Tag Archives for " Food "

The Secret To Building Massive Arms

Fitness internet sensation   Bradley Martyn has broken the  several times with his freakish feats of strength and agility. And it’s not just incredible, it’s pretty damn entertaining too. Most recently, One of his  post was reportedly viewed more than 20 million times on Facebook. Martyn’s  YouTube channel is filled with stunts, like when he squatted 315 pounds while standing on a hoverboard (and nearly breaking it), as well as workouts, tips and tricks on how to build a massive pump or simply improve your strength. We talked to Martyn about his training and his antics in this week’s edition of FUELED. 

What’s your height and weight and of course, what do you bench?

I’m 6’3″, 260lbs and can bench press roughly 430lbs, although I haven’t maxed out in a long time. A better question is asking somebody how much they can bench, squat, and deadlift. A lot of people can bench, but you don’t find as many who are serious about all three. If you have a big bench, but can’t squat or deadlift much, then what’s the point? 

What’s a typical day of eating look like for you? What fuels your body?

This varies as it all depends what my current schedule and goals are. A lot of people ask me this question because they think that if they copy what I eat that it will help them. The truth is, we all have different needs regarding nutrition and what I do probably won’t work for anybody but me! There are times where I’m so busy with work that I only eat 1-2 large meals per day. This can be something like Chipotle or In-N-Out Burger. If I told somebody that’s what I eat then they’ll probably get fat. The part they don’t know is that I know how many calories I need, and pay attention to my macros to fill those calories as well. So they see me eating Chipotle and think they can too! Even though it’s Chipotle, I’m still very much aware of my total nutrition on the day, and always eat according to my goals. There are other times that I eat several meals a day and space them out accordingly. Each meal is prepped in advance and considered “clean foods” in that they aren’t loaded with what many consider “junk” like fast food. So I don’t have a specific foods, or meals that I eat habitually. My habits are paying attention to my body, and adjusting my food intake accordingly. If somebody can do that, then they are on the right track. 

Describe an average week of training for you

I make sure to hit each muscle group at least once per week, but sometimes more. I always include the compound power lifts like bench, squat, deadlift, and overhead press. Outside of that, it really depends on what my specific goals are at the time. Sometimes I will train heavy and hit each muscle once a week. Other times I won’t go as heavy and train each muscle 2-3 times per week. Some other times, I’ll train arms every day. It all depends on what my goals are at the time!

What are some must-have items always in your gym bag?

The only things in my gym bag that are not my brand (BMFIT) are my adidas olympic weightlifting shoes and my headphones. Otherwise all things are now BMFIT as I’ve worked hard to supply the tools and accessories that I have always used myself. I would say that any good gym bag needs the following: belt, lifting straps, wrist wraps, knee sleeves, and a water jug. There are other tools and accessories that you could put to good use, but I would call that list the essentials. 

 

What’s your secret to building massive, sculpted arms like yours?

Every day is arm day! #ediad lol This is something I came up with as a result of the theory that if you want to build muscle in certain body parts that you have to train that muscle frequently. I had a long period of time that I trained my arms with 1-2 exercises every day. I definitely saw some results from that, but it might not work for everybody. That being said, here is the secret…there are no secrets! If anybody ever says they have the “secret” then they are lying to you. If you want big arms then work them out as hard and as often as you can so long as you can recover and don’t cause an injury. The “secret” is that you have to consistently put in hard work, both in the gym and on the dinner plate, for years. Most people just aren’t willing to be patient and put the work in. 
 
 

What advice can you share with guys looking to build big mass and get stronger?

Be patient! The first thing that people need to understand is that the accumulation of muscle mass and strength isn’t easy and takes time. Focus more on small goals and work to achieve them. If you can slowly get better then that all adds up! I get asked how somebody can look like me and how long it took me to get the results that I have. When I tell them that I’ve been working out and eating right with a passion for almost 15 years then they usually have this sadness that comes over them, as if it’s not attainable. The truth is that some may never be able to “look like me” or other fitness people that they get motivation from. That being said, everybody can make improvements to their physique, no matter their level of experience, age, or current body type. Instead of rushing to look like somebody you see in the magazines or social media, it’s important to just focus on building a better you. If you can consistently (and slowly) improve your physique then all those results add up! You’ll be surprised what you look like after putting all that time and work in. Like most things in life, enjoy the process more than the final result. If you can do that then you’ll do nothing but get better, and maintain your results along the way. 

 
What’s one product everyone should have to get workouts done at home or on the go?
 
There isn’t one product that people can use to get workouts done at home or on the go. However, one thing that people need is a strong desire to get better. If you have that then you can surprise yourself with the workouts you can get done without a gym or equipment. I remember one time that my friend and I wanted to go to the gym on Thanksgiving and all the gyms were closed. We ended up at the nearest college stadium and performed a variety of exercises  including push ups, pull ups, walking lunges, running the stairs, sprints, sit ups, leg raises, and even found some heavy tires to flip. I still prefer the gym, but we had that desire to get better so we found something to do when we didn’t have access to the gym or weights. If you have that desire then you’ll always make it work, even if that means doing push ups, lunges, and sit ups in your hotel room when you’re away.

Are there any workouts you hate doing? Why?

I love working out! I would say that I hate doing core exercises the most. The entire industry has convinced people that they need to do a bunch of random core workouts. They use these exercises to sell the idea that they need to do that in order to get abs. The truth is that abs are accomplished more with the diet than they are with working out. If you want something to strengthen the core then you should give squats and deadlifts a try! Core workouts are not bad to do, but they are boring and overrated, so I don’t like to do them very often. 

SOURCE…www.askmen.com

 

Eat Cheese, Live Longer

A recent study published in the journal Nature Medicine reported that eating cheese — specifically the aged kind containing the compound spermidine, as found in blue cheese — was linked to a longer life in mammals when tested on mice.

“The mice do not only live longer when we supplement spermidine to the drinking water, but they are also healthier in terms of cardiac function,” Frank Madeo, co-author of the study and a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, told Medical Daily.

The study observed 800 Italians and found that those who ate more cheese had lower blood pressure, a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and 40 percent lower risk of heart failure.

SOURCE…www.nypost.com

Is It Possible To Avoid Genetically Modified Food?

Genetically modified food has divided experts for years. Some say that it is necessary to feed a growing global population whilst others object to GM food on the grounds that it is unethical and poses health risks for both humans and for the natural environment.

Although many consumers are wary about eating GM products, food producers have continued to seek new ways to increase profits and reduce wastage. As a result many everyday products now contain GM ingredients. And GM food may be more prevalent than you expect. In fact, around 90% of the corn grown in the US is genetically modified.

So what exactly does Genetically Modified mean?
Genetically modified foods are produced by making changes to the DNA structure of food crops to give specific benefits. Examples include apples that have been modified not to brown as quickly or potato crops that have been modified to be more resistant to viruses.

How to avoid GM ingredients
It can be difficult to spot which products have been genetically modified, particularly as a large amount of animal feed contains GM ingredients. Even though the eggs you eat might not have been modified themselves, the chicken that laid them may be eating genetically modified feed.

If you want to avoid GM ingredients, the best thing to do is look for labels that state that a product is ‘GM Free’. Alternatively, choose organic products that feature the Soil Association logo.

The Soil Association campaigns against the use of GM ingredients in both human food and animal feed. For more information about the Soil Association, visit: www.soilassociation.org

Why Eating TOO Much Meat Harms Mother Earth

Sorry to ruin your appetite, but it’s time to talk about cow belches.

Humans the world over are eating meat and drinking milk — some of us a little less, some of us a lot more, than years past. Farmers are bringing more and more cows into the world to meet demand, and with them escapes more methane into the atmosphere.

In 2011, methane from livestock accounted for 39 percent of all the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, according to a report that United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization released Friday. That’s more than synthetic fertilizer or deforestation. Methane from livestock rose 11 percent between 2001 and 2011.

The bulk of the emissions — 55 percent — came from beef cattle. Dairy cows, buffalo, sheep and goats accounted for the rest.

Those emissions, combined with emissions from all the other sectors of food production, aren’t likely to go down anytime soon. Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forestry and fishing have doubled over the past 50 years, according to the report. Emissions could go up by 30 percent by 2050.

 

 

All this talk about cow belches might make you want to give up meat. So should we all become vegetarians? Asking everyone to reduce their meat consumption isn’t a very practical strategy, says Francesco Tubiello, a natural resources officer for the FAO.

The demand for meat is rising most quickly in developing countries. And since the diets of many in the developing world are short on protein and calories, the poorest of them could really benefit from more meat production. Plus, “for many developing countries, agriculture is their main economic sector,” Tubiello tells The Salt.

Global meat consumption is likely to keep going up over the next 30 years, Tubiello says. (Though, as many have argued, it does make sense for the affluent people of the world who currently over-consume meat to cut back.) But the FAO says the best way to reduce agriculture’s contribution to global warming is to tackle other sources of emissions.

For example, we could improve how efficiently we use agricultural land. “There are many ways to improve the productivity of land,” Tubiello says, like increasing crop yields. That means we need to find more ways to use less land to make the same amount of food.

Encouraging farmers to use fertilizers more judiciously would also help. When farmers spray their fields with nitrogen fertilizer, microbes in the soil convert it to nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. “A lot of the fertilizer is not used efficiently,” Tubiello says.

 

The FAO report found that fertilizers accounted 14 percent of agricultural emissions in 2011. And the amount emissions from fertilizers has risen 37 percent since 2001.

Of course, we can’t ignore the fact that raising livestock takes a huge toll on the environment. But, Tubiello says, there are ways to mitigate the environmental impact of raising livestock without doing away with meat altogether.For example, we could also try to switch up what we feed cows. Having cows graze on grass isn’t a very efficient use of land, as the grass makes for smaller animals, who end up emitting more greenhouse gases per pound of meat produced, than animals raised on grain.

However, corn and soy that most cows eat makes them especially gassy, so feeding them alfalfa and supplements could reduce how much they belch. More research on how to optimize what we feed livestock could help farmers reduce emissions.But even if we can’t control how much cows belch, we can control what we do with their poop. When nitrogen in livestock manure and urine is also broken down into nitrous oxide — and emissions from manure accounted for 16 percent of agricultural emissions in 2011, according to the FAO. Managing all that manure — or even reusing it as fuel, is one way to reduce emissions.

 

SOURCE…www.npr.org/

What You Eat Affects Your Productivity

Think back to your most productive workday in the past week. Now ask yourself: On that afternoon, what did you have for lunch?

When we think about the factors that contribute to workplace performance, we rarely give much consideration to food. For those of us battling to stay on top of emails, meetings, and deadlines, food is simply fuel.

But as it turns out, this analogy is misleading. The foods we eat affect us more than we realize. With fuel, you can reliably expect the same performance from your car no matter what brand of unleaded you put in your tank. Food is different. Imagine a world where filling up at Mobil meant avoiding all traffic and using BP meant driving no faster than 20 miles an hour. Would you then be so cavalier about where you purchased your gas?

Food has a direct impact on our cognitive performance, which is why a poor decision at lunch can derail an entire afternoon.

Here’s a brief rundown of why this happens. Just about everything we eat is converted by our body into glucose, which provides the energy our brains need to stay alert. When we’re running low on glucose, we have a tough time staying focused and our attention drifts. This explains why it’s hard to concentrate on an empty stomach.

So far, so obvious. Now here’s the part we rarely consider: Not all foods are processed by our bodies at the same rate. Some foods, like pasta, bread, cereal and soda, release their glucose quickly, leading to a burst of energy followed by a slump. Others, like high fat meals (think cheeseburgers and BLTs) provide more sustained energy, but require our digestive system to work harder, reducing oxygen levels in the brain and making us groggy.

Most of us know much of this intuitively, yet we don’t always make smart decisions about our diet. In part, it’s because we’re at our lowest point in both energy and self-control when deciding what to eat. French fries and mozzarella sticks are a lot more appetizing when you’re mentally drained.

Unhealthy lunch options also tend to be cheaper and faster than healthy alternatives, making them all the more alluring in the middle of a busy workday. They feel efficient. Which is where our lunchtime decisions lead us astray. We save 10 minutes now and pay for it with weaker performance the rest of the day.

So what are we to do? One thing we most certainly shouldn’t do is assume that better information will motivate us to change. Most of us are well aware that scarfing down a processed mixture of chicken bones and leftover carcasses is not a good life decision. But that doesn’t make chicken nuggets any less delicious.

No, it’s not awareness we need—it’s an action plan that makes healthy eating easier to accomplish. Here are some research-based strategies worth trying.

The first is to make your eating decisions before you get hungry. If you’re going out to lunch, choose where you’re eating in the morning, not at 12:30 PM. If you’re ordering in, decide what you’re having after a mid-morning snack. Studies show we’re a lot better at resisting salt, calories, and fat in the future than we are in the present.

Another tip: Instead of letting your glucose bottom out around lunch time, you’ll perform better by grazing throughout the day. Spikes and drops in blood sugar are both bad for productivity and bad for the brain. Smaller, more frequent meals maintain your glucose at a more consistent level than relying on a midday feast.
Finally, make healthy snacking easier to achieve than unhealthy snacking. Place a container of almonds and a selection of protein bars by your computer, near your line of vision. Use an automated subscription service, like Amazon, to restock supplies. Bring a bag of fruit to the office on Mondays so that you have them available throughout the week.

Is carrying produce to the office ambitious? For many of us, the honest answer is yes. Yet there’s reason to believe the weekly effort is justified.

Research indicates that eating fruits and vegetables throughout the day isn’t simply good for the body—it’s also beneficial for the mind. A fascinating paper in this July’s British Journal of Health Psychology highlights the extent to which food affects our day-to-day experience.

Within the study, participants reported their food consumption, mood, and behaviors over a period of 13 days. Afterwards, researchers examined the way people’s food choices influenced their daily experiences. Here was their conclusion: The more fruits and vegetables people consumed (up to 7 portions), the happier, more engaged, and more creative they tended to be.

Why? The authors offer several theories. Among them is an insight we routinely overlook when deciding what to eat for lunch: Fruits and vegetables contain vital nutrients that foster the production of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that plays a key role in the experience of curiosity, motivation, and engagement. They also provide antioxidants that minimize bodily inflammation, improve memory, and enhance mood.

Which underscores an important point: If you’re serious about achieving top workplace performance, making intelligent decisions about food is essential.

The good news is that contrary to what many of us assume, the trick to eating right is not learning to resist temptation. It’s making healthy eating the easiest possible option.

 

SOURCE…hbr.org

Why Are There So Many Cancers?

This is an “anthology” of sorts about the etiology of the current cancer epidemic-pandemic. Please feel free to respond to this article with your opinion so that we can better develope a idea of how our content is being recieved and percieved by our audience.

C-A-N-C-E-R is the word that strikes horror in the hearts and minds of every human alive.  However, that always was not the case.  I’m old enough to remember when cancer was a rather ‘rare’ disease or condition.  Furthermore, I know medical doctors a little older than my ‘vintage’ who say that when they were in medical school, they were not taught very much about cancer, so much so, that when a cancer patient was in one of the wards in a teaching hospital, the entire class of physicians-in-training was trotted in to see that patient.  How interesting?

Personally, I’m of the belief that there is not very much new under the sun EXCEPT what’s being designed and created by genetic modification and geoengineering.  Cancer, undoubtedly, has been around in some form probably since very ancient times.  However, the current ‘plague of cancers’, even though not an anomaly since just about everyone and his or her brother has or had it, became ‘profitable’ during the latter half of the twentieth century.

There is no doubt that cancer, as an ‘industry’, will become even more problematic—plus profitable—to the point where every person probably will contract cancer in some form or other, almost as if by some ulterior design.  Why do I say that?  Because of how cancer has been made into a “profitable business,” revenue stream and profit center for varied and numerous vested interests, when there actually are cancer cures controlling vested interests suppress or even keep for themselves.  Is that too harsh to hear?  Well, have you recently looked into or checked out the ridiculously-priced costs of cancer treatments and protocols?  Like all wars, the “war on cancer” is profitable for vested interests.

For starters, the average cost of a new cancer drug is over $100,000 per year.

Newly-approved cancer drugs can cost about $10,000 on average per month, while some can top off at around, or over, $30,000 a month.

Contrast those prices with the cost of cancer drugs a decade or so ago, which were a mere ‘smidgen’ of only $4,500 a month.  Talk about inflation, or is it medical-pharma rip-off time?  Owning a ‘cancer insurance’ policy really doesn’t help defray many of those costs either.  Usually a cancer policy will state that it provides a lump sum payment for “a covered cancer” or a recurrence of cancer.   Some policies will provide a lump sum cash payout of X dollars upon diagnosis and that’s it!

This website  gives the “average” medical costs for various types of cancers.

What do you think is the average salary an oncologist pulls in? That salary can range from approximately $294,000 to $383,000 per year.  However, how do doctors feel about taking chemotherapy for themselves? When polled, the results showed “75% of physicians in the world refuse chemotherapy for themselves.”  Isn’t that interesting?

In this article, “If Chemotherapy Fails 97% Of The Time, Why Do Doctors Recommend It?” you may begin to understand that doctors don’t learn to cure anything!  “They learn about chemicalintervention or surgery to suppress symptoms. They don’t go for the root cause.” (That would put them out of business!)

So how did allopathic medicine and humans become ‘partners’ in cancer?

The first documented case of cancer comes from ancient Egypt. According to the American Cancer Society, there are eight documented cases of breast cancer found on papyrus dating all the way back to 3000 B.C. Even the term cancer has been around for centuries— Hippocrates, the Greek physician who is widely considered the Father of Medicine, used the words carcinos and carcinoma to describe tumors.

Incidentally, there is no mention of cancer per se, even though other diseases are mentioned, in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.  However, individual interpretations, though, may lead some to conclude differently.

Cancer as a rarity in ancient times is not disputed, although some fossilized bone tumors have been found in ancient human mummies.  The dreaded disease of antiquity was leprosy or what’s known in modern times as Hansen’s disease.

During the Renaissance in Europe, a better understanding of the human body began to develop and that led to more diagnostics, especially once post mortem operations (autopsies) became more of a routine procedure after death.  The Renaissance’s Michelangelo, sculptor of “David,” was known to perform detailed anatomical dissections of “fresh cadavers,” which obviously led to his ability to ‘create’ a marble man of extreme anatomical elegance.  Additionally, the invention of the microscope moved pathogenesis along to a great degree of sophisticated knowledge regarding diseased tissues.

It wasn’t until the 1900s that the ‘modern’ or current understanding about cancer and things called “carcinogens” began to appear in science and medicine.   Coincidentally, or more accurately I say, parallel tracks relating to certain diseases began to manifest too.  Those parallels encompassed man-made chemicals and cancer demographics!  Currently the ‘buzz words’ also include epigenetics.

What went wrong

Some of the most egregious assaults upon the human organism that contribute to cancers are the inordinate use and amounts of toxic chemicals placed into food and water—deliberately!  Food growing, processing, preserving, coloring and taste enhancement-chemicals do not belong in food—period!  They adulterate food and our bodies causing biochemical and nutritional imbalances, including genotoxic DNA problems that program cancers.  Neither do most of the man-made chemicals used in water treatment facilities belong in water—the second-most vital element, besides air, for maintaining life.

In my July 2016 book, Eat to Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities, I devote the Introduction to chronicling how agriculture and the food chain have been polluted chemically, basically since the Industrial Revolution, and especially since World War II when USA businesses and industries went haywire manufacturing, advertising and selling chemicals and pharmaceuticals as ‘needed elements to make life better’—“Better living through chemistry!”  Unfortunately, consumers bought into and ‘embraced’ all the ‘kill’ chemicals for eliminating bugs, vermin, crab grass, weeds, etc.  How hoodwinked were we not to realize that anything that can kill one life form, can and will do irreparable or long-term damage to other life forms higher up the food chain?  Those “can’t do without” lawn chemicals now pollute our drinking water!

In my professional opinion as a retired healthcare professional and consumer health researcher/journalist and author, I feel toxic chemicals that have impacted the human central nervoussystem (the blood brain barrier being breached, in particular) plus the human immune system quite dramatically are what I’d classify as deliberately deceptive money-making enterprises. In my opinion, one is fluoridation of the water supply and the other is vaccines with all their neurotoxic ingredients.

Fluoride is a protoplasmic poison , which can be involved in the etiology of cancers of the bone (osteosarcoma) and oral cancers.  Fluoride causes genetic damage; 19 major university studies have proven that!  I’ll talk about vaccine chemicals later on.

Furthermore and sticking with toxically-polluted water, underground water aquifers are being poisoned by chemicals used in fracking for the extraction of gas and oil found in shale deposits.  According to the researchers who wrote the paper “Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective,” there are “71 nasty drilling and fracturing chemicals that result in 10 or more health effects,”which can be found here.

But, I’m getting ahead of myself on the timeline of the cancer epidemic-pandemic.

Radiation and Radioactive particulates

Ever since the Manhattan Project to build and test nuclear weapons began (circa 1942), the human race has been subjected to unnatural levels of ionizing radiation circling the globe and impregnating air, food and water.  Thyroid cancers are a prime indication of that type of exposure.  The Manhattan Project resulted in the detonation of two atomic bombs dropped by the USA in 1945 (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan), which created radiation and radionuclides that affected everything on earth, including cow’s milk and the children who drank the milk!

What type of damage does nuclear radiation do to the body?

Three types of radiation damage may occur: bodily damage (mainly leukemia and cancers of the thyroid, lung, breast, bone, and gastrointestinal tract); genetic damage (birth defects and constitutional and degenerative diseases due to gonodal damage suffered by parents); and development and growth damage (primarily growth and mental retardation of unborn infants and young children).

Probably the most serious threat is cesium-137, a gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. It is a major source of radiation in nuclear fallout, and since it parallels potassium chemistry, it is readily taken into the blood of animals and men and may be incorporated into tissue. Other hazards are strontium-90, an electron emitter with a half-life of 28 years, and iodine-131 with a half-life of only 8 days. Strontium-90 follows calcium chemistry, so that it is readily incorporated into the bones and teeth, particularly of young children who have received milk from cows consuming contaminated forage. Iodine-131 is a similar threat to infants and children because of its concentration in the thyroid gland. In addition, there is plutonium-239, frequently used in nuclear explosives. A bone-seeker like strontium-90, it may also become lodged in the lungs, where its intense local radiation can cause cancer or other damage.

Plutonium-239 decays through emission of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) and has a half-life of 24,000 years. To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years. Both are taken up through the food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter.

Shouldn’t we be asking what’s happening to our air, food and water since Chernobyl (1986) and especially since Fukushima (2011) with its uncontained radioactive leaks into the Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere which global nuclear powers seemingly aren’t willing to help clean up?  Are food crops growing in USA’s western states of Washington, Oregon and California affected—including organically-grown crops?

How about all the atmospheric nuclear testing done by various “nuclear countries” [10 or 11] that have stockpiled nuclear weapons?  What have they put into the atmosphere?  Then there are the depleted uranium ordnances used by the USA in fighting the Gulf War, in Iraq, and possibly Syria.  Children born in Iraq after that outrageous war based upon the false pretense of “weapons of mass destruction that were not there, but the USA obviously has” are suffering the consequences of ionizing radiation and genotoxic chemicals, as told in this video.

Let’s not overlook all the ‘minor’ nuclear power plant ‘uneventful’ leaks and shutdowns because of some sort of technology failures, the foremost being the Three Mile Island ‘accident’ outside Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, March 28, 1979.  Also, do you know that all nuclear power plants are permitted to emit regularly ‘safe’ levels of radioactivity up their stacks [9]?

Weather Geoengineering “Chemtrails”

Let’s not forget the ever-persistent Solar Radiation Management effort to control the weather—pardon my misspeak—to prevent “climate warming”—using toxic chemical sprays that cloud over the skies and produce toxic rain and snow, which pollute everything on earth, including the food we eat and the water we drink, not to mention contaminating our lungs with nanoparticles probably engineered to tag and ‘track’ us or fashion us into radiofrequency ‘radio signal receivers’.  Isn’t the U.S. Air Force gearing up to own the weather as a weapon of war by 2025? [10]

Some of the toxins found in the assays of chemtrail-spiked rain water assayed in California  include:

  • Aluminum
  • Arsenic
  • Barium salts
  • Cadmium
  • Desiccated human blood cells
  • Lead
  • Mercury
  • Mycoplasma
  • Polymer fibers
  • Radio cesium
  • Strontium
  • Uranium
  • Plus others

Add to the above as a ‘contraindication’, another ‘parallel’ of sorts, which involves chemtrails apparently contributing to a newly-occurring terrible health syndrome that presents as a crawling sensation under the skin with nanofibers emerging; it’s called Morgellons disease [7-8].

Genetically Modified Organisms: Food, Animals, Plants and Organisms

The high tech world of genetic engineering or modification is so overwhelmingly large, I cannot begin to touch on it in this article which, if I did, could wind up being the size of a book, so I will focus on only genetically modified ‘phood’, which I cover in great detail in my July 2016 book, Eat to Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities.

What I touch on next is minuscule in comparison to the known and published research, science and literature, so I may be criticized for not mentioning problems that some readers think I should have included but, inadvertently, have omitted.  I apologize for that, but I’ve got to make tracks the best I can in tying this article in to the cancer epidemic-pandemic.

Notably since the 1980s (and even earlier) there have been full-bore scientific determinations to design and recreate Nature and most, if not all, of Nature’s attributes into the scientific power-dream of domination, control, skewing and modifying DNA/RNA in just about everything that most humans refer to as “Intelligent Design”-created or  God’s creation.  Genetic modification (GM/GMO/GE) affects just about every facet of most life forms on Planet Earth NOW!

The GMO ‘track’ that has the better potential and most immediately-effective strategy for refashioning human DNA/RNA besides vaccines, in my opinion, is GMO ‘phood’!  That being said, I’d like to refer readers to another of my books, Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick, wherein I discuss in greater depth GMOs.  As a matter of fact, while I was writing that book, I was in email contact with Professor Séralini, PhD, whose subsequent 2 year rat studies on GMO feed has become a landmark study about cancerous tumors from GMO rations and glyphosate.

Dr Séralini’s work  puts to rest, and absolutely trashes, Monsanto’s 90-day GMO-‘safety’-studies presented to the FDA for GMO technology approvals [12-13]!
That being said, Monsanto’s GMO crops and the Monsanto GMO agricultural methods for growing those crops – the use of inordinate amounts of glyphosate in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup® by contract farming or there are legal problems for farmers – leave the planet, its livestock, almost all plant matter, soils/farms, pollinator insects and, especially, humans, who eat GMO ‘phoods’ in dire straits.  Gastrointestinal health problems affecting the human microbiome from glyphosate residues found in most processed food is being documented [16].  Children, who are vaccine damaged, get gastrointestinal relief and find a way to wellness when put on a GMO-free diet .

Not only in food is glyphosate found, but in vaccines injected into infants, toddlers, teens, adults and senior citizens!

I’d like to thank Chris, who made a comment to my article above and which I want to share, since Chris seems to know more about glyphosate’s interesting ‘past’:

Glyphosate=N-phosphonomethylGLYCINE, contains the amino acid glycine, which also happens to be the human inhibiting neurotransmitter!! Dr. Samsel and Seneff published all the relevant data on that issue, which somehow is not becoming loud enough! Carcinogenicity of glyphosate was known by Monsanto in 1981, and first later the biotech seed producer came to the idea to design new artificial genes, which would bind the carcinogen glyphosate and make ~85% of all GMO’s glyphosate resistant. What goes even further into history, is the fact that glycine supports fast proliferation of certain types of cancer, a fact known in 1932!!! Thus features of the glycine, one of the simplest amino acid on our planet were investigated thoroughly for decades, and once it was known that it participates in cancer growth, glyphosate was ‘discovered’, as the artificial chemical mimick (replacement) of glycine. First it was used as ‘safest’ herbicide, later it became the essence of most GMO’s produced by the biotech ‘seed’ giants. The latest article about glyphosate from Dr. Samsel and Seneff, goes into horrifying theoretical scenario, a production of peptoids, within OUR BODIES! Peptoids are not digestible, but once becoming parts of our bodies, certainly support some artificial unknown function. Not for nothing Dr. Seneff works for the office of ‘artificial intelligence’….

The purpose of Glyphosate was planned not only for decades, but for almost a century by now… Since Glyphosate is deeply connected with almost all GMO’s, the entire biotechnology with its ‘fruits’ HAS TO BE PUT INTO A DEEP INVESTIGATION, A.S.A.P.

Glyphosate’s ‘history’, as stated above, must be investigated immediately by reputable independentscientists, not Monsanto’s or Bayer’s ‘gophers’!  The U.S. CDC, FDA, USDA, EPA and Congress must become involved immediately, if not sooner, and prevent the ‘marriage’ of the Bayer-Monsanto ‘families’ that probably will facilitate cancer even more than ever as a result of the ‘scientific’ clout Bayer will attain as the largest GMO seed producer in the world.

Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Technologies Contribution to Cancer

In this world of ‘smart’ gadgets and appliances, everyone unknowingly has bought into being irradiated with non-ionizing microwave radiofrequency energies that have been declared a class 2B carcinogen by the IARC of the World Health Organization: Lyon, France – May 30, 2011  The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based upon an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use.

What most folks PROBABLY aren’t aware of is that all “smart” appliances operate on microwave technology frequencies and fall into the same class 2B above, just not cell phones which are the primary wireless technology in use.  However, others equally as dangerous, if not more so, include:

Wi-Fi in schools, offices and public places; utilities’ AMI Smart Meters; and any device that can send and receive data, voice, photos, messages, etc. using microwave technology! Currently, there’s talk about Google’s 5G “Wi-Fi in the Sky” Project SkyBender [15]. God help us when that goes into effect!  If you ever thought about wearing a tin-foil-hat, then that would be the time to do so.  Why?  In order to protect your brains from being ‘fried’, I offer, from the research that’s been hidden DELIBERATELY by the microwave tech industry for years indicating non-thermal adverse health effects known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity and as a contributing factor to many types of cancers.

Whatever you do, please do not wear a ‘live’ or active cell phone on your body, e.g., on your belt; in your pants pocket; in your bra; or an ear piece that’s not the proper type to prevent RFs from going directly into your ear and brain. All the above probably will pale to what I will discuss next, I offer.Probably a more significant factor for the current cancer epidemic-pandemic is the fact that children in the 1950s through 1963 (or longer, it’s thought) were vaccinated with polio vaccines containing a cancer virus, the SV40 virus.  More than 100 million children received that cancer virus in the polio vaccine!  I discuss that and much more about vaccine ingredients in my book, Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines.

The U.S. Congress held a hearing in 2003 wherein they investigated and had to admit that.  Here’s the report “Preventing Another SV40 Tragedy: Are Today’s Safe Vaccine Protocols Effective?” [No! I offer.] dated November 13, 2003 admitting what happened.  However, here’s what I wrote about that SV40 vaccine problem for VacTruth in 2011.

Nothing speaks more clearly than Dr Maurice Hilleman, the father of modern vaccines who worked for Merck, talking very candidly about those monkeys from whom the SV40 virus was derived.The long and short of the above vaccine tragedy is that apparently there may be some impact on cancer rates since the SV40 virus has been found in cancerous tumors excised from cancer patients! This article discusses the “cause and effect” issues revolving around SV40 and cancer.  One can assume that there is ‘no cause and effect’ just like there is ‘no cause and effect’ with the MMR vaccine and Autism due to the CDC’s blatant fraudulent scientific findings as exposed by whistleblower William Thompson, PhD, and told in the documentary movie VAXXED.

However, that’s not the first time the CDC had fudged and falsified the connection between vaccines and Autism; there’s the Verstraeten study that was reworked circa 2000.  Attorney Robert F Kennedy, Jr disclosed what’s become known as the “Simpsonwood Meeting” that effectuated the rework of  CDC epidemiologist Verstraeten’s confirmed Autism-from-vaccines  research data that somehow morphed into a newly-generated “no cause and effect to autism from vaccines” study.

Then there is the unfortunate problem of Merck and Company falsifying for ten years the effectiveness rate of the mumps active in their MMR vaccine, which whistleblowers exposed and currently is before the Federal court  in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.We can’t trust the CDC, FDA or the vaccine makers when it comes to vaccine science!  The CDC is the vaccine makers’ champion for mandatory vaccinations.  Why, when vaccines contain so many neurotoxins and probable carcinogenic ingredients like formaldehyde, and the CDC/FDA should be protecting healthcare consumers, not Big Pharma?

Is the current cancer epidemic-pandemic a ‘man-made’ problem?

As I said in the beginning of this “anthology,” cancer has been around since ‘forever’, but the current rate of contraction is far beyond what could be termed ‘natural chances’.  Everything, including pharmacology, which I’ve not discussed, is implicated in a “cause and effect” with cancer ideologies, especially anything having to do with “man-made” chemicals, a great quantity of which affects our food, water and the air we breathe.

Is it too late to do anything about the cancer epidemic-pandemic?  What do you think?

The Rise Of The Agricultural Frankenstein

What if there was a monster dressed as a  harmless sheep,  that secretly   reeked havoc across the entire spectrum of humanity? Would you fight back ? Or would you accept your demise ?

News broke this week that Monsanto accepted a $66 billion takeover bid from Bayer. The new company would control more than 25 per cent of the global supply of commercial seeds and pesticides. Bayer’s crop chemicals business is the world’s second largest after Syngenta, and Monsanto is the leading commercial seeds business.

Monsanto held a 26 per cent market share of all seeds sold in 2011. Bayer (mainly a pharmaceuticals company) sells 17 per cent of the world’s total agrochemicals and also has a comparatively small seeds sector. If competition authorities pass the deal, the combined company would be the globe’s largest seller of both seeds and agrochemicals.

The deal marks a trend towards consolidation in the industry with Dow and DuPont having agreed to merge and Swiss seed/pesticide giant  Syngenta merging with ChemChina, a Chinese government concern.

The mergers would mean that three companies would dominate the commercial agricultural seeds and chemicals sector, down from six – Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Monsanto and DuPont. Prior to the mergers, these six firms controlled 60 per cent of commercial seed and more than 75 per cent of agrochemical markets.

Alarm bells are ringing with the European Commission putting its approval of the Dow-DuPont deal temporarily on hold, and the US Senate Judiciary Committee is about to hold hearings on the deal due to concerns about consolidation in the industry, which has resulted in increased seed and pesticide prices.

In response to the Monsanto-Bayer merger, US National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson issued the following statement:

“Consolidation of this magnitude cannot be the standard for agriculture, nor should we allow it to determine the landscape for our future. The merger between Bayer and Monsanto marks the fifth major deal in agriculture in the last year… For the last several days, our family farm and ranch members have been on Capitol Hill asking Members of Congress to conduct hearings to review the staggering amount of pending merger deals in agriculture today. We will continue to express concern that these megadeals are being made to benefit the corporate boardrooms at the expense of family farmers, ranchers, consumers and rural economies. We are pleased that next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will be reviewing the alarming trend of consolidation in agriculture that has led to less competition, stifled innovation, higher prices and job loss in rural America… all mergers, including this recent Bayer/Monsanto deal, [should] be put under the magnifying glass of the committee and the U.S. Department of Justice.”

For all the rhetoric that we often hear about ‘the market’ and large corporations offering choice to farmers and consumers, the evidence is restriction of choice and the squeezing out of competitors. Over the years, for instance, Monsanto has bought up dozens of competitors to become the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds with seed prices having risen dramatically.

Consolidation and monopoly in any sector should be of concern to everyone. But the fact that the large agribusiness conglomerates specialise in a globalised, industrial-scale, chemical-intensive model of farming that is adversely affecting what we eat should have us very concerned. Do we want this system to be intensified even further just because their business models depend on it?

Farmers are increasingly reliant on patented corporate seeds, whether non-GM hybrid seeds or GM, and the chemical inputs designed to be used with them. Monsanto seed traits are now in 80 per cent of corn and more than 90 per cent of soybeans grown in the US. It comes as little surprise then that people in the US now consume a largely corn-based diet: a less diverse diet than in the past, which is high in calorific value, but low in health-promoting, nutrient dense food. This health-damaging ‘American obesity diet’ and the agricultural practices underpinning is now a global phenomenon.

By its very nature, the capitalist economic model that corporate agriculture is attached to demands expansion, market capture and profit growth. And, it must be accepted that it does bring certain benefits to those farmers who have remained in agriculture (if not for the 330 farmers who leave their land every week, according to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service).

But in the US, ‘success’ in agriculture depends on over $51 billion of taxpayer handouts to over a 10-year period to keep the gravy train on track for a particular system of agriculture designed to maintain corporate agribusiness profit margins. And such ‘success’ fails to factor in all of the external social, health and environmental costs that mean this type of model is ultimately unsustainable. It is easy to spin failure as success when the parameters are narrowly defined.

Moreover, the exporting of the Green Revolution paradigm throughout the globe has been a boon to transnational seed and agrochemical manufacturers, which have benefited from undermining a healthy, sustainable indigenous agriculture and transforming it into a profitable enterprise for global capital.

And not just profitable for global capital – but its company managers too. For example, a few months ago, according to Reuters, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant could receive more than $70 million if Monsanto were to be taken over by Bayer. At the time, Monsanto said it was open to engaging in further negotiations with Bayer after turning down its $62 billion bid. The report shows how Grant’s exposure to shares and options meant he had an incentive to hold out for the highest possible sale price, which would not only be in the interests of shareholders but also increase the value of his holdings. Other senior figures within Monsanto would also walk away with massive financial gains.

These corporate managers belong to a global agribusiness sector whose major companies rank among the Fortune 500 corporations. These companies are high-rollers in a geo-politicised, globalised system of food production whereby huge company profits are directly linked to the worldwide eradication of the small farm – the bedrock of global food production,  bad food and poor healthinequitable, rigged tradeenvironmental devastation, mono-cropping and diminished food and diet diversity, the destruction of rural communities, ecocidedegraded soilwater scarcity and droughtdestructive and inappropriate models of development and farmers who live a knife-edge existence and for whom debt has become a fact of life.

A handful of powerful and politically connected corporations are determining what is grown, how it is to be grown, what needs to be done to grow it, who grows it and what ends up on the plate. And despite PR platitudes about the GMO/chemical-intensive model just being part of a wider mix of farming practices designed to feed humanity, from India to Africaindigenous models of agriculture are being squeezed out (through false argument and deception) as corporate imperialism puts pay to notions of food sovereignty.

We should be highly concerned about a food system increasingly dominated by companies that have a history (seethis on Monsanto and this on Bayer) of releasing health-damaging, environmentally polluting products onto the market and engaging in bribery, cover-ups, monopolistic practices and what should be considered as crimes against humanity?

Despite the likes of Hugh Grant saying the Monsanto-Bayer merger will be good for farmers and “broader society”, most of all it will be good for shareholders and taxpayer-subsidised, state-assisted company profit. That’s the type of hegemonic rhetoric that’s been used down the ages to disguise the true nature of power and its beneficiaries.

It’s not so much the Monsanto-Bayer deal is a move in the wrong direction (which it is), but increasing consolidation is to be expected given the trend in many key sectors toward monopoly capitalism or just plain cartelism, whichever way you choose to look at it. It’s the system of industrialised, capital-intensive agriculture wedded to powerful players whose interests lie in perpetuating and extending their neoliberal economic model that is the real problem.

“We have justified the demise of family farms, decay of rural communities, pollution of the rural environment, and degradation of soil health as being necessary… The problems we are facing today are the consequence of too many people… pursuing their narrow self-interests without considering the consequence of their actions on the rest of society and the future of humanity.” Professor John Ikerd, ‘Healthy Soils, Healthy People.,

SOURCE…www.globalresearch .org

 

 

 

 

Your Genes Respond To The Foods You Eat

What should we eat? Answers abound in the media, all of which rely on their interpretation of recent medical literature to come up with recommendations for the healthiest diet. But what if you could answer this question at a molecular level — what if you could find out how our genes respond to the foods we eat, and what this does to the cellular processes that make us healthy — or not? That’s precisely what biologists at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology have done.

If you could ask your genes to say what kinds of foods are best for your health, they would have a simple answer: one-third protein, one-third fat and one-third carbohydrates. That’s what recent genetic research from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) shows is the best recipe to limit your risk of most lifestyle-related diseases.

Food affects gene expression

NTNU researchers Ingerid Arbo and Hans-Richard Brattbakk have fed slightly overweight people different diets, and studied the effect of this on gene expression. Gene expression refers to the process where information from a gene’s DNA sequence is translated into a substance, like a protein, that is used in a cell’s structure or function.

“We have found that a diet with 65% carbohydrates, which often is what the average Norwegian eats in some meals, causes a number of classes of genes to work overtime,” says Berit Johansen, a professor of biology at NTNU. She supervises the project’s doctoral students and has conducted research on gene expression since the 1990s.

“This affects not only the genes that cause inflammation in the body, which was what we originally wanted to study, but also genes associated with development of cardiovascular disease, some cancers, dementia, and type 2 diabetes — all the major lifestyle-related diseases,” she says.

Common dietary advice and chronic disease

These findings undercut most of the underpinnings for the diets you’ve heard will save you. Dietary advice abounds, and there is a great deal of variation as to how scientifically justified it is. But it is only now that researchers are figuring out the relationship between diet, digestion and the effect on one’s health and immune system — so they can now say not only what kinds of foods are healthiest, but why.

“Both low-carb and high-carb diets are wrong,” says Johansen. “But a low-carb diet is closer to the right diet. A healthy diet shouldn’t be made up of more than one-third carbohydrates (up to 40 per cent of calories) in each meal, otherwise we stimulate our genes to initiate the activity that creates inflammation in the body.”

This is not the kind of inflammation that you would experience as pain or an illness, but instead it is as if you are battling a chronic light flu-like condition. Your skin is slightly redder, your body stores more water, you feel warmer, and you’re not on top mentally. Scientists call this metabolic inflammation.

A powdered diet

Johansen and her colleagues conducted two studies. The first was to determine what type of research methods they would use to answer the questions they had. In the pilot study (28 days) five obese men ate real food, while in the second study, 32 slightly overweight men and women (mainly students) ate specially made powdered food.

Participants in the latter study were randomly assigned to go six days on a diet with 65 percent of calories from carbohydrates, with the rest of the calories from protein (15 percent) and fat (20 percent), then a week with no diet. Then came the six days on a diet with half the carbs and twice as much protein and fat as in the first diet. There were blood tests before and after each dieting period.

The amount of food each person ate was calculated so that their weight would remain stable and so that equal portions were consumed evenly over six meals throughout the day.

The researchers had help developing diets from Fedon Lindberg, a medical doctor who specializes in internal medicine and who promotes low-glycaemic diets, Inge Lindseth, an Oslo dietician who specializes in diabetes, and Ann-Kristin de Soysa, a dietician who works with obese patients at St. Olavs Hospital in Trondheim.

“We wanted to know exactly what the subjects were getting in terms of both macro- and micronutrients,” says Johansen, -“A tomato doesn’t contain a consistent amount of nutrients, or antioxidants, for example. So make sure we had a handle on the health effects, we had to have accurate accounting of nutrients. That’s why we chose the powdered diets for the main study.”

Solving the control problem

Diet studies that compare different diets with different amounts of fat are often criticized with the argument that it is difference in the amount of omega-3 fatty acids that causes the health effects, not the rest of the food intake.

The researchers addressed this problem by having the same amount of omega-3 and omega-6 in both diets, although the amount of fat in general was different in the diets that were tested. The researchers also avoided another common problem: the natural variation in gene expression between humans.

“Each of our study subjects was able to be his or her own control person, ” Johansen says “Every subject was allowed to go on both diets, with a one-week break in between the diets, and half began with one diet, while the rest started with the other diet.”

Blood tests were conducted before and after each diet period. All of the measurements of changes in gene expression were done so that each individual’s difference in gene expression was compared with that person alone. The results were then compiled.

Johnson says the studies resulted in two important findings. One is the positive effect of many meals throughout the day, and the details about the quality and composition of components in an optimal diet, including omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. The second is that a carbohydrate-rich diet, regardless of whether or not a person overeats, has consequences for genes that affect the lifestyle diseases, she says.

A way to measure genetic temperature

Throughout the study, researchers surveyed the extent to which various genes were working normally or overtime. An aggregate measure of the results of all of this genetic activity is called gene expression. It can almost be considered a measurement of the genetic temperature of the body’s state of health.

“We are talking about collecting a huge amount of information,” says Johansen.

“And it’s not like there is a gene for inflammation, for example. So what we look for is whether there are any groups of genes that work overtime. In this study we saw that an entire group of genes that are involved in the development of inflammatory reactions in the body work overtime as a group.”

It was not only inflammatory genes that were putting in overtime, as it would turn out. Some clusters of genes that stood out as overactive are linked to the most common lifestyle diseases.

“Genes that are involved in type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease and some forms of cancer respond to diet, and are up-regulated, or activated, by a carbohydrate-rich diet,” says Johansen.

Johansen is not a cancer researcher, and is not claiming that it is possible to eliminate your risk of a cancer diagnosis by eating. But she thinks it is worth noting that the genes that we associate with disease risk can be influenced by diet.

“We’re not saying that you can prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimer’s if you eat right, but it seems sensible to reduce the carbohydrates in our diets,” she suggests.

“We need more research on this,” Johansen adds. “It seems clear that the composition and quantity of our diets can be key in influencing the symptoms of chronic disease. It is important to distinguish between diet quality and quantity, both clearly have very specific effects.”

The body’s arms race

Johansen argues that diet is the key to controlling our personal genetic susceptibility to disease. In choosing what we eat, we choose whether we will provide our genes the weapons that cause disease. The immune system operates as if it is the body’s surveillance authority and police. When we consume too many carbohydrates and the body is triggered to react, the immune system mobilizes its strength, as if the body were being invaded by bacteria or viruses.

“Genes respond immediately to what they have to work with. It is likely that insulin controls this arms race,” Johansen says. “But it’s not as simple as the regulation of blood sugar, as many believe. The key lies in insulin’s secondary role in a number of other mechanisms. A healthy diet is about eating specific kinds of foods so that that we minimize the body’s need to secrete insulin. The secretion of insulin is a defense mechanism in response to too much glucose in the blood, and whether that glucose comes from sugar or from non-sweet carbohydrates such as starches (potatoes, white bread, rice, etc.), doesn’t really matter.”

Avoid the fat trap!

The professor warns against being caught up in the fat trap. It’s simply not good to cut out carbs completely, she says. “The fat/protein trap is just as bad as the carbohydrate trap. It’s about the right balance, as always.”

She says we must also make sure to eat carbohydrates, proteins and fats in five to six smaller meals, not just for the main meal, at dinner.

“Eating several small and medium-sized meals throughout the day is important. Don’t skip breakfast and don’t skip dinner. One-third of every meal should be carbohydrates, one-third protein and one-third fat. That’s the recipe for keeping inflammatory and other disease-enhancing genes in check,” Johansen explains.

Change is quick

Johansen has some encouraging words, however, for those of us who have been eating a high carbohydrate diet. “It took just six days to change the gene expression of each of the volunteers,” she says, “so it’s easy to get started. But if you want to reduce your likelihood of lifestyle disease, this new diet will have to be a permanent change.”

Johansen stressed that researchers obviously do not have all the answers to the relationship between diet and food yet. But the trends in the findings, along with recent scientific literature, make it clear that the recommendation should be for people to change their dietary habits.

Otherwise, an increasing number of people will be afflicted with chronic lifestyle diseases.

The new food balance sheet

Most of us think it is fine to have foods that you can either eat or not eat, whether it comes to carbohydrates or fats. So how will we know what to put on our plates?

Do we have to both count calories and weigh our food now?

“Of course you can be that careful,” says Johansen. “But you will come a long way just by making some basic choices. If you cut down on boiled root vegetables such as potatoes and carrots, and replace the white bread with a few whole meal slices, such as rye bread, or bake your own crispbread, you will reduce the amount of bad carbohydrates in your diet quite significantly. Furthermore, remember to eat protein and fat at every meal, including breakfast!”

Salad also contains carbohydrates

Johansen explains that many of us do not realize that all the fruits and vegetables we eat also count as carbohydrates — and that it’s not just sweet carbohydrates that we should watch out for.

“Salad is made up of carbohydrates,” says Johansen. “But you have to eat a lot of greens to get a lot of calories. Steamed broccoli is a great alternative to boiled potatoes. Fruit is good, but you have to be careful not to eat large quantities of the high-glycemic fruits at one time. Variety is important.”

The best is to cut down on potatoes, rice and pasta, and to allow ourselves some of the good stuff that has long been in the doghouse in the refrigerator.

“Instead of light products, we should eat real mayonnaise and sour cream,” Johansen says, “and have real cream in your sauce, and eat oily fish. That said, we should still remember not to eat too much food, either at each meal or during the day. Fat is twice as calorie-rich as carbohydrates and proteins, so we have to keep that in mind when planning the sizes of our portions. Fat is also different. We shouldn’t eat too much saturated animal fat, but monounsaturated vegetable fats and polyunsaturated marine fats are good.”

Fountain-of-youth genes

Johansen’s research also shows that some genes are not up-regulated, but rather the opposite — they calm down rather than speed up.

“It was interesting to see the reduction in genetic activity, but we were really happy to see which genes were involved. One set of genes is linked to cardiovascular disease. They were down-regulated in response to a balanced diet, as opposed to a carbohydrate-rich diet,” she says. Another gene that was significantly differently expressed by the diets that were tested was one that is commonly called “the youth gene” in the international research literature.

“We haven’t actually stumbled on the fountain of youth here,” Johansen laughs, “but we should take these results seriously. The important thing for us is, little by little, we are uncovering the mechanisms of disease progression for many of our major lifestyle-related disorders.”

Johansen’s research has been supported by NTNU and Central Norway Regional Health Authority. Other key partners have been Mette Langaas, a statistician and associate professor of mathematics at NTNU, Dr. Bard Kulseng of the Regional Center for Morbid Obesity at St Olavs Hospital, and Martin Kuiper, a professor of systems biology at NTNU.

 

SOURCE…www.sciencedaily.com

 

 

 

 

How to Eat and Drink Like an Olympian

Many American households, have got their  TV  tuned to one thing since August 5: the Olympic Games in Rio. It’s always fun to watch the athletes really going for it and there has been plenty to keep us tuned in, like the colorful rivalry between American swimmer Michael Phelps and his South African foe, Chad le Clos.

Fueling for Fitness

While the athletes always make everything look effortless, so much goes into their training in order to prepare them for competition. Not only does it take hours of exercise to hone their muscles, improve their speed and sharpen their mental focus , they also spend a lot of time fueling up before practice and eating to properly recover so they can train again the next day. Diet is a key part of an athlete’s training program.

The U.S. women’s soccer team was unfortunately knocked out of the competition by Sweden last week. But Julie Johnston, a pro soccer player for the Chicago Red Stars and a defender for the U.S. women’s national team trained hard to get to Rio. I had a chance to speak with Johnston leading up to the games and was impressed with the focus she places on eating healthy. In fact, she looks at it as her secret weapon. “You’re trying to find your edge in the sport and obviously, nutrition is one of them,” she says.

With about four hours of daily training, Johnston likes to fuel up with a big breakfast that consists of eggs  and toast or cereal, then she eats fruit closer to game time. Immediately after a game, her strength and conditioning coach serves the team smoothies with protein powder to help the athletes refuel quickly and get muscle repair underway. Following the smoothie, Johnston eats diced fresh mango to re-energize and get her appetite back before eating a full meal later on. Prior to Rio, she also worked on upping her hydration by adding electrolyte packets to her water bottles. She also focuses on foods with anti-inflammatory properties, such as turmeric.

Energy to Burn

Bob Seebohar is a sports dietitian who works with Olympic-level and recreational athletes of all ages, abilities and sports through eNRG Performance. I picked Seebohar’s brain to get a glimpse into what really goes into an athlete’s body before and after those important training sessions.

According to Seebohar, a typical pre-training meal is about two to three hours before the workout or event and contains a mix of carbohydrates, protein and healthy fats to maintain steady blood sugar levels. For example:

  • Granola with yogurt and fruit
  • Oatmeal with fruit, nuts and a scoop of almond butter
  • Toast and eggs
  • Smoothies and purees are ideal, especially closer to an event, as they are digested more quickly than solid food

Hydration – It’s Not Just About the Water

While carbs are necessary fuel for energy and protein is paramount for muscle growth and repair, the role of hydration  is something that can’t be underestimated. In fact, when some professional athletes are in training camp, they have to submit a daily urine sample to monitor their hydration status.

Loss of electrolytes in sweat can lead to cramping during events. Dehydration can also impede recovery and make athletes feel more sluggish and sore after training or competition. Sodium is the major electrolyte lost in sweat. Others include potassium, magnesium and calcium.

Electrolytes are charged particles that bind to water in our cells, which helps our bodies retain water. They also help move water into the blood and cells through osmosis. While we usually hate the thought of retaining water, it’s important to do so after intense exercise to help with rehydration. If athletes only replace the water they’ve lost, but not the sodium, the water will simply pass through their body without being absorbed. Athletes can add electrolyte packets to their water bottles, but generally you can replace the sodium you lose in your workouts simply through the meal you eat following exercise. Products like Clif Hydration Electrolyte mix can also be helpful, especially in the crazy hot and humid weather we’ve experienced this summer.

Recovery

Refueling, ideally within a 30-minute window post exercise, is incredibly important for athletes, especially when they have back-to-back events. Carbohydrates are needed to replenish glycogen stores and protein is necessary to help repair the small muscle tears that happen during exercise. Antioxidant-rich foods are helpful to combat the oxidative stress that occurs from intense activity.

While you don’t need to pay as much attention to each pre-workout snack as U.S. gymnast Simone Biles, it’s smart to think about your fuel and hydration to maximize your performance during workouts. And it’s not as complicated as you might think. As Seebohar says, “Many recreational athletes think that Olympians follow different nutritional plans. At the end of the day, they are usually just better at planning, preparing and implementing their food plan to align [with their training schedule].” After all, even mere humans like us like to go a little bit faster and feel just a smidge stronger, too.

 READ MORE Health.usnews.com