Tuesday, December 4, 2012

GET RID OF THE WEIGHT BY.......


How Fit Can You Get

Getting Rid of the Wheat







The evidence is apparent that our food supply is not the same as the food our parents ate just a generation ago. Obesity levels are rising unfettered with implicit and explicit implications for our society. The explicit health implications are high blood pressure, heart disease, high cholesterol, stroke and becoming non ambulatory. Have you noticed the increase in the number of motorized carts at supermarkets, malls and other large shopping areas? The implicit health outcomes such as Parkinson and Alzheimer disease are lesser known and understood but it is clear becoming non ambulatory due to weight negatively impacts brain and nervous system functioning.

Beyond our health are the economic outcomes due to rising health care cost directly attributed to our increasing weight due to the poor fuel we consume daily. "Obesity now accounts for almost 21 percent of U.S. health care costs -- more than twice the previous estimates, reports a new Cornell University study." Listed below are the current and projected health care cost for the United States and they are alarming whether you are one of the obese or not. 

Do not despair though there are some simple steps anyone can take to improve their health. Below I will post portions of an interview with Cardiologist, Dr. William Davis who contends that the wheat now produced by farmers is different than what our parents ate. He also contends that it is genetically altered in a manner that increases our appetite and makes us addicted to poor quality carbohydrates like bagels, donuts and potato chips. His patients have lost hundreds of pounds of weight by just eliminating wheat from their diet. One test demonstrated that eating one slice of whole wheat bread resulted in a sugar spike higher than when the same person ate a full sized chocolate candy bar.


William Davis, a preventive cardiologist who practices in Milwaukee, Wis., argues in his new book Wheat Belly that wheat is bad for your health—so bad that it should carry a surgeon general’s warning.
Q: You say the crux of the problem with wheat is that the stuff we eat today has been genetically altered. How is it different than the wheat our grandparents ate?
A: First of all, it looks different. If you held up a conventional wheat plant from 50 years ago against a modern, high-yield dwarf wheat plant, you would see that today’s plant is about 2½ feet shorter. It’s stockier, so it can support a much heavier seedbed, and it grows much faster. The great irony here is that the term “genetic modification” refers to the actual insertion or deletion of a gene, and that’s not what’s happened with wheat. Instead, the plant has been hybridized and crossbred to make it resistant to drought and fungi, and to vastly increase yield per acre. Agricultural geneticists have shown that wheat proteins undergo structural change with hybridization, and that the hybrid contains proteins that are found in neither parent plant. Now, it shouldn't be the case that every single new agricultural hybrid has to be checked and tested, that would be absurd. But we've created thousands of what I call Frankengrains over the past 50 years, using pretty extreme techniques, and their safety for human consumption has never been tested or even questioned.
Q: What extreme techniques are you talking about?
A: New strains have been generated using what the wheat industry proudly insists are “traditional breeding techniques,” though they involve processes like gamma irradiation and toxins such as sodium azide. The poison control people will tell you that if someone accidentally ingests sodium azide, you shouldn't try to resuscitate the person because you could die, too, giving CPR. This is a highly toxic chemical. 
(Sodium azide prevents the cells of the body from using oxygen. When this happens, the cells die.)
Q: Can’t you just get around any potential health concerns by buying products made with organically grown wheat?
A: No, because the actual wheat plant itself is the same. It’s almost as if we've put lipstick on this thing and called it organic and therefore good, when the truth is, it’s really hardly any better at all.
Q: A lot of us have switched to whole wheat products because we've been told complex carbohydrates are heart healthy and good for us. Are you saying that’s not true?
A: The research that indicates whole grains are healthy is all conducted the same way: white flour is replaced with whole wheat flour, which, no question, is better for you. But taking something bad and replacing it with something less bad is not the same as research that directly compares what happens to health and weight when you eliminate wheat altogether. There’s a presumption that consuming a whole bunch of the less bad thing must be good for you, and that’s just flawed logic. An analogy would be to say that filtered cigarettes are less bad for you than unfiltered cigarettes, and therefore, a whole bunch of filtered cigarettes is good for you. It makes no sense. But that is the rationale for increasing our consumption of whole grains, and that combined with the changes in wheat itself is a recipe for creating a lot of fat and unhealthy people.
Q: How does wheat make us fat, exactly?
A: It contains amylopectin A, which is more efficiently converted to blood sugar than just about any other carbohydrate, including table sugar. In fact, two slices of whole wheat bread increase blood sugar to a higher level than a candy bar does. And then, after about two hours, your blood sugar plunges and you get shaky, your brain feels foggy, you’re hungry. So let’s say you have an English muffin for breakfast. Two hours later you’re starving, so you have a handful of crackers, and then some potato chips, and your blood sugar rises again. That cycle of highs and lows just keeps going throughout the day, so you’re constantly feeling hungry and constantly eating. Dieticians have responded to this by advising that we graze throughout the day, which is just nonsense. If you eliminate wheat from your diet, you’re no longer hungry between meals because you've stopped that cycle. You've cut out the appetite stimulant, and consequently you lose weight very quickly. I've seen this with thousands of patients.
Q: But I’m not overweight and I exercise regularly. So why would eating whole wheat bread be bad for me?
A: You can trigger effects you don’t perceive. Small low-density lipoprotein [LDL] particles form when you’re eating lots of carbohydrates, and they are responsible for atherosclerotic plaque, which in turn triggers heart disease and stroke. So even if you’re a slender, vigorous, healthy person, you’re still triggering the formation of small LDL particles. And second, carbohydrates increase your blood sugars, which cause this process of glycation, that is, the glucose modification of proteins. If I glycate the proteins in my eyes, I get cataracts. If I glycate the cartilage of my knees and hips, I get arthritis. If I glycate small LDL, I’m more prone to atherosclerosis. So it’s a twofold effect. And if you don’t start out slender and keep eating that fair trade, organically grown whole wheat bread that sounds so healthy, you’re repeatedly triggering high blood sugars and are going to wind up with more visceral fat. This isn't just what I call the wheat belly that you can see, flopping over your belt, but the fat around your internal organs. And as visceral fat accumulates, you risk responses like diabetes and heart disease.
Q: You seem to be saying that aside from anything else, wheat is essentially the single cause of the obesity epidemic.
A: I wouldn't go so far as to say that all obesity is due to wheat. There are kids, of course, who drink Coca-Cola and sit in front of video games for many hours a day. But I’m speaking to the relatively health-minded people who think they’re doing the right thing by limiting fat consumption and eating more whole grains, and there’s a clear subset of people who are doing that and gaining weight and don’t understand why. It causes tremendous heartache. They come into my office and say, “I exercise five times a week, I've cut my fat intake, I watch portion size and eat my whole grains—but I've gone up three dress sizes.”
Q: You write that wheat is “addictive,” but does it really meet the criteria for addiction we’d use when talking about, say, drugs?
A: National Institutes of Health researchers showed that gluten-derived polypeptides can cross into the brain and bind to the brain’s opiate receptors. So you get this mild euphoria after eating a product made with whole wheat. You can block that effect [in lab animals] by administering the drug naloxone. This is the same drug that you’re given if you’re a heroin addict; it’s an opiate blocker. About three months ago, a drug company applied to the FDA to commercialize naltrexone, which is an oral equivalent to naloxone. And it works, apparently, it blocks the pleasurable feelings you get from eating wheat so people stop eating so much. In clinical trials, people lost about 22.4 lb. in the first six months. Why, if you’re not a drug addict, do you need something like that? And of course there’s another option, which is to cut wheat out of your diet. However, and this is another argument for classifying wheat as addictive, people can experience some pretty unpleasant withdrawal symptoms.
Q: For how long?
A: Generally about five days. And once you’re through withdrawal, your cravings subside, your calorie intake decreases and your alertness and overall health improve.
Q: So do you believe food manufacturers are putting wheat into more and more food products, not just bread and crackers, because it’s addictive and stimulates appetite?
A: These are not stupid people. The research showing that wheat stimulates appetite didn't come from some little alternative health practitioner. It comes from the NIH. It stretches credibility to believe they have no awareness of the evidence.
Q: If there’s all this evidence, why does the government encourage us to “eat healthy” by upping our consumption of whole grains?
A: That’s the million-dollar question. Wheat is so linked to human habit, it’s 20 per cent of all calories consumed by humans worldwide, that I think there was the presumption, “Gee, humans have consumed this for thousands of years, so what’s the problem?” I don’t think the misguided advice to eat more whole grains came from evil intentions.
Q: Wheat is a huge industry. What do you say to all the farmers who grow it?
A: To me, it’s reminiscent of tobacco farmers, who would say, “Look, I’m just trying to make a living and feed my family.” Nevertheless, tobacco is incredibly harmful and kills people. It could turn out that if we wind back the clock 100 or 1,000 years, and resurrect einkorn or some of the heritage forms of wheat, maybe that would be a solution. Of course, wheat products would then be much more expensive. Instead of a $4 loaf of bread, maybe it would cost $7 when grown with a heritage wheat. To me, it’s similar to free range eggs or organic beef 20 years ago. Everyone said, “No one will pay a premium for those.” But people do. And when it comes to wheat, my main goal is to inform people, including farmers, that the prevailing notion that cutting fat and eating whole grains will make you healthy is not only wrong, it’s destructive.
 Are you reducing your food consumption, exercising and basically living a healthier life yet you are gaining weight? If so eliminating the wheat from your diet may be an avenue you want to explore. Eliminate the wheat and eliminate the frustration of working so hard and not getting the results you want. I use very few wheat products and I have noticed that I am not as hungry and I am eating less frequently. My reason for eliminating wheat from my diet has more to do with the fact that many products made with wheat also contain milk products and really upset my stomach. Since I eliminated wheat and milk I have noticed that the process of digestion and elimination is smoother. 

Give it a try and see if it works for you. If it does spread the word to your friends and family and let them know you heard it here first. So Get Up Get Moving and Get Rid of the Wheat and remember,

CHIT CHAT WON'T BURN FAT

Thursday, November 29, 2012

FDA ADMITS SUPERMARKET CHICKENS TEST POSITIVE


How Fit Can You Get


For Arsenic





Why is Big Ag playing chicken with our health? Back in March, Tom Philpott wrote about the “insane” practice of feeding factory-farmed chickens arsenic:

The idea is that it makes them grow faster — fast growth being the supreme goal of factory animal farming — and helps control a common intestinal disease called coccidiosis.
The industry emphasizes that the arsenic is applied in organic form, which isn’t immediately toxic. “Organic” in the chemistry sense, that is, not the agricultural sense — i.e., molecules containing carbon atoms as well as arsenic. Trouble is, arsenic shifts from organic to inorganic rather easily. Indeed, “arsenic in poultry manure is rapidly converted into an inorganic form that is highly water soluble and capable of moving into surface and ground water,” write Keeve E. Nachman and Robert S. Lawrence of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.

Inorganic arsenic is the highly poisonous stuff — see the absurd and wonderful Cary Grant classic Arsenic and Old Lace, or the EPA’s less whimsical take here and here [PDF]. The fact that the organic arsenic added to feed turns inorganic when it makes its way into manure is chilling, given the mountains of concentrated waste generated by factory poultry farms.

One way farmers add arsenic to chicken feed is through drugs such as Pfizer’s Roxarsone. And the industry has (as with most of its worst practices) strenuously defended the use of such additives. While the USDA has by and large ignored the risks (mostly in the form of an unwillingness to look for arsenic in chicken), finally — astonishingly — the FDA has acted.
According to the Associated Press, the FDA has confirmed that chickens given the drug (frequently those destined for the low-cost supermarket shelf) do indeed test positive for inorganic arsenic — just as the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy found [PDF] back in 2006. Despite this earlier evidence, the industry had continued to steadfastly maintain that the arsenic could not and did not make it into the meat.
As part of its announcement, the FDA said the arsenic levels are low and represent no meaningful risk to those eating Roxarsone-treated chicken — a point predictably emphasized by the National Chicken Council.
Tellingly, Pfizer announced that it would withdraw Roxarsone from the market starting next month. The FDA didn’t order Pfizer to withdraw the drug — the company did so voluntarily.
Of course, this does not solve the problem of arsenic in chicken. As Michael Hansen of Consumers Union observed in a press release, “There are several other arsenic-containing drugs for animals that are on the market, and those should also be withdrawn or banned, as they have been in the European Union.”
As Food & Water Watch reported in March, “between 2000 and 2008, the USDA tested only 1 out of every 12 million domestically produced chickens.” So it’s not as if the government is tracking this problem in any systematic way.

It boggles my mind that the industry is so willing to risk consumer panic over this issue and wait for the media or government officials to force its hand. Instead of making smart business decisions and ending dangerous practices that might give consumers cause to avoid their product, they instead try to hold back the tide. One drug gets withdrawn while others remain. The FDA tests 100 chickens (as they did in this latest test), while millions are produced and sold every year.
It’s no wonder that the so-called “ag-gag” bills remain popular among industrial farmers and their political lackeys. They can’t seem to let go of consumer ignorance as a key business strategy. With arsenic in chicken, the FDA, the USDA, and the chicken industry seem to care far more about the perception of having acted rather than the reality of ensuring all chicken sold in the U.S. is free from this toxic substance.

Tom Laskawy is a founder and executive director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a contributing writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. His writing has also appeared in The American ProspectSlateThe New York Times, and The New Republic
Folks, we have to read the labels and do the research if you want to remain or become healthy. The FDA is not protecting you and it does not seem to be their purpose if you pay attention to what they do and not what they say. Actions speak louder than words and if you follow their actions they seem to be advocates of Mosanto and Big Agriculture rather than monitoring their behavior and insuring our continued safety. 
It is also clear that the industries that contribute mightily to our poor health are making money at both ends. Pfizer which makes the drug containing the arsenic is a pharmaceutical company making the drugs you are prescribed once you become ill. Now that is ballsy isn't it. Making money at both ends with little or no accountability.
Wake up, Educate yourself, Get Up Get Moving and keep in mind,
"CHIT CHAT WON'T BURN FAT"

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

OUT OF SEASON


How Fit Can You Get


For A Reason








Our ancestors ate seasonally because they had no choice. Fresh greens grew in spring, fruit ripened in summer, root vegetables kept them going in the fall, and people relied on animal food to get them through the winter. But when California and Florida were settled and highway transportation and refrigerated trucks were invented, pretty soon Americans could eat more or less anything they wanted, anytime they wanted. But there are costs to this kind of convenience.

When we have ice cream in the middle of January and hot barbecued foods on the 4th of July, it’s likely to confuse the body. Eating locally grown food in accordance with the seasons will help you live in harmony with yourself, your body and the earth. In the wintertime, it’s natural to crave animal food because that’s when the body needs to feel more solid and insulated from the cold. Look at how animals get ready for the winter. Squirrels gather nuts and fatten up to prepare for the cold season. Humans also need more fat in the winter.

 Allow yourself to eat heavier meals at this time and be sure to have plenty of oils, protein and nuts. If you want to remain on a vegetarian diet through these cold months, it may be an interesting experiment to grill your vegetables, giving them more heat and density, and to avoid raw vegetables and salads. Thick soups—such as pumpkin, pea or potato—will help to keep your body feeling sturdy.

Seasonal Food Chart

Winter
Spring
Fall
Summer

chestnuts
grapefruit
lemons
radicchio
radishes
turnips
kale
leeks
rutabaga
turnips
apricots
artichokes
asparagus
avacados
carrots
cherries
chicory
chives
collards
dandelion greens
fennel
mangoes
mustard greens
new potatoes
peas
rhubarb
spinach
spring lettuces
strawberries
sugar snap and
snow peas
watercress

Winter squash
(Acorn, butternut,
Buttercup,
Delicate, hubbard, kabocha)
Apples
Beets
Belgian endive
Brussel sprouts
cranberries
Figs
Grapes
Mushrooms
Parsnips
Pears
Pomegranates
Pumpkin
Quince
Sweet potatoes
Swiss chard

Bell peppers
Blackberries
Raspberries
Broccoli
Corn
Cucumbers
Eggplant
Green beans
Nectarines
Okra
Peaches
Pineapples
Plums
Summer squash
Tomatoes
Watermelon
Zucchini


Pay attention to the times of the day that you eat. Most of us eat habitually at regular, clocked times: before work, during the lunch break and in the evening. We may take a couple of coffee or snack breaks during the day or make a late-night visit to the fridge. Few of us pause to check whether we are really hungry when we eat. We use food as entertainment and comfort whether we are socializing or alone, passing time or feeling bored.

Time of day determines how well our bodies assimilate food. Ayurveda philosophy advocates for people to eat their biggest meal in the middle of the day, because it’s the best time for our bodies to take in and digest a large meal. If you look at many cultures in Europe, this practice is very common. People close their shops, go home and eat a large meal with their families and friends. In our country it’s harder to find this time during the day, but you can find creative ways to have your largest meal at lunch hour. You may find that this works best for your body, or you might find you feel best when you have a large meal at breakfast or at dinner instead.

Some people eat a large breakfast and lunch and then have a small snack for dinner; others do best with five small meals throughout the day. Experiment with the sizes and timing of your meals; only you can determine what is best for your body. Each meal is an experiment. Take the time to listen to your body and notice what it needs. Many health practitioners, dietitians and nutritionists emphasize that we should not eat after 7 p.m or 8 p.m. I agree that it’s a good idea to avoid eating three hours before bed, because when we sleep, digestion slows and food tends to stay in our stomachs the whole night. Strange dreams and restless sleep can result from late-night eating and affect the next day’s energy. Some experts say we gain more weight from food we eat at night. I don’t know if this is scientifically true, but I do know that I don’t sleep well on a full stomach, a strong indication that it’s not working well for my system. But, again, it’s something for you to explore, using your own body as your laboratory.

Knowledge is power when and if you are able to understand and implement what you are receiving.  I hope what I am providing you here is easily digested and you are able to use to make adjustments in your lifestyle. Somethings may not be possible due to culture, time or tradition but minor changes can make a big difference. Try some baby steps while you Get Up, Get Moving and Remember ...

"CHIT CHAT WON'T BURN FAT"