Showing posts with label Whole Foods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whole Foods. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 26, 2023

Where's the magic pill?

We can't buy good health; we must earn it. We are given only one body in this lifetime, so I encourage you to take proper care of it. Over time, your health and happiness are inescapably linked. You don't get a new body when you destroy your health with disease-causing foods.—Joel Fuhrman, Eat to Live, 314

Monday, September 25, 2023

You are NOT rational

Addictions affect our ability to think rationally; they prejudice our judgment in favor of maintaining the addiction. That is why it is so difficult even to decide to change, much less actually change. Those addicted to rich, heart attack-causing foods are more than happy to believe the lie that a low cholesterol level is not desirable and readily parrot high-protein enthusiasts who spread the myth that low cholesterol is dangerous. Many people addicted to animal foods would embrace the belief that the earth is flat if they could use it to justify their consumption of fatty meats, butter, and cheese.—Joel Fuhrman, Eat to Live, 167

<idle musing>
Truth!
</idle musing>

Monday, April 24, 2023

A few links of interest

Read a few interesting things yesterday.

On the link between UTIs and meat (esp. poultry):
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/23/1171428486/uti-infection-prevent-treat

Enough to make you go whole-food, plant-based, right : )

This is indirectly related to the above, about the spread of H5N1. Sadly, they want to develop vaccines so they can continue to cage the poultry in inhumane conditions (not against vaccines, but wouldn’t fixing the root problem be more intelligent?):
https://www.businessinsider.com/bird-flu-avian-influenza-outbreak-us-h5n1-wiping-out-everything-2023-4

A Canadian looks at our CRT outrage and pegs it on a religious cause (my words): The (almost) worship of the constitution:
https://www.johnstackhouse.com/post/the-americanness-of-crt-outrage

Makes sense to me.

I’ve read before about the historical background of regional differences in the US (although I haven’t read the book). He tackles gun violence this time around:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/23/surprising-geography-of-gun-violence-00092413

When I moved from MN to IN 20 years ago (I lived in IN for nine years before returning to MN), after living there about 6 months I really noticed the difference between libertarians in MN and IN. In MN, they have a strong social conscience and will back the common good in laws, even though it seems to be against a libertarian leaning—after all, MN had a (wrestling hero) libertarian governor who didn’t try to repeal any of it. And there is a strong corporate conscience here in MN with corporations dedicating 5–10 percent of their profits to charitable causes.

And, finally, Chris Gehrz had ChatGPT do his devotional on the Road to Emmaus (and then discusses what LLM really does):
https://chrisgehrz.substack.com/p/sunday-devotions-on-the-emmaus-road

I wonder what it would do if you asked it if the couple on the road were husband and wife as has lately been bandied about? Probably hallucinate a few references : )

That’s it. Thanks for reading and have a great week!

Friday, March 20, 2020

Flatten the curve

Updated 3/22/20: I don't delete posts, no matter how wrong-headed they are. When I wrote this one, I was in a very negative state of mind. Before you read it, you should check out this one. I hope he is right and the following is wrong.

That's what they are saying now (and have been for about a week). It makes sense, but it also means that the lockdown will be more extended. But the best way to prepare is not by hoarding and stockpiling! The best way is by being calm and exuding the peace of God in your daily life.

And this is serious stuff, too. The death rate in China for those who got the virus was running about 2–3%. That's double to triple what the average flu causes. But, the death rate currently in Italy, which is more like the United States in diet and habits, is running between 7–8% for those who get the virus (NPR). Think about that for a minute. If, as some are predicting (Merkel, prime minister of Germany), 80% of the population gets the virus, then we are looking at a potential of 18 million deaths (327.2 million in the US times 80% times 7%). Do the math!

By practicing social distancing, we flatten the curve. Yes, that means longer shutdown. But, by extending the time it also gives researchers a chance to develop a vaccine or discover other methods of mitigating the death rate.

Of course, you could change your diet, too. Stop eating junk food! It lowers your resistance. Take a look at this. Eat more fruits and vegetables. That's evidence-based advice, not a fad diet to make a quick buck.

And that's not just an
<idle musing>

Thursday, September 19, 2019

Whom do you trust?

OK, aside from God. You thought this was going to be a devotional post, didn't you? Well, since all truth is God's truth, in a way it is. But, I'm thinking more specifically about medical research reporting. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of it seems contradictory. One week you should eat lots of this or that, the next week eating too much of this or that will kill you! Whom do you trust?

There's a website called NutritionFacts.org that is not funded by the big Pharma companies or by big medicine; instead it is funded through donations. Check it out! And lest you think the media intentionally mislead you (as some high-raking political figures would have you think), read this post from today. Seems the problem begins a lot closer to the source—the researchers themselves and the sources of their funding. But ultimately, it's also what gets published. This final paragraph of the cited article sums it up:

I think the biggest problem with the way the media reports on medicine, though, is the choice of which stories are covered. In 2003, for instance, SARS and bioterrorism killed less than a dozen people, yet generated over a hundred thousand media reports, which is far more than those covering the actual greatest threats to our lives and health. In fact, ironically, “the more commonplace the cause of death, the less likely it is to be covered by the mass media.” Our leading killer is heart disease, yet it can be prevented, treated, and even reversed with diet and lifestyle changes—now that’s what should be front page news.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

It's never too late!

This just showed up in my RSS feed this morning. Here's the first two paragraphs to whet your appetite:
A hundred years ago, the New York Times reported on a rather sophisticated study for the time: 4,600 cases of cancer appearing over a seven year period, suggesting that the increased consumption of animal foods was to blame. A century later, the latest review on the subjects concluded that mortality from all causes put together, ischemic heart disease, circulatory, and cerebrovascular diseases was significantly lower in those eating meat-free diets, in addition to less cancer and diabetes.

I’m surprised they found such significant results given that people in these studies typically didn’t stop eating meat until late in life. For example, in the largest study done up until recently, up to a third of subjects ate vegetarian for less than five years, yet they still ended up with lower rates of heart disease whether they were under 60 or over 60, normal weight or overweight, used to smoke or never smoked; those that had stopped eating meat had lower risk, suggesting that decades of higher risk dietary behavior could be reversed within just years of eating healthier.

Do read the whole thing—and consider adopting a whole foods, plant-based diet! It's never too late

Wednesday, August 03, 2016

Will I live longer if I only smoke 3 packs a day?

The HMOs talked about so-called preventive medicine, but is such a superficial way that the message had virtually no impact. Their dietary recommendations, by and large, boil down to “eat more veggies, drink fewer sodas, and choose leaner cuts of meat.” That’s like telling smokers to cut back from four packs a day to three—definitely a step in the right direction, but woefully inadequate. And because it was so superficial and inadequate, the “eat slightly better” message was universally ignored.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 251

Tuesday, August 02, 2016

ad fontes!

We talk endlessly about shifting payment responsibilities among different groups—private sectore or public sector, employer or employee—as if these programs are going to help control our country’s back-breaking health costs: about two and a half trillion dollars in 2009? Limiting these discussions and programs to matters of financing is too narrow. These political machinations, which are often fanned with much publicity and media coverage (or should I say hot air?), may please politicians and special interest groups from time to time, but they do little to address the main question of why we are so sick and why we are so unable to fix our sickness.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 251

Monday, August 01, 2016

Follow the money...

Can you imagine the health gains in the U.S. population if the half-trillion dollars in annal Big Pharma revenue were allocated to educating the public about WFPB [whole foods, plant-based] nutrition, and to making sure that fresh, organic, sustainably grown produce were available and affordable for all Americans? We can hardly imagine such an initiative; it seems utterly impossible within the current system. By why? Why, if the all-out promotion of WFPB would be such a positive thing, is it unthinkable that our society would coalesce around a nutritional Manhattan Project? Because we know that health research and programs reflect the priorities of for-profit industries, not science in the public interest. Such an initiative would pay dividends in heath, not dollars (although in the long run, the results would pay off in dollars saved on health care, too!).— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 226

Thursday, July 28, 2016

It's too easy

Choosing plant-based foods over animal-based foods reduces pain in so many ways. It alleviates our bodily pain. It minimizes the pain animals experience by reducing CAFO farming. It also reduces human suffering associated with global poverty and hunger. Given all that, it’s easy to see that investing in programs that promote, distribute, and encourage the growing of whole, plant-based foods in poor countries would be far more economical and effective than reductionist attempts to solve all these problems separately, as if they had nothing to do with one another.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 174

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

What about methane?

Robert Goodland, the longtime senior environmental advisor to the president of the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, his colleague at the World Bank Group, have determined that livestock rearing contributes at least 51 percent of total global warming.

The most famous greenhouse gas, the one that gets most of the attention from the media, activists, and policy makers, is CO2. But CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and is not in fact the one most sensitive to reduction efforts. Methane (CH4) offers a more promising lever with which to push back global warming. Molecule for molecule, methane is about twenty-five times more potent in trapping heat than carbon dioxide. But more important, methane, with an atmospheric half-life of seven years, disappears from the atmosphere far faster than carbon dioxide, which has a half-life of more than a century. So almost as soon as we eliminate sources of methane, its contribution to the greenhouse effect begins to wane significantly. By contrast, even after we stop releasing CO2, the gas that has already been released will contribute to global warming for decades.

When the amount of methane in the atmosphere is considered over ta twenty-year period, its global warming potential is said to be seventy-two times that of CO2. And methane is largely associated with industrial livestock production. This means that reducing meat consumption, the main driver of the livestock industry, may be the most rapid way to affect global warming. It turns out that our present programs, focused on carbon dioxide reduction, are mostly a lot of hot air—in more ways than one.

If this new assessment of the methane contribution is correct, the implications are momentous. I am puzzled as to why more people in the environmental community aren’t paying attention to this. Do they not want to challenge the livestock industry? Maybe we need bioengineers to figure out how to entrap and safely process cow farts. Failing this, maybe we should stop producing and eating the machines that do the farting.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, pages 168–69 (emphasis original)

Monday, July 25, 2016

It just isn't sustainable in the long run...

• Animal protein production requires eight times as much fossil fuel as plant protein. • The livestock population of the Unites States consumes five times as much grain (which is not even their natural diet) as the country’s entire human population. • Every kilogram of beef requires 100,000 liters of water to produce. By comparison, a kilogram of wheat requires just 900 liters, and a kilogram of potatoes just 500 liters. • A United Nations-sponsored workshop of about 200 experts concluded that 80 percent of deforestation in the tropics is attributable to the creation of new farmland, the majority of which is used for livestock grazing and feed.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 166

<idle musing>
And this is where theology intersects life. This lifestyle is just not sustainable. It is bad stewardship of the earth.

Dare I say it is sinful? Well, at least at the level we are doing it, I think I can say that...
</idle musing>

Friday, July 22, 2016

One-dimensional thinking

I know many environmentalists whose commitment is manifest and commendable, but stops at their lips. It’s understandable; many of our favorite “foods” (or, more properly, food-like items) are highly addictive. And our relationship with food is far more emotionally fraught than, say, our relationship with incandescent light bulbs or plastic shopping bags. But even these far-seeing and far-thinking activists are wearing reductionist blinders if they cannot see that their personal food choices matter at least as much as—and I would argue considerably more than—recycling and using energy-efficient light bulbs.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 165

<idle musing>
Indeed! What's the greatest source of methane (which is the largest cause of global warming)? Confined feeding operations (CAFOs)!

That's right. Every time you eat a hamburger or steak you are contributing to global warming. Probably more so than using a styrofoam box to wrap the leftovers in...

Whole foods, plant-based diet. Good for the health of the person and the planet!
</idle musing>

Thursday, July 21, 2016

The magic bullet that isn't

The danger of our increasing consumption of supplements is more than just the documented negative effects on our health. It’s that our love affair with the magic bullet of supplementation lets us believe we’re “of the hook” when it comes to eating right. Why eat your veggies when you can binge on hot dogs and ice cream and, if you get into trouble, make it all better with a pill?— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 162

<idle musing>
Indeed! I've heard people say it numerous times: "That's OK, I'll just take a calcium pill when I get home." Instead of eating veggies that are loaded with calcium.

Admit it. You're addicted to junk food! Now, take the 6 week challenge: Eat nothing but whole foods on a plant-based, animal-free diet for 6 weeks. I'll bet you feel better. And at the end of 6 weeks, when you try some of the stuff you used to eat, you'll be amazed at how bad it tastes. You will feel the oil coat your tongue and the sugar and salt will jump on your taste buds. You won't like it anymore...
</idle musing>

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

So where does it come from?

Population studies begun forty to fifty years ago show that when people migrate from one country to another, they acquire the cancer rate of the country to which they move, despite the fact their genes remain the same. This strongly indicates that at least 80 percent to 90 percent—and probably closer to 97 percent to 98 percent—of all cancers are related to diet and lifestyle, not to genes.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 129

<idle musing>
I remember when I was an undergrad at the University of Wisconsin; I was hitch-hiking to school and a couple of grad students picked me up who were working on this kind of stuff (way back in the 1970s); they were discussing the results of their work with each other. The one guy said to the other, "I'm convinced that cancer is man-made." That's stuck with me—obviously, if I can still remember it 40 years later!
</idle musing>

Monday, July 18, 2016

On manipulating genes

As a research discipline, modern-day genetics addresses the consequences of that small percentage of disease-producing genes that we acquire along the way. It operates from the assumption that one day we will be able to locate and identify damaged genes and use that information to more easily diagnose and treat disease. However, it largely fails to consider how to prevent genes from becoming damaged in the first place. And the field’s presumption that genetic engineering will be able to prevent disease from occurring by repairing or replacing specific genes that cause disease, is the height of hubris, given the unimaginable complexity of DNA.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 127

<idle musing>
Come, let us play God! So far, every time we've tried, it hasn't worked so well. But, hey, maybe this time, right? : (
</idle musing>

Friday, July 15, 2016

Any chance?

I am convinced that most people simply believe what they want to believe about cancer causation and prevention, according to which way the nature–nurture pendulum swings in their minds. In the absence of a reliable answer to the caner prevention question, they fall back on personal nature or nurture biases.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 121

and

Genes are the starting point for health and disease events; they are the “nature” part of the equation. But it is nutrition and other lifestyle factors, the “nurture” part, that control whether and how these genes are expressed. The influence of nurture (i.e., nutrition) has far more influence on health and disease outcome than nature (i.e., genes) .— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, pages 123–24

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Roll your own

I am convinced that most people simply believe what they want to believe about cancer causation and prevention, according to which way the nature–nurture pendulum swings in their minds. In the absence of a reliable answer to the caner prevention question, they fall back on personal nature or nurture biases.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 121

Sunday, April 17, 2016

I dare you to prove him wrong!

"No study has ever shown that a diet with a significant amount of animal product-based foods can reverse atherosclerosis—and no study ever will show that. Too much evidence demonstrates the opposite.

"Not even a case series of a small number of individuals on a Paleo, or animal protein-based, diet has ever shown a reversal of advanced heart disease. Even though hundreds of books are written, lots of big words are thrown around, and lots of claims are made to the contrary, it is all just hot air. These meat-based diets are the problem not the solution."—Joel Fuhrman, The End of Heart Disease, 188

Saturday, December 19, 2015

All I want for Christmas is to be divine...

What we really want from science is an end to randomness. We want to know why diseases strike some people and not others. We want to know how to protect ourselves against the scourges that have our name on them. We want, in short, to banish unpredictability.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 109

<idle musing>
No, what we want from science is the ability to become our own gods—but that's basically what he is saying here anyway, isn't it? An end to randomness; the ability to know; the ability to protect ourselves. Those are all basically divine attributes.
</idle musing>