Tuesday, January 31, 2012

From Dr. Mark Hyman and Marc David: Can the Psychology of Eating Change your Metabolism?

We all know that good nutrition is one of the greatest keys to optimal health. What’s not so obvious is that often times, our relationship with food gets in the way of healthy eating. Far too many people face the challenges of overeating, binge eating, unhappy body image, excess weight, and more. And a great number of people, despite eating the right diet, may be losing the benefits of their good nutritional habits by making some very common mistakes that a few key lessons in eating psychology can powerfully correct.

Have you noticed how so many of us know what to eat, know about good nutrition, and have a clear idea of what we should and shouldn’t eat – but we just don’t do it?

It’s crystal clear that understanding what to eat or how much to exercise doesn’t’ guarantee that we’ll translate that knowledge into action especially when we look at weight loss.

That’s why I’m excited to introduce you to the work of nutritional psychologist Marc David and The Institute for the Psychology of Eating – www.psychologyofeating.com. Marc has been a close friend and colleague of mine for many years, and his books and trainings have been life changing for so many people. His work provides the missing ingredient that many have been searching for – a profound and practical understanding of the mind of the eater. Marc’s two best-selling books – The Slow Down Diet and Nourishing Wisdom will teach you how thoughts, feelings, beliefs, stress relaxation, pleasure, and more – powerfully impact nutritional metabolism and weight. His work is a great combination of science, psychology, heart and soul. He has originated two new cutting edge fields – Dynamic Eating Psychology and Mind Body Nutrition – that will powerfully change the way you see your relationship with food and nutrition.

I highly encourage you to learn more about Marc David’s work — just go to www.psychologyofeating.com. There’s a free audio gift for you to download, and you can discover more about the unique professional trainings that the Institute for the Psychology of Eating offers. A few more brief words: Marc’s Institute trains people to work with weight loss, body image, overeating, and a host of nutrition related health concerns like digestion, fatigue, mood and immunity. His programs are for professionals, those looking for a new career, and anyone looking to use this great new approach for their own personal benefit. It’s some very inspiring and cutting edge work that can take your interest in nutrition to a whole new level. I know that they have a new Distance Learning Program and some great early enrollment incentives if you contact them by March 1st.

Today I wanted to share an article Marc wrote that outlines a few of the “secrets” of eating psychology.

To your good health,

Mark Hyman, MD

Secrets of Eating Psychology

By Marc David

Most of us have been taught to believe that good nutrition is simply a function of eating the right food and taking the right supplements. Of course, this is true, but there’s more to the equation. What we eat is only half the story of good nutrition. The other half of the story is who we are as eaters. That is, what we think, feel, believe our levels of stress, relaxation, pleasure, awareness, and the inner stories that we live out all have a real, powerful, and scientific effect on nutritional metabolism.

Recent advances in the mind-body sciences have been proving what ancient wisdom traditions have been saying for eons – that the mind and body exist on an exquisite continuum, and profoundly impact one another.

So the good news is simply this: you can powerfully change your health and your nutritional status without changing anything you eat, but by changing you the eater. In my 30 years as a nutritional psychologist, I’ve seen so many profound breakthroughs in clients and students around weight, overeating, and a long list of health conditions when they began to practice some of the simple principles of eating psychology. Consider some of these key “secrets” that I think everyone should know:

1. Stress can put weight on – relaxation can take it off.

It’s fascinating how stress, fear, anxiety, anger, judgment and even negative self-talk can literally create a physiologic stress response in the body. This means that we generate more cortisol and insulin, two hormones that have the unwanted effect of signaling the body to store weight, store fat, and stop building muscle. Strange as it may sound, we quite literally change our calorie burning capacity when we’re stressed. What’s more incredible though, is that as we learn to smile more, ease into life and breathe more deeply, the body enters a physiologic relaxation response. In this state, we actually create our optimal day-in, day-out calorie-burning metabolism. So, you could be following the best weight loss diet in the world, but if you’re an anxious mess, the power of your mind is limiting the weight loss of your body. Far too many people adopt stressful weight loss strategies – impossible to follow diets, overly intense exercise programs, tasteless food, extremely low calorie meal plans – all of which can create the kind of stress chemistry that ensures our weight will stay put. It’s time to relax into weight loss.

2. Happiness is the best digestive aid.

Can you recall what happens when you eat during anxiety or stress? Many people report such symptoms as heartburn, cramping, gas, and digestive upset. During stress, the body automatically shifts into the classic fight-or-flight response. This feature of the nervous system evolved over millions of years as a brilliant safety mechanism to support us during life-threatening events. In the moment the stress response is activated, something very interesting happens – the digestive system shuts down. It makes perfect sense that when you’re fending off an angry gorilla, you don’t need to waste energy digesting your breakfast. All the body’s metabolic energy is directed towards survival. So, you could be eating the healthiest food in the universe, but if you aren’t eating under the optimum state of digestion and assimilation – which happens to be relaxation – you literally and metabolically are not receiving the full nutritional value of your meal.

3. Overeating – it’s simpler than you think.

Most people think they overeat because they have a willpower problem. “If only I could control my appetite, then I would stop being such a willpower weakling and start losing weight.” Well, here’s the good news – you don’t have a willpower problem. The problem for a majority of overeaters is that they don’t actually “eat” when they eat. What I’m suggesting is that we aren’t always fully present to the meal, aware of its taste, eating it slowly, or simply feeling nourished by the food. When this happens, the brain, which requires taste and satisfaction, misses out on a key phase of the nutritional experience. The brain literally thinks it didn’t eat, or didn’t eat enough. And it simply screams back at us – “Hungry!” So, you can dramatically decrease your overeating by increasing your awareness and presence at every meal.

4. Slower eating means faster metabolism.

One of my favorite nutritional questions to ask a client or student is “Are you a fast eater, moderate eater, or slow eater?” If the answer is “fast”, then it’s time for an overhaul. That’s because the act of eating fast is considered a stressor by the body. Humans are simply not biologically wired for high speed eating. So when we do eat fast, the body once again enters the physiologic stress response, which results in decreased digestion, decreased nutrient assimilation, increased nutrient excretion, lowered calorie burning rate, and a bigger appetite. The bottom line is that you can literally empower your nutritional metabolism simply by slowing down. What’s fascinating is that for many fast eaters, slowing down is quite a challenge. But try this – don’t just eat slow – eat sensuously, feel nourished by your food, and take in all the sensations of your meal.

5. Make sure you have enough Vitamin P – Pleasure!

Far too many people are taught to believe that pleasure is something frivolous. Well, it’s actually required by our biology. All organisms on planet earth, be they lion, lizard, amoeba, or human are programmed at the most primitive level of the nervous system to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Well, if you’re eating and not paying attention, the brain will drive you to seek more pleasure via overeating. What’s worse, if you’re stressed while eating, the excess cortisol in your system actually de-sensitizes us to pleasure – so you’ll need to eat more food in order to get the pleasure we are seeking. The bottom line is this: If you want more pleasure from food, you don’t need to eat more of the ice cream. Simply breathe, relax, de-stress, enjoy, pay attention, and the body will naturally experience the pleasure it seeks. And the great news is, since pleasure catalyzes a relaxation response, it actually fuels digestion and assimilation

6. Emotional eating – it’s not the enemy.

At our core, we are emotional beings – rich, complex, juicy, unpredictable feeling-filled creatures. We love, we celebrate, we laugh, cry, we break down, we rise up… So how could we NOT be emotional eaters? We love food. We love our favorite restaurant. We love how food makes us feel good. Some of us love cooking for others. Some of us are passionate about nutrition. It’s time to get over it – if you’re human, you will bring emotionality to the table. Once we embrace the reality that we’re genetically hard-wired for emotional expression, we can relax a little more. Underneath the quest to eradicate emotional eating from one’s life is often found a hidden desire to eliminate uncomfortable feelings. We strive for an impossible to attain goal that constantly leaves us frustrated and in failure. Yes, this thing called emotional eating can be very painful. But it’s not the actual problem – it’s a symptom that’s pointing to something deeper. It’s an alert mechanism from body wisdom that’s calling us to check in, and follow the flow of emotions within us to see where our soul is calling for more awareness and insight.

7. Get rid of toxic nutritional beliefs.

Finally, many of us have absorbed toxic nutritional beliefs that are as harmful and debilitating as any of the toxins in our food. Here’s what I mean: it’s surprisingly common for people to believe that “food is the enemy”, or “food makes me fat”, or “fat in food will become fat on my body” or “my appetite is the enemy” or “as soon as I have the perfect body, then I’ll finally be happy.” Such beliefs may seem harmless, yet they can create a relationship with food and self that’s filled with tremendous suffering and pain. Think about it – if “food is the enemy”, then we are constantly in a fight or flight stress response whenever we eat, or even think about food. Such a powerful stressor can cause all the problems of stress-induced digestive shutdown, decreased calorie burning capacity, and an inner life that’s seldom at peace. The question is: Is your relationship with food nourishing, or punishing?

Hopefully, you’ve noticed that there’s way more to good nutrition than simply the food itself. We bring all of ourselves to the table – our hopes, fears, thoughts, feelings, dramas, and dreams. And the more we include a well rounded nutritional profile – Vitamin R – relaxation, Vitamin P – pleasure, Vitamin S – slow, and Vitamin L – Love – the more we can literally nourish ourselves on every level.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Article from Green Med Info: Medicinal Benefits of Flaxseed

Flaxseed has remarkable therapeutic properties, with over 50 potential applications in the prevention and treatment of disease, as documented in the peer-reviewed biomedical literature itself*

Flaxseed's role in breast cancer is one of the more compelling areas of research, considering this is the #1 form of cancer afflicting women today, and that most women still equate "prevention" with subjecting themselves to annual breast screenings involving highly carcinogenic 30 kVp gamma rays -- overlooking entirely the role of diet, as well as avoidable chemical exposures. (More on this topic)

Given that flaxseed already has an exceptional nutritional profile, there are a broad range of reasons to incorporate it into the diet, even if only as a nourishing food. The main reason why the public is so enthralled by flaxseed (and rightly so!) is for its relatively high levels of omega-3 fatty acids, and the density of soothing, mucilaginous fiber it contains. Now, an accumulating body of scientific research reveals flaxseed's hitherto secret 'second life' as a medicinal powerhouse, confirming how timelessly true was Hippocrates proclamation that food is also medicine.

In 2005, the journal Clinical Cancer Research published a placebo-controlled study involving patients who received a 25 gram flaxseed-containing muffin over the course of 32 days. After observing a reduction in tumor markers and an increase in programmed cell death (apoptosis) in the flaxseed-treated patients, the authors concluded: "Dietary flaxseed has the potential to reduce tumor growth in patients with breast cancer."

Additional animal research supports flaxseed's role in suppressing human breast cancer. In immunosuppressed mice (thymus removed), flaxseed and an extract of pure secoisolariciresinol diglucoside from flaxseed was capable of suppressing the estrogen-fed (estradiol-17 beta) growth of transplanted human breast cancer tumors.

The anti-cancer effects of flaxseed are not limited to breast cancer alone. Prostate cancer, another archetypally hormone-senstive cancer, is also benefited from this remarkable seed. In a 2008 study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, prostate cancer patients scheduled at least 21 days before prostate removal were randomnly assigned to one of 4 groups: 1) control (usual diet) 2) flaxseed-supplemented diet (30 g/d) 3) low-fat diet 4) flaxseed-supplemented, low-fat diet. The authors noted "Proliferation rates were significantly lower (P < 0.002) among men assigned to the flaxseed arms." The study concluded: "Findings suggest that flaxseed is safe and associated with biological alterations that may be protective for prostate cancer."

How does flaxseed work to prevent and/or regress hormone-associated cancers? The surprising answer is it is due to flaxseed's distinctively hormonal and/or hormone-modulating activity. Flaxseed contains compounds known as phytoestrogens which have the ability to interact with cellular estrogen receptors. Although an increasingly common mantra in the conventional medical community (particularly in the field of oncology) is to identify all estrogens, including phytoestrogens, as "carcinogenic," the weight of the evidence stands against this accusation, both in the case of soy and flaxseed. Our indexing project, for instance, has identified 36 studies on soy's anti-breast cancer properties. It helps to understand the biochemistry in order to make sense of how a plant estrogen may actually reduce estrogen activity in the body...

The byproducts of flaxseed fermentive biotransformation in the colon: namely, enterodiol (END) and enterolactone (ENL), are known to modulate estrogen levels in tissues affected by these compounds. They are weakly estrogenic, which explains why they may alleviate hot flash symptoms in women dealing with hormone insufficiency, but are also antiestrogenic, capable of binding to estrogen receptors and blocking out more powerful estrogens (both endogenous and xenobiotic) at the same time. This is also known as Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulation (SERM): the ability to down-regulate estrogen activity in one tissue (breast), and up-regulate it in another (bone or brain). Soy contains the phytoestrogen compound genistein, also a byproduct of the bacterial biotransformation, which shares in this dual-acting SERM activity. Although drug companies have attempted to reproduce SERM-like affects with novel, synthetic compounds, often the unintended, adverse affects far outnumber the intended therapeutic ones. This is one reason why the discovery of pharmacologically active principles in foods, i.e. food as medicine, holds so much promise as the drug-driven system of conventional medicine begins to collapse under the growing weight of its own incompetence.

In the meantime, while you are enjoying flaxseed as a nourishing food, it is reassuring to know you may gain protection from the following health conditions in the process:

Breast Cancer (12 articles)

Dry Skin (2 articles)

Prostatic Hyperplasia (3 articles)

Breast Cancer: Prevention (3 articles)

Diabetes Mellitus: Type 2 (3 articles)

Aging Skin (2 articles)

High Cholesterol (2 articles)

Lupus Nephritis (2 articles)

Prostate Cancer (3 articles)

Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity (1 article)

Blepharitis (1 article)

Cardiovascular Disease (1 article)

Cholesterol: LDL/HDL Raito (1 article)

Diabetes: Cardiovascular Disease (1 article)

Dyslipidemias (1 article)

Elevated CRP (1 article)

Estrogen Deficiency (1 article)

Hot Flash (1 article)

Meibomian gland dysfunction (1 article)

Metabolic Syndrome X (1 article)

Prostate: PSA Doubling Time (1 article)

Skin Diseases (1 article)

Colon Cancer (5 article)

Adiponectin: Low Levels (3 articles)

Polycystic Kidney Disease (3 articles)

Fatty Liver (2 articles)

Abdominal Obesity (1 article)

Arteriosclerosis (1 article)

And Many More...

*The information provided in this document is not intended to diagnosis, prevent, treat or cure any disease. By sharing this information, we are pointing the viewer to the research itself as source of

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Meat Consumption and the American Diet

We’re Eating Less Meat. Why?

Mark Bittman

Mark Bittman on food and all things related.

Americans eat more meat than any other population in the world; about one-sixth of the total, though we’re less than one-twentieth of the population.

But that’s changing.

Until recently, almost everyone considered their dinner plate naked without a big old hunk of meat on it. (You remember “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner,” of course. How could you forget?) And we could afford it: our production methods and the denial of their true costs have kept meat cheap beyond all credibility. (American hamburger is arguably the cheapest convenience food there is.) This, in part, is why we spend a smaller percentage of our money on food than any other country, and much of that goes toward the roughly half-pound of meat each of us eats, on average, every day.

But that’s changing, and considering the fairly steady climb in meat consumption over the last half-century, you might say the numbers are plummeting. The department of agriculture projects that our meat and poultry consumption will fall again this year, to about 12.2 percent less in 2012 than it was in 2007. Beef consumption has been in decline for about 20 years; the drop in chicken is even more dramatic, over the last five years or so; pork also has been steadily slipping for about five years.

The report treats consumers as victims of government bias against the meat industry. We’re eating less meat because we want to eat less meat.

Holy cow. What’s up?

It’s easy enough to round up the usual suspects, which is what a story in the Daily Livestock Report did last month. It blames the decline on growing exports, which make less meat available for Americans to buy. It blames it on ethanol, which has caused feed costs to rise, production to drop and prices to go up so producers can cover their increasing costs. It blames drought. It doesn’t blame recession, which is surprising, because that’s a factor also.

All of which makes some sense. The report then goes on to blame the federal government for “wag[ing] war on meat protein consumption” over the last 30-40 years.

Is this like the war on drugs? The war in Afghanistan? The war against cancer? Because what I see here is:

  • a history of subsidies for the corn and soy that’s fed to livestock
  • a nearly free pass on environmental degradation and animal abuse
  • an unwillingness to meaningfully limit the use of antibiotics in animal feed
  • a failure to curb the stifling power that corporate meatpackers wield over smaller ranchers
  • and what amounts to a refusal — despite the advice of real, disinterested experts, true scientists in fact — to unequivocally tell American consumers that they should be eating less meat

Or is the occasional environmental protection regulation and whisper that unlimited meat at every meal might not be ideal the equivalent of war? Is the U.S.D.A. buying $40 million worth of chicken productsto reduce the surplus and raise retail prices the equivalent of war?

No. It’s not the non-existent federal War on Meat that’s making a difference. And even if availability is down, it’s not as if we’re going to the supermarket and finding empty meat cases and deli counters filled with coleslaw. The flaw in the report is that it treats American consumers as passive actors who are victims of diminishing supplies, rising costs and government bias against the meat industry. Nowheredoes it mention that we’re eating less meat because we want to eat less meat.

Yet conscious decisions are being made by consumers. Even buying less meat because prices are high and times are tough is a choice; other “sacrifices” could be made. We could cut back on junk food, or shirts or iPhones, which have a very high meat-equivalent, to coin a term. Yet even though excess supply kept chicken prices lower than the year before, demand dropped.

Some are choosing to eat less meat for all the right reasons. The Values Institute at DGWB Advertising and Communications just named the rise of “flexitarianism” — an eating style that reduces the amount of meat without “going vegetarian” — as one of its top five consumer health trends for 2012. In an Allrecipes.com survey of 1,400 members, more than one-third of home cooks said they ate less meat in 2011 than in 2010. Back in June, a survey found that 50 percent of American adults said they were aware of the Meatless Monday campaign, with 27 percent of those aware reporting that they were actively reducing their meat consumption.

I can add, anecdotally, that when I ask audiences I speak to, “How many of you are eating less meat than you were 10 years ago?” at least two-thirds raise their hands. A self-selecting group to be sure, but nevertheless one that exists.

In fact, let’s ask this: is anyone in this country eating more meat than they used to?

We still eat way more meat than is good for us or the environment, not to mention the animals. But a 12 percent reduction in just five years is significant, and if that decline were to continue for the next five years — well, that’s something few would have imagined five years ago. It’s something only the industry could get upset about. The rest of us should celebrate. Rice and beans, anyone?


New Info from Green Med Info:Lower You Cholesterol, Increase Your Diabetes Risk by 48%

A recent study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that the cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins increase the risk of diabetes within postmenopausal women by 48%.

This new finding adds to a growing body of clinical evidence that statin drugs are fundamentally diabetogenic, which is not surprising considering the National Library of Medicine contains peer-reviewed, published research on over 300 other known adverse effects associated with their use.

The profound irony here is that most of the morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes is due to cardiovascular complications. High blood sugar and its oxidation (glycation) contribute to damage to the blood vessels, particularly the arteries, resulting in endothelial dysfunction and associated neuropathies due to lack of blood flow to the nerves. Statin drugs, which are purported to reduce cardiovascular disease risk through lipid suppression, insofar as they contribute to insulin resistance, elevated blood sugar, and full-blown diabetes, are not only diabetogenic but cardiotoxic, as well.

Cardiotoxicity, in fact, is a characteristic property of this chemical class. Because the heart muscle is muscle, and because the most well-known adverse effect of statin drugs is their muscle-damaging (myotoxic) properties, it does not take more than commonsense to deduce that statin drugs are toxic to the heart muscle as well.

Indeed, ever since the Journal of Clinical Cardiology published the results of a 2009 study on statin drug use and heart function, it has become alarmingly clear that they actually weaken the heart muscle:

"CONCLUSION: Statin therapy is associated with decreased myocardial function as evaluated with SI [strain imaging]."

Is it possible, therefore, that statin drugs are inducing an as-of-yet under-appreciated and under-reported epidemic of heart disease and congestive heart failure in the populations using them? What is, after all, the most important nutrient widely recognized to benefit cardiovascular health? Coenzyme Q10 would be the correct answer. And what do statin drugs do but suppress the production (via mevalonate pathway inhibition) of this indispensable factor in mitochondrial ATP production. The heart muscle is so ATP-dependent that each cardiac muscle cell has as many as 200 times higher levels of mitochondria than skeletal muscle cells. It is, after all, the muscle that never stops working.

Statins, therefore, can be considered the most oxymoronic chemical class of its kind: a "heart" drug that by its very nature harms the heart. And coenzyme Q10 deficiency caused by statin drugs is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a wide range of nutritional deficiencies that these drugs induce, including selenium, zinc, and vitamin E deficiency -- all of which may profoundly harm cardiovascular function.

For additional research...

Monday, January 9, 2012

Pineapple May Be the Best Cancer Treatment

by Sayer Ji

Every once in a while a study pops up on the National Library of Medicine's bibliographic database known as MEDLINE that not only confirms the therapeutic relevance of natural substances in cancer treatment, but blows the conventional approach out of the water.

Published in 2007 in the journal Planta Medica, researchers found that an enzyme extracted from pineapple stems known as bromelain was superior to the chemo-agent 5-fluorauracil in treating cancer in the animal model. The researchers stated:

"This antitumoral effect [bromelain] was superior to that of 5-FU [5-fluorouracil], whose survival index was approximately 263 %, relative to the untreated control." [view entire study]

What is so remarkable about this research is that 5-FU has been used as a cancer treatment for nearly 40 years, and has been relatively unsuccessful due to its less than perfect selectivity at killing cancer, often killing and/or irreversibly damaging healthy cells and tissue, as well.

As a highly toxic, fluoride-bound form of the nucleic acid uracil, a normal component of RNA, the drug is supposed to work by tricking more rapidly dividing cells -- which include both cancer and healthy intestinal, hair follicle, and immune cells -- into taking it up, thereby inhibiting (read: poisoning) RNA replication enzymes and RNA synthesis.

The material safety data sheet (MSDS) for 5-FU states:

The dose at which 50% of the animals given the drug die is 115mg/kg, or the equivalent of 7.8 grams for a 150 lb adult human.

Keep in mind that a 7.5 gram dose of 5-FU, which is the weight of 3 pennies, would kill 50% of the humans given it. Bromelain's MSDS, on the other hand, states the LD50 to be 10,000 mg/kg, or the equivalent 1.5 lbs of bromelain for a 150lb adult, which means it is 3 orders of magnitude safer!

How then, can something as innocuous as the enzyme from the stem/core of a pineapple be superior to a drug that millions of cancers patients over the past 40 years have placed their hopes of recovery on, as well as exchanging billions of dollars for?

There is a well-known effect associated with a wide range of natural compounds called "selective cytotoxicity," whereby they are able to induce programmed cell death (the graceful self-disassembly known as apoptosis) within the cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells and tissue unharmed. No FDA-approved chemotherapy drug on the market today has this indispensable property (because chemicals don't have behave like natural compounds), which is why cancer treatment is still in the dark ages, often destroying the quality of life, and accelerating the death of those who undergo it, often unwittingly. When a person dies following conventional cancer treatment it is all too easy to "blame the victim" and simply write that patient's cancer off as "chemo-resistant," or "exceptionally aggressive," when in fact the non-selective nature of the chemotoxic agent is what ultimately lead to their death.

Keep in mind that bromelain, like all natural substances, will never receive FDA drug approval. Capital, at the present time, does not flow into the development of non-patentable (i.e. non-profitable) cancer therapies, even if they work, are safe and extremely affordable. This is simply the nature of the beast. Until we compel our government to utilize our tax dollars to invest in this type of research, there will be no level playing field in cancer treatment, or any treatment offered through the conventional medical establishment, for that matter. Or, some of us may decide to take our health into our own hands, and use the research, already freely available on possible natural cancer treatment, to inform our treatment decisions without the guidance of the modern day equivalent of the "priest" of the body, the conventional oncologist, who increasingly fills the description of an "applied pharmacologist/toxicologist" - nothing more, nothing less.

To view additional research on the potential therapeutic properties of bromelain in over 30 health conditions, visit the open source, natural medical resource page on bromelain here.


If you enjoyed this article you may like...

Benjamin Rush accurately foretold a grave possibility facing Americans today, namely, that the art and science of healing be restricted to a select class of allopathic physicians, who have the sole legal right to recommend and administer medicines, and whose pharmacopeia excludes – as a matter of principle – all the healing foods, vitamins and herbs which have been used safely and effectively for countless millenia in the prevention and treatment of disease. Read more...

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Info From 'A Well Fed World': Top 12 Ways To Eat Green

Top 12 Ways to Eat Green

Great ways to use your voting dollars...

Research the options to find the best fit for your priorities and lifestyle. It's not about perfection, it's about making positive change. Better choices make a better world.


Avoid Animal Products

Shift toward a flexitarian, vegetarian, vegan or similar lifestyle. Meat and other animal products are both resource and energy intensive. Animal products are inefficient to produce and result in a net loss of available calories and protein. Reducing/eliminating animal products is the top recommendation for eating a greener diet.


Enjoy Whole Foods

Choose whole grains, whole fruits & vegetables, nuts, and dried legumes, which result in less processing, less packaging, and better health. Try making salad and home-made soup your main course. Eating more whole foods will automatically reduce consumption of less-ideal foods.


Color Your Choices

Mix it up by enjoying a wide variety of fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and protein-rich legumes. Food colors represent different antioxidants and nutrient-composition. Eat a wide variety to improve health and well-being.


Gentle on the Junk

Avoid trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, and other "junk" foods. Junk food is over processed and devoid of nutrients. Choose healthy treats and minimize the "cheats" - your budget, your body, and your planet will thank you.


Choose Quality Over Quantity

Healthy living begins by eating less quantity but higher quality foods. Eating less is a great way to save money and energy. By adopting healthy eating habits and appropriate portions, you can reduce health care costs too.


Live Large with Leftovers

Save some for later. Leftovers are a great way to avoid waste while saving time, money, and maybe calories. Instead of finishing it off because it's so good, enjoy it later instead. Making larger portions and enjoying leftovers saves time, especially with more elaborate recipes (many of which taste better the next day anyway). In addition to saving time, you save money and energy by spending and cooking less.


Eat Simply So Others May Simply Eat

Keep it simple. While it's important to eat a wide variety of nutrients, simple meals are also easy, cost-effective and great for being green. Consider integrating the PB&J Campaign daily sandwich recommendation and other simple, budget-friendly meals. Reducing our demand for staples (by reducing animal products and quantity more generally), reduces the price-pressure on the world's resources and makes more available to the world's poor (more on hunger connection).


Pack Light

Reduce packaging by eating more whole, unprocessed foods and using the bulk bins for items that have a long shelf-life. For items with a short shelf-life, like fresh produce, bring your own bag and prioritize items that are not pre-cut and pre-packaged. You'll spend a little extra time, but you'll save money and resources.


Support Sustainability

Look at labels and get to know your farmers directly. Organic is a great short-hand for better practices, but there are other sustainable practices (some even better than organic) that don't have an official government certification.


Like Local & Savor Seasonal

Favor local and seasonal products to avoid the extra energy and preservation costs of long-distant transport and greenhouses. Local is best when products are in season as greenhouses may be more energy-intensive than some transportation.


Connect with a CSA

Bolster local and sustainable practices while supporting smaller farmers by joining a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) and/or a community garden. Prices and food quality are often better at CSAs, which provide a good supplement or alternative to chain stores.


Grow an Edible Garden

Grow your own. Home edible gardens are increasingly popular and let you grow amazing foods or herbs just the way you like them.


Bonus - Fair Labor

In addition to nourishing ourselves, our planet and others around the world, we want to support fair policies that treat workers with respect and allow them to earn a living wage.

For details about the treatment of food workers, visit the Food Empowerment Project and the TransFair USA.


Additional Resources

Visit the Center for Science in the Public Interest's interactive Eating Green website.

On CSPI's Eating Green website, you can:

  • download a free copy of the book
  • tour the food supply chain
  • use the diet calculator
  • score your diet

Thanks to CSPI, AWFW offers the hard-copy book at a highly discounted rate online and at events.

Visit our online store to purchase the Six Arguments for a Greener Diet for only $5, which includes free shipping.

More Great News From Green Med Info Pomegranate: An Alternative To Hormone Replacement Therapy?

Fruiting plants and humans both have reproductive organs called ovaries, and in the case of pomegranate fruit, the anatomical resemblance is absolutely striking:

Because our primary relationship to fruit is as a consumer, we are usually too immersed in the joyful act of eating fruit to take notice that it is by definition "the ripened ovary - together with the seeds - from one or more flowers of a plant."

The differences between species are obvious, of course: fruit-ovaries disperse their seeds by being eaten, and then excreted by animals, whereas human-ovaries, remaining intact within the body, disperse their "seeds" (eggs) by way of the fallopian tubes.

Observing a cross-section of the pomegranate and the human ovary, side-by-side, you can see the remarkable resemblance. The ancient 'law of signatures' that Nature weaves into herself, and which is recognized by many systems of traditional medicine around the world, makes it so that sometimes a plant (food) will be of unique benefit to the very organ in the body that it resembles. The walnut, for instance, has a skull-like protective casing, enclosing the bi-hemispheric meat of its seed, which strikingly resembles the very human brain that it is known to nourish with omega-3 fatty acids and other neuroprotective compounds.

In the case of pomegranate fruit, which again, is the ripened ovary – together with the seeds (babies) – from the pomegranate flower, it so perfectly resembles the human ovary in structure (and as we will see, function) that the resemblance is unlikely to be accidental. Could this be Nature revealing her gift of healing in a way that is so obvious that you would have to be blind not to see it?

Pomegranate: An Alternative To Hormone Replacement Therapy?

What is perhaps more amazing than the anatomical resemblance of pomegranate to the human ovary, is it functional resemblance. Experiments have been performed revealing that pomegranate contains estrogens structurally and functionally similar to those found in mammals, namely, Estradiol, Estrone and Estriol, and are capable of replacing the function of the ovary when removed from female animals (the ovariectomy-induced postmenopausal experimental model).

In a study published in 2004 in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology, female rats, whose ovaries were removed, developed accelerated bone loss, loss of uterine weight and depressive symptoms which were reversed when administered pomegranate extract:

"Administration of pomegranate extract (juice and seed extract) for 2 weeks to ovariectomized mice prevented the loss of uterus weight and shortened the immobility time compared with 5% glucose-dosed mice (control). In addition, ovariectomy-induced decrease of BMD was normalized by administration of the pomegranate extract."

Despite the powerful estrogenic properties of pomegranate, this amazing fruit does not exhibit well-known carcinogenic potential associated with synthetic, horse-derived (e.g. Premarin), and even so-called bio-identical or “plant-derived” estrogens. To the contrary, pomegranate has been shown to act selectively to modulate estrogen receptors (SERM) that are beneficial to the organism, while down-regulating activity at the receptors known to be associated with estrogen-sensitive cancers. This type of dynamic intelligence is unique to natural substances, and is not yet reproducible through pharmaceutical preparations.

In an August 2011 study published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, pomegranate extract was compared to the drugs Tamoxifen (T) and Estradiol (E) and was shown to prevent activity associated with estrogen-dependent cancer promotion, without increasing the weight of the uterus, a well known indicator of the potential carcinogenicity of T and E:

“In conclusion, our findings suggest that PME [Pomegranate extract] displays a SERM profile and may have the potential for prevention of estrogen-dependent breast cancers with beneficial effects in other hormone-dependent tissues.”

In other words, pomegranate is not only non-carcinogenic but is a powerful anti-cancer agent. The GreenMedInfo database now contains 12 studies on its experimentally-confirmed potential to suppress Breast, Prostate, Colorectal, Gastric and Uterine Cancers. GreenMedInfo also contains research on Pomegranate's therapeutic relevance in 77 disease categories.

Beyond Hormone Replacement

Hormone replacement, by principle, is capable of feeding the underlying deficiency due to the well-known 'negative feedback loop' within the endocrine system, and may also result in the downstream accumulation of unhealthy levels of hormone metabolites. While it should be regarded as a powerful therapy with significant potential health benefits, it is not without adverse, unintended consequences.

The change of life that attends the normal aging process, despite conventional medical classifications, is not a disease. When the burden of hormone production in women shifts away from the ovary (either via age, stress or medical necessity, e.g. full hysterectomy) to the adrenal cortex, the body can be supported to produce additional hormones via basic nutrients and secretagogues, as well through the ingestion of phytocompounds which mimic hormones, e.g. phytoestrogens, but do not have the health risks associated with endogenously produced hormones. Also, it is possible to regenerate steroid hormones that have undergone transformation into inactive or harmful metabolites via electron donors such as vitamin C.

Additional Research Pages on GreenMedInfo.com

Hot Flash
Menopausal Syndrome
Estrogen Receptor Modulators
Estrogen Deficiency
Postmenopausal Disorders
Osteoporosis
Osteopenia
Secretagogues

200 Reasons To Love Vitamin C

Article Shared from Green Med Info:


Vitamin C is generally considered to be an important "nutrient," but its perceived value usually ends there. Only rarely does the public (and the medical profession) glimpse its true potential in the prevention and treatment of disease -- and this because, by legal definition (in the US), only FDA-approved drugs can prevent, treat and cure disease.

This does not mean, however, that essential nutrients like Vitamin C cannot in fact prevent and treat disease, i.e. only because it is illegal to speak truthfully about something, doesn't mean that that something isn't true. The National Library of Medicine, in fact, contains thousands of studies demonstrating vitamin C's ability to significantly improve health, with 220 disease applications documented on the research site GreenMedInfo.com alone. The best thing 'we the people' can do, despite our lack of medical degrees and licensure, and without the FDA's iron-fisted legal and regulatory apparatus on our side, is to use the peer-reviewed research at our disposal to inform and protect our treatment decisions.

Perhaps we must revisit an important moment in history to regain a sense of how profoundly vitamin C deficiency and vitamin C therapy can affect health. James Lind (1716-1794), pioneer of naval hygiene in the British Royal Navy, conducted the first ever clinical trial proving that citrus fruits cured scurvy. Lind’s discovery saved tens of thousands of seamen from the ravages of scurvy, spurring England’s naval supremacy, putatively changing the course of world history.

If significant historical events like these don’t provide enough evidence to vindicate the efficacy of nutrients like Vitamin C, molecular biology and the science of genetics can help to fill in the gaps.

It is a little known and under-appreciated fact that all humans are born with a serious, life-threatening genetic defect: namely, the inability to manufacture Vitamin C.

This defect occurred approximately 63 million years ago, when our haplorrhini (“simple nosed”) primate predecessors lost the gene (Gulnolactone oxidase pseudogene – GULOP), responsible for the manufacture of Vitamin C from glucose.

The ability to synthesize Vitamin C, in fact, has been lost several times in vertebrates, e.g. in guinea pigs, some bats, some fishes, passeriform birds and in primates of the suborder Haplorrhini, which includes monkes, apes and humans.

It was Linus Pauling, two time Nobel Laurette, and the world’s foremost vitamin C proponent, who first brought this inborn error of metabolism to popular light. Pauling advocated taking large doses of Vitamin C (up to 10-12 grams a day) in order to offset the deficiencies of our modern diet. He believed that it was our movement away from a vitamin C rich fruit-and-vegetable based diet that explained the modern epidemic of heart disease.

According to this perspective, without adequate Vitamin C we are unable to produce the collagen necessary to heal our arteries. The Vitamin C starved body compensates for this by increasing the production of a very small and sticky type of cholesterol known as lipoprotein A, which leads to the formation of atheromatous plaque (clogged arteries). Linus Pauling advocated taking large amounts of vitamin C in combination with the amino acid lysine to reverse the damage done to the arteries, and to prevent recurrence.*

Indeed, a study published in 2008 showed that higher plasma vitamin C levels are associated with a significantly reduced risk of stroke. Scientists from the clinical gerontology unit at Addnbrooke’s University Hospital in Cambridge, UK, tracked 20,649 men and women aged 40 to 79 years, between 1993 and 1997. The group was followed through March 2005. Individuals who had the highest vitamin C levels showed a 42% reduction in stroke risk! If you compare this with Plavix’s 8.7 – 9.4% risk reduction, and the profound side effects drugs like these generate, one begins to understand why the media projection of “vitamins are toxic” propaganda serves only the interests of the drug companies.

Before one goes out and buys a bargain bottle of Vitamin C tablets, one should be advised that ascorbic acid is not exactly the same thing as Vitamin C. Ascorbic acid is found within the Vitamin C complex as it exists in food, but is only one of a number of inseparable cofactors, such as rutin, bioflavonoids (vitamin p), factor k, factor j, factor p, ascorbinogen, protein chaperones, and various enzymes like tyrosinase, which together in their entirety constitute the whole food complex.

Ascorbic acid is also 10 times more acidic than the naturally buffered Vitamin C found in raw food, and will on occasions lead to stomach upset, calcium loss from the bones, and kidney stones, in susceptible individuals. Traditionally ascorbic acid is produced semi-synthetically from corn or rice starch through a heavily chemical dependent process. Ascorbic acid can be considered no more natural than white flour, and yet despite this fact, has very little toxicity relative to pharmaceuticals, and can be used in much higher doses than the FDA’s Recommended Daily Allowance without adverse side effects.

The difference between ascorbic acid and Vitamin C in whole food form was perfectly clear to Szent-Gyorgi who received a Nobel Prize in 1937 for discovering Vitamin C. Even though Szent-Gyorgi received international recognition for identifying ascorbic acid as Vitamin C, his later research lead him to conclude that ascorbic acid had very little anti-scurvy activity in and of itself. Szent-Gyorgi found that the vitamin C found in organ meats and food sources like paprika, where the aforementioned cofactors are intact, were far superior in combating scurvy. We would be well served to acknowledge that all raw fruits and vegetables contain a “life force” that can not be fully decomposed or reduced to the chemical skeleton within which the life force of “vitamin activity” works, no more than our life/soul can be reduced to the $10 or so worth of chemical building blocks that our body is composed of. Fortunately there are vitamin manufacturers out there who acknowledge this fact, and produce raw whole food concentrates rich in vitamin activity. When eating raw, organic fruits and vegetables is not an option, or when higher levels are needed, these supplements offer authentic therapeutic activity.

The history of vitamin C illustrates just how profoundly important it is for us to get these vital nutrients known as “vitamins,” and that they are best derived from food. If we choose to overlook the importance of vitamins in maintaining health, and yes, even preventing and reversing disease, we will be forced to accept a pharmaceutically driven medical perspective that believes that health is the absence of symptoms, and that symptoms are to be combated or driven back deep into our bodies with sublethal dosages of toxic chemicals, i.e. drugs. Such as perspective on disease is itself so diseased that there is no escaping the ill health that results from it. We must remember that there has never been a disease that has been caused by a lack of a drug…..therefore, why would it ever be considered sound medical practice to treat disease with drugs, as a first line of treatment?

*If Linus Pauling and other Vitamin C researchers are correct and a deficiency of Vitamin C causes the breakdown of collagen in the artery, aspirin therapy, which causes Vitamin C deficiency, would not be considered a safe way to reduce cardiac mortality. To the contrary, it would further destabilize the strength and elasticity of the artery leading to hemorrhage, which is the primary deadly side effect of aspirin therapy.

New Study Published In The British Medical Journal Confirms That Breast Cancer Screenings Do More Harm Than Good

The article below is being shared from Green Med Info

Confirmed: Breast Cancer Screenings Do More Harm Than Good

A new study published in the British Medical Journal confirms an earlier, highly controversial finding by the Cochrane Database Review (2009), which concluded that breast screenings are likely causing more harm than good.

Published last month (Dec. 2011) and entitled "Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report," its authors concluded: "This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening."

Keep in mind that the Cochrane Database Review is at the top of the "food chain" of truth, in the highly touted "evidence-based model" of conventional medicine.

Cochrane Database Reviews are produced by The Cochrane Collaboration, which is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high quality, evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of common health care interventions. The organization, comprised of over 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries, prides itself on being an "independent" source of information, and historically has not been afraid to point out the corrupting influence of industry, which increasingly co-opts the biomedical research and publishing fields.

In the original 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review, also known as the Gøtzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane review, entitled "Screening for breast cancer with mammography," the authors revealed the problem with breast screenings in the following way:

"Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm."

In this review, the basis for estimating unnecessary treatment was the 35% increased risk of surgery among women who underwent screenings. Many of the surgeries, in fact, were the result of women being diagnosed with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), a "cancer" that would not exists as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the fact that it is detectable through x-ray mammography. DCIS, in the vast majority of cases, has no palpable lesion or symptoms, and some experts believe it should be completely reclassified as a non-cancerous condition. [Learn more]

What is perhaps most disturbing about these findings is that, while they clearly call into question the safety and effectiveness of breast screenings, the studies upon which they are based use an outdated radiation risk model, which minimizes by a factor of 4-5 the carcinogenicity associated with the "low-dose" (30 kVp) x-rays generated by mammography. What this indicates, therefore, is that breast screenings are not just "causing more harm than good," but are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women.

With the advent of non-ionizing radiation based diagnostic technologies, such as thermography, it has become vitally important that consumers educate themselves about the alternatives to x-ray mammography that already exist.

Additional Reading

Is X-ray Mammography Findings Cancer or Benign Lesions?

The Dark Side of Breast Cancer Awareness Month

'Gluten-Free Living' Magazine Answers Important Questions About A Safe Gluten-Free Lifestyle

You'll find straight answers to your nagging questions about food and the gluten-free diet by following the links below.

At Gluten-Free Living, our writers go to food companies, food scientists, government regulators and other experts to get accurate information about ingredients, labels, and other topics that often raise questions for those who are gluten-free. We share this information with our readers in a regular feature entitled "On Your Plate."

If you have ever had a question on any of these ingredients, please click through to find your answer on whether or not these ingredients or products are gluten-free.

Current Questions:

Friday, January 6, 2012

Great blog from Eat, Drink, and Be Vegan - 12 Reasons to NOT Eat Dairy

12 Reasons to NOT Eat Dairy

It's a new year, and we are hearing about diet resolutions everywhere. Rather than focus on some weight-centered diet or how many pounds you can lose... why not do the one single thing that can have a huge impact on your health - axe the dairy!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When I got dairy out of my diet, it made the biggest difference in how I felt. At twenty my joints hurt, and my knees in particular were so stiff some days that it hurt to sit and stand. My digestion was sluggish, and my body felt 'slow'. At twenty. Or twenty-three. Whatever, that's pretty darn young to feel slow and uncomfortable. When I read about the health connections of dairy, something really clicked for me. And, when I got it out of my diet, I felt profoundly better. And, for those of you interested in weight loss this time of year, I also shed those 'stubborn' pounds that seemed to hang on despite hours of working out.

So, make the change this year. Here you are, 12 reasons to say buh-bye to dairy in 2012:

12. Harvard says so. I'm being cheeky here, but Harvard's new "Healthy Eating Plate" food guide has pushed dairy off the plate, based on Harvard's assessment that high intake can increase the risk of prostate cancer and possibly ovarian cancer, and also suggesting that foods like collards, bok choy, and baked beans are safer choices than dairy for obtaining calcium.

11. Cancer Prevention. Prostate, breast, and ovarian cancers have been linked to dairy consumption. And, if you've read The China Study, you're aware of the link between casein (the main protein in milk) and cancer. Think about how often children are pushed to eat milk, yogurt, and cheese. Childhood diets rich in dairy products are associated with cancer in adulthood. For more, watch this video from Dr. Colin Campbell.

10. Cheese is addictive. That's why it's so darn hard to stop eating the stuff. But, as you'll learn in Julieanna's brief video (and through this list), it's best to kick the cheese (and dairy) habit.

9. Osteoporosis. Seems counterintuitive. We're supposed to drink milk to protect against osteoporosis, right? So why do the countries that guzzle the most dairy have the highest osteoporosis rates? We now know that it's not just calcium intake, but absorption and loss. When we eat diets high in animal protein (milk included), our bodies become acidic and calcium is drawn from our bones to neutralize that acidic environment - cheese is particularly acidic. Ditch the dairy (and the meat) to help maintain a more alkaline state in your body.

8. Plant-Based Calcium. Speaking of calcium sources and absorption, did you know that kale contains more calcium per calorie than milk (90 grams per serving) and is also better absorbed by the body than dairy? And that's just ONE plant food you can eat. Other plant-foods boosting calcium include: beans, nuts like almonds and seeds like sesame, broccoli, collards, whole-grains, and tofu. (And if you think eating leafy greens is hard, start making green smoothies. It will change your leafy green intake forever!)

7. Heart Disease. All that cheese and milk (and other dairy products) pack a wallop of cholesterol and saturated fat to one's diet. A low-fat plant-based diet has been shown not only to prevent heart disease, but also reverse it. And, before you think low-fat dairy is okay, it has been linked not only to increases in allergies, but also type 1 (childhood-onset) diabetes.

6. Constipation. Milk and cheese have no fiber. (Neither does meat.) Dairy is constipating for children. Our children have never been constipated, yet I have heard parents talk about poo problems over and over. And, grownups, if the kiddos get constipated from dairy, you will too (maybe you are right now). There's no need for laxatives. Eat a plant-based diet (rich in whole foods), and you'll poop easy. There, I said it.

5. It stinks. Okay, there is nothing scientifically or even ethically sound about this argument. But, have you ever just smelled milk? Put aside the fact that you've been drinking it since your wee years. Take a glass and smell it. It has a stink. You can say what you want about non-dairy milks, but if you had been drinking rice milk your whole life and then took up a glass of cow milk, it would be putrid to you. And, that's before it goes sour.

4. Antibiotics and hormones. The mass production of milk requires cows being stressed to unnatural levels. This stress results in mastitis in the cows, which requires antibiotics, which make their way into the milk in our markets. As well, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk. Do you want to drink growth hormones and antibiotics? Do you want your children to? You may bypass this one point by choosing organic milk products - but that's just one issue here.

3. Animal cruelty. Dairy production might be the most offensive and heinous of all animal farming. Baby calves are pulled from their mothers at birth. Mother cows will bellow and search after being separated from their young. While female calves are slaughtered or kept alive to produce milk, male calves are taken, chained in tiny stalls and raised for veal. And, since is unprofitable to keep dairy cows alive once their milk production declines, they are usually killed at 5 to 6 years of age (though their normal life span exceeds 20).

2. Lactose Intolerance. I would guess that if any of us were tested, we would be deemed 'lactose intolerant'. It is estimated that about 75 percent of the world's population are 'lactose intolerant', and those that aren't (primarily Caucasians) tolerate milk sugar because of an inherited genetic mutation. That's because the milk is meant for cows, not people...

1. It's COW's milk. Why are we all drinking milk from a cow when we wouldn't drink the milk from our lactating dog or cat... or milk from a horse or pig?! Would you go out into a field and suckle from a cow?! Probably not! Think about that connection. Just think about it.

I could probably add another five or more reasons not to eat dairy. But, more importantly, I can list hundreds of other delicious foods and recipes to eat instead of dairy! Stick with me, check out some recipes, believe in yourself! You can get the dairy out of your diet, and you will feel so much better for it.