Toxic pesticides from GM food crops found in unborn babies...
Toxic pesticides which are implanted into genetically modified food crops have lodged in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn babies, research shows.
Scientists at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, took dozens of samples from women.
Traces of the toxin were found 93 per cent of the pregnant mothers and in 80 per cent of the umbilical cords.
The research suggested the chemicals were entering the body through eating meat, milk and eggs from farm livestock which have been fed GM corn.
The findings appear to contradict the GM industry’s long-standing claim that any potentially harmful chemicals added to crops would pass safely through the body.
To date, most of the global research which has been used to demonstrate the safety of GM crops has been funded by the industry itself.
It is not known what, if any, harm the chemicals might cause but there has been speculation it could lead to allergies, miscarriage, abnormalities or even cancer.
One of the researchers told the scientific journal Reproductive Toxicology: “This is the first study to highlight the presence of pesticides associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, foetal and nonpregnant women's blood.”
Pete Riley, the director of GM Freeze, a group opposed to GM farming, described the research as “very significant”.
The Agriculture Biotechnology Council, which speaks for the GM industry, has questioned the reliability and value of the research.
Dr Julian Little, its chairman, said: “Biotech crops are rigorously tested for safety prior to their use and over two trillion meals made with GM ingredients have been safely consumed around the world over the past 15 years without a single substantiated health issue.” (nice defense!)
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Diet soda drinkers are doing as much harm to themselves
Drink More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight?
Overweight Risk Soars 41% With Each Daily Can of Diet Soft Drink
People who drink diet soft drinks don't lose weight. In fact, they gain weight, a new study shows.
The findings come from eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. Fowler reported the data at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego.
"What didn't surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to overweight and obesity," Fowler tells WebMD. "What was surprising was when we looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even higher."
In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.
"There was a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day," Fowler says.
More Diet Drinks, More Weight Gain
Fowler's team looked at seven to eight years of data on 1,550 Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white Americans aged 25 to 64. Of the 622 study participants who were of normal weight at the beginning of the study, about a third became overweight or obese.
For regular soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:
26% for up to 1/2 can each day
30.4% for 1/2 to one can each day
32.8% for 1 to 2 cans each day
47.2% for more than 2 cans each day.
For diet soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:
36.5% for up to 1/2 can each day
37.5% for 1/2 to one can each day
54.5% for 1 to 2 cans each day
57.1% for more than 2 cans each day.
For each can of diet soft drink consumed each day, a person's risk of obesity went up 41%.
Diet Soda No Smoking Gun
Fowler is quick to note that a study of this kind does not prove that diet soda causes obesity. More likely, she says, it shows that something linked to diet soda drinking is also linked to obesity.
"One possible part of the explanation is that people who see they are beginning to gain weight may be more likely to switch from regular to diet soda," Fowler suggests. "But despite their switching, their weight may continue to grow for other reasons. So diet soft-drink use is a marker for overweight and obesity."
Why? Nutrition expert Leslie Bonci, MPH, RD, puts it in a nutshell.
"You have to look at what's on your plate, not just what's in your glass," Bonci tells WebMD.
People often mistake diet drinks for diets, says Bonci, director of sports nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and nutrition consultant to college and professional sports teams and to the Pittsburgh Ballet.
"A lot of people say, 'I am drinking a diet soft drink because that is better for me. But soft drinks by themselves are not the root of America's obesity problem," she says. "You can't go into a fast-food restaurant and say, 'Oh, it's OK because I had diet soda.' If you don't do anything else but switch to a diet soft drink, you are not going to lose weight."
The Mad Hatter Theory
"Take some more tea," the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
"I've had nothing yet," Alice replied in an offended tone, "so I can't take more."
"You mean you can't take less," said the Hatter: "It's very easy to take more than nothing." Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
There is actually a way that diet drinks could contribute to weight gain, Fowler suggests.
She remembers being struck by the scene in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in which Alice is offended because she is offered tea but is given none -- even though she hadn't asked for tea in the first place. So she helps herself to tea and bread and butter.
That may be just what happens when we offer our bodies the sweet taste of diet drinks, but give them no calories. Fowler points to a recent study in which feeding artificial sweeteners to rat pups made them crave more calories than animals fed real sugar.
"If you offer your body something that tastes like a lot of calories, but it isn't there, your body is alerted to the possibility that there is something there and it will search for the calories promised but not delivered," Fowler says.
Perhaps, Bonci says, our bodies are smarter than we think.
"People think they can just fool the body. But maybe the body isn't fooled," she says. "If you are not giving your body those calories you promised it, maybe your body will retaliate by wanting more calories. Some soft drink studies do suggest that diet drinks stimulate appetite."
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight
Overweight Risk Soars 41% With Each Daily Can of Diet Soft Drink
People who drink diet soft drinks don't lose weight. In fact, they gain weight, a new study shows.
The findings come from eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. Fowler reported the data at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego.
"What didn't surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to overweight and obesity," Fowler tells WebMD. "What was surprising was when we looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even higher."
In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.
"There was a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day," Fowler says.
More Diet Drinks, More Weight Gain
Fowler's team looked at seven to eight years of data on 1,550 Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white Americans aged 25 to 64. Of the 622 study participants who were of normal weight at the beginning of the study, about a third became overweight or obese.
For regular soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:
26% for up to 1/2 can each day
30.4% for 1/2 to one can each day
32.8% for 1 to 2 cans each day
47.2% for more than 2 cans each day.
For diet soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:
36.5% for up to 1/2 can each day
37.5% for 1/2 to one can each day
54.5% for 1 to 2 cans each day
57.1% for more than 2 cans each day.
For each can of diet soft drink consumed each day, a person's risk of obesity went up 41%.
Diet Soda No Smoking Gun
Fowler is quick to note that a study of this kind does not prove that diet soda causes obesity. More likely, she says, it shows that something linked to diet soda drinking is also linked to obesity.
"One possible part of the explanation is that people who see they are beginning to gain weight may be more likely to switch from regular to diet soda," Fowler suggests. "But despite their switching, their weight may continue to grow for other reasons. So diet soft-drink use is a marker for overweight and obesity."
Why? Nutrition expert Leslie Bonci, MPH, RD, puts it in a nutshell.
"You have to look at what's on your plate, not just what's in your glass," Bonci tells WebMD.
People often mistake diet drinks for diets, says Bonci, director of sports nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and nutrition consultant to college and professional sports teams and to the Pittsburgh Ballet.
"A lot of people say, 'I am drinking a diet soft drink because that is better for me. But soft drinks by themselves are not the root of America's obesity problem," she says. "You can't go into a fast-food restaurant and say, 'Oh, it's OK because I had diet soda.' If you don't do anything else but switch to a diet soft drink, you are not going to lose weight."
The Mad Hatter Theory
"Take some more tea," the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
"I've had nothing yet," Alice replied in an offended tone, "so I can't take more."
"You mean you can't take less," said the Hatter: "It's very easy to take more than nothing." Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
There is actually a way that diet drinks could contribute to weight gain, Fowler suggests.
She remembers being struck by the scene in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in which Alice is offended because she is offered tea but is given none -- even though she hadn't asked for tea in the first place. So she helps herself to tea and bread and butter.
That may be just what happens when we offer our bodies the sweet taste of diet drinks, but give them no calories. Fowler points to a recent study in which feeding artificial sweeteners to rat pups made them crave more calories than animals fed real sugar.
"If you offer your body something that tastes like a lot of calories, but it isn't there, your body is alerted to the possibility that there is something there and it will search for the calories promised but not delivered," Fowler says.
Perhaps, Bonci says, our bodies are smarter than we think.
"People think they can just fool the body. But maybe the body isn't fooled," she says. "If you are not giving your body those calories you promised it, maybe your body will retaliate by wanting more calories. Some soft drink studies do suggest that diet drinks stimulate appetite."
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight
Need motivation to get moving? Here's the top 10 reasons...
Top 10 Reasons to Get Moving
Need motivation to get moving? Tack this list of benefits up next to your walking shoes.
Why You Should Exercise
Exercising as little as 30 minutes, five days a week, helps you:
1. Manage your blood glucose. In one study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, people who did both aerobic and strength exercises for nine months kept their blood glucose numbers in check. The benefits reduced their risk of getting heart disease by 5 percent and other diabetes complications by 12 percent—and their risk of dying of heart disease by 15 percent to 20 percent.
2. Control your blood pressure. A single strength-training workout brings down your blood pressure in as little as 24 hours. Keep it up and you’ll prevent hypertension over time.
3. Improve your cholesterol. Heart-healthy changes in your blood fats may include lower LDL, or “bad,” cholesterol, and triglycerides. You’ll also boost HDL, or “good,” cholesterol.
4. Lose weight. If you’re on the heavy side, burning calories can help you shed pounds. And if your weight is healthy, exercise helps you keep it that way.
5. Reduce your use of medications. Your body will be able to use insulin better, and you might weigh less. So you might be able to use a smaller amount or fewer types of medicines.
6. Lift your mood. Working out is as effective as some antidepressant medicines. It also helps you bust stress.
7. Prevent other diseases. With your heart pumping and your blood flowing, you’re at lower risk for heart disease, stroke, cancer, and other harmful conditions.
8. Sleep more soundly. You’ll start snoozing more quickly, wake up less often, and arise refreshed.
9. Build bones. Resistance training increases the strength of your skeleton. This can help keep you from falling and prevent fractures if you do slip.
10. Improve flexibility. Stretching and similar moves elongate muscles, protect joints, and reduce your risk of getting injured.
Getting Started
Check with your doctor about how to safely start a new fitness program. Begin with activities like walking, swimming, and strength training using dumbbells or resistance bands. It might take a few months, but soon you’ll begin to see and feel the benefits.
Track Your Progress
How many calories does your new workout zap? Log on to www.mypyramidtracker.gov and enter in the details. You’ll get a personalized assessment of how much energy you burned and how close you are to the amount of exercise needed for good health.
Need motivation to get moving? Tack this list of benefits up next to your walking shoes.
Why You Should Exercise
Exercising as little as 30 minutes, five days a week, helps you:
1. Manage your blood glucose. In one study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, people who did both aerobic and strength exercises for nine months kept their blood glucose numbers in check. The benefits reduced their risk of getting heart disease by 5 percent and other diabetes complications by 12 percent—and their risk of dying of heart disease by 15 percent to 20 percent.
2. Control your blood pressure. A single strength-training workout brings down your blood pressure in as little as 24 hours. Keep it up and you’ll prevent hypertension over time.
3. Improve your cholesterol. Heart-healthy changes in your blood fats may include lower LDL, or “bad,” cholesterol, and triglycerides. You’ll also boost HDL, or “good,” cholesterol.
4. Lose weight. If you’re on the heavy side, burning calories can help you shed pounds. And if your weight is healthy, exercise helps you keep it that way.
5. Reduce your use of medications. Your body will be able to use insulin better, and you might weigh less. So you might be able to use a smaller amount or fewer types of medicines.
6. Lift your mood. Working out is as effective as some antidepressant medicines. It also helps you bust stress.
7. Prevent other diseases. With your heart pumping and your blood flowing, you’re at lower risk for heart disease, stroke, cancer, and other harmful conditions.
8. Sleep more soundly. You’ll start snoozing more quickly, wake up less often, and arise refreshed.
9. Build bones. Resistance training increases the strength of your skeleton. This can help keep you from falling and prevent fractures if you do slip.
10. Improve flexibility. Stretching and similar moves elongate muscles, protect joints, and reduce your risk of getting injured.
Getting Started
Check with your doctor about how to safely start a new fitness program. Begin with activities like walking, swimming, and strength training using dumbbells or resistance bands. It might take a few months, but soon you’ll begin to see and feel the benefits.
Track Your Progress
How many calories does your new workout zap? Log on to www.mypyramidtracker.gov and enter in the details. You’ll get a personalized assessment of how much energy you burned and how close you are to the amount of exercise needed for good health.
Too little or too much sleep can AGE the brain
Less-Than-Optimal Sleep May 'Age' the Brain
(HealthDay News) -- For middle-aged adults, sleeping less than six or more than eight hours a night is associated with a decline in brain function, British researchers contend.
The magnitude of that mental decline is equal to being four to seven years older, the researchers said.
"There is an expectation in today's 24-hour-a-day society that people should be able to fit more into their lives," said study author Jane Ferrie, a senior research fellow in the department of epidemiology and public health at University College London Medical School.
"The whole work/life balance struggle is causing people to trade in precious sleeping time to ensure they complete everything they feel is expected of them. Our study suggests that this may have adverse effects on their cognitive function," she said.
In fact, women who slept seven hours per night had the highest score for every cognitive measure, followed by those who had six hours of sleep. For men, cognitive function was similar for those who reported sleeping six, seven or eight hours.
However, less than six hours of sleep -- or more than eight hours -- were associated with lower scores, Ferrie said.
Noting that many biological processes take place at night, Ferrie explained that "sleep provides the body with its daily need for physiological restitution and recovery. While seven hours a night appears to be optimal for the majority of human beings, many people can function perfectly well on regular sleep of less or more hours."
However, since most research has focused on the effects of sleep deprivation on biological systems, it is not yet fully understood why seven hours is optimal -- or why long sleeping appears to be detrimental, Ferrie said.
"Chronic short sleep produces hormones and chemicals in the body which increase the risk of developing heart disease and strokes, and other conditions like high blood pressure and cholesterol, diabetes and obesity," she added.
The report was published in the May 1 issue of Sleep.
Ferrie's team collected data on 5,431 men and women, aged 35 to 55 in 1985, who took part in a long-term look at London-based office staff known as the Whitehall II study.
In 1997-1999, the participants were asked how many hours they slept on an average week night, and were asked the same question in 2003-2004 after an average 5.4 years of follow-up. Those who reported changes in their sleep patterns were then compared with people whose sleep duration stayed the same over the course of the study.
In 2003-2004, each individual was given a battery of standard tests to assess his or her memory, reasoning, vocabulary, global cognitive status and verbal fluency.
The researchers found that during the study, 58 percent of men and 50 percent of women continued to sleep the same amount each night. However, 7.4 percent of women and 8.6 percent of men increased their slumber from seven to eight hours per night.
This change in sleep pattern was associated with lower scores on six tests of cognitive function, compared with people whose sleep time did not change, the researchers found.
Only scores on the test of short-term verbal memory were not affected by sleeping more, they noted.
In addition, some 25 percent of women and 18 percent of men reported decreases in their sleep -- dozing less than six, seven or eight hours per night.
This change was associated with lower scores on three of the six cognitive tests, with lower scores on the reasoning, vocabulary and global cognitive status tests, the researchers said. Surprisingly, increasing sleep from six hours or less had no beneficial effect, they added.
Dr. Alberto Ramos, co-director of the Health Sleep Medicine Program and an assistant professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, said various studies have shown sleeping too little or too much increases the risk of dying, having a heart attack or stroke and other health problems.
"Getting enough sleep helps many brain functions," Ramos said. "It is restorative, it lets you concentrate better and process new information better and faster."
It is not clear why too much sleep may be unhealthy, Ramos said. However, he speculates, it may be a sign of other health problems.
Ramos added that to stay healthy, sleep is as important as eating well and being physically active.
"We have to think of sleep the same way as we think about diet and exercise," Ramos said. "If we want to have a healthy lifestyle we think of diet and exercise, but part of the equation is that good sleep should be part of having a healthy lifestyle for healthy aging."
More information
For more information on sleep, visit the National Sleep Foundation.
SOURCES: Jane Ferrie, Ph.D., senior research fellow, department of epidemiology and public health, University College London Medical School; Alberto Ramos, M.D., co-director, Health Sleep Medicine Program, and assistant professor, clinical neurology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine; May 1, 2011, Sleep
(HealthDay News) -- For middle-aged adults, sleeping less than six or more than eight hours a night is associated with a decline in brain function, British researchers contend.
The magnitude of that mental decline is equal to being four to seven years older, the researchers said.
"There is an expectation in today's 24-hour-a-day society that people should be able to fit more into their lives," said study author Jane Ferrie, a senior research fellow in the department of epidemiology and public health at University College London Medical School.
"The whole work/life balance struggle is causing people to trade in precious sleeping time to ensure they complete everything they feel is expected of them. Our study suggests that this may have adverse effects on their cognitive function," she said.
In fact, women who slept seven hours per night had the highest score for every cognitive measure, followed by those who had six hours of sleep. For men, cognitive function was similar for those who reported sleeping six, seven or eight hours.
However, less than six hours of sleep -- or more than eight hours -- were associated with lower scores, Ferrie said.
Noting that many biological processes take place at night, Ferrie explained that "sleep provides the body with its daily need for physiological restitution and recovery. While seven hours a night appears to be optimal for the majority of human beings, many people can function perfectly well on regular sleep of less or more hours."
However, since most research has focused on the effects of sleep deprivation on biological systems, it is not yet fully understood why seven hours is optimal -- or why long sleeping appears to be detrimental, Ferrie said.
"Chronic short sleep produces hormones and chemicals in the body which increase the risk of developing heart disease and strokes, and other conditions like high blood pressure and cholesterol, diabetes and obesity," she added.
The report was published in the May 1 issue of Sleep.
Ferrie's team collected data on 5,431 men and women, aged 35 to 55 in 1985, who took part in a long-term look at London-based office staff known as the Whitehall II study.
In 1997-1999, the participants were asked how many hours they slept on an average week night, and were asked the same question in 2003-2004 after an average 5.4 years of follow-up. Those who reported changes in their sleep patterns were then compared with people whose sleep duration stayed the same over the course of the study.
In 2003-2004, each individual was given a battery of standard tests to assess his or her memory, reasoning, vocabulary, global cognitive status and verbal fluency.
The researchers found that during the study, 58 percent of men and 50 percent of women continued to sleep the same amount each night. However, 7.4 percent of women and 8.6 percent of men increased their slumber from seven to eight hours per night.
This change in sleep pattern was associated with lower scores on six tests of cognitive function, compared with people whose sleep time did not change, the researchers found.
Only scores on the test of short-term verbal memory were not affected by sleeping more, they noted.
In addition, some 25 percent of women and 18 percent of men reported decreases in their sleep -- dozing less than six, seven or eight hours per night.
This change was associated with lower scores on three of the six cognitive tests, with lower scores on the reasoning, vocabulary and global cognitive status tests, the researchers said. Surprisingly, increasing sleep from six hours or less had no beneficial effect, they added.
Dr. Alberto Ramos, co-director of the Health Sleep Medicine Program and an assistant professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, said various studies have shown sleeping too little or too much increases the risk of dying, having a heart attack or stroke and other health problems.
"Getting enough sleep helps many brain functions," Ramos said. "It is restorative, it lets you concentrate better and process new information better and faster."
It is not clear why too much sleep may be unhealthy, Ramos said. However, he speculates, it may be a sign of other health problems.
Ramos added that to stay healthy, sleep is as important as eating well and being physically active.
"We have to think of sleep the same way as we think about diet and exercise," Ramos said. "If we want to have a healthy lifestyle we think of diet and exercise, but part of the equation is that good sleep should be part of having a healthy lifestyle for healthy aging."
More information
For more information on sleep, visit the National Sleep Foundation.
SOURCES: Jane Ferrie, Ph.D., senior research fellow, department of epidemiology and public health, University College London Medical School; Alberto Ramos, M.D., co-director, Health Sleep Medicine Program, and assistant professor, clinical neurology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine; May 1, 2011, Sleep
Sugar intake guidelines
Guidelines Help Curb the Sugar Craze
The American Heart Association (AHA) released specific guidelines on the recommended limits for added sugar in our diets. Added sugars are sugars or syrups used to process or prepare foods. They include high-fructose corn syrup, white and brown sugar, molasses, and more. These don’t include sugars that naturally occur in many fruits, dairy products, and other foods.
Knowing Your Limit
The upper limit of added sugar for each person varies, depending on overall calorie needs. But in general, women should drink or eat no more than 100 calories a day from added sugar. Men should have no more than 150 calories a day. This is equal to 6 and 9 teaspoons of added sugar, respectively. For reference, one regular can of cola contains a whopping 130 calories and 8 teaspoons of added sugar.
These guidelines are used only by the AHA, and they’re geared just toward adults. But they serve as a helpful measure of how much to limit sugar intake. High intake of added sugar is linked to obesity, high blood pressure, high triglyceride levels, and other heart disease risk factors.
Targeting High-Sugar Treats
It can be difficult to figure out how many calories come from added sugars. Nutrition labels don’t distinguish them from natural sugars. For an easy way to cut down on added sugars, limit these worst-offender treats:
Regular soft drinks
Candy
Cakes, cookies, and pies
Fruit drinks
Sweetened dairy products like ice cream and chocolate milk
For nutritious and satisfyingly sweet snacks to feed your family, check out tips from the American Dietetic Association at
http://www.eatright.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=10825.
The American Heart Association (AHA) released specific guidelines on the recommended limits for added sugar in our diets. Added sugars are sugars or syrups used to process or prepare foods. They include high-fructose corn syrup, white and brown sugar, molasses, and more. These don’t include sugars that naturally occur in many fruits, dairy products, and other foods.
Knowing Your Limit
The upper limit of added sugar for each person varies, depending on overall calorie needs. But in general, women should drink or eat no more than 100 calories a day from added sugar. Men should have no more than 150 calories a day. This is equal to 6 and 9 teaspoons of added sugar, respectively. For reference, one regular can of cola contains a whopping 130 calories and 8 teaspoons of added sugar.
These guidelines are used only by the AHA, and they’re geared just toward adults. But they serve as a helpful measure of how much to limit sugar intake. High intake of added sugar is linked to obesity, high blood pressure, high triglyceride levels, and other heart disease risk factors.
Targeting High-Sugar Treats
It can be difficult to figure out how many calories come from added sugars. Nutrition labels don’t distinguish them from natural sugars. For an easy way to cut down on added sugars, limit these worst-offender treats:
Regular soft drinks
Candy
Cakes, cookies, and pies
Fruit drinks
Sweetened dairy products like ice cream and chocolate milk
For nutritious and satisfyingly sweet snacks to feed your family, check out tips from the American Dietetic Association at
http://www.eatright.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=10825.
Monday, May 9, 2011
metabolism - not to blame for weight gain
Metabolism and weight loss: How you burn calories
Find out how metabolism affects weight, the truth behind slow metabolism, and how to burn more calories.
By Mayo Clinic staff
You've probably heard people blame their weight on a slow metabolism, but what does that mean? And is metabolism really the culprit? Is it possible to rev up your metabolism to burn more calories?
While it's true that metabolism is linked to weight, it may not be in the way you expect. In fact, contrary to common belief, a slow metabolism is rarely the cause of excess weight gain. Although your metabolism influences your body's basic energy needs, it's your food and beverage intake and your physical activity that ultimately determine how much you weigh.
Metabolism= Converting food into energy
Metabolism is the process by which your body converts what you eat and drink into energy. During this complex biochemical process, calories in food and beverages are combined with oxygen to release the energy your body needs to function. Even when you're at rest, your body needs energy for all its "hidden" functions, such as breathing, circulating blood, adjusting hormone levels, and growing and repairing cells.
The number of calories your body uses to carry out these basic functions is known as your basal metabolic rate (BMR) - what you might call metabolism.
Several factors determine your individual basal metabolic rate:
Your body size and composition. The bodies of people who are larger or have more muscle burn up more calories, even at rest.
Your sex. Men usually have less body fat and more muscle than do women of the same age and weight, burning more calories.
Your age. As you get older, the amount of muscle tends to decrease and fat accounts for more of your weight, slowing down calorie burning.
Energy needs for your body's basic functions stay fairly consistent and aren't easily changed. Your basal metabolic rate accounts for about 60 to 75 percent of the calories you burn every day.
In addition to your basal metabolic rate, two other factors determine how many calories your body burns each day:
Food processing (thermogenesis). Digesting, absorbing, transporting and storing the food you consume also takes calories. This accounts for about 10 percent of the calories used each day. For the most part, your body's energy requirement to process food stays relatively steady and isn't easily changed.
Physical activity. Physical activity and exercise - such as playing tennis, walking to the store, chasing after the dog and any other movement - account for the rest of the calories your body burns up each day.
Metabolism and weight:
It may be tempting to blame your metabolism for weight gain. But because metabolism is a natural process, your body generally balances it to meet your individual needs. That's why if you try so-called starvation diets, your body compensates by slowing down these bodily processes and conserving calories for survival. Only in rare cases do you get excessive weight gain from a medical problem that slows metabolism, such as Cushing's syndrome or having an underactive thyroid gland (hypothyroidism).
Unfortunately, weight gain is most commonly the result of eating more calories than you burn. To lose weight, then, you need to create an energy deficit by eating fewer calories, increasing the number of calories you burn through physical activity, or both.
Find out how metabolism affects weight, the truth behind slow metabolism, and how to burn more calories.
By Mayo Clinic staff
You've probably heard people blame their weight on a slow metabolism, but what does that mean? And is metabolism really the culprit? Is it possible to rev up your metabolism to burn more calories?
While it's true that metabolism is linked to weight, it may not be in the way you expect. In fact, contrary to common belief, a slow metabolism is rarely the cause of excess weight gain. Although your metabolism influences your body's basic energy needs, it's your food and beverage intake and your physical activity that ultimately determine how much you weigh.
Metabolism= Converting food into energy
Metabolism is the process by which your body converts what you eat and drink into energy. During this complex biochemical process, calories in food and beverages are combined with oxygen to release the energy your body needs to function. Even when you're at rest, your body needs energy for all its "hidden" functions, such as breathing, circulating blood, adjusting hormone levels, and growing and repairing cells.
The number of calories your body uses to carry out these basic functions is known as your basal metabolic rate (BMR) - what you might call metabolism.
Several factors determine your individual basal metabolic rate:
Your body size and composition. The bodies of people who are larger or have more muscle burn up more calories, even at rest.
Your sex. Men usually have less body fat and more muscle than do women of the same age and weight, burning more calories.
Your age. As you get older, the amount of muscle tends to decrease and fat accounts for more of your weight, slowing down calorie burning.
Energy needs for your body's basic functions stay fairly consistent and aren't easily changed. Your basal metabolic rate accounts for about 60 to 75 percent of the calories you burn every day.
In addition to your basal metabolic rate, two other factors determine how many calories your body burns each day:
Food processing (thermogenesis). Digesting, absorbing, transporting and storing the food you consume also takes calories. This accounts for about 10 percent of the calories used each day. For the most part, your body's energy requirement to process food stays relatively steady and isn't easily changed.
Physical activity. Physical activity and exercise - such as playing tennis, walking to the store, chasing after the dog and any other movement - account for the rest of the calories your body burns up each day.
Metabolism and weight:
It may be tempting to blame your metabolism for weight gain. But because metabolism is a natural process, your body generally balances it to meet your individual needs. That's why if you try so-called starvation diets, your body compensates by slowing down these bodily processes and conserving calories for survival. Only in rare cases do you get excessive weight gain from a medical problem that slows metabolism, such as Cushing's syndrome or having an underactive thyroid gland (hypothyroidism).
Unfortunately, weight gain is most commonly the result of eating more calories than you burn. To lose weight, then, you need to create an energy deficit by eating fewer calories, increasing the number of calories you burn through physical activity, or both.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Why IS processed meat so bad for you?
If you are still on the fence, wondering if you should make the switch to organic, grass-fed beef from a local farm instead of the mass-produced variety from your local supermarket, perhaps this news brief from the Australian Today Tonight show will help change your mind.
If you haven't yet seen the video, please click through and be ready to be amazed.
By now most people probably realize that ground beef contains the meat from hundreds of animals from different parts of the world, but few would ever suspect that the same can be true for prime cut steaks! Well, that's possible through the use of so-called meat glue, used to "super-glue" small chunks of meat together that are too small to sell, and passing it off as prime cuts...
What is Meat Glue?
Meat glue is an enzyme called transglutaminase. Some meat glues are produced through the cultivation of bacteria, while others are made from the blood plasma of pigs and cows, specifically the coagulant that makes blood clot.
When sprinkled on a protein, such as beef, it forms cross-linked, insoluble protein polymers that essentially acts like a super-glue, binding the pieces together with near invisible seams. The glue-covered meat is rolled up in plastic film, followed by refrigeration. Some manufacturers have gotten so proficient in the practice that even an expert butcher can't tell the difference between a piece of prime beef and one that's been glued together with bits and pieces of scraps!
Meat glue is also used for:
Pork / ham Lamb Fish products such as fish balls
Chicken Imitation crab meat Processed meats
Interestingly enough, Ajinomoto is one of the leaders in transglutaminase. You may recognize that name as they are also one of the leaders in aspartame. According to their website, transglutaminase is also used to "improve the general texture" of a variety of foods aside from meat, such as fat-free yoghurt and cheese.
Meat Glue—Both Unethical and Potentially Dangerous
First, there's the obvious issue of misleading consumers. Since food manufacturers are not required to disclose what they've done, you think you're buying a prime cut when in fact you're paying top dollar for glued-together bits and pieces that would otherwise have been discarded or sold for a fraction of the cost.
But aside from the fact that it's a pure scam, there's the increased possibility of contracting food poisoning from these meats.
According to the featured report, the bacterial contamination of meat glued steak is hundreds of times higher than a solid piece of steak! Hence, if you cook your steak rare, which is the healthiest way to cook your meat, you're at a much greater risk of contracting food poisoning.
Additionally, when an outbreak does occur, it's difficult, if not impossible, to discern the source of the contamination, as chunks of meat from multiple cows have now been combined.
Food poisoning is a serious problem in the US. According to US CDC estimates, anywhere between 6 to 81 million Americans contract food borne illnesses each year, and food poisoning claims up to 9,000 lives annually. Considering the fact that our current food system encourages pathogens and contaminations of all kinds, it's not all that surprising that as many as one in four people get sickened each year…
The Dangers of Mass Food Production
Many people are still in the dark about the vast differences between Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and organically-raised, grass-fed beef, both in terms of contamination and nutrient content.
It's important to understand that when you raise animals in a CAFO -- away from their natural environments and diets – you dramatically increase the risk of pathogenic contamination that can make you ill. Just take a look at the 2011 USDA list of recalls for various meat products. We're not even half-way through the year and the list is already a long one.
Most CAFO cows are fed grains (oftentimes genetically modified grains, which make matters even worse), when their natural diet is plain grass. Grain diets create a much higher level of acidity in the animal's stomach, which E. coli bacteria need to survive.
Meanwhile, E. coli contamination is actually quite rare in organic beef for this reason—the cows just aren't susceptible to those kinds of disease-causing bacteria and viruses when they eat what they were designed to eat.
You'd think that since the meat is being raised in ways that are known to encourage disease-causing organisms, there'd be stringent requirements on testing. Unfortunately, that's not the case. For example, there is no federal requirement for meat grinders to test their ingredients for E.coli prior to selling them. And most retailers do not test either. In August 2008, the USDA issued a guideline urging meat processors to test their ingredients before grinding. But the guideline is only optional and has been met with criticism and resistance from the meat industry.
Other Health-Harming Side Effects of Mass Food Production
Modern mass production of food has created a wide array of safety problems. And the methods employed to make food "safer" typically deepens rather than solves them. In fact, once you delve into the world of the food industry, it becomes clear that eating much of it is like playing a game of Russian roulette with your health.
While I'm not going to address them all here, one problem in particular, which relates to the issue of meat, is the issue of contamination with hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides. As much as 70 percent of all antibiotics used in the U.S. are for animals, primarily to serve as growth enhancers. The excessive use of antibiotics in agriculture is the primary reason for the rampant increase in antibiotic-resistant disease in humans.
As for pesticides, most people do not realize that conventionally-raised meat is actually one of the primary sources of pesticide exposure—not fruits and vegetables!
How's that?
Again, it goes back to the fact that CAFO animals are raised on a diet consisting primarily of grains, which are of course sprayed with pesticides.
Genetically modified (GM) grains are another growing problem. Not only are they sprayed with MORE pesticides than conventional crops, but we also do not know exactly what the health effects on humans might be when you eat meat raised on GM grains.
However, in an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, warns that a never-before-seen plant pathogen in Roundup Ready GM soybean and corn appears to be responsible for high rates of infertility and miscarriages in cattle.
In the letter, posted on the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance website, Dr. Huber states:
"This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.
... Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.
The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%."
Whether or not this could affect humans who consume these grains or meats raised on them is yet unknown, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if that's exactly what we'll eventually find...
Meat Glue May Be the Least of Your Problems when it Comes to Processed Meats
As mentioned earlier, meat glue is also commonly used in processed meats, but that may be the least of your problems in this case. Processed meats are so bad for your health that I am firmly convinced they should NEVER be consumed. But that's not just my opinion. It's also the conclusion reached by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) after reviewing more than 7,000 clinical studies examining the connection between diet and cancer.
Processed meats are those preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or the addition of chemical preservatives. This includes bacon, ham, pastrami, salami, pepperoni, hot dogs, some sausages and hamburgers (if they have been preserved with salt or chemical additives) and more.
Particularly problematic are the nitrates that are added to these meats as a preservative, coloring and flavoring. The nitrates found in processed meats are frequently converted into nitrosamines, which are clearly associated with an increased risk of certain cancers.
The latest research from WCRF is only the most recent of a slew of evidence linking processed meats to cancer.
A 2007 analysis by WCRF found that eating just one sausage a day can significantly raise your risk of bowel cancer. Specifically, 1.8 ounces of processed meat daily -- about one sausage or three pieces of bacon -- raises the likelihood of the cancer by 20 percent.
Other studies have also found that processed meats increase your risk of:
•Colon cancer by 50 percent
•Bladder cancer by 59 percent
•Stomach cancer by 38 percent
•Pancreatic cancer by 67 percent
And that's not all. Hot dogs, bacon, salami and other processed meats may also increase your risk of diabetes by 50 percent, and lower your lung function and increase your risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Why is Grass-Fed Beef Your Best Choice?
A safer option, as many consumers are now beginning to appreciate, is to choose locally grown and raised foods over those that have been mass produced, despite label claims of being "natural" or "organic."
When selecting beef, grass-fed beef that has NOT been "finished off on corn" is definitely your healthiest option as it is:
•A natural source of healthy omega-3 fats – Omega-3s in cattle that feed on grass is 7 percent of the total fat content, compared to just 1 percent in grain-only fed beef. It also has the optimal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats (3:1)
•High in CLA (Conjugated Linoleic Acid); a fat that reduces your risk of cancer, obesity, diabetes, and a number of immune disorders
•High in beta carotene
•Loaded with over 400 percent more of vitamins A and E
•Virtually devoid of risk of Mad Cow Disease
You know, the rationale behind my nutritional guidelines really boil down to plain old common sense. My recommendations stem largely from what scientific research has determined are the types of foods that humans are naturally designed to eat. Health problems invariably surface the further you stray from eating such foods. Another way to say this would be that your body's biochemical make-up is adversely affected if you eat things that aren't right for you.
One result of this is that your body's composition will inevitably change.
Why would things be any different for a cow?
When you think of a cow in its natural environment, doing what it naturally does, you likely will picture it grazing. Is it grazing on stalks of corn? Of course not! It's grazing on green grass. (Animals given a choice will also avoid genetically modified grains, which really should tell us something...)
When cows eat grains, their body composition changes in detrimental ways, just like your body and health changes for the worse when you eat lots of junk- and fast food. Most importantly for you, these changes include an alteration in the balance of fatty acids in their bodies, which leads to an imbalance in YOUR intake of omega-3 and omega-6s as well.
Does the E. Coli Risk Decrease With Grass-Fed Beef?
Yes, it does.
Grass-finished beef has a minimal risk compared to grain-fed beef due to the difference in epigastric pH in the two diets.
Grain diets create a much higher level of acidity in the animal's stomach, which is exactly what the E.coli bacteria need to survive and thrive.
Additionally, grass-finished animals live in clean grass pastures—as opposed to dirty, crowded pens—where higher levels of sanitation greatly reduce the risk of contamination as well.
How to Make Healthier Meat Choices
If you want to eat beeft in a truly healthful way (and yes, meat can be, and is, healthy), while at the same time avoiding getting fooled by glued piece-meats passed off as prime steak, follow these guidelines:
•The beef should be organic and grass-fed
•It should ideally come from a local farmer (try finding a farmer's market or community-supported agriculture program in your area to do this) who can verify that the products are raised on pasture without antibiotics and pesticides, and who can tell you which cuts you're actually getting
•The animals should be allowed to live in their natural habitats, eating their natural diets
•The farmer should be aware of the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems
As you may know, I recommend eating as much food raw as possible, including meat. However, it absolutely MUST be grass-fed!
You're literally risking your life if you eat conventionally-raised CAFO meat raw due to the high rate of pathogenic contamination. That goes for both prime cuts and the glued variety.
source:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/04/has-your-meat-been-glued-together--why-you-need-to-know-and-avoid-this-dangerous-process.aspx
If you haven't yet seen the video, please click through and be ready to be amazed.
By now most people probably realize that ground beef contains the meat from hundreds of animals from different parts of the world, but few would ever suspect that the same can be true for prime cut steaks! Well, that's possible through the use of so-called meat glue, used to "super-glue" small chunks of meat together that are too small to sell, and passing it off as prime cuts...
What is Meat Glue?
Meat glue is an enzyme called transglutaminase. Some meat glues are produced through the cultivation of bacteria, while others are made from the blood plasma of pigs and cows, specifically the coagulant that makes blood clot.
When sprinkled on a protein, such as beef, it forms cross-linked, insoluble protein polymers that essentially acts like a super-glue, binding the pieces together with near invisible seams. The glue-covered meat is rolled up in plastic film, followed by refrigeration. Some manufacturers have gotten so proficient in the practice that even an expert butcher can't tell the difference between a piece of prime beef and one that's been glued together with bits and pieces of scraps!
Meat glue is also used for:
Pork / ham Lamb Fish products such as fish balls
Chicken Imitation crab meat Processed meats
Interestingly enough, Ajinomoto is one of the leaders in transglutaminase. You may recognize that name as they are also one of the leaders in aspartame. According to their website, transglutaminase is also used to "improve the general texture" of a variety of foods aside from meat, such as fat-free yoghurt and cheese.
Meat Glue—Both Unethical and Potentially Dangerous
First, there's the obvious issue of misleading consumers. Since food manufacturers are not required to disclose what they've done, you think you're buying a prime cut when in fact you're paying top dollar for glued-together bits and pieces that would otherwise have been discarded or sold for a fraction of the cost.
But aside from the fact that it's a pure scam, there's the increased possibility of contracting food poisoning from these meats.
According to the featured report, the bacterial contamination of meat glued steak is hundreds of times higher than a solid piece of steak! Hence, if you cook your steak rare, which is the healthiest way to cook your meat, you're at a much greater risk of contracting food poisoning.
Additionally, when an outbreak does occur, it's difficult, if not impossible, to discern the source of the contamination, as chunks of meat from multiple cows have now been combined.
Food poisoning is a serious problem in the US. According to US CDC estimates, anywhere between 6 to 81 million Americans contract food borne illnesses each year, and food poisoning claims up to 9,000 lives annually. Considering the fact that our current food system encourages pathogens and contaminations of all kinds, it's not all that surprising that as many as one in four people get sickened each year…
The Dangers of Mass Food Production
Many people are still in the dark about the vast differences between Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and organically-raised, grass-fed beef, both in terms of contamination and nutrient content.
It's important to understand that when you raise animals in a CAFO -- away from their natural environments and diets – you dramatically increase the risk of pathogenic contamination that can make you ill. Just take a look at the 2011 USDA list of recalls for various meat products. We're not even half-way through the year and the list is already a long one.
Most CAFO cows are fed grains (oftentimes genetically modified grains, which make matters even worse), when their natural diet is plain grass. Grain diets create a much higher level of acidity in the animal's stomach, which E. coli bacteria need to survive.
Meanwhile, E. coli contamination is actually quite rare in organic beef for this reason—the cows just aren't susceptible to those kinds of disease-causing bacteria and viruses when they eat what they were designed to eat.
You'd think that since the meat is being raised in ways that are known to encourage disease-causing organisms, there'd be stringent requirements on testing. Unfortunately, that's not the case. For example, there is no federal requirement for meat grinders to test their ingredients for E.coli prior to selling them. And most retailers do not test either. In August 2008, the USDA issued a guideline urging meat processors to test their ingredients before grinding. But the guideline is only optional and has been met with criticism and resistance from the meat industry.
Other Health-Harming Side Effects of Mass Food Production
Modern mass production of food has created a wide array of safety problems. And the methods employed to make food "safer" typically deepens rather than solves them. In fact, once you delve into the world of the food industry, it becomes clear that eating much of it is like playing a game of Russian roulette with your health.
While I'm not going to address them all here, one problem in particular, which relates to the issue of meat, is the issue of contamination with hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides. As much as 70 percent of all antibiotics used in the U.S. are for animals, primarily to serve as growth enhancers. The excessive use of antibiotics in agriculture is the primary reason for the rampant increase in antibiotic-resistant disease in humans.
As for pesticides, most people do not realize that conventionally-raised meat is actually one of the primary sources of pesticide exposure—not fruits and vegetables!
How's that?
Again, it goes back to the fact that CAFO animals are raised on a diet consisting primarily of grains, which are of course sprayed with pesticides.
Genetically modified (GM) grains are another growing problem. Not only are they sprayed with MORE pesticides than conventional crops, but we also do not know exactly what the health effects on humans might be when you eat meat raised on GM grains.
However, in an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, warns that a never-before-seen plant pathogen in Roundup Ready GM soybean and corn appears to be responsible for high rates of infertility and miscarriages in cattle.
In the letter, posted on the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance website, Dr. Huber states:
"This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.
... Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.
The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%."
Whether or not this could affect humans who consume these grains or meats raised on them is yet unknown, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if that's exactly what we'll eventually find...
Meat Glue May Be the Least of Your Problems when it Comes to Processed Meats
As mentioned earlier, meat glue is also commonly used in processed meats, but that may be the least of your problems in this case. Processed meats are so bad for your health that I am firmly convinced they should NEVER be consumed. But that's not just my opinion. It's also the conclusion reached by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) after reviewing more than 7,000 clinical studies examining the connection between diet and cancer.
Processed meats are those preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or the addition of chemical preservatives. This includes bacon, ham, pastrami, salami, pepperoni, hot dogs, some sausages and hamburgers (if they have been preserved with salt or chemical additives) and more.
Particularly problematic are the nitrates that are added to these meats as a preservative, coloring and flavoring. The nitrates found in processed meats are frequently converted into nitrosamines, which are clearly associated with an increased risk of certain cancers.
The latest research from WCRF is only the most recent of a slew of evidence linking processed meats to cancer.
A 2007 analysis by WCRF found that eating just one sausage a day can significantly raise your risk of bowel cancer. Specifically, 1.8 ounces of processed meat daily -- about one sausage or three pieces of bacon -- raises the likelihood of the cancer by 20 percent.
Other studies have also found that processed meats increase your risk of:
•Colon cancer by 50 percent
•Bladder cancer by 59 percent
•Stomach cancer by 38 percent
•Pancreatic cancer by 67 percent
And that's not all. Hot dogs, bacon, salami and other processed meats may also increase your risk of diabetes by 50 percent, and lower your lung function and increase your risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Why is Grass-Fed Beef Your Best Choice?
A safer option, as many consumers are now beginning to appreciate, is to choose locally grown and raised foods over those that have been mass produced, despite label claims of being "natural" or "organic."
When selecting beef, grass-fed beef that has NOT been "finished off on corn" is definitely your healthiest option as it is:
•A natural source of healthy omega-3 fats – Omega-3s in cattle that feed on grass is 7 percent of the total fat content, compared to just 1 percent in grain-only fed beef. It also has the optimal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats (3:1)
•High in CLA (Conjugated Linoleic Acid); a fat that reduces your risk of cancer, obesity, diabetes, and a number of immune disorders
•High in beta carotene
•Loaded with over 400 percent more of vitamins A and E
•Virtually devoid of risk of Mad Cow Disease
You know, the rationale behind my nutritional guidelines really boil down to plain old common sense. My recommendations stem largely from what scientific research has determined are the types of foods that humans are naturally designed to eat. Health problems invariably surface the further you stray from eating such foods. Another way to say this would be that your body's biochemical make-up is adversely affected if you eat things that aren't right for you.
One result of this is that your body's composition will inevitably change.
Why would things be any different for a cow?
When you think of a cow in its natural environment, doing what it naturally does, you likely will picture it grazing. Is it grazing on stalks of corn? Of course not! It's grazing on green grass. (Animals given a choice will also avoid genetically modified grains, which really should tell us something...)
When cows eat grains, their body composition changes in detrimental ways, just like your body and health changes for the worse when you eat lots of junk- and fast food. Most importantly for you, these changes include an alteration in the balance of fatty acids in their bodies, which leads to an imbalance in YOUR intake of omega-3 and omega-6s as well.
Does the E. Coli Risk Decrease With Grass-Fed Beef?
Yes, it does.
Grass-finished beef has a minimal risk compared to grain-fed beef due to the difference in epigastric pH in the two diets.
Grain diets create a much higher level of acidity in the animal's stomach, which is exactly what the E.coli bacteria need to survive and thrive.
Additionally, grass-finished animals live in clean grass pastures—as opposed to dirty, crowded pens—where higher levels of sanitation greatly reduce the risk of contamination as well.
How to Make Healthier Meat Choices
If you want to eat beeft in a truly healthful way (and yes, meat can be, and is, healthy), while at the same time avoiding getting fooled by glued piece-meats passed off as prime steak, follow these guidelines:
•The beef should be organic and grass-fed
•It should ideally come from a local farmer (try finding a farmer's market or community-supported agriculture program in your area to do this) who can verify that the products are raised on pasture without antibiotics and pesticides, and who can tell you which cuts you're actually getting
•The animals should be allowed to live in their natural habitats, eating their natural diets
•The farmer should be aware of the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems
As you may know, I recommend eating as much food raw as possible, including meat. However, it absolutely MUST be grass-fed!
You're literally risking your life if you eat conventionally-raised CAFO meat raw due to the high rate of pathogenic contamination. That goes for both prime cuts and the glued variety.
source:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/04/has-your-meat-been-glued-together--why-you-need-to-know-and-avoid-this-dangerous-process.aspx
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
weights or cardio first?
"Efficiency is the key when structuring any workout, so long-duration cardio should not be done in the beginning of the session," says certified strength and conditioning specialist Jim Smith. "The most intensive training should be done first in the workout, when you are at your best." By starting with weights, you alert your muscles to trigger the proteins that churn through calories while you train. So even though you're probably spent after 30 minutes of weights, your body is ready to eat fat faster than it would if you started by "telling" the body to attack sugar. A lot of people get this wrong, thinking weight training diminishes the effect of the cardio work. It's the opposite. Just remember the phrase: "Muscle eats the fat." If you want to lose the flab -- and who doesn't? -- you want your muscles as active as possible. That means starting with weights.
And if you only have 30 minutes total, go for weights instead of cardio. That sounds counterintuitive, since we feel sweating is "proof" we're losing fat. But you will lose a lot more fat by pushing and pulling weights and then going on a brisk walk in your neighborhood (or even at the mall). The guy or gal who is dripping buckets on the Stairmaster is getting a good workout, but you're likely getting a better one by getting sore and not getting soaked.
View entire article here:
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/training-day/201104/warm-cardio-then-go-weights-right-wrong
And if you only have 30 minutes total, go for weights instead of cardio. That sounds counterintuitive, since we feel sweating is "proof" we're losing fat. But you will lose a lot more fat by pushing and pulling weights and then going on a brisk walk in your neighborhood (or even at the mall). The guy or gal who is dripping buckets on the Stairmaster is getting a good workout, but you're likely getting a better one by getting sore and not getting soaked.
View entire article here:
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/training-day/201104/warm-cardio-then-go-weights-right-wrong
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Is it worth it to buy organic...
...only if you want to improve your health! Here is a list of must-buy organics!
The new Dirty Dozen: 12 foods to eat organic and avoid pesticide residue
Fruits and veggies are an essential part of a healthy diet, but many conventional varieties contain pesticide residues.
And not all the pesticides used to kill bugs, grubs, or fungus on the farm washes off under the tap at home. Government tests show which fruits and vegetables, prepared typically at home, still have a pesticide residue.
You can reduce your exposure to pesticides by as much as 80% if you avoiding the most contaminated foods in the grocery store.
To do so, you need the latest info from the why the Environmental Working Group's "Dirty Dozen" list of foods most likely to have high pesticide residues. Since 1995, the organization has taken the government data and identified which type of produce has the most chemicals.
This year, celery takes the number one spot and both blueberries and spinach make an appearance (displacing lettuce and pears).
The best way to avoid pesticide residue on foods is to buy organic produce -- USDA rules prohibit the use of pesticides on any crop with the certified organic label.
Here's a closer look at the 2010 Dirty Dozen:
1. Celery
Celery has no protective skin, which makes it almost impossible to wash off the chemicals (64 of them!) that are used on crops. Buy organic celery, or choose alternatives like broccoli, radishes, and onions.
2. Peaches
Multiple pesticides (as many as 62 of them) are regularly applied to these delicately skinned fruits in conventional orchards. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include watermelon, tangerines, oranges, and grapefruit.
3. Strawberries
If you buy strawberries, especially out of season, they're most likely imported from countries that have less-stringent regulations for pesticide use. 59 pesticides have been detected in residue on strawberries. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include kiwi and pineapples.
4. Apples
Like peaches, apples are typically grown with poisons to kill a variety of pests, from fungi to insects. Tests have found 42 different pesticides as residue on apples. Scrubbing and peeling doesn't eliminate chemical residue completely, so it's best to buy organic when it comes to apples. Peeling a fruit or vegetable also strips away many of their beneficial nutrients. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include watermelon, bananas, and tangerines.
5. Blueberries
New on the Dirty Dozen list in 2010, blueberries are treated with as many as 52 pesticides, making them one of the dirtiest berries on the market.
6. Nectarines
With 33 different types of pesticides found on nectarines, they rank up there with apples and peaches among the dirtiest tree fruit. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include, watermelon, papaya, and mango.
7. Bell peppers
Peppers have thin skins that don't offer much of a barrier to pesticides. They're often heavily sprayed with insecticides. (Tests have found 49 different pesticides on sweet bell peppers.) Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include green peas, broccoli, and cabbage.
8. Spinach
New on the list for 2010, spinach can be laced with as many as 48 different pesticides, making it one of the most contaminated green leafy vegetable.
9. Kale
Traditionally, kale is known as a hardier vegetable that rarely suffers from pests and disease, but it was found to have high amounts of pesticide residue when tested this year. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include cabbage, asparagus, and broccoli.
10. Cherries
Even locally grown cherries are not necessarily safe. In fact, in one survey in recent years, cherries grown in the U.S. were found to have three times more pesticide residue then imported cherries. Government testing has found 42 different pesticides on cherries. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include raspberries and cranberries.
11. Potatoes
America's popular spud reappears on the 2010 Dirty Dozen list, after a year hiatus. America's favorite vegetable can be laced with as many as 37 different pesticides. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include eggplant, cabbage, and earthy mushrooms.
12. Grapes
Imported grapes run a much greater risk of contamination than those grown domestically. Only imported grapes make the 2010 Dirty Dozen list. Vineyards can be sprayed with different pesticides during different growth periods of the grape, and no amount of washing or peeling will eliminate contamination because of the grape's thin skin. Remember, wine is made from grapes, which testing shows can harbor as many as 34 different pesticides. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include kiwi and raspberries.
The new Dirty Dozen: 12 foods to eat organic and avoid pesticide residue
Fruits and veggies are an essential part of a healthy diet, but many conventional varieties contain pesticide residues.
And not all the pesticides used to kill bugs, grubs, or fungus on the farm washes off under the tap at home. Government tests show which fruits and vegetables, prepared typically at home, still have a pesticide residue.
You can reduce your exposure to pesticides by as much as 80% if you avoiding the most contaminated foods in the grocery store.
To do so, you need the latest info from the why the Environmental Working Group's "Dirty Dozen" list of foods most likely to have high pesticide residues. Since 1995, the organization has taken the government data and identified which type of produce has the most chemicals.
This year, celery takes the number one spot and both blueberries and spinach make an appearance (displacing lettuce and pears).
The best way to avoid pesticide residue on foods is to buy organic produce -- USDA rules prohibit the use of pesticides on any crop with the certified organic label.
Here's a closer look at the 2010 Dirty Dozen:
1. Celery
Celery has no protective skin, which makes it almost impossible to wash off the chemicals (64 of them!) that are used on crops. Buy organic celery, or choose alternatives like broccoli, radishes, and onions.
2. Peaches
Multiple pesticides (as many as 62 of them) are regularly applied to these delicately skinned fruits in conventional orchards. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include watermelon, tangerines, oranges, and grapefruit.
3. Strawberries
If you buy strawberries, especially out of season, they're most likely imported from countries that have less-stringent regulations for pesticide use. 59 pesticides have been detected in residue on strawberries. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include kiwi and pineapples.
4. Apples
Like peaches, apples are typically grown with poisons to kill a variety of pests, from fungi to insects. Tests have found 42 different pesticides as residue on apples. Scrubbing and peeling doesn't eliminate chemical residue completely, so it's best to buy organic when it comes to apples. Peeling a fruit or vegetable also strips away many of their beneficial nutrients. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include watermelon, bananas, and tangerines.
5. Blueberries
New on the Dirty Dozen list in 2010, blueberries are treated with as many as 52 pesticides, making them one of the dirtiest berries on the market.
6. Nectarines
With 33 different types of pesticides found on nectarines, they rank up there with apples and peaches among the dirtiest tree fruit. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include, watermelon, papaya, and mango.
7. Bell peppers
Peppers have thin skins that don't offer much of a barrier to pesticides. They're often heavily sprayed with insecticides. (Tests have found 49 different pesticides on sweet bell peppers.) Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include green peas, broccoli, and cabbage.
8. Spinach
New on the list for 2010, spinach can be laced with as many as 48 different pesticides, making it one of the most contaminated green leafy vegetable.
9. Kale
Traditionally, kale is known as a hardier vegetable that rarely suffers from pests and disease, but it was found to have high amounts of pesticide residue when tested this year. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include cabbage, asparagus, and broccoli.
10. Cherries
Even locally grown cherries are not necessarily safe. In fact, in one survey in recent years, cherries grown in the U.S. were found to have three times more pesticide residue then imported cherries. Government testing has found 42 different pesticides on cherries. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include raspberries and cranberries.
11. Potatoes
America's popular spud reappears on the 2010 Dirty Dozen list, after a year hiatus. America's favorite vegetable can be laced with as many as 37 different pesticides. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include eggplant, cabbage, and earthy mushrooms.
12. Grapes
Imported grapes run a much greater risk of contamination than those grown domestically. Only imported grapes make the 2010 Dirty Dozen list. Vineyards can be sprayed with different pesticides during different growth periods of the grape, and no amount of washing or peeling will eliminate contamination because of the grape's thin skin. Remember, wine is made from grapes, which testing shows can harbor as many as 34 different pesticides. Can't find organic? Safer alternatives include kiwi and raspberries.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
self myofascial release
BENEFITS OF SELF-MYOFASCIAL RELEASE
• Correct muscle and energy imbalances
• Increase core and total strength
• Increase muscle tone and muscle density
• Increase bone density
• Increase joint range of motion
• Decrease muscle soreness & relieve joint stress
• Decrease muscle tension
• Increase flexibility
• Increase neuromuscular efficiency
• Maintain normal functional muscular length
• Reduce cellulite
• Reduce stretch marks
• Increase energy expenditure i.e. Burn calories
• Reduce stress
• Remove toxins within soft tissue
• Decrease scar tissue
• Become more proactive with own health and wellbeing
• Learn to understand your body better
GENERAL GUIDELINES
1. The he alth and fitness professional should be proficient in these techniques prior to client instruction.
2. Hold each position 1-2 minutes for each side (when applicable).
3. If pain is reported, stop rolling and REST on the painful areas for 30-45 seconds.
§ Continuing to roll when pain is present activates the muscle spindles, causing increased tightness and pain.
§ Resting 30-45 seconds on painful areas will stimulate the GTO and autogenically inhibit the muscle spindles; reducing muscular tension and will help regulate fascial receptors.
4. Maintain proper Draw-In Position, which provides stability to the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex during rolling.
5. Clients can perform SMFR Program 1-2 x daily.
SUMMARY
The SMFR Program can help your clients reach their health and fitness goals. Simply by using their own body weight on the rollers, they’ll be reducing pain and tension, and restoring normal muscle length and balance. Optimum muscle balance helps to provide optimum joint motion leading to optimum performance.
WHO SMR IS NOT FOR:
Those with circulatory problems and chronic pain diseases (*e.g. fibromyalgia, rheumatic fever, hypertensive disease) should NOT use foam rollers.
presented by Gina Jankowski
• Correct muscle and energy imbalances
• Increase core and total strength
• Increase muscle tone and muscle density
• Increase bone density
• Increase joint range of motion
• Decrease muscle soreness & relieve joint stress
• Decrease muscle tension
• Increase flexibility
• Increase neuromuscular efficiency
• Maintain normal functional muscular length
• Reduce cellulite
• Reduce stretch marks
• Increase energy expenditure i.e. Burn calories
• Reduce stress
• Remove toxins within soft tissue
• Decrease scar tissue
• Become more proactive with own health and wellbeing
• Learn to understand your body better
GENERAL GUIDELINES
1. The he alth and fitness professional should be proficient in these techniques prior to client instruction.
2. Hold each position 1-2 minutes for each side (when applicable).
3. If pain is reported, stop rolling and REST on the painful areas for 30-45 seconds.
§ Continuing to roll when pain is present activates the muscle spindles, causing increased tightness and pain.
§ Resting 30-45 seconds on painful areas will stimulate the GTO and autogenically inhibit the muscle spindles; reducing muscular tension and will help regulate fascial receptors.
4. Maintain proper Draw-In Position, which provides stability to the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex during rolling.
5. Clients can perform SMFR Program 1-2 x daily.
SUMMARY
The SMFR Program can help your clients reach their health and fitness goals. Simply by using their own body weight on the rollers, they’ll be reducing pain and tension, and restoring normal muscle length and balance. Optimum muscle balance helps to provide optimum joint motion leading to optimum performance.
WHO SMR IS NOT FOR:
Those with circulatory problems and chronic pain diseases (*e.g. fibromyalgia, rheumatic fever, hypertensive disease) should NOT use foam rollers.
Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCIHZsESxOU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76efutQxISk
References:
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Stretching- The Basic Info.
When to Stretch - Why Experts Recommend Athletes Stretch After Exercise
Research finds that it's better to stretch after exercise and warm up before
Recommendations to stretch or not stretch change from year to year and from expert to expert.
Stretching has been promoted for years as an essential part of a fitness program as a way to decrease
the risk of injury, prevent soreness and improve performance. While researchers continue to look at
the benefits and pitfalls of stretching, there is still limited (and conflicting) evidence to sort out these opinions.
Stretching and Muscle Soreness
Some research suggests that stretching doesn't prevent muscle soreness after exercise. Researchers Robert Herbert, Ph.D., and Marcos de Noronha, Ph.D. of the University of Sydney conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 previously published studies of stretching either before or after athletic activity. They concluded that stretching before exercise doesn't prevent post-exercise muscle soreness. They also found little support for the theory that stretching immediately before exercise can prevent either overuse or acute sports injuries.Stretching and Performance
Research physiologists at Nebraska Wesleyan University made the headlines in 2009 when theypublished study results indicating that more flexible runners had lower running economy (how efficiently they use oxygen) than runners with tight hamstrings. Consequently, those runners were faster than the 'flexible' runners. Yes, it was a very small study, and yes, they only measured sit and reach scores. But the results were still a bit surprising and brought more attention to the question: To should or not to stretch ?Warm up vs. Stretching
Much of this confusion comes from a misinterpretation of research on warm up. These studies found that warming by itself has no effect on range of motion, but that when the warm up is followed by stretching there is an increase in range of motion. Many people misinterpreted this finding to mean that stretching before exercise prevents injuries, even though the clinical research suggests otherwise. A better interpretation is that warm up prevents injury, whereas stretching has no effect on injury.If injury prevention is the primary objective the evidence suggests that athletes should limit the stretching before exercise and increase the warm up time.Studies do support that range of motion can be increased by a single fifteen to thirty second stretch for each muscle group per day. However, some people require a longer duration or more repetitions. Research also supports the idea that the optimal duration and frequency for stretching may vary by muscle group.The long-term effects of stretching on range of motion show that after six weeks, those who stretch for 30 seconds per muscle each day increased their range of motion much more than those who stretched 15 seconds per muscle each day. No additional increase was seen in the group that stretched for 60 seconds. Another 6 week study conducted found that one hamstring stretch of 30 seconds each day produced the same results as three stretches of 30 seconds.These studies support the use of thirty second stretches as part of general conditioning to improve range of motion.Is Flexibility Overrated?
When sorting out all the research on stretching and flexibility for athletes, it's important to remember that the goal of stretching is to develop and maintain an appropriate range of motion around specific joints. It's also important to realize that stretching (or releasing) tight muscles should go hand in hand with strengthening the weak muscles.I'm sure we'll continue to see headlines for and against stretching, but if you choose to stretch, it may be best to customize your routine to fit your needs. Assess your body and your sport and make sure you stretch (and strengthen) in order to reduce muscle imbalances.
How To Stretch
After exercise, cool down and hold a given stretch only until you feel a slight pulling in the muscle, but no pain. As you hold the stretch the muscle will relax. As you feel less tension you can increase the stretch again until you feel the same slight pull. Hold this position until you feel no further increase.If you do not seem to gain any range of motion using the above technique, you may consider holding the stretch longer (up to 60 seconds).What Stretch is Best?In general, Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) stretching has resulted in greater increases in range of motion compared with static or ballistic stretching, though some results have not been statistically significant.Static stretches are a bit easier to do and appear to have good results. Studies indicate that continuous stretching without rest may be better than cyclic stretching (applying a stretch, relaxing, and reapplying the stretch), however some research shows no difference.Most experts believe ballistic, or bouncing during a stretch, is dangerous because the muscle may reflexively contract if restretched quickly following a short relaxation period. Such eccentric contractions are believed to increase the risk of injury.In addition to improving range of motion, stretching is extremely relaxing and most athletes use stretching exercises to maintain a balance in body mechanics. But one of the biggest benefits of stretching may be something the research can't quantify: it just feels good.
Source
Herbert RD, de Noronha M. Stretching to prevent or reduce muscle soreness after exercise. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4.
Andersen, J. C. Stretching Before and After Exercise: Effect on Muscle Soreness and Injury Risk. Journal of Athletic Training 40(2005): 218-220
Witvrouw, Erik, Nele Mahieu, Lieven Danneels, and Peter McNair. Stretching and Injury Prevention An Obscure Relationship. Sports Medicine 34.7(2004): 443-449
Ian Shrier MD, PhD and Kav Gossal MD. The Myths and Truths of Stretching: Individualized Recommendations for Healthy Muscles, The Physician and Sportsmedicine, VOL 28, #8, August 2000.
Trehearn TL, Buresh RJ.. Sit-and-reach flexibility and running economy of men and women collegiate distance runners. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):158-62.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Are chemicals making us fat?!?!?!
Obesogens are chemical compounds foreign to the body that are hypothesized to disrupt normal development or homeostasis of metabolismof lipids ultimately resulting in obesity.[1][2] Obesogens may be functionally defined as chemicals that inappropriately alter lipid homeostasis and fat storage, change metabolic setpoints, disrupt energy balance or modify the regulation of appetite and satiety to promote fat accumulation and obesity.[3]
There are many proposed mechanisms through which obesogens can act, including alterations in the action of metabolic sensors; dysregulation of sex steroid synthesis, action or breakdown; changes in the central integration of energy balance including the regulation of appetite and satiety; and reprogramming metabolic setpoints.[4][5] Some of these proposed pathways include inappropriate modulation ofnuclear receptor function; therefore, these compounds are classified as endocrine disrupting chemicals.[6] Several examples of substances that could be classified as obesogens include tributyltin, bisphenol A, diethylhexylphthalate, and perfluorooctanoate. Emerging evidence from laboratories around the world suggests that other chemicals will be confirmed as falling under this proposed classification in the near future.
The term obesogen was coined by Bruce Blumberg of the University of California, Irvine.[7] The topic of this proposed class of chemical compounds and how to counteract their effects is explored at length in the book The New American Diet.
There’s a new group of secret saboteurs in the war against weight gain. They’re called obesogens, and they are all around us. Here’s how to track down the enemies to win the battle of the bulge.
We blame weight gain on eating too many burgers and burning too little fat, (while these may be factors), but scientists are discovering that chemicals we’re exposed to everyday could be a big part of the obesity epidemic. Called obesogens, or endocrine disruptors, these natural and man-made chemicals work by altering the regulatory system that controls your weight—increasing the fat cells you have, decreasing the calories you burn, and even altering the way your body manages hunger.
It’s time to fight back. The White House's task force on childhood obesity is tackling obesogens and the Environmental Protection Agency has pumped $20 million into studying them. Here’s what you need to know to wage your own battle on the home front.
How they work
By mimicking the actions of naturally occurring hormones in our bodies or preventing the hormones we produce from acting correctly, endocrine disruptors can:
- Encourage the body to store fat and re-program cells to become fat cells.
- Prompt the liver to become insulin resistant, which makes the pancreas pump out more insulin that turns energy into fat all over the body.
- Prevent leptin (a hormone that reduces appetite) from being released from your fat cells to tell your body you are full.
Where you find them
The short answer: everywhere, particularly because high fructose corn syrup, which can be found in every kind of food, from sodas to yogurt to pretzels, is an obesogen. The ubiquitous, viscous sweet stuff makes your liver insulin resistant and tampers with leptin to increase your hunger, setting up a vicious cycle where you crave more food that is then more easily turned into fat.
Other common places to find obesogens:
- In your faucets: Pesticides seep deep into the soil and find their way to the water table and into your tap water. The main obesogen in tap water is atrazine. Banned in Europe, but found around the United States, atrazine slows thyroid hormone metabolism. Another culprit found in tap water, tributylin, a fungicide painted on the bottoms of boats, stimulates fat cell production.
- Cans and water bottles: Bisphenol-A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen used to make plastics hard which has been banned from baby bottles, but is still present in many other plastics (especially sports water bottles) and the lining of most cans, has been shown to increase insulin resistance in animal studies.
- Nonstick pans and microwave popcorn: Animal studies have shown that early exposure to a chemical used to make items non-stick – Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – leads to obesity in later life. It also is known to affect thyroid glands, which are important regulators of hormones that control weight. Found mainly in products like Teflon pans, it’s also hidden in microwave popcorn bags and pizza boxes.
- Shower curtains and air fresheners: Phthalates, chemicals found in vinyl products such as shower curtains and fragrance products such as air fresheners, may lower testosterone and metabolism levels, causing you to gain weight and lose muscle mass. They’re also found in vinyl flooring and industrial-grade plastic wrap used to shrink wrap meat in the grocery store.
How to avoid obesogens:
- Buy wild fish (such as salmon, which is packed with heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids) and meat products that are hormone- and antibiotic free.
- Install a granular activated carbon filter on your faucet to filter out chemicals such as atrazine.
- Use aluminum water bottles or those that are BPA-free.
- Steer clear of plastics with the number 3 or 7 on the bottom, which may leach BPA. Instead look for the numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, which are unlikely to contain BPA.
- Keep water bottles cool (warm temperatures increase BPA leaching) and never microwave plastic.
- Eat fewer canned foods. Opt for frozen or fresh instead. Tuna can be found in pouches that do not contain BPA.
- Get rid of your non-stick pans if possible. If you must use a Teflon pan, never use a metal implement on it that can scratch the surface and release the chemicals inside, and throw away any scratched non-stick pans.
- Buy meats straight from the butcher counter (instead of pre-packaged) and ask that they wrap them in brown paper.
- Skip the air fresheners, open the windows, and try a vase of dried lavender instead.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)