From Bloomberg News.
"Political dysfunction is often blamed for Congress’s inability to curb the U.S. budget deficit. An even bigger obstacle may be the American public.
A record 49 percent of Americans live in a household where someone receives at least one type of government benefit, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And 63 percent of all federal spending this year will consist of checks written to individuals for which the government receives currently no services, the White House budget office estimates. That’s up from 46 percent in 1975 and 18 percent in 1940.
Those figures will climb in coming years. The 75 million baby boomers have only begun their long march into retirement, while President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul will extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million additional people.
“The more households that are benefiting from the programs, the more difficult it is to rein in their costs,” said Bob Bixby, head of the Concord Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia- based group that promotes balanced budgets. “It’s a troubling phenomenon” and “it explains why it’s politically difficult to deal with these things.”
The increasing reliance on the federal safety net comes as a congressional supercommittee -- charged with coming up with a plan by Thanksgiving to find $1.5 trillion in savings in the U.S. budget -- faces mounting pressure to pare back spending. If the panel fails to meet its goal, $1.2 trillion in across-the-board domestic and defense spending cuts will be triggered.
It’s the Economy
Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who sits on the 12- member supercommittee, said the swelling number of beneficiaries is “very distressing” because it means much of the population is “hooked on government” and will oppose any cuts.
The census figure showing 49 percent of Americans, or about 147 million people, live in households where someone gets a federal benefit, is from the first quarter of 2010, the most recent numbers available, according to the bureau.
A confluence of elements is helping drive up the number of beneficiaries. The biggest is the economy. With the unemployment rate stuck at about 9 percent for 30 consecutive months, demand for unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicaid has soared.
The number of Americans receiving food stamps alone is up 72 percent over the past five years, to a record 45.3 million. Their annual cost, projected this year to reach $80 billion, tops the yearly budgets of most federal agencies.
Another cost-driver is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even with the Iraq conflict winding down -- Obama said last week all U.S. troops will be home by the end of the year -- the more than 2 million Americans who have served in one of the theaters have begun claiming promised health-care and education benefits.
Good, Bad News
Those medical bills could reach $55 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The number claiming education benefits is up almost 60 percent since 2009, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
“The good news is their survival rate, but the bad news is their survival rate,” said Bill Hoagland, a former staff director of the Senate Budget Committee.
Demographics also play a major role. The eldest baby boomers became eligible this year for Medicare, three years after beginning to receive Social Security checks. Though much of the debate over the programs’ finances has focused on what to do about spiraling health-care costs, the CBO said the main challenge over the next 25 years will be the number of people claiming benefits.
“Of the two factors, aging is the more important,” the CBO said in a June report. With 10,000 Americans turning 62 every day, the ranks of Social Security recipients are projected to almost double to 97 million by 2035.
Expanding Benefits
Congress also has repeatedly expanded benefits in recent years, adding to the ranks of potential losers in any deficit- reduction deal.
A 2010 law eased eligibility standards for Pell college tuition grants, one reason the number of recipients is up about 70 percent in five years to a projected 9.4 million this year. The increase in veterans claiming education benefits is partly driven by a 2008 “Post-9/11 G.I. Bill” that expanded assistance to cover the entire cost of a college education, including tuition, housing and books.
Even in the face of calls to cut the deficit, Congress came up with a new entitlement program.
Last year, as lawmakers prepared to leave for the Christmas recess, they agreed to create a program for emergency responders to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, promising medical care for conditions ranging from panic disorders to sleep apnea.
More than 60,000 people have enrolled since the program opened for business in July.
‘Helping Everybody’
“You’ve got to be seen helping everybody,” said Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican who was criticized when he temporarily blocked creation of the program. Coburn had complained that the government had already appropriated money for responders’ care, and Congress shouldn’t be developing additional entitlements amid so much concern over financing existing ones.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, complained that opinion polls show the public neither wants benefits cut nor taxes raised.
A Bloomberg News-Washington Post poll earlier this month found more than four-fifths of Americans opposed reducing Social Security or Medicare benefits. A similar share said they didn’t want taxes increased on the middle class either, although they favored raising them on wealthier people.
“None of this adds up,” said Conrad. “One of the biggest obstacles to doing what has to be done is public opinion.”
Aren't they supposed to be working FOR us? Don't WE pay their salaries? This is a good example of the elites vs. us--they "have to be seen" doing something for us, like it's a chore just to keep up appearances or something.
You ask me, this is one place Herman Cain was right: the protesters are in the wrong place--they SHOULD be outside the Capitol building, and not protesting wage inequality, but SOCIAL inequality.
Americans are hooked on benefits largely because of a Congress who shot first and asked questions later, all in an attempt at their own job security.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Look Who's Shilling for the First Lady--GE Pairs Federal Nutrition Push with New Microwaves
From the Courier-Journal (KY). Great--that's all we need...ANOTHER microwave! Do we have a STUPID IDEA OF THE MILLENNIUM award? I'd like to give it to GE.
"A new General Electric microwave designed in Louisville is the first in the appliance industry tailored to the MyPlate guidelines, the federal government’s new nutritional model.
Pressing a button on the over-the-range microwave activates controls that are preset with cooking times for foods the federal government is encouraging people to eat. MyPlate, a program run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, advises consumers to fill half their plate with fruits and vegetables, focus on lean protein for less than one fourth of the plate and switch to whole grain choices.
A push of the MyPlate button reveals a dial that consumers can scroll to cook grains, vegetables or lean protein. Grain choices include oatmeal, rice or macaroni. Vegetable cooking time presets include asparagus, broccoli, carrots, corn or peas. Chicken preset cooking times include bone-in, and boneless filets.
Market research showed consumers want this information at their fingertips, GE microwave product manager Susan Gregory said.
About “72 percent of people thought that companies should make features for them to do the right thing... to eat healthier,” Gregory said.
Battling obesity with a button seemed like a place to start, she added.
“Obesity rates are staggering,” she said. “This helps people get better energy instead of junk food.”
GE “has really been trailblazing. We are so excited to hear how it does,” USDA spokeswoman Shelley Maniscalco said of GE’s push to incorporate MyPlate into its microwaves. “It is very innovative, what they are doing, using the MyPlate logo as a cue to folks to think about eating healthy and making half of their plate fruits and vegetables. Louisville is very progressive.”
Based at GE’s Appliances & Lighting division headquartered at Appliance Park, the microwave group will also send a healthy eating newsletter to new microwave purchasers. The 30-inch over-the-range microwaves equipped with the MyPlate feature range from $349 to $649, Gregory said.
“Providing value that people are willing to pay for is clearly a part of our strategy,” company spokeswoman Julie Wood said.
Over-the-range microwaves, pioneered by Appliance Park engineers in the 1970s, have grown to comprise 50 to 60 percent of the market, Gregory said. Of that, GE microwaves now capture about 30 percent of sales, she said. Trials with counter-top microwaves equipped with MyPlate features are underway, she added. Expansion to other GE appliances, including ranges, is being considered, she said.
“You try to innovate in 30 inches,” Gregory said of the standard microwave size. “Sometimes it’s a little difficult to come up with new ideas. We did a lot of research.”
IT'S NOT THE MACHINE YOU USE, BUT WHAT YOU PUT INSIDE IT THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE! Can someone say "obviously GE needs more money from the taxpayers?"
And while we're at it, I'd like to know who down at GE made macaroni a whole grain, and who thinks we're going to nuke fruit and salads.
Desperation, folks--this is sheer desperation.
"A new General Electric microwave designed in Louisville is the first in the appliance industry tailored to the MyPlate guidelines, the federal government’s new nutritional model.
Pressing a button on the over-the-range microwave activates controls that are preset with cooking times for foods the federal government is encouraging people to eat. MyPlate, a program run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, advises consumers to fill half their plate with fruits and vegetables, focus on lean protein for less than one fourth of the plate and switch to whole grain choices.
A push of the MyPlate button reveals a dial that consumers can scroll to cook grains, vegetables or lean protein. Grain choices include oatmeal, rice or macaroni. Vegetable cooking time presets include asparagus, broccoli, carrots, corn or peas. Chicken preset cooking times include bone-in, and boneless filets.
Market research showed consumers want this information at their fingertips, GE microwave product manager Susan Gregory said.
About “72 percent of people thought that companies should make features for them to do the right thing... to eat healthier,” Gregory said.
Battling obesity with a button seemed like a place to start, she added.
“Obesity rates are staggering,” she said. “This helps people get better energy instead of junk food.”
GE “has really been trailblazing. We are so excited to hear how it does,” USDA spokeswoman Shelley Maniscalco said of GE’s push to incorporate MyPlate into its microwaves. “It is very innovative, what they are doing, using the MyPlate logo as a cue to folks to think about eating healthy and making half of their plate fruits and vegetables. Louisville is very progressive.”
Based at GE’s Appliances & Lighting division headquartered at Appliance Park, the microwave group will also send a healthy eating newsletter to new microwave purchasers. The 30-inch over-the-range microwaves equipped with the MyPlate feature range from $349 to $649, Gregory said.
“Providing value that people are willing to pay for is clearly a part of our strategy,” company spokeswoman Julie Wood said.
Over-the-range microwaves, pioneered by Appliance Park engineers in the 1970s, have grown to comprise 50 to 60 percent of the market, Gregory said. Of that, GE microwaves now capture about 30 percent of sales, she said. Trials with counter-top microwaves equipped with MyPlate features are underway, she added. Expansion to other GE appliances, including ranges, is being considered, she said.
“You try to innovate in 30 inches,” Gregory said of the standard microwave size. “Sometimes it’s a little difficult to come up with new ideas. We did a lot of research.”
IT'S NOT THE MACHINE YOU USE, BUT WHAT YOU PUT INSIDE IT THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE! Can someone say "obviously GE needs more money from the taxpayers?"
And while we're at it, I'd like to know who down at GE made macaroni a whole grain, and who thinks we're going to nuke fruit and salads.
Desperation, folks--this is sheer desperation.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Our Ancestors Ate a Low-Carb Diet
From the Epoch Times. They also softly chastise the current CW recommendations of carb amounts in so-called "healthy diets."
"I’m a believer in the concept that our diets should, for the most part, emulate those of our ancient ancestors. The diet we ate for long periods of our evolution is likely the diet we are best adapted to and is the best for us. There is abundant scientific evidence to support this concept.
Do we actually know what our ancient ancestors ate? There is evidence that prior to 10,000 years ago, our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. For the vast majority of our evolution, our diet was devoid of many modern-day foods, including bread, pasta, breakfast cereals, milk, refined vegetable oils, and refined sugar.
“New” foods eaten in the last 10,000 years make up about 75 percent of the typical calories consumed in a standard Western diet.
Until recently, in evolutionary terms, the human diet was ostensibly made up of primal foods such as meat, fish, shellfish, eggs, fruits, vegetables, and nuts. However, it stands to reason that the relative proportions of these foods in the diet would have varied considerably as a result of availability and necessity.
Our ancestors evolving near the equator would have decent access to plant-based foods, including fruits and vegetables. But the further away from the equator, our ancestors would have been more reliant on hunting for meat and fish.
One way of getting insight into our evolutionary diet is to examine the diet of modern hunter-gatherers. Probably the best source of relevant data is the Ethnographic Atlas. Within it can be found dietary information from 229 contemporary hunter-gatherer societies.
This data was recently analyzed by two German researchers in an effort to gain insight about the carbohydrate content of primitive, hunter-gatherer diets. The data was published in June in the journal Nutrition Research.
The percentage of calories contributed by carbohydrate varied from about 3 percent to about 50 percent. It will come as no surprise that they discovered that the percentage of the diet coming from carbohydrate was higher in populations close to the equator than those further away. The most common percentage among all the groups was about 20 percent.
Official recommendations are that about 60 percent of the calories we consume should come from carbohydrate. That’s actually higher than the most carbohydrate-rich hunter-gatherer diet of all, and about three times the average carbohydrate percentage in such diets.
The authors of this study conclude, “The range of energy intake from carbohydrates in the diets of most hunter-gatherer societies was markedly different (lower) from the amounts currently recommended for healthy humans.”
Not only has the quantity of carbohydrate changed in percentage terms but also its quality. Long gone are the days when our carbohydrate mainly came from fruits and vegetables, including tubers. Now, we consume much more grain-based products, many of which have been refined, and refined sugar and fruit that has been cultivated to be sweeter than fruit found in the wild.
There are many problems with such a diet. We can have the blood sugar disruptions and surges of insulin. Blood sugar peaks damage the body through a variety of processes, including inflammation and glycation (binding of sugar to tissues).
Highs of blood sugar can lead to low blood sugar, which can trigger symptoms such as hunger, food cravings, mental fatigue, mood changes, and insomnia.
The surges of insulin that come in response to high blood sugar can predispose to problems such as weight gain, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes.
Of course, one way out of this would be to reject conventional nutritional advice on carbohydrate consumption and keep the diet as primal as possible."
Info on the author: Dr. John Briffa is a London-based physician and author with an interest in nutrition and natural medicine. His website is DrBriffa.com
I'm actually surprised to see a British doctor not towing the line of CW and the "slave to socialized medicine" bias that regularly comes out of his corner of the world.
I threw this last image in just because...
"I’m a believer in the concept that our diets should, for the most part, emulate those of our ancient ancestors. The diet we ate for long periods of our evolution is likely the diet we are best adapted to and is the best for us. There is abundant scientific evidence to support this concept.
Do we actually know what our ancient ancestors ate? There is evidence that prior to 10,000 years ago, our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. For the vast majority of our evolution, our diet was devoid of many modern-day foods, including bread, pasta, breakfast cereals, milk, refined vegetable oils, and refined sugar.
“New” foods eaten in the last 10,000 years make up about 75 percent of the typical calories consumed in a standard Western diet.
Until recently, in evolutionary terms, the human diet was ostensibly made up of primal foods such as meat, fish, shellfish, eggs, fruits, vegetables, and nuts. However, it stands to reason that the relative proportions of these foods in the diet would have varied considerably as a result of availability and necessity.
Our ancestors evolving near the equator would have decent access to plant-based foods, including fruits and vegetables. But the further away from the equator, our ancestors would have been more reliant on hunting for meat and fish.
One way of getting insight into our evolutionary diet is to examine the diet of modern hunter-gatherers. Probably the best source of relevant data is the Ethnographic Atlas. Within it can be found dietary information from 229 contemporary hunter-gatherer societies.
This data was recently analyzed by two German researchers in an effort to gain insight about the carbohydrate content of primitive, hunter-gatherer diets. The data was published in June in the journal Nutrition Research.
The percentage of calories contributed by carbohydrate varied from about 3 percent to about 50 percent. It will come as no surprise that they discovered that the percentage of the diet coming from carbohydrate was higher in populations close to the equator than those further away. The most common percentage among all the groups was about 20 percent.
Official recommendations are that about 60 percent of the calories we consume should come from carbohydrate. That’s actually higher than the most carbohydrate-rich hunter-gatherer diet of all, and about three times the average carbohydrate percentage in such diets.
The authors of this study conclude, “The range of energy intake from carbohydrates in the diets of most hunter-gatherer societies was markedly different (lower) from the amounts currently recommended for healthy humans.”
Not only has the quantity of carbohydrate changed in percentage terms but also its quality. Long gone are the days when our carbohydrate mainly came from fruits and vegetables, including tubers. Now, we consume much more grain-based products, many of which have been refined, and refined sugar and fruit that has been cultivated to be sweeter than fruit found in the wild.
There are many problems with such a diet. We can have the blood sugar disruptions and surges of insulin. Blood sugar peaks damage the body through a variety of processes, including inflammation and glycation (binding of sugar to tissues).
Highs of blood sugar can lead to low blood sugar, which can trigger symptoms such as hunger, food cravings, mental fatigue, mood changes, and insomnia.
The surges of insulin that come in response to high blood sugar can predispose to problems such as weight gain, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes.
Of course, one way out of this would be to reject conventional nutritional advice on carbohydrate consumption and keep the diet as primal as possible."
Info on the author: Dr. John Briffa is a London-based physician and author with an interest in nutrition and natural medicine. His website is DrBriffa.com
I'm actually surprised to see a British doctor not towing the line of CW and the "slave to socialized medicine" bias that regularly comes out of his corner of the world.
I threw this last image in just because...
New Film Calls Out Government For Contributing to Nation's Health Crisis
From Fox News. good--I'm glad someone else is besides me.
"Is weight gain really the biggest health epidemic in America – or is weight loss?
That’s the question filmmaker Darryl Roberts raises in “America the Beautiful 2: The Thin Commandments,” as he explores the correlation between being heavy and being healthy, the national obsession with dieting and one common number used to measure health – the Body Mass Index (BMI).
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) refers to the BMI as a “number calculated from a person's weight and height” which “provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems.”
But according to Roberts, the BMI chart classifieds even some of the most in-shape celebrities and athletes as overweight or obese – including Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, Christian Bale, and LeBron James. Roberts is particularly unimpressed that the government, including Michelle Obama, who currently runs the childhood anti-obesity campaign Let’s Move! and encourages BMI screenings for kids, is continuing to use this method as a means to measure our health.
“(Michelle Obama) put on public display how her daughters are getting their BMI checked and was worried about her daughter's weight, so in the movie, a gentleman talked about how it was a shame that the First Lady was using her daughter's weight as a way to push her campaign,” Roberts told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column while promoting the controversial documentary, which is a follow-up to his 2007 film, “America the Beautiful.” “If you see her daughters, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous in the first place. Kids grow in and out of shapes and weights, so to alarm the American public just like that, and to use her daughters to do it, I thought was pretty bad.”
The First Lady Press Office and a representative for Let’s Move! did not respond to a request for comment. But several health organizations beg to differ.
The popular health web site LiveStrong.com acknowledges that BMI does have its limitations, but notes that it is an “important measurement tool.” According to the American Cancer Institute, an “abnormal” BMI exceeding 25 in women with breast cancer is associated with lower survival rates. As BMI during childhood climbs, so does the risk of coronary heart disease in adulthood, according to the American Heart Association.
“America the Beautiful 2” also points fingers at the government for refusing to address issues, such as the possible link between high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and rising obesity levels.
“Our government (is) blaming us for everything. They're saying we've become sedentary and that are ruining ourselves,” Roberts said. “But I found out that there is a study that shows there's a correlation between the rise in obesity and the introduction of high fructose corn syrup in our food. The government subsidized corn and [it] became cheaper. I'll admit that we are not as active as we used to be, but the government plays a role as well. So I went to D.C. to talk to the Secretary of Health to let her know that you all are in this with us, so can you do your part to stop what you're doing, and hopefully we'll do our part.”
However, Dr. Barry Popkin, who led the 2004 study suggesting that HFCS was largely responsible for obesity, has since admitted he was “wrong to single out” the ingredient, and that its adverse effects were merely speculation. HFCS was also found to be "generally recognized as safe" by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Roberts also learned that “dieting” is no longer just a women’s issue as many males nowadays too are consumed by the threat of creeping over a BMI of 25, and that many dieters in this country have yet to even reach school age.
“The scariest thing I found out is that now five year olds are dieting, and I didn’t even know it existed, but boys with eating disorders,” he continued. “Women have struggled with body image issues for so long, I just got used to the fact that that's just the way it is. But when you're sitting across from an eight year old boy who's going through the same thing, it all just comes crashing down. The eight year old boy started off because his father told him he had 'dunlap disease,' when your stomach 'dunlaps' over your belt. He would go to school and he would get teased about being overweight and he would see everyone else with girls, and he decided he wanted a girlfriend, so he knew he had to be skinny to get a girlfriend.”
Roberts also blames the entertainment industry for perpetuating unrealistic body images.
“Twenty years ago if a woman was to have plastic surgery, she wouldn't tell you, or she would deny it if you suspected it and brought it up. Now, you have so many celebrities on the cover of all these magazines having plastic surgery and admitting to it. It's become so normalized that now teenagers are having plastic surgery parties when they're 16,” he said. “Unfortunately a lot of our youth look up to these celebrities and emulate what they do, and celebrities feel that being thin is their currency and now that's being pushed on us, the American public.”
Roberts hopes “America the Beautiful 2” shows that being healthy – mentally and physically – is achievable without all the unnecessary diets, guides and gizmos.
“I want people to empower themselves to become healthier without worrying about how much they weigh,” he said. “We've become a nation of quick fixes. We want everything now and we want it fast and we don't want to do research or figure things out, so when we don't feel well, we just want to take a pill and feel better. Everything is now and fast and we don't want to work hard for the long term.”
“America the Beautiful 2” is currently playing at select theaters."
Just to show you how bad the obesity epidemic is for some people, they are actually GAINING WEIGHT to lose it (by qualifying for gastric bypass surgery). The cause is corn and grains working in conjunction to fatten us up for market just like it does cows. Subsidization of these grains doesn't help matters. Always looking for a cheaper way to feed us, this is what they came up with...along with a flawed BMI theory, and an even worse blood lipid theory, and now we're exporting this "stuff 'em with grains" practice to Third World Countries starving for any kind of sustenance. There's gotta be nothing on earth like zooming from too thin to too fat, and all from one cause: malnutrition.
"Is weight gain really the biggest health epidemic in America – or is weight loss?
That’s the question filmmaker Darryl Roberts raises in “America the Beautiful 2: The Thin Commandments,” as he explores the correlation between being heavy and being healthy, the national obsession with dieting and one common number used to measure health – the Body Mass Index (BMI).
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) refers to the BMI as a “number calculated from a person's weight and height” which “provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems.”
But according to Roberts, the BMI chart classifieds even some of the most in-shape celebrities and athletes as overweight or obese – including Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, Christian Bale, and LeBron James. Roberts is particularly unimpressed that the government, including Michelle Obama, who currently runs the childhood anti-obesity campaign Let’s Move! and encourages BMI screenings for kids, is continuing to use this method as a means to measure our health.
“(Michelle Obama) put on public display how her daughters are getting their BMI checked and was worried about her daughter's weight, so in the movie, a gentleman talked about how it was a shame that the First Lady was using her daughter's weight as a way to push her campaign,” Roberts told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column while promoting the controversial documentary, which is a follow-up to his 2007 film, “America the Beautiful.” “If you see her daughters, I thought it was absolutely ridiculous in the first place. Kids grow in and out of shapes and weights, so to alarm the American public just like that, and to use her daughters to do it, I thought was pretty bad.”
The First Lady Press Office and a representative for Let’s Move! did not respond to a request for comment. But several health organizations beg to differ.
The popular health web site LiveStrong.com acknowledges that BMI does have its limitations, but notes that it is an “important measurement tool.” According to the American Cancer Institute, an “abnormal” BMI exceeding 25 in women with breast cancer is associated with lower survival rates. As BMI during childhood climbs, so does the risk of coronary heart disease in adulthood, according to the American Heart Association.
“America the Beautiful 2” also points fingers at the government for refusing to address issues, such as the possible link between high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and rising obesity levels.
“Our government (is) blaming us for everything. They're saying we've become sedentary and that are ruining ourselves,” Roberts said. “But I found out that there is a study that shows there's a correlation between the rise in obesity and the introduction of high fructose corn syrup in our food. The government subsidized corn and [it] became cheaper. I'll admit that we are not as active as we used to be, but the government plays a role as well. So I went to D.C. to talk to the Secretary of Health to let her know that you all are in this with us, so can you do your part to stop what you're doing, and hopefully we'll do our part.”
However, Dr. Barry Popkin, who led the 2004 study suggesting that HFCS was largely responsible for obesity, has since admitted he was “wrong to single out” the ingredient, and that its adverse effects were merely speculation. HFCS was also found to be "generally recognized as safe" by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Roberts also learned that “dieting” is no longer just a women’s issue as many males nowadays too are consumed by the threat of creeping over a BMI of 25, and that many dieters in this country have yet to even reach school age.
“The scariest thing I found out is that now five year olds are dieting, and I didn’t even know it existed, but boys with eating disorders,” he continued. “Women have struggled with body image issues for so long, I just got used to the fact that that's just the way it is. But when you're sitting across from an eight year old boy who's going through the same thing, it all just comes crashing down. The eight year old boy started off because his father told him he had 'dunlap disease,' when your stomach 'dunlaps' over your belt. He would go to school and he would get teased about being overweight and he would see everyone else with girls, and he decided he wanted a girlfriend, so he knew he had to be skinny to get a girlfriend.”
Roberts also blames the entertainment industry for perpetuating unrealistic body images.
“Twenty years ago if a woman was to have plastic surgery, she wouldn't tell you, or she would deny it if you suspected it and brought it up. Now, you have so many celebrities on the cover of all these magazines having plastic surgery and admitting to it. It's become so normalized that now teenagers are having plastic surgery parties when they're 16,” he said. “Unfortunately a lot of our youth look up to these celebrities and emulate what they do, and celebrities feel that being thin is their currency and now that's being pushed on us, the American public.”
Roberts hopes “America the Beautiful 2” shows that being healthy – mentally and physically – is achievable without all the unnecessary diets, guides and gizmos.
“I want people to empower themselves to become healthier without worrying about how much they weigh,” he said. “We've become a nation of quick fixes. We want everything now and we want it fast and we don't want to do research or figure things out, so when we don't feel well, we just want to take a pill and feel better. Everything is now and fast and we don't want to work hard for the long term.”
“America the Beautiful 2” is currently playing at select theaters."
Just to show you how bad the obesity epidemic is for some people, they are actually GAINING WEIGHT to lose it (by qualifying for gastric bypass surgery). The cause is corn and grains working in conjunction to fatten us up for market just like it does cows. Subsidization of these grains doesn't help matters. Always looking for a cheaper way to feed us, this is what they came up with...along with a flawed BMI theory, and an even worse blood lipid theory, and now we're exporting this "stuff 'em with grains" practice to Third World Countries starving for any kind of sustenance. There's gotta be nothing on earth like zooming from too thin to too fat, and all from one cause: malnutrition.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Eagle Scout Candidate Simplifies Gardening for the Disabled
From the Tinley Patch (IL). Video at article link.
"Boy Scout Alex Gattone is aiming for his Eagle Scout status, while helping the elderly and disabled gardeners of the community with raised garden beds and a rainwater collection system at the community garden.
Alex Gattone needed an Eagle Scout project, and the Oak Forest Park District needed some help accommodating elderly and disabled residents who wished to garden in the community plots.
Gattone, a member of the Tinley Park-based Boy Scout Troop 385, is a Marist High School freshman. He teamed up with Park District Commissioner and community garden organizer Joe Conway to plan for his project.
Conway suggested that Gattone draft a plan for two raised garden beds for individuals who cannot easily bend over, but would still love to garden in the plots on 151st and Long. The project also included a rain barrel structure designed to capture water runoff.
Gattone took it from there.
He worked with local businesses for the supplies, managed a budget and supervised 30 on-site volunteers last Saturday. The group broke ground around 8 a.m. and had nearly finished the garden beds by noon. The boys also spread mulch in various locations, and cleaned up the garden site.
Eagle Scout status is a prestigious ranking within the Boy Scouts of America organization."
Where is our legion of federally-sponsored know-nothing gardeners...you know...the Food Corps? Oh wait--they're only for school gardens! I say we make Alex in charge of them!
"Boy Scout Alex Gattone is aiming for his Eagle Scout status, while helping the elderly and disabled gardeners of the community with raised garden beds and a rainwater collection system at the community garden.
Alex Gattone needed an Eagle Scout project, and the Oak Forest Park District needed some help accommodating elderly and disabled residents who wished to garden in the community plots.
Gattone, a member of the Tinley Park-based Boy Scout Troop 385, is a Marist High School freshman. He teamed up with Park District Commissioner and community garden organizer Joe Conway to plan for his project.
Conway suggested that Gattone draft a plan for two raised garden beds for individuals who cannot easily bend over, but would still love to garden in the plots on 151st and Long. The project also included a rain barrel structure designed to capture water runoff.
Gattone took it from there.
He worked with local businesses for the supplies, managed a budget and supervised 30 on-site volunteers last Saturday. The group broke ground around 8 a.m. and had nearly finished the garden beds by noon. The boys also spread mulch in various locations, and cleaned up the garden site.
Eagle Scout status is a prestigious ranking within the Boy Scouts of America organization."
Where is our legion of federally-sponsored know-nothing gardeners...you know...the Food Corps? Oh wait--they're only for school gardens! I say we make Alex in charge of them!
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Links to Mental Illness Seen in Fetal Brains
From HealthDay News. The forming brain responds to whatever the mother eats or experiences.
"The genes suspected of causing autism, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses are activated in the developing brain before birth, according to a major genetic analysis.
The study by researchers at Yale University also spotted hundreds of genetic differences between males and females still in the womb.
"We knew many of the genes involved in the development of the brain, but now we know where and when they are functioning in the human brain," said study senior author Nenad Sestan, an associate professor of neurobiology and researcher for Yale's Kavli Institute for Neuroscience, in a university news release. "The complexity of the system shows why the human brain may be so susceptible to psychiatric disorders."
In conducting the study, researchers examined more than 1,300 tissue samples taken from 57 people at different stages of brain development, ranging from 40 days after conception to 82 years. They tracked thousands of human genes to determine which are involved in development, where they are located and when they are "expressed," or activated.
The study, published in the Oct. 27 issue of the journal Nature, revealed a significant amount of the human brain is shaped before birth. For instance, the researchers found proof that genes linked to autism and schizophrenia are activated while in the womb.
(Metabolic responses to malnutrition)
"We found a distinct pattern of gene expression and variations prenatally in areas of the brain involving higher cognitive function," said Sestan in the news release. "It is clear that these disease-associated genes are developmentally regulated."
The study also found distinct differences before birth in many genes shared by both sexes."
Brain malnutrition does a lot of damage. Here's an article about the brain development timeline.
"The genes suspected of causing autism, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses are activated in the developing brain before birth, according to a major genetic analysis.
The study by researchers at Yale University also spotted hundreds of genetic differences between males and females still in the womb.
"We knew many of the genes involved in the development of the brain, but now we know where and when they are functioning in the human brain," said study senior author Nenad Sestan, an associate professor of neurobiology and researcher for Yale's Kavli Institute for Neuroscience, in a university news release. "The complexity of the system shows why the human brain may be so susceptible to psychiatric disorders."
In conducting the study, researchers examined more than 1,300 tissue samples taken from 57 people at different stages of brain development, ranging from 40 days after conception to 82 years. They tracked thousands of human genes to determine which are involved in development, where they are located and when they are "expressed," or activated.
The study, published in the Oct. 27 issue of the journal Nature, revealed a significant amount of the human brain is shaped before birth. For instance, the researchers found proof that genes linked to autism and schizophrenia are activated while in the womb.
"We found a distinct pattern of gene expression and variations prenatally in areas of the brain involving higher cognitive function," said Sestan in the news release. "It is clear that these disease-associated genes are developmentally regulated."
The study also found distinct differences before birth in many genes shared by both sexes."
Brain malnutrition does a lot of damage. Here's an article about the brain development timeline.
Ghost Writing Persists in Many Major Medical Journals
From HealthDay News. So now who do we trust? Worse, who do the doctors trust?
"Honorary and ghost authors were involved in 21 percent of articles published in six leading medical journals in 2008, which shows that this type of inappropriate authorship remains a problem, a new study says.
Honorary authors are people named as authors despite not making a substantial enough contribution to take responsibility for the research. Ghost authors are people who play a major role in the research or who participate in writing the article, but are not named as authors.
The lack of transparency and accountability associated with both types of inappropriate authorship has been a concern for decades, according to the study authors.
More than 600 biomedical journals have adopted guidelines for responsible and accountable authorship established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, but previous research has found that the prevalence of honorary authors in articles is as high as 39 percent and the use of ghost authors as high as 11 percent.
In this new study, U.S. researchers compared the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in articles published in six leading medical journals in 1996 and 2008.
Information from 630 authors who responded to the researchers' survey showed that the overall prevalence of articles with inappropriate authorship fell from 29 percent in 1996 to 21 percent in 2008.
There was no change in the prevalence of honorary authors over that time, but there was a large decline in the prevalence of ghost authors.
Original research articles had higher rates of both types of inappropriate authorship than review articles or editorials.
The study was published online Oct. 25 in the British Medical Journal.
"Increased efforts by scientific journals, individual authors and academic institutions are essential to promote responsibility, accountability and transparency in authorship, and to maintain integrity in scientific publication," the researchers wrote in a journal news release."
Maybe this explains the faulty medical theories and practice that exists over there...and eventually makes its way over here?
"Honorary and ghost authors were involved in 21 percent of articles published in six leading medical journals in 2008, which shows that this type of inappropriate authorship remains a problem, a new study says.
Honorary authors are people named as authors despite not making a substantial enough contribution to take responsibility for the research. Ghost authors are people who play a major role in the research or who participate in writing the article, but are not named as authors.
The lack of transparency and accountability associated with both types of inappropriate authorship has been a concern for decades, according to the study authors.
More than 600 biomedical journals have adopted guidelines for responsible and accountable authorship established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, but previous research has found that the prevalence of honorary authors in articles is as high as 39 percent and the use of ghost authors as high as 11 percent.
In this new study, U.S. researchers compared the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in articles published in six leading medical journals in 1996 and 2008.
Information from 630 authors who responded to the researchers' survey showed that the overall prevalence of articles with inappropriate authorship fell from 29 percent in 1996 to 21 percent in 2008.
There was no change in the prevalence of honorary authors over that time, but there was a large decline in the prevalence of ghost authors.
Original research articles had higher rates of both types of inappropriate authorship than review articles or editorials.
The study was published online Oct. 25 in the British Medical Journal.
"Increased efforts by scientific journals, individual authors and academic institutions are essential to promote responsibility, accountability and transparency in authorship, and to maintain integrity in scientific publication," the researchers wrote in a journal news release."
Maybe this explains the faulty medical theories and practice that exists over there...and eventually makes its way over here?
Going to Extremes to Fight Heart Disease--U.K. Scientists Grow "Super Broccoli"
From Yahoo Health. Wouldn't just eating NORMAL broccoli (along with other veggies) do the job?
"Popeye might want to consider switching to broccoli. British scientists unveiled a new breed of the vegetable that experts say packs a big nutritional punch.
The new broccoli was specially grown to contain two to three times the normal amount of glucoraphanin, a nutrient believed to help ward off heart disease.
"Vegetables are a medicine cabinet already," said Richard Mithen, who led the team of scientists at the Institute for Food Research in Norwich, England, that developed the new broccoli. "When you eat this broccoli ... you get a reduction in cholesterol in your blood stream," he told Associated Press Television.
An AP reporter who tasted the new broccoli found it was the same as the regular broccoli. Scientists, however, said it should taste slightly sweeter because it contains less sulphur.
Glucoraphanin works by breaking fat down in the body, preventing it from clogging the arteries. It is only found in broccoli in significant amounts.
To create the vegetable, sold as "super broccoli," Mithen and colleagues cross-bred a traditional British broccoli with a wild, bitter Sicilian variety that has no flowery head, and a big dose of glucoraphanin. After 14 years, the enhanced hybrid was produced, which has been granted a patent by European authorities. No genetic modification was used.
It's been on sale as Beneforte in select stores in California and Texas for the last year, and hit British shelves this month. Later this fall, the broccoli will be rolled out across the U.S.
The super vegetable is part of an increasing tendency among producers to inject extra nutrients into foods, ranging from calcium-enriched orange juice to fortified sugary cereals and milk with added omega 3 fatty acids. In Britain, the new broccoli is sold as part of a line of vegetables that includes mushrooms with extra vitamin D, and tomatoes and potatoes with added selenium.
Not enough data exists to know if anyone could overdose on glucoraphanin, but vitamin D and selenium in very high quantities can be toxic.
Mithen and colleagues are conducting human trials comparing the heart health of people eating the super broccoli to those who eat regular broccoli or no broccoli. They plan to submit the data to the European Food Safety Agency next year so they can claim in advertisements the broccoli has proven health benefits.
"There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to (glucoraphanin and related compounds) as the most important preventive agents for (heart attacks) and certain cancers, so it's a reasonable thing to do," said Lars Ove Dragsted, a professor in the department of human nutrition at the University of Copenhagen. He previously sat on panels at the International Agency for Research on Cancer examining the link between vegetables and cancer.
Dragsted said glucoraphanin is a mildly toxic compound used by plants to fight insects. In humans, glucoraphanin may stimulate our bodies' natural chemical defenses, potentially making the body stronger at removing dangerous compounds.
Other experts said eating foods packed with extra nutrients would probably only have a minimal impact compared with other lifestyle choices, like not smoking and exercising.
"Eating this new broccoli is not going to counteract your bad habits," said Glenys Jones, a nutritionist at Britain's Medical Research Council. She doubted whether adding the nutrients in broccoli to more popular foods would work to improve people's overall health.
"If you added this to a burger, people might think it's then a healthy food and eat more burgers, whereas this is not something they should be eating more of," Jones said. She also thought the super broccoli's U.K. price — it costs about a third more than regular broccoli — might discourage penny-pinching customers.
But that wasn't enough to deter Suzanne Johnson, a 43-year-old mother of two young children in London.
"I'm very concerned about the food they eat and would happily pay a bit more to buy something that has an added benefit," Johnson said.
But for her children, taste is ultimately more important than any nutritional value. "Broccoli is one of the vegetables they actually like, so I'm glad it's the one (scientists) have been working on," she said. "This wouldn't work if it had been mushrooms or asparagus."
Ummm, guys? This counts as GMO.
Whatever happened to good old FIBER? You know--apples, leafy greens, beans (I know), oatmeal (I know)...or even coconut flour, avocados, and psyllium? Oh yeah--this is Britain, and soon, I bet we'll start seeing such foods over here (and the Lipitor makers will probably own the patent).
"Popeye might want to consider switching to broccoli. British scientists unveiled a new breed of the vegetable that experts say packs a big nutritional punch.
The new broccoli was specially grown to contain two to three times the normal amount of glucoraphanin, a nutrient believed to help ward off heart disease.
"Vegetables are a medicine cabinet already," said Richard Mithen, who led the team of scientists at the Institute for Food Research in Norwich, England, that developed the new broccoli. "When you eat this broccoli ... you get a reduction in cholesterol in your blood stream," he told Associated Press Television.
An AP reporter who tasted the new broccoli found it was the same as the regular broccoli. Scientists, however, said it should taste slightly sweeter because it contains less sulphur.
Glucoraphanin works by breaking fat down in the body, preventing it from clogging the arteries. It is only found in broccoli in significant amounts.
To create the vegetable, sold as "super broccoli," Mithen and colleagues cross-bred a traditional British broccoli with a wild, bitter Sicilian variety that has no flowery head, and a big dose of glucoraphanin. After 14 years, the enhanced hybrid was produced, which has been granted a patent by European authorities. No genetic modification was used.
It's been on sale as Beneforte in select stores in California and Texas for the last year, and hit British shelves this month. Later this fall, the broccoli will be rolled out across the U.S.
The super vegetable is part of an increasing tendency among producers to inject extra nutrients into foods, ranging from calcium-enriched orange juice to fortified sugary cereals and milk with added omega 3 fatty acids. In Britain, the new broccoli is sold as part of a line of vegetables that includes mushrooms with extra vitamin D, and tomatoes and potatoes with added selenium.
Not enough data exists to know if anyone could overdose on glucoraphanin, but vitamin D and selenium in very high quantities can be toxic.
Mithen and colleagues are conducting human trials comparing the heart health of people eating the super broccoli to those who eat regular broccoli or no broccoli. They plan to submit the data to the European Food Safety Agency next year so they can claim in advertisements the broccoli has proven health benefits.
"There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to (glucoraphanin and related compounds) as the most important preventive agents for (heart attacks) and certain cancers, so it's a reasonable thing to do," said Lars Ove Dragsted, a professor in the department of human nutrition at the University of Copenhagen. He previously sat on panels at the International Agency for Research on Cancer examining the link between vegetables and cancer.
Dragsted said glucoraphanin is a mildly toxic compound used by plants to fight insects. In humans, glucoraphanin may stimulate our bodies' natural chemical defenses, potentially making the body stronger at removing dangerous compounds.
Other experts said eating foods packed with extra nutrients would probably only have a minimal impact compared with other lifestyle choices, like not smoking and exercising.
"Eating this new broccoli is not going to counteract your bad habits," said Glenys Jones, a nutritionist at Britain's Medical Research Council. She doubted whether adding the nutrients in broccoli to more popular foods would work to improve people's overall health.
"If you added this to a burger, people might think it's then a healthy food and eat more burgers, whereas this is not something they should be eating more of," Jones said. She also thought the super broccoli's U.K. price — it costs about a third more than regular broccoli — might discourage penny-pinching customers.
But that wasn't enough to deter Suzanne Johnson, a 43-year-old mother of two young children in London.
"I'm very concerned about the food they eat and would happily pay a bit more to buy something that has an added benefit," Johnson said.
But for her children, taste is ultimately more important than any nutritional value. "Broccoli is one of the vegetables they actually like, so I'm glad it's the one (scientists) have been working on," she said. "This wouldn't work if it had been mushrooms or asparagus."
Ummm, guys? This counts as GMO.
Whatever happened to good old FIBER? You know--apples, leafy greens, beans (I know), oatmeal (I know)...or even coconut flour, avocados, and psyllium? Oh yeah--this is Britain, and soon, I bet we'll start seeing such foods over here (and the Lipitor makers will probably own the patent).
Food Industry Alone Decides if Food Ingredients Are Safe
From Yahoo Health.
"Thousands of ingredients that go into food have been classified as safe by private industry alone, without any government oversight, according to a new report published Wednesday.
Since the early 1960's, private companies and industry trade associations have determined at least 3,000 ingredients are safe, with no federal scrutiny, the study found. The ingredients include everything from artificially synthesized chemicals used in chewing gum to grape seed extract used in cheese and instant coffee.
The peer-reviewed report published in the Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety journal draws on research funded by the Pew Health Group, the health and consumer safety arm of the nonprofit Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association says the industry only classifies ingredients as safe after a battery of rigorous biological tests, but agrees that more transparency in the vetting process would help build consumer confidence.
"The system is less transparent than it should be so we're looking to open that dialogue," said Leon Bruner, the association's chief science officer, who agreed the study's estimates were reasonable. "We are completely comfortable with increasingly the transparency or the visibility of ingredients that go through the process."
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act makes manufacturers responsible for ensuring food ingredients are safe. Companies can classify an ingredient as "generally recognized as safe" for use in a specific product but aren't required to tell the Food and Drug Administration about what they find.
Some do, through a voluntary notification program that gives the FDA a chance to review the findings.
Officials have said in the past that if a company markets a food or beverage the agency believes is unsafe, the government can always issue warning letters or seize the product.
"We don't know the names of a lot of these chemicals because the companies have never told FDA or the public about them," said Erik Olson, Pew Health Group's director of food and consumer safety programs and one of the study's authors. "Often there is not publicly available data on the potential health impacts because FDA has never evaluated them."
FDA Deputy Commissioner Michael Taylor said Wednesday the study raised important issues concerning public access to information about ingredient safety.
"Transparency in decision-making is a high priority for FDA, and FDA considers it timely to explore whether the statutory and regulatory framework for food additives adequately addresses today's need for transparency," Taylor said."
They may test for IMMEDIATE effects, but does anyone test for GENERATIONAL effects? Dog food companies used to conduct feeding trials over three generations, but no more--they claim they can't afford the time or money it takes to do that. I think it's because they came up with disastrous results (just like Pottenger did), potentially affecting the bottom line.
Weston A. Price witnessed the effects of dietary malnutrition throughout generations, and wrote a book about the birth defects that resulted. Today, those birth defects are so pervasive, they're considered normal. Now, you're considered a freak if you don't have them!
"Thousands of ingredients that go into food have been classified as safe by private industry alone, without any government oversight, according to a new report published Wednesday.
Since the early 1960's, private companies and industry trade associations have determined at least 3,000 ingredients are safe, with no federal scrutiny, the study found. The ingredients include everything from artificially synthesized chemicals used in chewing gum to grape seed extract used in cheese and instant coffee.
The peer-reviewed report published in the Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety journal draws on research funded by the Pew Health Group, the health and consumer safety arm of the nonprofit Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association says the industry only classifies ingredients as safe after a battery of rigorous biological tests, but agrees that more transparency in the vetting process would help build consumer confidence.
"The system is less transparent than it should be so we're looking to open that dialogue," said Leon Bruner, the association's chief science officer, who agreed the study's estimates were reasonable. "We are completely comfortable with increasingly the transparency or the visibility of ingredients that go through the process."
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act makes manufacturers responsible for ensuring food ingredients are safe. Companies can classify an ingredient as "generally recognized as safe" for use in a specific product but aren't required to tell the Food and Drug Administration about what they find.
Some do, through a voluntary notification program that gives the FDA a chance to review the findings.
Officials have said in the past that if a company markets a food or beverage the agency believes is unsafe, the government can always issue warning letters or seize the product.
"We don't know the names of a lot of these chemicals because the companies have never told FDA or the public about them," said Erik Olson, Pew Health Group's director of food and consumer safety programs and one of the study's authors. "Often there is not publicly available data on the potential health impacts because FDA has never evaluated them."
FDA Deputy Commissioner Michael Taylor said Wednesday the study raised important issues concerning public access to information about ingredient safety.
"Transparency in decision-making is a high priority for FDA, and FDA considers it timely to explore whether the statutory and regulatory framework for food additives adequately addresses today's need for transparency," Taylor said."
They may test for IMMEDIATE effects, but does anyone test for GENERATIONAL effects? Dog food companies used to conduct feeding trials over three generations, but no more--they claim they can't afford the time or money it takes to do that. I think it's because they came up with disastrous results (just like Pottenger did), potentially affecting the bottom line.
Weston A. Price witnessed the effects of dietary malnutrition throughout generations, and wrote a book about the birth defects that resulted. Today, those birth defects are so pervasive, they're considered normal. Now, you're considered a freak if you don't have them!
Remember What I Told You About the Supercommittee's Ultimate End?
Well, it's coming to fruition in this article--they're deadlocked, and it's only October (well, almost November).
Nobody wants to be the bad guy who makes the tough cuts, or makes the tough tax hikes. Result? Stalemate. Deadlock. This is what they wanted all along--now there's nobody to blame, because the AUTOMATIC CUTS SYSTEM is gonna do the dirty work for them!
Nobody wants to be the bad guy who makes the tough cuts, or makes the tough tax hikes. Result? Stalemate. Deadlock. This is what they wanted all along--now there's nobody to blame, because the AUTOMATIC CUTS SYSTEM is gonna do the dirty work for them!
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Dr. Oz Takes Diet Experiment to Turtle Back Zoo
From the Bloomfield Patch (NJ). Now before you get disgusted and move on from just seeing the mention of Dr. Oz's name, please read the diet experiment he's working on--it involves caveman eating.
"He's taken on apple juice, unravelled medical mysteries and tackled snackers, and now Dr. Mehmet Oz will be doing his most extreme experiment yet — at Essex County's Turtle Back Zoo.
Known for his daily television program that discusses health and personal issues, Dr. Oz recently visited Turtle Back Zoo in West Orange to film an episode about dieting.
In the episode titled, "Dr. Oz's Most Extreme Experiment Ever: Could a Prehistoric Diet Save Your Life?" Dr. Oz sets outs to help three women that suffer from high blood pressure and cholesterol. His remedy? A prehistoric diet.
According to zoo director Dr. Jeremy Goodman, Dr. Oz had the women camp out at the White-Napes Cranes exhibit for 48 hours.
"It was an interesting experience," said Goodman. "There's something to be said about going to all natural foods and moving away from processed food — mother nature usually gets it right."
Goodman said the zoo is no stranger to the limelight and has historically been a part of other productions including the Sopranos, Romper Room and a Blondie video.
"It makes for good TV, everything there is educational," Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo Jr. told Patch.
The show will air Friday at 4 p.m. on Fox."
Personally, I think 48 hours isn't long enough, but hey--if that's all you can get, take it.
"He's taken on apple juice, unravelled medical mysteries and tackled snackers, and now Dr. Mehmet Oz will be doing his most extreme experiment yet — at Essex County's Turtle Back Zoo.
Known for his daily television program that discusses health and personal issues, Dr. Oz recently visited Turtle Back Zoo in West Orange to film an episode about dieting.
In the episode titled, "Dr. Oz's Most Extreme Experiment Ever: Could a Prehistoric Diet Save Your Life?" Dr. Oz sets outs to help three women that suffer from high blood pressure and cholesterol. His remedy? A prehistoric diet.
According to zoo director Dr. Jeremy Goodman, Dr. Oz had the women camp out at the White-Napes Cranes exhibit for 48 hours.
"It was an interesting experience," said Goodman. "There's something to be said about going to all natural foods and moving away from processed food — mother nature usually gets it right."
Goodman said the zoo is no stranger to the limelight and has historically been a part of other productions including the Sopranos, Romper Room and a Blondie video.
"It makes for good TV, everything there is educational," Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo Jr. told Patch.
The show will air Friday at 4 p.m. on Fox."
Personally, I think 48 hours isn't long enough, but hey--if that's all you can get, take it.
Practical Nutrition--Pumpkins
From the Richmond times-Dispatch (VA).
"It's almost time to go to the pumpkin patch, isn't it?" my son Nick asked earlier this month. I thought my family might have outgrown this yearly tradition, but the four of us, age 18 and older, headed out to pick our pumpkins!
Even if you don't celebrate Halloween, you can still celebrate pumpkins. They're so much more than jack-o'-lanterns.
Botanically speaking, pumpkins are fruits, just like tomatoes. But we tend to consider them vegetables since they're in the gourd family like squash. Fruit or vegetable, 1 cup mashed pumpkin has 49 calories, zero fat, 12 grams carbohydrate, 3 grams fiber, 2 milligrams sodium and 40 milligrams calcium. They're also good sources of vitamins A and C.
One easy way to enjoy pumpkin as a vegetable is to use it as the actual baking dish. I used a pie pumpkin to make Jack in the Pumpkin. It was attractive as well as delicious.
Many pumpkin recipes call for pumpkin puree. Canned pumpkin puree is readily available now, but you can easily make your own. While any pumpkin will work, pie pumpkins work well. Here's one simple method:
Preheat oven to 325 degrees. Remove the stem of the pumpkin. Cut the pumpkin in half; scoop out the seeds and stringy material.
Cover cut sides of the pumpkin with aluminum foil, and place on baking sheet, foil sides up. Bake for about 1 hour, or until insides are fork-tender.
Remove skin, and scoop out pumpkin. (Skin should remove easily if cooked enough.)
Puree pumpkin in a food processor, blender or with a mixer, until smooth. Use immediately, or when cooled, freeze in 1-cup portions in plastic zipper-lock freezer bags.
You can also try your hand at roasting the pumpkin seeds:
Remove the stringy pumpkin membrane. Preheat oven to 300 to 350 degrees. Spray a large baking sheet with nonstick cooking spray or line with nonstick aluminum foil. Place seeds on the pan in a single layer. Lightly sprinkle with salt or your favorite seasonings, such as cinnamon, flavored salts, garlic powder or chili powder.
Bake 15 to 30 minutes, checking and stirring every 5 minutes to prevent burning. When the seeds cool, store them in an airtight container. Enjoy, but watch your portions, since 1 ounce has 146 calories and 12 grams of fat.
Are you ready to pick your pumpkin now? There's still time before Halloween. Find local and statewide pumpkin farms and festivals. It's a fun time for kids of all ages. It can even be good for you, if you limit the fair-like food treats. We walked a mile in a corn maze alone!
Jack in the Pumpkin (not Paleo friendly)
"This delicious and hearty Mexican-style dish is baked in a hollowed-out pumpkin or squash, providing for the ultimate autumn holiday dish. It's also fun to use small pumpkins for single-serving bowls for each guest. This dish is equally good baked in a casserole dish."
Makes 6 servings
1 cup wild/brown rice mixed (¼ wild, ¾ brown), dry
3 onions, chopped, divided
2 cups water and/or broth, 1/3 less sodium
1 medium pie pumpkin or 2 large buttercup squash
1 tablespoon olive or canola oil
1 teaspoon minced garlic (4 cloves)
½ EACH: red, green and yellow bell peppers, seeded and chopped
¾ cup medium or hot salsa (strained so it is thick)
2 cups frozen corn
2 cans (16 ounces each) black beans, rinsed and drained
¼ cup fresh parsley
2 teaspoons cumin seed (not powder)
1 teaspoon dried oregano
1/8 teaspoon cayenne
¼ teaspoon salt
Heat dry rice, 1 chopped onion and the 2 cups of broth or water in a medium saucepan over medium heat about 45 minutes until done. Meanwhile, wash the pumpkin and carefully carve out a lid that provides a fairly wide opening. Scoop out all seeds and pulp, and discard. (Or save if you plan to roast them.) Set aside bowl and lid.
Preheat oven to 375 degrees.
Heat oil in a large stir-fry pan or large skillet over medium-high heat. Add garlic, peppers and remaining onions, and stir-fry a few minutes. Add salsa, corn, beans, parsley, spices and rice mixture to the pan. Bring to a slow simmer for a few minutes. There should be minimal liquid.
Carefully spoon mixture into the pumpkin. Place pumpkin on a baking sheet with the lid alongside. Cook for about one hour. It will be done when inside pumpkin is fork-tender.
Once cooked, place pumpkin lid on top of pumpkin, if desired, and serve proudly. The meat from inside the pumpkin will be tender and tasty to eat as well as its contents.
Nutrients per serving (approximately 1 cup without pumpkin): 353 calories, 15 grams protein, 5 grams fat, 64 grams carbohydrate, 12 grams fiber, 538 milligrams sodium.
From "Likety-Split Meals for Health Conscious People on the Go!" by Zonya Foco, RD. For more recipes and tips, visit www.Zonya.com."
"It's almost time to go to the pumpkin patch, isn't it?" my son Nick asked earlier this month. I thought my family might have outgrown this yearly tradition, but the four of us, age 18 and older, headed out to pick our pumpkins!
Even if you don't celebrate Halloween, you can still celebrate pumpkins. They're so much more than jack-o'-lanterns.
Botanically speaking, pumpkins are fruits, just like tomatoes. But we tend to consider them vegetables since they're in the gourd family like squash. Fruit or vegetable, 1 cup mashed pumpkin has 49 calories, zero fat, 12 grams carbohydrate, 3 grams fiber, 2 milligrams sodium and 40 milligrams calcium. They're also good sources of vitamins A and C.
One easy way to enjoy pumpkin as a vegetable is to use it as the actual baking dish. I used a pie pumpkin to make Jack in the Pumpkin. It was attractive as well as delicious.
Many pumpkin recipes call for pumpkin puree. Canned pumpkin puree is readily available now, but you can easily make your own. While any pumpkin will work, pie pumpkins work well. Here's one simple method:
Preheat oven to 325 degrees. Remove the stem of the pumpkin. Cut the pumpkin in half; scoop out the seeds and stringy material.
Cover cut sides of the pumpkin with aluminum foil, and place on baking sheet, foil sides up. Bake for about 1 hour, or until insides are fork-tender.
Remove skin, and scoop out pumpkin. (Skin should remove easily if cooked enough.)
Puree pumpkin in a food processor, blender or with a mixer, until smooth. Use immediately, or when cooled, freeze in 1-cup portions in plastic zipper-lock freezer bags.
You can also try your hand at roasting the pumpkin seeds:
Remove the stringy pumpkin membrane. Preheat oven to 300 to 350 degrees. Spray a large baking sheet with nonstick cooking spray or line with nonstick aluminum foil. Place seeds on the pan in a single layer. Lightly sprinkle with salt or your favorite seasonings, such as cinnamon, flavored salts, garlic powder or chili powder.
Bake 15 to 30 minutes, checking and stirring every 5 minutes to prevent burning. When the seeds cool, store them in an airtight container. Enjoy, but watch your portions, since 1 ounce has 146 calories and 12 grams of fat.
Are you ready to pick your pumpkin now? There's still time before Halloween. Find local and statewide pumpkin farms and festivals. It's a fun time for kids of all ages. It can even be good for you, if you limit the fair-like food treats. We walked a mile in a corn maze alone!
Jack in the Pumpkin (not Paleo friendly)
"This delicious and hearty Mexican-style dish is baked in a hollowed-out pumpkin or squash, providing for the ultimate autumn holiday dish. It's also fun to use small pumpkins for single-serving bowls for each guest. This dish is equally good baked in a casserole dish."
Makes 6 servings
1 cup wild/brown rice mixed (¼ wild, ¾ brown), dry
3 onions, chopped, divided
2 cups water and/or broth, 1/3 less sodium
1 medium pie pumpkin or 2 large buttercup squash
1 tablespoon olive or canola oil
1 teaspoon minced garlic (4 cloves)
½ EACH: red, green and yellow bell peppers, seeded and chopped
¾ cup medium or hot salsa (strained so it is thick)
2 cups frozen corn
2 cans (16 ounces each) black beans, rinsed and drained
¼ cup fresh parsley
2 teaspoons cumin seed (not powder)
1 teaspoon dried oregano
1/8 teaspoon cayenne
¼ teaspoon salt
Heat dry rice, 1 chopped onion and the 2 cups of broth or water in a medium saucepan over medium heat about 45 minutes until done. Meanwhile, wash the pumpkin and carefully carve out a lid that provides a fairly wide opening. Scoop out all seeds and pulp, and discard. (Or save if you plan to roast them.) Set aside bowl and lid.
Preheat oven to 375 degrees.
Heat oil in a large stir-fry pan or large skillet over medium-high heat. Add garlic, peppers and remaining onions, and stir-fry a few minutes. Add salsa, corn, beans, parsley, spices and rice mixture to the pan. Bring to a slow simmer for a few minutes. There should be minimal liquid.
Carefully spoon mixture into the pumpkin. Place pumpkin on a baking sheet with the lid alongside. Cook for about one hour. It will be done when inside pumpkin is fork-tender.
Once cooked, place pumpkin lid on top of pumpkin, if desired, and serve proudly. The meat from inside the pumpkin will be tender and tasty to eat as well as its contents.
Nutrients per serving (approximately 1 cup without pumpkin): 353 calories, 15 grams protein, 5 grams fat, 64 grams carbohydrate, 12 grams fiber, 538 milligrams sodium.
From "Likety-Split Meals for Health Conscious People on the Go!" by Zonya Foco, RD. For more recipes and tips, visit www.Zonya.com."
War Zone Marines Eating Like Cavemen
From the Marine Corps Times.
"Lt. Col. Sean Riordan used to consider himself chubby. It never kept him from meeting the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards or from scoring in the 280-plus echelon on his physical fitness test. He just chalked up his less-than-desirable physique to genetics.
But Riordan’s not chubby anymore, and he has one man to thank for inspiring him to change: a portly Iraqi sergeant major who smiled broadly and remarked to Riordan that he was getting fat, patting his own round belly to accentuate the point.
That was in 2008, after a yearlong deployment in Iraq. Today, Riordan has washboard abs and says he feels healthier than ever. His secret lies in a new fitness regimen — and a drastic dietary shift that calls for cutting out grains, legumes, sugar and dairy products, and eating more protein, fruit and greens. It’s called the caveman, or paleo, diet.
“I’ve been doing CrossFit and following a Paleolithic approach to my nutrition since I returned from Iraq,” said Riordan, who took command of 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, at Marine Corps Base Hawaii on Dec. 2 and promptly issued this message: Adhere to the Marine Corps standard for physical fitness and appearance or you’ll be placed in the Body Composition Program immediately.
In a memo, he admonished his Marines that if they come within either 5 pounds or 2 percent of their maximum body weight and fat allowance, they would get a warning letter and a talking-to. When the battalion arrived in Afghanistan in April, 158 of Riordan’s Marines received the letter along with individual counseling sessions about diet, nutrition and exercise, and a requirement to visit several websites about health and nutrition. Some followed his lead and hopped on the caveman diet, too.
The foundation is fresh, unprocessed foods eaten thousands of years ago during the Paleolithic era — think hunter-gatherers, stone tools and so on. They stayed lean, and diseases such as diabetes were nonexistent.
Meat is in. Cheese is out. Berries are OK, but beans aren’t. Nuts and seeds are good to go, but ditch the milk, sports drinks and cake.
Sounds tough, but plenty are doing it. The paleo diet continues to gain followers throughout the Marine Corps, according to Riordan and to nutritional experts with the Marine Corps’ Semper Fit program.
“That really is the one I’m asked a lot about,” said Lauren King, one of two registered dieticians in the Semper Fit program, a resource Marines can turn to for advice, classes and information on fitness and health. In the year she has worked at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., she said, King has seen an increase in the number of Marines asking for advice on high-protein, low-carbohydrate regimens, mostly athletic Marines who also prefer CrossFit-style exercising, which comprises high-intensity daily workout routines. But she cautions that eating this way is not advisable for all Marines all of the time.
“When they come to see me and say they’re following a paleo diet, we explain you have to have carbohydrates for fuel and too few carbs can hurt performance,” King said.
As alternatives to pasta and grains, she suggests taking in carbohydrates from plant sources such as fruits, legumes and starchy vegetables like potatoes, corn and yams.
For Marines trying to lose weight, cutting carbohydrates altogether isn’t practical, she said, because any diet they adopt will have to be sustainable. Ultimately, King said, good carbohydrates are fuel for active Marines.
“For the war fighters who are engaged in activity, carbohydrates are important to have in a diet,” she said.
Semper Fit’s nutritional guidelines are based closely on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 and the new Choose My Plate site that offers tips on healthy eating. The guidelines advocate a balance of vegetables and fruits but also whole grains and low-fat or fat-free dairy products, which the paleo diet eschews.
Riordan swears by it, though. Since he issued his edict, about 60 percent of his officers have adopted the same diet and exercise regimen. Many of his young enlisted Marines are giving it a go, too — to the extent possible. Downrange, sugary Pop-Tarts, soft drinks and muffins are everywhere.
“I live on jerky and nuts for snacks. I get enough fruit … but I miss vegetables terribly,” said Riordan, who has instructed his cooks to minimize the non-paleo temptations provided through the supply chain. “I am much more lenient at the smaller [combat outposts] and patrol bases, where selections can be a little more limited. I am fanatical about pushing good food down to the lowest level and have largely succeeded here.”
Battling body fat
Riordan’s aggressive stance on food choices and appearance was slightly ahead of — and very much in line with — Commandant Gen. Jim Amos’ assessment of Marines. After he assumed the top post last October, Amos traveled extensively throughout the Corps and observed what he suspected was widespread noncompliance with the service’s appearance standards, particularly those that govern body fat. As a result, he ordered his inspectors general to audit every command and conduct surprise weigh-ins to ensure compliance.
The results of that survey are on the commandant’s desk, he told Marine Corps Times in September. And although Amos said he is pleased to see that the number of Marines enrolled in the Corps’ Body Composition Program is lower than he expected, he is keeping a close eye on compliance, so much so that he will be personally tracking it and calling on leaders who aren’t enforcing the regs.
From the looks of it, Riordan won’t be getting a call from the commandant any time soon, though some of his Marines are finding it hard to stick to the paleo diet even after losing some weight.
“I can’t do that for too long,” said Sgt. William Pierce, who is in charge of the battalion’s chow hall on Forward Operating Base Delhi. He received a pat on the back from Riordan and a word of encouragement for having lost 10 pounds three months into the deployment. Pierce tries to keep up on the diet, and he provides starchy menus for Marines who want it, he said, but being around food all the time makes it hard.
“I eat with my eyes,” Pierce said.
The battalion’s executive officer, Maj. John Black, said that when the unit deployed, their families were encouraged in newsletters to send care packages containing healthful goodies such as nuts, dried fruits and beef jerky. That’s worked to a limited degree, he added.
“The families are still sending lots of treats,” Black said, popping a handful of freeze-dried blueberries into his mouth, “but that’s OK once in a while.”
Initially, as part of his effort to expose his Marines to the paleo diet, Riordan ordered more than 1,000 packets of food produced by Steve’s Original, a New Jersey-based company that caters to paleo diet enthusiasts. These “paleo kits” are vacuum-sealed pouches filled with dried fruits, nuts, meats and seeds. Every Marine in the battalion received one during Enhanced Mojave Viper pre-deployment training in Twentynine Palms, Calif.
“It gave me the opportunity to talk to the Marines about nutrition and how it would affect their performance during combat,” Riordan said.
Many of his officers followed suit and ordered their own supplies of paleokits to take downrange, but the kits are pricey. A month’s supply could cost upward of $500. And for that, you get variety and a mix of calorie counts. A 4.3-ounce packet of beef jerky, coconut and strawberries, for example, has 360 calories. A 1.5-ounce paleo crunch bar made with coconut, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, almonds and honey racks up 200 calories. One ounce of dried wild blueberries has 89 calories. The products can be ordered in groupings, too, and the variety includes “paleo MREs.”
“Steve’s Original is an awesome product. It’s packable and nonperishable,” said 1st Lt. Charles Eberly, commander of 1/3’s 4th Platoon, Alpha Company. However, after a while, he added, the company stopped mailing the packets to Afghanistan because of the slow and unreliable mail system. To compensate, the Marines riffle through their field rations, keeping the most healthful items and dumping everything else. The majority of his platoon, Eberly said, eats a diet of tuna, chicken and vegetables.
“They all take the chicken and tuna out of First Strike Rations and throw out the rest. Literally. They throw out every other item. We trade all the Pop-Tarts and Cokes with kids and shopkeepers [in the village] for homegrown vegetables.”
Riordan expects that his focus on fitness, health and appearance will stick with his Marines beyond the deployment and believes that his personal success with it will be a catalyst.
“I issued the letter of warning because there are so many people on the line, like I was,” he said. “I am convinced that I can motivate just about anyone to change his personal nutrition and improve his physical fitness.”
"Lt. Col. Sean Riordan used to consider himself chubby. It never kept him from meeting the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards or from scoring in the 280-plus echelon on his physical fitness test. He just chalked up his less-than-desirable physique to genetics.
But Riordan’s not chubby anymore, and he has one man to thank for inspiring him to change: a portly Iraqi sergeant major who smiled broadly and remarked to Riordan that he was getting fat, patting his own round belly to accentuate the point.
That was in 2008, after a yearlong deployment in Iraq. Today, Riordan has washboard abs and says he feels healthier than ever. His secret lies in a new fitness regimen — and a drastic dietary shift that calls for cutting out grains, legumes, sugar and dairy products, and eating more protein, fruit and greens. It’s called the caveman, or paleo, diet.
“I’ve been doing CrossFit and following a Paleolithic approach to my nutrition since I returned from Iraq,” said Riordan, who took command of 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, at Marine Corps Base Hawaii on Dec. 2 and promptly issued this message: Adhere to the Marine Corps standard for physical fitness and appearance or you’ll be placed in the Body Composition Program immediately.
In a memo, he admonished his Marines that if they come within either 5 pounds or 2 percent of their maximum body weight and fat allowance, they would get a warning letter and a talking-to. When the battalion arrived in Afghanistan in April, 158 of Riordan’s Marines received the letter along with individual counseling sessions about diet, nutrition and exercise, and a requirement to visit several websites about health and nutrition. Some followed his lead and hopped on the caveman diet, too.
The foundation is fresh, unprocessed foods eaten thousands of years ago during the Paleolithic era — think hunter-gatherers, stone tools and so on. They stayed lean, and diseases such as diabetes were nonexistent.
Meat is in. Cheese is out. Berries are OK, but beans aren’t. Nuts and seeds are good to go, but ditch the milk, sports drinks and cake.
Sounds tough, but plenty are doing it. The paleo diet continues to gain followers throughout the Marine Corps, according to Riordan and to nutritional experts with the Marine Corps’ Semper Fit program.
“That really is the one I’m asked a lot about,” said Lauren King, one of two registered dieticians in the Semper Fit program, a resource Marines can turn to for advice, classes and information on fitness and health. In the year she has worked at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., she said, King has seen an increase in the number of Marines asking for advice on high-protein, low-carbohydrate regimens, mostly athletic Marines who also prefer CrossFit-style exercising, which comprises high-intensity daily workout routines. But she cautions that eating this way is not advisable for all Marines all of the time.
“When they come to see me and say they’re following a paleo diet, we explain you have to have carbohydrates for fuel and too few carbs can hurt performance,” King said.
As alternatives to pasta and grains, she suggests taking in carbohydrates from plant sources such as fruits, legumes and starchy vegetables like potatoes, corn and yams.
For Marines trying to lose weight, cutting carbohydrates altogether isn’t practical, she said, because any diet they adopt will have to be sustainable. Ultimately, King said, good carbohydrates are fuel for active Marines.
“For the war fighters who are engaged in activity, carbohydrates are important to have in a diet,” she said.
Semper Fit’s nutritional guidelines are based closely on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 and the new Choose My Plate site that offers tips on healthy eating. The guidelines advocate a balance of vegetables and fruits but also whole grains and low-fat or fat-free dairy products, which the paleo diet eschews.
Riordan swears by it, though. Since he issued his edict, about 60 percent of his officers have adopted the same diet and exercise regimen. Many of his young enlisted Marines are giving it a go, too — to the extent possible. Downrange, sugary Pop-Tarts, soft drinks and muffins are everywhere.
“I live on jerky and nuts for snacks. I get enough fruit … but I miss vegetables terribly,” said Riordan, who has instructed his cooks to minimize the non-paleo temptations provided through the supply chain. “I am much more lenient at the smaller [combat outposts] and patrol bases, where selections can be a little more limited. I am fanatical about pushing good food down to the lowest level and have largely succeeded here.”
Battling body fat
Riordan’s aggressive stance on food choices and appearance was slightly ahead of — and very much in line with — Commandant Gen. Jim Amos’ assessment of Marines. After he assumed the top post last October, Amos traveled extensively throughout the Corps and observed what he suspected was widespread noncompliance with the service’s appearance standards, particularly those that govern body fat. As a result, he ordered his inspectors general to audit every command and conduct surprise weigh-ins to ensure compliance.
The results of that survey are on the commandant’s desk, he told Marine Corps Times in September. And although Amos said he is pleased to see that the number of Marines enrolled in the Corps’ Body Composition Program is lower than he expected, he is keeping a close eye on compliance, so much so that he will be personally tracking it and calling on leaders who aren’t enforcing the regs.
From the looks of it, Riordan won’t be getting a call from the commandant any time soon, though some of his Marines are finding it hard to stick to the paleo diet even after losing some weight.
“I can’t do that for too long,” said Sgt. William Pierce, who is in charge of the battalion’s chow hall on Forward Operating Base Delhi. He received a pat on the back from Riordan and a word of encouragement for having lost 10 pounds three months into the deployment. Pierce tries to keep up on the diet, and he provides starchy menus for Marines who want it, he said, but being around food all the time makes it hard.
“I eat with my eyes,” Pierce said.
The battalion’s executive officer, Maj. John Black, said that when the unit deployed, their families were encouraged in newsletters to send care packages containing healthful goodies such as nuts, dried fruits and beef jerky. That’s worked to a limited degree, he added.
“The families are still sending lots of treats,” Black said, popping a handful of freeze-dried blueberries into his mouth, “but that’s OK once in a while.”
Initially, as part of his effort to expose his Marines to the paleo diet, Riordan ordered more than 1,000 packets of food produced by Steve’s Original, a New Jersey-based company that caters to paleo diet enthusiasts. These “paleo kits” are vacuum-sealed pouches filled with dried fruits, nuts, meats and seeds. Every Marine in the battalion received one during Enhanced Mojave Viper pre-deployment training in Twentynine Palms, Calif.
“It gave me the opportunity to talk to the Marines about nutrition and how it would affect their performance during combat,” Riordan said.
Many of his officers followed suit and ordered their own supplies of paleokits to take downrange, but the kits are pricey. A month’s supply could cost upward of $500. And for that, you get variety and a mix of calorie counts. A 4.3-ounce packet of beef jerky, coconut and strawberries, for example, has 360 calories. A 1.5-ounce paleo crunch bar made with coconut, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, almonds and honey racks up 200 calories. One ounce of dried wild blueberries has 89 calories. The products can be ordered in groupings, too, and the variety includes “paleo MREs.”
“Steve’s Original is an awesome product. It’s packable and nonperishable,” said 1st Lt. Charles Eberly, commander of 1/3’s 4th Platoon, Alpha Company. However, after a while, he added, the company stopped mailing the packets to Afghanistan because of the slow and unreliable mail system. To compensate, the Marines riffle through their field rations, keeping the most healthful items and dumping everything else. The majority of his platoon, Eberly said, eats a diet of tuna, chicken and vegetables.
“They all take the chicken and tuna out of First Strike Rations and throw out the rest. Literally. They throw out every other item. We trade all the Pop-Tarts and Cokes with kids and shopkeepers [in the village] for homegrown vegetables.”
Riordan expects that his focus on fitness, health and appearance will stick with his Marines beyond the deployment and believes that his personal success with it will be a catalyst.
“I issued the letter of warning because there are so many people on the line, like I was,” he said. “I am convinced that I can motivate just about anyone to change his personal nutrition and improve his physical fitness.”
Burpee Home Gardens "I Can Grow" Youth Garden Award Gives Boost to School, Community Gardens Nationwide
From MarketWatch.
"Burpee Home Gardens(R) is now accepting applications for the 2012 "I Can Grow" Youth Garden Award. In its third year, the "I Can Grow" program continues to support urban school and community gardens in cities across the United States. To date, the "I Can Grow" program has provided more than 8,000 vegetable and herb plants to help create 16 gardens nationwide.
The 2012 "I Can Grow" Youth Garden Award will be presented to established or start-up school and community gardens that demonstrate well-developed and staffed plans for a youth-centered educational program, with an emphasis on nutrition and food production, environmental awareness, social responsibility and scholastic integration.
"Our 'I Can Grow' program is literally planting seeds of inspiration for the next generation of gardeners," says George Ball, chairman and CEO of W. Atlee Burpee & Co. "We are delighted to include the new BOOST collection of high-nutrition vegetables and to see the communities we serve enjoy results that are healthy and delicious."
Two grand-prize winners will be awarded up to 500 vegetable and herb plants, including the Burpee BOOST collection, and $2,500 in garden supplies. They also will receive on-site assistance for initial garden layout and installation from the experts at Burpee Home Gardens, 5 gallons of Daniels(R) Plant Food, one hose-end sprayer and a Flip Video(TM) camera to document the garden's progress throughout the year. In addition, three runner-up winners will receive 500 vegetable and herb plants, including the Burpee BOOST collection, 5 gallons of Daniels(R) Plant Food, one hose-end sprayer and a Flip Video camera.
Educators and community garden leaders can visit Burpee home gardens to download the application and review eligibility requirements. All entries must be postmarked by Friday, Dec. 23, 2011. Winners will be announced no later than the week of Feb. 6, 2012.
Since its launch in 2010, the Burpee Home Gardens "I Can Grow" program has affected thousands of children and communities across the country, including those in Baltimore; Chicago; Dallas; Denver; Detroit; Minneapolis; Nashville, Tenn.; New York; Tampa Bay, Fla.; and Washington, D.C. To learn about the impact of the "I Can Grow" Youth Garden Award program on previous participants, visit the Burpee Home Gardens blog.
The "I Can Grow" program focuses on four key areas of interest known as the Four E's:
ABOUT BURPEE HOME GARDENS(R): Burpee Home Gardens is a program of garden-ready vegetable, herb and annual flower plants available nationally at retail garden centers. Backed by the 135-year history of Burpee, the first name in home gardening, Burpee Home Gardens provides gardeners with time-tested varieties and information, ideas and inspiration for success. For more information, visit burpeehomegardens.com.
ABOUT BURPEE BOOST: Burpee BOOST high-nutrition vegetables provide higher levels of antioxidants than any other vegetable varieties currently available. BOOST varieties include Cherry Punch tomatoes, Power Pops tomatoes, Solar Power tomatoes, Gold Standard cucumber, Sweet Heat pepper and Healing Hands salad mix -- none of which are GMOs."
"Burpee Home Gardens(R) is now accepting applications for the 2012 "I Can Grow" Youth Garden Award. In its third year, the "I Can Grow" program continues to support urban school and community gardens in cities across the United States. To date, the "I Can Grow" program has provided more than 8,000 vegetable and herb plants to help create 16 gardens nationwide.
The 2012 "I Can Grow" Youth Garden Award will be presented to established or start-up school and community gardens that demonstrate well-developed and staffed plans for a youth-centered educational program, with an emphasis on nutrition and food production, environmental awareness, social responsibility and scholastic integration.
"Our 'I Can Grow' program is literally planting seeds of inspiration for the next generation of gardeners," says George Ball, chairman and CEO of W. Atlee Burpee & Co. "We are delighted to include the new BOOST collection of high-nutrition vegetables and to see the communities we serve enjoy results that are healthy and delicious."
Two grand-prize winners will be awarded up to 500 vegetable and herb plants, including the Burpee BOOST collection, and $2,500 in garden supplies. They also will receive on-site assistance for initial garden layout and installation from the experts at Burpee Home Gardens, 5 gallons of Daniels(R) Plant Food, one hose-end sprayer and a Flip Video(TM) camera to document the garden's progress throughout the year. In addition, three runner-up winners will receive 500 vegetable and herb plants, including the Burpee BOOST collection, 5 gallons of Daniels(R) Plant Food, one hose-end sprayer and a Flip Video camera.
Educators and community garden leaders can visit Burpee home gardens to download the application and review eligibility requirements. All entries must be postmarked by Friday, Dec. 23, 2011. Winners will be announced no later than the week of Feb. 6, 2012.
Since its launch in 2010, the Burpee Home Gardens "I Can Grow" program has affected thousands of children and communities across the country, including those in Baltimore; Chicago; Dallas; Denver; Detroit; Minneapolis; Nashville, Tenn.; New York; Tampa Bay, Fla.; and Washington, D.C. To learn about the impact of the "I Can Grow" Youth Garden Award program on previous participants, visit the Burpee Home Gardens blog.
The "I Can Grow" program focuses on four key areas of interest known as the Four E's:
Education - Learn through community and youth gardening projects across the nation.
Eating better - Learn where your food comes from, and understand the benefits and values of adding fresh vegetables and fruits to your diet.
Environment - Homegrown food production reduces food's carbon footprin
Economy - Supplement your food bill with our ongoing tips and tricks to help gardeners get the most from their vegetable gardens and save money.
ABOUT BURPEE HOME GARDENS(R): Burpee Home Gardens is a program of garden-ready vegetable, herb and annual flower plants available nationally at retail garden centers. Backed by the 135-year history of Burpee, the first name in home gardening, Burpee Home Gardens provides gardeners with time-tested varieties and information, ideas and inspiration for success. For more information, visit burpeehomegardens.com.
ABOUT BURPEE BOOST: Burpee BOOST high-nutrition vegetables provide higher levels of antioxidants than any other vegetable varieties currently available. BOOST varieties include Cherry Punch tomatoes, Power Pops tomatoes, Solar Power tomatoes, Gold Standard cucumber, Sweet Heat pepper and Healing Hands salad mix -- none of which are GMOs."
How Effective is the Flu Vaccine? Not Very
From Web MD.
"As flu season approaches, a new analysis finds that the flu vaccine provides only moderate protection against the flu, noting that such protection is greatly reduced or absent during some flu seasons.
The analysis is published in The Lancet.
"While the vaccine does work, and we still recommend that it be used, it does not demonstrate the kind of efficacy that has often been reported," says study researcher Michael T. Osterholm, MD, of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
Information Gap on Vaccine Effectiveness
The researchers also say there is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of flu vaccines in the most vulnerable groups, such as the elderly.
"For those over age 65 there are real gaps in the information we have about effectiveness compared to young, healthy adults," he says. "It is clear that we need to develop new and better vaccines to fill these gaps."
Osterholm says the analysis represents the most exhaustive review ever conducted of the effectiveness of the flu vaccines used in the U.S.
The researchers screened 5,700 articles and studies, identifying just 31 that used highly specific diagnostic testing to confirm influenza.
Their review of these studies showed that the trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) -- which accounts for about 90% of flu vaccines given in the U.S. -- had 59% effectiveness in healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 65.
The vaccine's effectiveness in children, teens, and the elderly could not be determined because no trials involving these groups met the researchers' inclusion standards.
Nasal Spray Vaccine for Children
Ten studies examined the nasal spray flu vaccine in children between the ages of 6 months and 7 years, finding it was effective for of 83% of that group.
The nasal vaccine is approved for use in healthy people ages 2 to 49.
Osterholm tells WebMD that the impressive protection should convince vaccine policy makers to recommend the nasal spray flu vaccine over the injected TIV vaccine in children.
"The [nasal spray flu vaccine] works very well in children, but it has never been preferentially recommended," he says. "We could potentially have a much greater impact in preventing influenza if we were to encourage the use of [the nasal spray flu vaccine] in that group."
Message the Same: 'Get Your Flu Shot'
Andrew Pavia, MD, who chairs the Pandemic Influenza Task Force of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, says the new analysis confirms what has been known about the current flu vaccine.
"Everyone agrees that we need better vaccines and we are making progress in that direction," he tells WebMD. "We have known for years that the vaccine we have does not provide a first-rate level of protection in the elderly and the very young, but it does provide protection. It would be terrible if the message to the public was that getting vaccinated isn't important."
In fact, he says, the less effective a vaccine is, the more important it is that as many eligible people as possible get vaccinated to protect those who are most vulnerable.
"With a vaccine that is less than perfect, which is most of our vaccines, much of the protection comes from having widespread coverage within a community," he says.
Better Vaccines May Be on the Way
Osterholm and colleagues conclude that new vaccines are needed that work in different ways from current ones.
But infectious disease expert William Schaffner, MD, says research focused on making the current vaccines better is already paying off.
"The last five years has seen more research aimed at developing better flu vaccines than the previous 50," he says.
Two new vaccines have been licensed within the last two years: a high-dose vaccine that is expected to provide better protection for people over 65 and an intradermal vaccine delivered with a needle that is much smaller than traditional needles.
Schaffner says there is also optimism that a universal vaccine covering all strains of the influenza virus may be on the horizon. Because it would deliver a much higher level of protection than current vaccines, it could be given every five or 10 years instead of every year, he says.
Pavia agrees that the universal vaccine, which he calls the Holy Grail of flu vaccine research, may soon be a reality thanks to recent scientific breakthroughs.
"We have a clear path forward that could get us there within the decade," he says."
So the shot's only good for about 60% of our flu immunity--we're supposed to fill in the rest with our diets and preventative activities (such as hand-washing), but we're not told that (until now). If we eat a really nutrient-dense diet and are extra careful with our hand-washing, trying to avoid being around sick people, and basically practicing the D-I-Y Health Reform, the flu shot shouldn't even be necessary.
I've never had a flu shot, and have never had the flu. I don't give the flu shot manufacturers the chance to get any of my money. Why spend money for a shot that only works a little over half the time?
If I ate the SAD diet, I'd consider it--because then, my own immunity would be down around 40%, and I'd need it.
"As flu season approaches, a new analysis finds that the flu vaccine provides only moderate protection against the flu, noting that such protection is greatly reduced or absent during some flu seasons.
The analysis is published in The Lancet.
"While the vaccine does work, and we still recommend that it be used, it does not demonstrate the kind of efficacy that has often been reported," says study researcher Michael T. Osterholm, MD, of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
Information Gap on Vaccine Effectiveness
The researchers also say there is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of flu vaccines in the most vulnerable groups, such as the elderly.
"For those over age 65 there are real gaps in the information we have about effectiveness compared to young, healthy adults," he says. "It is clear that we need to develop new and better vaccines to fill these gaps."
Osterholm says the analysis represents the most exhaustive review ever conducted of the effectiveness of the flu vaccines used in the U.S.
The researchers screened 5,700 articles and studies, identifying just 31 that used highly specific diagnostic testing to confirm influenza.
Their review of these studies showed that the trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) -- which accounts for about 90% of flu vaccines given in the U.S. -- had 59% effectiveness in healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 65.
The vaccine's effectiveness in children, teens, and the elderly could not be determined because no trials involving these groups met the researchers' inclusion standards.
Nasal Spray Vaccine for Children
Ten studies examined the nasal spray flu vaccine in children between the ages of 6 months and 7 years, finding it was effective for of 83% of that group.
The nasal vaccine is approved for use in healthy people ages 2 to 49.
Osterholm tells WebMD that the impressive protection should convince vaccine policy makers to recommend the nasal spray flu vaccine over the injected TIV vaccine in children.
"The [nasal spray flu vaccine] works very well in children, but it has never been preferentially recommended," he says. "We could potentially have a much greater impact in preventing influenza if we were to encourage the use of [the nasal spray flu vaccine] in that group."
Message the Same: 'Get Your Flu Shot'
Andrew Pavia, MD, who chairs the Pandemic Influenza Task Force of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, says the new analysis confirms what has been known about the current flu vaccine.
"Everyone agrees that we need better vaccines and we are making progress in that direction," he tells WebMD. "We have known for years that the vaccine we have does not provide a first-rate level of protection in the elderly and the very young, but it does provide protection. It would be terrible if the message to the public was that getting vaccinated isn't important."
In fact, he says, the less effective a vaccine is, the more important it is that as many eligible people as possible get vaccinated to protect those who are most vulnerable.
"With a vaccine that is less than perfect, which is most of our vaccines, much of the protection comes from having widespread coverage within a community," he says.
Better Vaccines May Be on the Way
Osterholm and colleagues conclude that new vaccines are needed that work in different ways from current ones.
But infectious disease expert William Schaffner, MD, says research focused on making the current vaccines better is already paying off.
"The last five years has seen more research aimed at developing better flu vaccines than the previous 50," he says.
Two new vaccines have been licensed within the last two years: a high-dose vaccine that is expected to provide better protection for people over 65 and an intradermal vaccine delivered with a needle that is much smaller than traditional needles.
Schaffner says there is also optimism that a universal vaccine covering all strains of the influenza virus may be on the horizon. Because it would deliver a much higher level of protection than current vaccines, it could be given every five or 10 years instead of every year, he says.
Pavia agrees that the universal vaccine, which he calls the Holy Grail of flu vaccine research, may soon be a reality thanks to recent scientific breakthroughs.
"We have a clear path forward that could get us there within the decade," he says."
So the shot's only good for about 60% of our flu immunity--we're supposed to fill in the rest with our diets and preventative activities (such as hand-washing), but we're not told that (until now). If we eat a really nutrient-dense diet and are extra careful with our hand-washing, trying to avoid being around sick people, and basically practicing the D-I-Y Health Reform, the flu shot shouldn't even be necessary.
I've never had a flu shot, and have never had the flu. I don't give the flu shot manufacturers the chance to get any of my money. Why spend money for a shot that only works a little over half the time?
If I ate the SAD diet, I'd consider it--because then, my own immunity would be down around 40%, and I'd need it.
About That Missing Blog Post From John Linder...
You know--the one about me asking him directly about specific parts of the Fair Tax proposal? Well, I now have an answer.
It seems our politicians and elites are in fear for their careers, if not their lives--there are two proposals on the hill (one emanating from each side of the aisle) that would greatly enhance the ability of the government, the recording industry, and the motion picture industry to have the ability to seek cut-off of vast portions of the internet. This includes social media, news aggregators, individual blogs, porn, uploaded video sites, music-sharing sites, etc.--just about everything except Amazon (and they'll finally tax that, too).
It seems the Occupy Wall Street protestors have hit a nerve, and someone is trying to prevent an Arab Spring right here on our shores.
Politicians and other elites want control of the message, even if it means replacing it with propaganda, and they can't have it as long as technology exists that's largely out of their control. As you recall, the Arab Spring particpants were keeping in touch with each other through texts, emails, blogs, video, and social media, and the word was getting out to the world--something the governments there tried to stop, but only made worse. They succeeded in hacking into phone calls, but that only drove communications underground. All that was left for them to do was disconnect the internet, and that still didn't stop the news from leaving the area.
In case any of this comes to fruition in the near future, start thinking now about what you're going to do when the...no, not the electricity, but the internet and phones go down, or become heavily monitored to the point of uselessness. Couple this with the new expanded powers given to Homeland Security through the Patriot Act, and you have no-knock warrants to retrieve your computer(s) and phone(s).
Maybe you should start thinking about what you have stored on your hard drive(s) and cell phone(s), and erase anything somebody might find incriminating for whatever reason. This is how frightened the elites are, and how desperately they want to control EVERYTHING.
It seems our politicians and elites are in fear for their careers, if not their lives--there are two proposals on the hill (one emanating from each side of the aisle) that would greatly enhance the ability of the government, the recording industry, and the motion picture industry to have the ability to seek cut-off of vast portions of the internet. This includes social media, news aggregators, individual blogs, porn, uploaded video sites, music-sharing sites, etc.--just about everything except Amazon (and they'll finally tax that, too).
It seems the Occupy Wall Street protestors have hit a nerve, and someone is trying to prevent an Arab Spring right here on our shores.
Politicians and other elites want control of the message, even if it means replacing it with propaganda, and they can't have it as long as technology exists that's largely out of their control. As you recall, the Arab Spring particpants were keeping in touch with each other through texts, emails, blogs, video, and social media, and the word was getting out to the world--something the governments there tried to stop, but only made worse. They succeeded in hacking into phone calls, but that only drove communications underground. All that was left for them to do was disconnect the internet, and that still didn't stop the news from leaving the area.
In case any of this comes to fruition in the near future, start thinking now about what you're going to do when the...no, not the electricity, but the internet and phones go down, or become heavily monitored to the point of uselessness. Couple this with the new expanded powers given to Homeland Security through the Patriot Act, and you have no-knock warrants to retrieve your computer(s) and phone(s).
Maybe you should start thinking about what you have stored on your hard drive(s) and cell phone(s), and erase anything somebody might find incriminating for whatever reason. This is how frightened the elites are, and how desperately they want to control EVERYTHING.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Inflation Peaking in U.S. as Commodity Prices Tumble
A financial interlude--sorry. I thought you might want to know what's coming, and what's been happening. Link to article.
Are We "Brand-Washed"?
From NPR books. The interesting bit of the article:
..."Whole Foods Marketing
Supermarket chain Whole Foods is known for its natural and organic products, and that's the image it is great at selling, Lindstrom says.
In Brandwashed, he describes how the company makes its produce more attractive by carefully arranging its stores and coming up with specific display techqniques. For example, he points out that when you enter many Whole Foods stores, employees are cutting fresh flowers.
"It is not a coincidence," he says. "What they are doing is to tell you on an unconscious level that, in fact, everything is fresh in this store."
If you pay attention as you walk into the produce department, Lindstrom says you will notice the boxes holding the apples and bananas seem to have been delivered by something called "Patty's Farm."
"The story is probably very different," Lindstrom says. " In the backside of the store, they're offloading all those bananas from huge plastic containers, most likely flown in the day before, into those individual-looking cardboard boxes, which by the way is not 'Patty's Farm.'
"It's actually been designed by a graphic design company in New York City to make us feel this is nostalgia at its peak."
So much for global warming and a carbon footprint, right?
The rest of the article talks about marketing in general, and its affects on society. I just thought you'd be interested in the Whole Foods part--I know I was, and I've never shopped in one. We don't have one here, but one's coming in 2012.
This just makes me wonder if the other health food stores are up to the same thing...all the more reason to grow your own, or join a CSA--no marketing, and no fakey heart-string-pulling cardboard boxes (or jars, or cans) from a fictitious farm!
Whole Foods sounds like the Starbucks of food: they buy the cheapest stuff they can get, then bring it home and decorate it so it will sell. By coffee decoration, I'm referring to the whipped cream, flavored syrups, caramel/chocolate drizzle, whatever it takes to make the stuff drinkable, and will have people forking over ungodly sums for what starts as inferior coffee. They even went so far as to invent a new language for coffee sizes just to add to the cachet of holding a paper cup from Starbucks.
Marketing--it's all marketing. If you'd like to read a really good book on it, get a copy of Undercover Economist.
My own health food store puts all its produce in plain plastic bins, wooden crates, or clear plastic bags (depending on size of produce)--no ads anywhere. They don't make enough money to start creating boxes of non-existent farms purely for display. Besides--cardboard wouldn't hold up very well in their walk-in refrigerator room.
..."Whole Foods Marketing
Supermarket chain Whole Foods is known for its natural and organic products, and that's the image it is great at selling, Lindstrom says.
In Brandwashed, he describes how the company makes its produce more attractive by carefully arranging its stores and coming up with specific display techqniques. For example, he points out that when you enter many Whole Foods stores, employees are cutting fresh flowers.
"It is not a coincidence," he says. "What they are doing is to tell you on an unconscious level that, in fact, everything is fresh in this store."
If you pay attention as you walk into the produce department, Lindstrom says you will notice the boxes holding the apples and bananas seem to have been delivered by something called "Patty's Farm."
"The story is probably very different," Lindstrom says. " In the backside of the store, they're offloading all those bananas from huge plastic containers, most likely flown in the day before, into those individual-looking cardboard boxes, which by the way is not 'Patty's Farm.'
"It's actually been designed by a graphic design company in New York City to make us feel this is nostalgia at its peak."
So much for global warming and a carbon footprint, right?
The rest of the article talks about marketing in general, and its affects on society. I just thought you'd be interested in the Whole Foods part--I know I was, and I've never shopped in one. We don't have one here, but one's coming in 2012.
This just makes me wonder if the other health food stores are up to the same thing...all the more reason to grow your own, or join a CSA--no marketing, and no fakey heart-string-pulling cardboard boxes (or jars, or cans) from a fictitious farm!
Whole Foods sounds like the Starbucks of food: they buy the cheapest stuff they can get, then bring it home and decorate it so it will sell. By coffee decoration, I'm referring to the whipped cream, flavored syrups, caramel/chocolate drizzle, whatever it takes to make the stuff drinkable, and will have people forking over ungodly sums for what starts as inferior coffee. They even went so far as to invent a new language for coffee sizes just to add to the cachet of holding a paper cup from Starbucks.
Marketing--it's all marketing. If you'd like to read a really good book on it, get a copy of Undercover Economist.
My own health food store puts all its produce in plain plastic bins, wooden crates, or clear plastic bags (depending on size of produce)--no ads anywhere. They don't make enough money to start creating boxes of non-existent farms purely for display. Besides--cardboard wouldn't hold up very well in their walk-in refrigerator room.
First Lady Writes Book About Edible Gardening
From CNN. Yay! We haven't heard a lot about Michelle's garden lately.
"First lady, wife, mother, careerist, fashionista - Michelle Obama can now add "author" to her list of credentials.
Obama has written a book that highlights one of her most visible initiatives as first lady: promoting better nutrition and edible gardening as a means for Americans to get and stay healthy.
"American Grown: How the White House Kitchen Garden Inspires Families, Schools, and Communities" aims to explore "how increased access to healthy, affordable food can promote better eating habits and improve the health of families and communities across America," according to a press release issued Monday by the Crown Publishing Group.
"Mrs. Obama will describe how her daughters Sasha and Malia were catalysts for change in her own family's eating behavior, which inspired Mrs. Obama to plant an edible garden on the South Lawn - the first since Eleanor Roosevelt's "Victory Garden," planted during World War II."
The first lady did not accept an advance for the book and will donate all proceeds to a charity to be revealed later, the statement says. Random House Inc., Crown Publishing Group's parent, will also make a donation to a charity.
The book will be on sale nationwide starting April 10."
"First lady, wife, mother, careerist, fashionista - Michelle Obama can now add "author" to her list of credentials.
Obama has written a book that highlights one of her most visible initiatives as first lady: promoting better nutrition and edible gardening as a means for Americans to get and stay healthy.
"American Grown: How the White House Kitchen Garden Inspires Families, Schools, and Communities" aims to explore "how increased access to healthy, affordable food can promote better eating habits and improve the health of families and communities across America," according to a press release issued Monday by the Crown Publishing Group.
"Mrs. Obama will describe how her daughters Sasha and Malia were catalysts for change in her own family's eating behavior, which inspired Mrs. Obama to plant an edible garden on the South Lawn - the first since Eleanor Roosevelt's "Victory Garden," planted during World War II."
The first lady did not accept an advance for the book and will donate all proceeds to a charity to be revealed later, the statement says. Random House Inc., Crown Publishing Group's parent, will also make a donation to a charity.
The book will be on sale nationwide starting April 10."
Divide Over When to Use An In-Depth Cholesterol Tests
From Yahoo Health. I smell a rat coming...
"For heart health, you're supposed to know your numbers: Total cholesterol, the bad LDL kind and the good HDL kind. But your next checkup might add a new number to the mix.
More doctors are going beyond standard cholesterol counts, using another test to take a closer look at the bad fats — a count of particles that carry LDL through the blood.
Cardiologists are divided over the usefulness of that approach. Proponents contend it might help them spot at-risk patients that regular checks might miss, or get more information about how aggressively to treat them.
But so far, guidelines from major heart organizations don't recommend these extra tests. They're pricier than regular cholesterol exams, although Medicare and many other insurers pay for them. And it's not always clear what the results mean.
"I see a lot of people being confused," says Dr. Nieca Goldberg of New York University Langone Medical Center and the American Heart Association. Especially when they're used on lower-risk people, "you don't know how to make sense of the information."
Yet up to half of patients diagnosed with heart disease apparently had normal levels of LDL cholesterol, and some doctors say particle testing might help find some of them sooner.
"For most people, the standard lipid profile is fine," says Dr. Michael Davidson of the University of Chicago. But "I get referred people who said, 'My cholesterol was fine, why do I have heart disease?' We're showing them, well, because your particle number's sky high and they were not aware that was a problem."
Davidson chaired a committee of the National Lipid Association which this month called the extra tests reasonable to assess which at-risk patients might need to start or intensify cholesterol treatment. That committee's meeting was paid for by a grant from eight pharmaceutical companies, including some makers of particle tests.
Cholesterol isn't the only factor behind heart disease. High blood pressure, smoking, obesity, diabetes or a strong family history of the disease can put someone in the high-risk category even if their cholesterol isn't a red flag. Some doctors also are testing for inflammation in arteries that may play a role, too.
On the cholesterol front, doctors have long focused on three key numbers:
—Total cholesterol should be below 200.
—An LDL or "bad" cholesterol level below 130 is good for healthy people, but someone with heart disease or diabetes should aim for under 100.
—For HDL, the "good" cholesterol that helps control the bad kind, higher numbers are better — 60 is protective while below 40 is a risk.
Where do particles come in? Scientists have long known that small, dense LDL particles sneak into the artery wall to build up and narrow blood vessels more easily than larger, fluffier particles. While overall LDL levels usually correlate with the amount of particles in blood, they don't always, just as a beach bucket of sand may weigh the same as a bucket of pebbles but contain more particles.
Only in recent years have commercial tests made particle checks more feasible — although there's no standard method, and different tests measure in different ways. The tests add another $100 to $150 to regular cholesterol checks.
But is knowing about your particles really useful, and if so when? That's where doctors are split.
A study published last spring used one particle test, from Raleigh, N.C.-based LipoScience, to analyze a database of more than 5,000 middle-aged people whose heart health was tracked for five years. Most people's overall LDL and particle counts correlated pretty well. But people had a higher risk of heart disease when their particle count was much higher than their LDL predicted — and, conversely, a lower risk if their particle count was lower than expected, says lead researcher Dr. David Goff Jr. of Wake Forest University.
"We could be treating some people who don't need to be treated ... and we may be missing some people who should be treated," Goff says. "But I'd also say that we haven't done all the research that needs to be done to prove that this will lead to better patient outcomes."
Many of those higher-risk patients could be caught by a closer look at standard tests "for no additional charge," says Dr. Roger Blumenthal of Johns Hopkins University and the American College of Cardiology.
Triglycerides, another harmful fat, are a good indicator, Blumenthal says. You're at risk despite a low LDL if your triglycerides are over 130, not to mention a low HDL, he said. People who are obese, diabetic of borderline diabetic also are at greater risk, because they often have higher LDL particle counts.
Another way to measure without an added test: Just subtract HDL from your total cholesterol number. The resulting bad-fat total should be no higher than 30 points above your recommended LDL level — and if they are, it's time for serious diet and exercise, adds Dr. Allen Taylor of Washington Hospital Center.
Still, even some doctors who don't think particle testing is for the masses say they use it sometimes to tip the scales on a borderline patient.
Others use it to guide therapy. Consider Denny Fongheiser of Santa Monica, Calif. At 52, his usual 3-mile-a-day walk suddenly left him panting, but his insurer wouldn't pay for a stress test because his cholesterol was normal.
A month later, chest pain sent Fongheiser to the hospital where he needed a stent to unclog an artery. It turned out he had high particle levels, which his cardiologist now aims to get below the LipoScience-recommended level of 1,000 with cholesterol-lowering drugs.
"I was basically a time bomb," Fongheiser says. He welcomes "being able to test this and know what's going on."
Yep, I was right--an excuse to sell us more pills we don't need, when diet and exercise will suffice. My own doctor uses 70 as her LDL base instead of the 130 mentioned above--a number impossible to meet unless you're a vegetarian. I got close to it when I first started eating Paleo, but haven't gotten that close since, even though I continue to eat Paleo.
"For heart health, you're supposed to know your numbers: Total cholesterol, the bad LDL kind and the good HDL kind. But your next checkup might add a new number to the mix.
More doctors are going beyond standard cholesterol counts, using another test to take a closer look at the bad fats — a count of particles that carry LDL through the blood.
Cardiologists are divided over the usefulness of that approach. Proponents contend it might help them spot at-risk patients that regular checks might miss, or get more information about how aggressively to treat them.
But so far, guidelines from major heart organizations don't recommend these extra tests. They're pricier than regular cholesterol exams, although Medicare and many other insurers pay for them. And it's not always clear what the results mean.
"I see a lot of people being confused," says Dr. Nieca Goldberg of New York University Langone Medical Center and the American Heart Association. Especially when they're used on lower-risk people, "you don't know how to make sense of the information."
Yet up to half of patients diagnosed with heart disease apparently had normal levels of LDL cholesterol, and some doctors say particle testing might help find some of them sooner.
"For most people, the standard lipid profile is fine," says Dr. Michael Davidson of the University of Chicago. But "I get referred people who said, 'My cholesterol was fine, why do I have heart disease?' We're showing them, well, because your particle number's sky high and they were not aware that was a problem."
Davidson chaired a committee of the National Lipid Association which this month called the extra tests reasonable to assess which at-risk patients might need to start or intensify cholesterol treatment. That committee's meeting was paid for by a grant from eight pharmaceutical companies, including some makers of particle tests.
Cholesterol isn't the only factor behind heart disease. High blood pressure, smoking, obesity, diabetes or a strong family history of the disease can put someone in the high-risk category even if their cholesterol isn't a red flag. Some doctors also are testing for inflammation in arteries that may play a role, too.
On the cholesterol front, doctors have long focused on three key numbers:
—Total cholesterol should be below 200.
—An LDL or "bad" cholesterol level below 130 is good for healthy people, but someone with heart disease or diabetes should aim for under 100.
—For HDL, the "good" cholesterol that helps control the bad kind, higher numbers are better — 60 is protective while below 40 is a risk.
Where do particles come in? Scientists have long known that small, dense LDL particles sneak into the artery wall to build up and narrow blood vessels more easily than larger, fluffier particles. While overall LDL levels usually correlate with the amount of particles in blood, they don't always, just as a beach bucket of sand may weigh the same as a bucket of pebbles but contain more particles.
Only in recent years have commercial tests made particle checks more feasible — although there's no standard method, and different tests measure in different ways. The tests add another $100 to $150 to regular cholesterol checks.
But is knowing about your particles really useful, and if so when? That's where doctors are split.
A study published last spring used one particle test, from Raleigh, N.C.-based LipoScience, to analyze a database of more than 5,000 middle-aged people whose heart health was tracked for five years. Most people's overall LDL and particle counts correlated pretty well. But people had a higher risk of heart disease when their particle count was much higher than their LDL predicted — and, conversely, a lower risk if their particle count was lower than expected, says lead researcher Dr. David Goff Jr. of Wake Forest University.
"We could be treating some people who don't need to be treated ... and we may be missing some people who should be treated," Goff says. "But I'd also say that we haven't done all the research that needs to be done to prove that this will lead to better patient outcomes."
Many of those higher-risk patients could be caught by a closer look at standard tests "for no additional charge," says Dr. Roger Blumenthal of Johns Hopkins University and the American College of Cardiology.
Triglycerides, another harmful fat, are a good indicator, Blumenthal says. You're at risk despite a low LDL if your triglycerides are over 130, not to mention a low HDL, he said. People who are obese, diabetic of borderline diabetic also are at greater risk, because they often have higher LDL particle counts.
Another way to measure without an added test: Just subtract HDL from your total cholesterol number. The resulting bad-fat total should be no higher than 30 points above your recommended LDL level — and if they are, it's time for serious diet and exercise, adds Dr. Allen Taylor of Washington Hospital Center.
Still, even some doctors who don't think particle testing is for the masses say they use it sometimes to tip the scales on a borderline patient.
Others use it to guide therapy. Consider Denny Fongheiser of Santa Monica, Calif. At 52, his usual 3-mile-a-day walk suddenly left him panting, but his insurer wouldn't pay for a stress test because his cholesterol was normal.
A month later, chest pain sent Fongheiser to the hospital where he needed a stent to unclog an artery. It turned out he had high particle levels, which his cardiologist now aims to get below the LipoScience-recommended level of 1,000 with cholesterol-lowering drugs.
"I was basically a time bomb," Fongheiser says. He welcomes "being able to test this and know what's going on."
Yep, I was right--an excuse to sell us more pills we don't need, when diet and exercise will suffice. My own doctor uses 70 as her LDL base instead of the 130 mentioned above--a number impossible to meet unless you're a vegetarian. I got close to it when I first started eating Paleo, but haven't gotten that close since, even though I continue to eat Paleo.
Million Dollar Payments to Surgeons Raise Questions
From Yahoo Health.
"Orthopedic surgeons have received hundreds of millions of dollars from joint implant manufacturers in recent years, according to a report released Monday.
In 2007, five device makers said they had paid surgeons more than $198 million, with 43 payments exceeding $1 million.
While the number of payments appears to have dropped since 2007, the average dollar amount has gone up, based on data from the three manufacturers that disclosed physician payments made in the last several years.
"There is a lot of money flowing back and forth," said Jason Hockenberry of Emory University, whose findings are published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Those financial ties represent anything from consulting fees to royalties to research support. Some argue they are necessary to drive medical innovations, but others fear they could end up harming patients as well.
Doctors getting industry money could be quicker to use implants from the companies paying them, for instance, or downplay the side effects of those products in their research.
The new results come as the U.S. Senate investigates whether surgeons paid by Medtronic, a medical device maker not included in the current study, failed to report sterility and other complications stemming from the company's bone-growth implant Infuse.
"There is evidence from other studies that these relationships drive practice one way or another," said Dr. Seth Leopold, of the University of Washington School of Medicine, who was not involved in the new work.
An orthopedic surgeon himself, Leopold chose to sever all ties to device makers in 2005.
"I felt there was no way I'd be able to convince people that these dollars did not affect my clinical decisions," he told Reuters Health.
After seeing the new report, Leopold added, he realized he was just "a smalltime guy."
Hockenberry's findings are based on data released after the five largest orthopedic implant makers -- Biomet Orthopedics, DePuy Orthopedics, Smith & Nephew, Stryker Orthopedics and Zimmer -- settled a kickback probe with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2007.
That year, the companies made more than 1,000 physician payments. In 2008, after the companies found out they'd have to disclose those relationships, the number fell by almost half.
But the three companies that continue to voluntarily disclose payments increased the amount of money they paid doctors by more than 40 percent between 2008 and 2010.
The mean, or mid-range, amount of individual payments also rose slightly, from $212,740 in 2007 to $233,108 in 2010.
"If you are concerned about your physician's loyalties you should by all means ask them," said Hockenberry, stressing that the majority don't have industry ties.
"The reality is, only four percent of all orthopedic surgeons are receiving funds," he said.
It is currently unclear what impact commercial relationships have on patient care. Hockenberry said he'd like to know more about the doctors who stopped taking industry money after the 2007 settlement and those who continued to do so.
"We would also love to be able to tie this to clinical practice," he said.
One way to do so would be to establish a universal device registry for all the implants patients get, so that it would be possible to look at the link between company payments and physician practice patterns.
According to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed last year, manufacturers must report payments of more than $10 by 2013, and this information will be freely available online.
But in an editorial on the new study, Dr. Robert Steinbrook of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said disclosure alone isn't enough.
"The disclosure of industry payments should not divert attention from the real issues with regard to conflict of interest," he writes.
"These are the minimization or elimination of financial ties between physicians and industry in areas other than research support, bona fide consulting related to basic and clinical research, and legitimate payments related to intellectual property. Although many well-publicized examples with regard to conflict of interest involve physicians in specific fields, such as orthopedics or psychiatry, the issues are similar for all specialties."
...and then these replacement joints end up getting recalled because of failure--it's like they KNEW this, but played the implant-for-profit game anyway.
"Orthopedic surgeons have received hundreds of millions of dollars from joint implant manufacturers in recent years, according to a report released Monday.
In 2007, five device makers said they had paid surgeons more than $198 million, with 43 payments exceeding $1 million.
While the number of payments appears to have dropped since 2007, the average dollar amount has gone up, based on data from the three manufacturers that disclosed physician payments made in the last several years.
"There is a lot of money flowing back and forth," said Jason Hockenberry of Emory University, whose findings are published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Those financial ties represent anything from consulting fees to royalties to research support. Some argue they are necessary to drive medical innovations, but others fear they could end up harming patients as well.
Doctors getting industry money could be quicker to use implants from the companies paying them, for instance, or downplay the side effects of those products in their research.
The new results come as the U.S. Senate investigates whether surgeons paid by Medtronic, a medical device maker not included in the current study, failed to report sterility and other complications stemming from the company's bone-growth implant Infuse.
"There is evidence from other studies that these relationships drive practice one way or another," said Dr. Seth Leopold, of the University of Washington School of Medicine, who was not involved in the new work.
An orthopedic surgeon himself, Leopold chose to sever all ties to device makers in 2005.
"I felt there was no way I'd be able to convince people that these dollars did not affect my clinical decisions," he told Reuters Health.
After seeing the new report, Leopold added, he realized he was just "a smalltime guy."
Hockenberry's findings are based on data released after the five largest orthopedic implant makers -- Biomet Orthopedics, DePuy Orthopedics, Smith & Nephew, Stryker Orthopedics and Zimmer -- settled a kickback probe with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2007.
That year, the companies made more than 1,000 physician payments. In 2008, after the companies found out they'd have to disclose those relationships, the number fell by almost half.
But the three companies that continue to voluntarily disclose payments increased the amount of money they paid doctors by more than 40 percent between 2008 and 2010.
The mean, or mid-range, amount of individual payments also rose slightly, from $212,740 in 2007 to $233,108 in 2010.
"If you are concerned about your physician's loyalties you should by all means ask them," said Hockenberry, stressing that the majority don't have industry ties.
"The reality is, only four percent of all orthopedic surgeons are receiving funds," he said.
It is currently unclear what impact commercial relationships have on patient care. Hockenberry said he'd like to know more about the doctors who stopped taking industry money after the 2007 settlement and those who continued to do so.
"We would also love to be able to tie this to clinical practice," he said.
One way to do so would be to establish a universal device registry for all the implants patients get, so that it would be possible to look at the link between company payments and physician practice patterns.
According to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed last year, manufacturers must report payments of more than $10 by 2013, and this information will be freely available online.
But in an editorial on the new study, Dr. Robert Steinbrook of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said disclosure alone isn't enough.
"The disclosure of industry payments should not divert attention from the real issues with regard to conflict of interest," he writes.
"These are the minimization or elimination of financial ties between physicians and industry in areas other than research support, bona fide consulting related to basic and clinical research, and legitimate payments related to intellectual property. Although many well-publicized examples with regard to conflict of interest involve physicians in specific fields, such as orthopedics or psychiatry, the issues are similar for all specialties."
...and then these replacement joints end up getting recalled because of failure--it's like they KNEW this, but played the implant-for-profit game anyway.
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Myth of the Ethical Vegan
From Pajamas Media.
"Veganism dates back to 1944, when British Vegan Society co-founder Donald Watson coined the term to mean “non-dairy vegetarian.” The Society expanded the definition in 1951 to state that “man should live without exploiting animals.” Vegans eschew animal products in food, clothing, household products, or for any other reason.
There are a variety of reasons why people “go vegan.” Some simply don’t like the taste of meat. Some claim veganism is “green,” and that a vegan lifestyle minimizes impact on the environment.
In 1997, a survey revealed three percent of the people in the U.S. claimed that they had not used animals for any purpose in the previous two years. Rutgers School of Law professor Gary Francione argued in 2010 that “all sentient beings should have at least one right — the right not to be treated as property.”
Do ethical vegans live up to this stated standard? Do their actions live up to their own stated ethical principle, that animals have the right not to be treated as property? Do their actions really result in zero animal use? The parallel in human terms would be slavery, which no rational person thinks is ethically acceptable. Slaves are the property of masters; they live and die at their owner’s sufferance.
Unfortunately for the ethical vegan, the production of their food alone reduces their claim to impossibility. Animals are killed in untold millions, in the course of plant agriculture. Some are killed accidentally in the course of mechanized farming; some are killed deliberately in the course of pest control. Animals are killed, every day. Every potato, every stick of celery, every cup of rice, and every carrot has a blood trail leading from field to plate.
In 1999, while researching and writing Misplaced Compassion, I ran into a rice farmer who posted the following first-hand account on a Usenet forum:
My own family was involved in corn and soybean farming; our numbers were not that high, but they were not inconsiderable. Pheasants and rabbits are routinely killed in planting and harvesting, and rodents are killed by the thousands using traps and pesticides at every step: production, storage, and transportation.
Rational people know this and don’t worry about it. It’s an inevitable consequence of modern, high-production agriculture. The ethical vegan, when confronted with these undeniable facts, collapses. Their reaction, in almost every case, is to do a rhetorical lateral arabesque into a new claim, that their vegan diet somehow causes “less death and suffering” than a non-vegan diet, a ridiculous and unsupportable argument. A pound of wild venison (net cost in animal death: about 1/120th of one animal) almost certainly causes less “death and suffering” than a pound of rice (net cost in animal death: including rodents, insect, reptiles and amphibians, number of deaths may range into the hundreds).
But the numbers don’t really matter. Not if there is a real ethical principle involved. What is at the heart of this fall-back argument is this claim: That a vegan diet has a lower cost in animal death and suffering than any non-vegan diet.
If any ethical vegan has crunched the numbers to prove this, I have yet to see the results. However, the numbers have been crunched elsewhere, and it turns out that a non-vegan diet may well cause less environmental impact than a vegan diet, for one reason: Food for livestock can be grown on land that is too poor for growing crops for human consumption.
If there was an actual ethical principle involved, the ethical vegan would be required to do one of two things:
• To analyze each of his or her sources of vegetable food and eat only those which are found to cause the least amount of animals to die.
• Move off the grid and grow all of their own food, scrupulously using no insecticides, no rodent control measures, and no mechanized equipment.
Note that it is only the second path that has a chance of actually accomplishing zero animal deaths.
In reality, ethical vegans do none of these things. In the real world, the ethical vegan has no idea — none at all — whether their diet causes more animals to die, the same number, or fewer, than a diet which includes meat. Even when they engage in a completely irrational search for micrograms of animal material in their diet (I know of one vegan who refuses to eat black olives because squid ink is used in part to color them) their actions are purely symbolic; they have no idea what their real impact is. Instead, they obsess over micrograms of animal products in their food while ignoring the metric tons of animal life destroyed to bring that food to the table.
An ethical principle is usually a pretty simple thing. If the willful murder of another human is wrong, then it is wrong in every circumstance. Ethical vegans claim that taking the life of non-human animals is wrong, but their actions do not live up to the claim; indeed, they don’t even try. The ethical vegan follows no ethical principle. Instead, they follow a simple, easy, results-neutral, and ethically indifferent rule: Do not put animal parts in your mouth. It allows them a pretense of moral and ethical superiority with no real effort; it is a cheap and easy pose, nothing more.
In fact, ethical vegans exhibit a stunning and savage hypocrisy. Ethical vegans, as a class, fail utterly to put any of their professed ethics into action. They claim to not cause harm to animals, but they do; when confronted, they claim to cause less harm to animals than the non-vegan, but they are utterly unable to show that to be true, and are willing to take no real effort to even quantify their impact. They are intimately involved, every day, in an activity that causes the deaths of millions of animals, and they do nothing about it."
They never seem to look downstream from their own consumption. How many animals had to die in the making of that tofu? Worse yet, how much carbon footprint does that manufactured, plastic-wrapped, and trucked-in tofu use, and how much energy/carbon/whatever does it take to keep the stuff cold until it sells?
I won't even mention the use of honey--apparently bees aren't animals, but the honey is only a by-product, and not a result of killing them.
Then we can move onto bigger animals, like man. How many of these so-called "ethical" vegans have a smart phone...say, an i-Phone? Are they aware that their messiah Steve Jobs ran a modern-day sweatshop over in China, employing entire families (children and all), and making them work 16-hour shifts for pennies? If they own such a device, then they may as well be holding blood diamonds.
If you want an extreme example of capitalist abuse, an i-Phone can be made for maybe $10 all told (not counting shipping), and we're paying HOW MUCH apiece for them? People at Foxconn were jumping out of windows to get away from their conditions, and we're waltzing around with these hand-held blood diamonds like they're something to aspire to.
I witnessed my own example of retail enlightenment while working for Target a couple of decades ago--printed long-sleeve pullover shirts from Turkey (which smelled of camel shit) came in from the Minneapolis warehouse priced at $15.99, but the shipping manifest (accidentally left out for casual viewing) showed them coming into the warehouse at $3.99 each. That's when I quit buying retail. If Target was doing this to make a profit, then ALL RETAILERS were doing this and worse.
"Veganism dates back to 1944, when British Vegan Society co-founder Donald Watson coined the term to mean “non-dairy vegetarian.” The Society expanded the definition in 1951 to state that “man should live without exploiting animals.” Vegans eschew animal products in food, clothing, household products, or for any other reason.
There are a variety of reasons why people “go vegan.” Some simply don’t like the taste of meat. Some claim veganism is “green,” and that a vegan lifestyle minimizes impact on the environment.
In 1997, a survey revealed three percent of the people in the U.S. claimed that they had not used animals for any purpose in the previous two years. Rutgers School of Law professor Gary Francione argued in 2010 that “all sentient beings should have at least one right — the right not to be treated as property.”
Do ethical vegans live up to this stated standard? Do their actions live up to their own stated ethical principle, that animals have the right not to be treated as property? Do their actions really result in zero animal use? The parallel in human terms would be slavery, which no rational person thinks is ethically acceptable. Slaves are the property of masters; they live and die at their owner’s sufferance.
Unfortunately for the ethical vegan, the production of their food alone reduces their claim to impossibility. Animals are killed in untold millions, in the course of plant agriculture. Some are killed accidentally in the course of mechanized farming; some are killed deliberately in the course of pest control. Animals are killed, every day. Every potato, every stick of celery, every cup of rice, and every carrot has a blood trail leading from field to plate.
In 1999, while researching and writing Misplaced Compassion, I ran into a rice farmer who posted the following first-hand account on a Usenet forum:
[A] conservative annualized estimate of vertebrate deaths in organic rice farming is ~20 pound. … [T]his works out a bit less than two vertebrate deaths per square foot, and, again, is conservative. For conventionally grown rice, the gross body-count is at least several times that figure. … [W]hen cutting the rice, there is a (visual) green waterfall of frogs and anoles moving in front of the combine. Sometimes the “waterfall” is just a gentle trickle (± 10,000 frogs per acre) crossing the header, total for both cuttings, other times it is a deluge (+50,000 acre).
My own family was involved in corn and soybean farming; our numbers were not that high, but they were not inconsiderable. Pheasants and rabbits are routinely killed in planting and harvesting, and rodents are killed by the thousands using traps and pesticides at every step: production, storage, and transportation.
Rational people know this and don’t worry about it. It’s an inevitable consequence of modern, high-production agriculture. The ethical vegan, when confronted with these undeniable facts, collapses. Their reaction, in almost every case, is to do a rhetorical lateral arabesque into a new claim, that their vegan diet somehow causes “less death and suffering” than a non-vegan diet, a ridiculous and unsupportable argument. A pound of wild venison (net cost in animal death: about 1/120th of one animal) almost certainly causes less “death and suffering” than a pound of rice (net cost in animal death: including rodents, insect, reptiles and amphibians, number of deaths may range into the hundreds).
But the numbers don’t really matter. Not if there is a real ethical principle involved. What is at the heart of this fall-back argument is this claim: That a vegan diet has a lower cost in animal death and suffering than any non-vegan diet.
If any ethical vegan has crunched the numbers to prove this, I have yet to see the results. However, the numbers have been crunched elsewhere, and it turns out that a non-vegan diet may well cause less environmental impact than a vegan diet, for one reason: Food for livestock can be grown on land that is too poor for growing crops for human consumption.
If there was an actual ethical principle involved, the ethical vegan would be required to do one of two things:
• To analyze each of his or her sources of vegetable food and eat only those which are found to cause the least amount of animals to die.
• Move off the grid and grow all of their own food, scrupulously using no insecticides, no rodent control measures, and no mechanized equipment.
Note that it is only the second path that has a chance of actually accomplishing zero animal deaths.
In reality, ethical vegans do none of these things. In the real world, the ethical vegan has no idea — none at all — whether their diet causes more animals to die, the same number, or fewer, than a diet which includes meat. Even when they engage in a completely irrational search for micrograms of animal material in their diet (I know of one vegan who refuses to eat black olives because squid ink is used in part to color them) their actions are purely symbolic; they have no idea what their real impact is. Instead, they obsess over micrograms of animal products in their food while ignoring the metric tons of animal life destroyed to bring that food to the table.
An ethical principle is usually a pretty simple thing. If the willful murder of another human is wrong, then it is wrong in every circumstance. Ethical vegans claim that taking the life of non-human animals is wrong, but their actions do not live up to the claim; indeed, they don’t even try. The ethical vegan follows no ethical principle. Instead, they follow a simple, easy, results-neutral, and ethically indifferent rule: Do not put animal parts in your mouth. It allows them a pretense of moral and ethical superiority with no real effort; it is a cheap and easy pose, nothing more.
In fact, ethical vegans exhibit a stunning and savage hypocrisy. Ethical vegans, as a class, fail utterly to put any of their professed ethics into action. They claim to not cause harm to animals, but they do; when confronted, they claim to cause less harm to animals than the non-vegan, but they are utterly unable to show that to be true, and are willing to take no real effort to even quantify their impact. They are intimately involved, every day, in an activity that causes the deaths of millions of animals, and they do nothing about it."
They never seem to look downstream from their own consumption. How many animals had to die in the making of that tofu? Worse yet, how much carbon footprint does that manufactured, plastic-wrapped, and trucked-in tofu use, and how much energy/carbon/whatever does it take to keep the stuff cold until it sells?
I won't even mention the use of honey--apparently bees aren't animals, but the honey is only a by-product, and not a result of killing them.
Then we can move onto bigger animals, like man. How many of these so-called "ethical" vegans have a smart phone...say, an i-Phone? Are they aware that their messiah Steve Jobs ran a modern-day sweatshop over in China, employing entire families (children and all), and making them work 16-hour shifts for pennies? If they own such a device, then they may as well be holding blood diamonds.
If you want an extreme example of capitalist abuse, an i-Phone can be made for maybe $10 all told (not counting shipping), and we're paying HOW MUCH apiece for them? People at Foxconn were jumping out of windows to get away from their conditions, and we're waltzing around with these hand-held blood diamonds like they're something to aspire to.
I witnessed my own example of retail enlightenment while working for Target a couple of decades ago--printed long-sleeve pullover shirts from Turkey (which smelled of camel shit) came in from the Minneapolis warehouse priced at $15.99, but the shipping manifest (accidentally left out for casual viewing) showed them coming into the warehouse at $3.99 each. That's when I quit buying retail. If Target was doing this to make a profit, then ALL RETAILERS were doing this and worse.
Consumers Don't Pay as Much Attention to Nutrition Fact Labels as They Think
From Eureka Alert.
"Nutrition Facts labels have been used for decades on many food products. Are these labels read in detail by consumers when making purchases?
Do people read only certain portions of the labels?
According to a new study published in the November issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, consumers' self-reported viewing of Nutrition Facts label components was higher than objectively measured viewing using an eye-tracking device. Researchers also determined that centrally located Nutrition Facts labels are viewed more frequently and for longer than those located peripherally.
"The results of this study suggest that consumers have a finite attention span for Nutrition Facts labels: although most consumers did view labels, very few consumers viewed every component on any label," according to investigators Dan J. Graham, PhD, and Robert W. Jeffrey, PhD, Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. "These results differed from the self-reported survey responses describing typical grocery shopping and health behaviors submitted by the participants."
Currently most US Nutrition Facts labels are positioned peripherally, not centrally, on food packages and, as such, may be less likely than they could be to catch and hold the eye of a potential consumer, according to the study.
In a simulated grocery shopping exercise, 203 participants observed 64 different grocery products displayed on a computer monitor. Each screen contained three elements, the well-known Nutrition Facts label, a picture and list of ingredients, and a description of the product with price and quantity information. These three elements were presented so that one third of the participants each saw the Nutrition Facts label on the left, right, and center. Each subject was asked whether they would consider buying the product. Participants were aware that their eye movements would be tracked, but unaware that the study focus was nutrition information.
Using a computer equipped with an eye-tracking device, investigators observed that most consumers view label components at the top more than those at the bottom. Further data suggest that the average consumer reads only the top five lines on a Nutrition Facts label.
Self-reported viewing of Nutrition Facts label components was higher than objectively measured viewing. 33% of participants self-reported that they almost always look at calorie content on Nutrition Facts labels, 31% reported that they almost always look at the total fat content, 20% said the same for trans-fat content, 24% for sugar content, and 26% for serving size. However, only 9% of participants actually looked at calorie count for almost all of the products in this study, and about 1% of participants looked at each of these other components (total fat, trans fat, sugar, and serving size) on almost all labels.
When the Nutrition Facts label was presented in the center column, subjects read one or more sections of 61% of the labels compared with 37% and 34% of labels among participants randomly assigned to view labels on the left- and right hand sides of the screen, respectively. In addition, labels in the center column received more than 30% more view time than the same labels when located in a side column.
"Taken together, these results indicate that self-reported Nutrition Facts label use does not accurately represent in vivo use of labels and their components while engaging in a simulated shopping exercise. In addition, location of labels and of specific label components relate to viewing. Consumers are more likely to view centrally located labels and nutrients nearer the label's top. Because knowing the amounts of key nutrients that foods contain can influence consumers to make healthier purchases, prominently positioning key nutrients, and labels themselves, could substantially impact public health."
Labels, labels, everywhere...now it seems to be most effective, the nutrition label needs to be at or neat the top of the product to be read. My question is: what to do about comprehension? Tracking people's eye movements is fine, but what do you do about the brain-eye interface?
But then the question always arises--which label format to use, ours or Europe's? Without comprehension skills, none of them means a damn! And as for these colors assigned to "high", "medium", and "low", I want to know SAYS WHO and WHAT SCALE ARE THEY USING?
Also, notice the lack of a listing for carbs and fiber in those European labels--no wonder they have an obesity epidemic worse than we do! If they have no way of knowing what they take in, how on earth can they begin to control it (other than avoiding grains, beans/legumes, and dairy)? Oh yeah--their governments are trying to kill them off faster than ours is trying to kill us off.
This is what socialized medicine hath wrought.
"Nutrition Facts labels have been used for decades on many food products. Are these labels read in detail by consumers when making purchases?
Do people read only certain portions of the labels?
According to a new study published in the November issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, consumers' self-reported viewing of Nutrition Facts label components was higher than objectively measured viewing using an eye-tracking device. Researchers also determined that centrally located Nutrition Facts labels are viewed more frequently and for longer than those located peripherally.
"The results of this study suggest that consumers have a finite attention span for Nutrition Facts labels: although most consumers did view labels, very few consumers viewed every component on any label," according to investigators Dan J. Graham, PhD, and Robert W. Jeffrey, PhD, Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. "These results differed from the self-reported survey responses describing typical grocery shopping and health behaviors submitted by the participants."
Currently most US Nutrition Facts labels are positioned peripherally, not centrally, on food packages and, as such, may be less likely than they could be to catch and hold the eye of a potential consumer, according to the study.
In a simulated grocery shopping exercise, 203 participants observed 64 different grocery products displayed on a computer monitor. Each screen contained three elements, the well-known Nutrition Facts label, a picture and list of ingredients, and a description of the product with price and quantity information. These three elements were presented so that one third of the participants each saw the Nutrition Facts label on the left, right, and center. Each subject was asked whether they would consider buying the product. Participants were aware that their eye movements would be tracked, but unaware that the study focus was nutrition information.
Using a computer equipped with an eye-tracking device, investigators observed that most consumers view label components at the top more than those at the bottom. Further data suggest that the average consumer reads only the top five lines on a Nutrition Facts label.
Self-reported viewing of Nutrition Facts label components was higher than objectively measured viewing. 33% of participants self-reported that they almost always look at calorie content on Nutrition Facts labels, 31% reported that they almost always look at the total fat content, 20% said the same for trans-fat content, 24% for sugar content, and 26% for serving size. However, only 9% of participants actually looked at calorie count for almost all of the products in this study, and about 1% of participants looked at each of these other components (total fat, trans fat, sugar, and serving size) on almost all labels.
When the Nutrition Facts label was presented in the center column, subjects read one or more sections of 61% of the labels compared with 37% and 34% of labels among participants randomly assigned to view labels on the left- and right hand sides of the screen, respectively. In addition, labels in the center column received more than 30% more view time than the same labels when located in a side column.
"Taken together, these results indicate that self-reported Nutrition Facts label use does not accurately represent in vivo use of labels and their components while engaging in a simulated shopping exercise. In addition, location of labels and of specific label components relate to viewing. Consumers are more likely to view centrally located labels and nutrients nearer the label's top. Because knowing the amounts of key nutrients that foods contain can influence consumers to make healthier purchases, prominently positioning key nutrients, and labels themselves, could substantially impact public health."
Labels, labels, everywhere...now it seems to be most effective, the nutrition label needs to be at or neat the top of the product to be read. My question is: what to do about comprehension? Tracking people's eye movements is fine, but what do you do about the brain-eye interface?
But then the question always arises--which label format to use, ours or Europe's? Without comprehension skills, none of them means a damn! And as for these colors assigned to "high", "medium", and "low", I want to know SAYS WHO and WHAT SCALE ARE THEY USING?
Also, notice the lack of a listing for carbs and fiber in those European labels--no wonder they have an obesity epidemic worse than we do! If they have no way of knowing what they take in, how on earth can they begin to control it (other than avoiding grains, beans/legumes, and dairy)? Oh yeah--their governments are trying to kill them off faster than ours is trying to kill us off.
This is what socialized medicine hath wrought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
