as 70 percent of the calories you burn every day.

The Cost of Digestion and Elimination

The next commonly overlooked caloric reality is that it costs between 5-15 percent of your daily caloric expenditure to simply digest and eliminate what you eat. Many people naively assume that as soon as they eat or drink something, it just jumps inside their cells and starts cleaning, organizing, energizing and eliminating similar to a well-trained handyman. This is simply not the case, as the process of digestion can use as many as 15 percent of your daily caloric expenditure.

Daily Activities

Up to this point, we”ve already accounted for 55-85 percent of our daily caloric expenditure (resting metabolic rate + cost of digestion and elimination), and we haven”t even considered our caloric cost of our daily activities.

How then, can we expect those handy little calorie-counting gadgets to be even remotely accurate?

On the whole, the calories used from daily activities are not likely to be even close to the largest caloric expenditure of the day for most people. As you can see from the third tier down in (Figure 2), the range is from 100 calories used to perform what we would call activities of daily living (ADL), to the 1,000 calories a high-level athlete would expend by adding a hard day”s training to the typical ADL.

The “X” Factor

At the very top, we have what performance nutrition expert John Berrardi calls the “X Factor”(1). As you can see in Figure 2 , the X factor of calculating daily caloric expenditure is produced by your individual metabolic efficiency, stress environment and your unique spontaneous activity. For example, someone who has a jumpy leg while they eat is expending X factor calories.

Many people are actually counting the calories they expend, and then develop their meal plan to contain slightly less calories in hopes of slimming down. Other people are being pushed into calorie reduction by their medical doctors. I have had patients with back pain referred to me by doctors after having put the patient on a medically supervised diet.

These medically supervised diets are often mostly liquid and I”ve never seen one over 1,000 calories a day. I can say with confidence after years of clinical experience of treating back pain patients, who had become overweight from inactivity secondary to pain, that diets don”t work. All of the patients or athletes I”ve worked with in my career who have put themselves on diets or have been put on them by military nutritionists or medical doctors, gained back all the weight they lost and more within about three months following termination of the diet.

Put all of this together, with the realization that the United States Department of Agriculture standards, and you will find that 2,500 calories is the minimum amount of calories an adolescent or adult woman needs to get the minimum amounts of life-sustaining nutrients. (vitamins, enzymes, minerals and trace minerals, secondary factors, etc.)

Men need at least 2,800 calories a day due to their higher testosterone levels, higher metabolism and greater muscle mass (2). If you are sitting there saying, “Oh my God, if I ate all those calories I”d be fat for sure,” you may be interested to know that the World Health Organization (WHO) has established that starvation begins under 2,100 calories per day (2) — a figure determined from experience dealing with worldwide starvation.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.