Will it Soon Be Stay Healthy or Die?

The importance of attaining good health is growing in importance.  The reason is no longer just for improving the quality of life because soon just being allowed to stay alive may be the issue.  The combination of increasing health care costs and the increasing number of people over 65 years of age is going to bankrupt the Government's Healthcare Safety Net.  A recent post by Eric Sprott of Sprott Global Resource Investments explains how this will happen in the years immediately ahead.

If you are not healthy and the healthcare system and your relatives do not have the money to take care of you, the only alternative is to let you die a slow agonizing death or quickly pull the plug.  Below is the heart of Sprott's analysis relating to healthcare costs.  The link above and below goes to his entire article and I highly recommend it.  It applies not only to your physical health but your financial health as well.

The following is an excerpt from Ignoring The Obvious by: Eric Sprott & Etienne Bordeleau.

A significant part of these deficits is caused by current and future health care spending. The Deloitte Center for Health Solutions recently published a report entitled “The hidden costs of U.S. health care: Consumer discretionary health care spending”, in which they analyze the many components of health care spending and how those expenses are underreported in official numbers. Figure 4 shows their estimates for total health care spending by age group for 2010.

FIGURE 4: TOTAL HEALTH CARE COSTS BY AGE - 2010, $ BN Source: The hidden costs of U.S. health care: Consumer discretionary health care spending, Deloitte

FIGURE 5: U.S. POPULATION 65+ YEARS
Source: US Census Bureau 2012 National Population Projections

 Source: US Census Bureau 2012 National Population Projections
 
What is striking - but not that surprising - is the very large increase in health care costs faced by seniors. The report cites that “Seniors and Baby Boomers account for 64 percent of health care costs, but comprise only 40 percent of the U.S. population.” For seniors, total health care costs represent, on average, approximately $30,000 per person per year. Other estimates by Carnegie Mellon University professor Paul Fischbeck (although a bit dated) show that these annual costs increase dramatically as people age, reaching as much as $45,000 for 80+ year olds.⁴ Considering that GDP per capita was about $46,800 in 2010 and the income inequality mentioned earlier, these are figures that would put most households in dire straits.

Also, structural trends will lead to an ever greater share of the nation’s income being dedicated to health care. Figure 5 above shows the evolution of the U.S. population for the 65+ age group, as forecasted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The U.S. will end up with a steadily increasing segment of its population (from 13% in 2010 to 20% in 2030) composed of persons aged 65 and over. This matters for two important reasons. First, this means a smaller workforce contributing to GDP growth and paying taxes to support government programs. Second, and this is related to the first point, this trend will put tremendous pressure on social security and health care spending in the country, thus leading to structurally higher deficits.

These facts are by themselves troubling, but coupled with the population trends described in Figure 5, they become alarming. To illustrate the impact of overall population aging on total health care costs, we use the per capita numbers implied by the Deloitte study and apply them to the U.S. Census Bureau projections for all age groups. While we believe that those numbers fundamentally underrepresent health care inflation, we inflate per capita costs for each age group using the average “medical care” component of the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price Index. Finally we assume a 4% nominal GDP growth, which some might argue is overly optimistic when taking into account the smaller workforce we discussed earlier. In any case, Figure 6 shows the results of our simulation.

Only with the change in the composition of the U.S. population, total health care costs are forecasted to go from 22% of GDP in 2010 to over 30% in 2040. These are huge numbers! To put them in perspective, in 2011 total U.S. GDP was $14,500 Billion, so an increase from 22% to 30% of GDP would represent a $1.2 Trillion increase in health care spending in that year. If we increase the health care inflation rate by only 100bps, we calculate that by 2040, the share of GDP attributed to health care will jump to 40%.

FIGURE 6: HEALTH CARE SPENDING AS A % OF GDP
 
Source: US Census Bureau 2012 National Population Projections,U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics & The hidden costs of U.S. health care: Consumer discretionary health care spending, Deloitte

According to the Deloitte study, about 60% of those costs are borne directly by households and the remaining 40% by the public sector (30% to Medicare and Medicaid). This means that households, of which the majority is either poor or in the declining middle class, will face an even larger squeeze in their discretionary spending.


From Ignoring The Obvious by: Eric Sprott & Etienne Bordeleau.

JAMA Report Debunks Value of Omega-3

Yesterday, September 12, 2012, The Journal of the American Medical Association, with great fanfare, published a highly flawed report that got immediate national press coverage!  The media’s interpretation of this report was similar to an ABC news report by Dianne Sawyer where she said “omega 3 fatty acids could not prevent heart disease as once thought.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In March 2012 I wrote an essay titled The Omega-3 Scam.  It outlined how flawed reports discredit Omega-3 science and why those reports are flawed.  My essay nailed the flaws in this recent JAMA report dead center long before it was published.  Yet it was still published!!!

Unfortunately, the public and the medical profession will only recognize the sensational negative aspects of the report and ignore the responses from the real, professional and responsible scientific community.  This means doctors will stupidly continue to recommend their many drugs and operations that do nothing to cure people while ignoring the real solutions to the epidemic of health issues that plague all Americans.  This is literally a national tragedy.

I refuse to be taken in by the charlatans and hopefully you won’t taken in by them either.  So get the facts and don’t let pied pipers lead you astray with obfuscation.

To read some actual scientific responses to the flawed JAMA report please go to The Omega-3 Scam.  There, on the side panel, you will find a link to the JAMA report and below it a download link to a pdf document with responses from real scientists in the nutritional field of fatty acid research.  Don’t get scammed.  Get the facts.  The Omega-3 Scam

Why Organic Food May Not Be Healthier For You

Amazingly, and in spite of an outpouring of protests from its audience, National Public Radio has reported the results of a major Stanford University study that debunks Organic Myths.  A link to the actual study reveals this important note . . . . Primary Funding Source: None.

I’ve been pounding the table for years about the organic myth.  For one instance, how can organic corn be better than conventionally grown corn?

I encourage you to read the NPR report.  It is a good story, yet it still does not mention that the greatest toxic threats in our foods come from 100% natural organic sources.

If that statement seems nutty to you, then look at the answer to the second question listed in my FAQs.

Far and away ones health is impacted more by the actual chemistry of the foods he eats than any other substance man made or natural.  To learn more about the chemistry of food, go to my Food Analysis Website.

BEEF Magazine: “Perfect Human Diet Is Recipe For Good Health”

I’ll quote the author, Amanda Radke, a South Dakota rancher and Editor of BEEF Daily.  “When I cut grains from my diet, I discovered the concept of eating like a caveman and was amazed how quickly the weight came off and how easily I was able to manage my health.”

Here’s the link to the article in BEEF Magazine.

Of major note is that the article pointed out grain is not a normal food for man, but totally ignored the fact grain is not a normal food for dogs, cats, fish, or CATTLE.  In actual fact the list of critters whose chemistry evolved on this planet to eat seeds is next to zero.  The reason is the foundation food for all animal life is the green leaf.  It All Began in the Sea . . .

Amazingly, but maybe not so amazingly, the article in BEEF ignored the fact that grain-fed animals have nutritional deficiencies that are passed on to whomever eats them.   It ignored the fact that grass-fed animals even exist.  It gave the fledgling grass-fed beef industry the cold shoulder illustrating the veracity of the article’s own reference to a Barry Sears observation:   . . . there are three “visceral” things in life – religion, politics and nutrition. “They’re all based on belief systems and none like to be challenged.”

Consequently, this article is another prime example of how people can, with jaws clenched, resist change as they gloss over scientific facts to their own detriment.  Here are three examples of that practice.  A) There is a measurable financial benefit for ranchers who change from raising 750-pound commodity calves that are finished in feedlots to raising those same calves to 1,100 pounds on their own pastures.  B) If only raising grass-fed livestock were the accepted management practice, ranchers and their customers would experience a tremendous improvement in their health.  C) A healthy populace would greatly benefit the nation financially, emotionally, and in terms of productivity.

Instead, the beat goes on.

How to Cook a Frog

You’ve heard the old story about cooking a live frog.  Just put him in a pot of lukewarm water and turn on the heat.  The frog will sit there as the water gets warmer, then hotter, until it’s boiling and he’s cooked.

Well, frogs are not that dumb.  They will jump out of a pot of water as it warms up.  At least they will make every effort to jump out and the hotter the water the more frantic they’ll become.  They will not sit still and be boiled alive.  But what about people?

On this topic dailyreckoning.com had an interesting article where Doug Casey talked about “Getting Out of Dodge.”  Doug’s alarmist’s-view-answer is in reference to politics, money, and hiding out.  But that’s not my point in this essay.  I want to explore complacency generally, the dangers of not thinking things through, and the ability for independent thinking about food and health.  So bear with me as I try to make my point by first quoting from the link. 

L: Doug, a lot of readers have been asking for guidance on how to know when it’s time to exit center stage and hunker down in some safe place.  Few people want to hide from the world in a cabin in the woods while life goes on in the mainstream, but nobody wants to get caught once the gates clang shut on the police state the US is becoming.  How do you know when it’s time to go?

Doug: Well, the first thing to keep in mind is that it’s better to be a year too early than a minute too late. David Galland recently read “They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45,” by Milton Mayer.  He quoted a passage in his column of last Friday.  It goes a long way in explaining why Americans appear to be such whipped dogs today.  They’re no different from the Germans of recent memory. For those who missed it, let me quote it:

“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move.  Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse.  You wait for the next and the next.  You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow.  You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ … In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say?  They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

“These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end?  On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you.  On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic… the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes.  That’s the difficulty.  If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked…  But of course this isn’t the way it happens.  In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next.  Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C?”

Let’s Not be Shocked

Any conversation that digs too deeply into religion, politics, money, food, social issues, chemistry, history, how to raise a child, and such is almost taboo these days.  People do not mind superficial comments regarding these topics, but if the conversation deals with the fundamentals and progresses to exposing generally accepted thought as being ridiculous or dangerous, that’s different.  Then they’re fighting words for sure.

Naturally, I’m not in any mood to pick a fight nor do I want to start a dialog unless it’s on my blog.  I just want to make a couple of points and allow you to decide if they are relevant.  First a little about today’s politics – always a topic fraught with danger and emotion.  Why is it that Ron Paul is marginalized by both FOX and PBS and all points of light in between?

There’s an interesting comment I read recently about Bill Gross, manager of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund.  It said his thinking is slowly leading him to become a gold bug.  It’s based on current events taking place today where the world’s central banks are addressing growing illiquidity with more debt – which may seem to alleviate the illiquidity for the moment but instead makes the entire financial system more illiquid overall.  For him, this thinking is actually nothing new.  What is new, and absolutely stunning, is Gross’ endorsement for president: “I’m a little Ron Paulish.”  It was a comment he made on February 1, 2012.

Amazingly, the manager of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund, thinks change is called for.  Keep in mind his fund is invested in bonds that are denominated in paper money.  If the paper money goes poof, he has nothing to manage no matter how prudent he has been.  That’s why Gross sees all other candidates, as well as the current president, as being just more of the same.  Bush/Obama, what difference is there?

If you doubt the validity of my Bush/Obama question look at these three links.

M2 Money Stock
Federal Government Debt
Total Credit Market Debt Owed

While you are looking at these charts please take special note of the Reagan era that lasted from 1981 to 1989.  Tell me, from these charts can you tell which party controlled Congress and their man was President?  Need I mention the numerous wars on foreign soil during the past 60 years and which party initiated or continued to pursue those wars to claim “victory”?

The public and private debts in our country and its money supply have soared onwards and upwards under both recent administrations and all the other modern administrations before theirs.  The central bank (Federal Reserve) has created trillions of dollars out of thin air (most of it since 1995) and neither party has a record for slowing down this monster following the Fed’s creation in 1914.  All candidates say they represent change, but in rhetoric only.  Only one represents change and the establishment is scared to death of him and apparently wants to keep people in the dark as to what he is all about.

How Does This Apply to Food?

People generally are entrenched in the status quo.  They have habits that are part of their cultural makeups.  They do not want to change their habits.  They love their food and make daily decisions with their dollars voting for the foods they want.  Then they blame the results of their actions (sickness and reliance for survival on drugs and operations) on the people (farmers, food processors, restaurants, school lunch programs, and grocery stores) who provide them with what they demand to have.

If these people get sick (they all do in time unless they die early), they think that having a chronic disease is the norm.  Therefore they brag about their ailments like badges of honor.  Many older people speak of their diseases as signs of maturity and proof they have joined the ranks of elder statesmen.  These people are sick beyond measure in more ways then one – but they are the norm not the exception.  To test that statement, just try to tell them that they can probably reverse their chronic diseases by following The Real Diet of Man.  They’ll get mad at you for saying that every time.

The exceptions to the norm are the few people who stand apart from the mob and take measures into their own hands.  They do not spend money on foods that are not part of The Real Diet of Man.  They seek long-term health by strictly monitoring which foods they put in their bodies.  They do not want to go to a doctor for any reason.  In fact, to them, going to a doctor (other than for injuries, bacterial infections, and contagious diseases) represents failure on their part to care for themselves and their loved ones.

Yes, these outliers to the norm recognize the tiny steps toward sickness all others are taking as examples of insanity.  They understand the consequences.  They have informed themselves of the solutions and have initiated the proper steps to take to avoid obvious health problems that plague so many other people.  These outliers have the ability to think independently of the mob.  They are exhibiting wisdom.  Obviously, our customers are the dietary outliers which is why I know I’m singing to the choir here.  So I thank you one and all for being so brave.

Dash Diet

Dash Diet Review

Well, it’s official so it must be true.  On January 4, 2012 the Los Angeles Times reported that:

The DASH diet took the No. 1 spot in best overall diet in the U.S. News and World Report's Best Diets 2012, which also rates other popular diets in various categories.

That diet plan also took top ranking as the best diet for healthy eating and the best diabetes diet (tied with the Biggest Loser diet).  The DASH diet (it stands for Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) may also help lower cholesterol, as it’s big on whole grains, fruits, vegetables and lean proteins -- not a bad program for a number of people.

Of course it wasn’t just the LA Times reporting this.  Most of the nation’s media outlets heralded the news as ground breaking and oh, so good.

What makes the Dash Diet so special?  Well the Mayo Clinic loves it and here’s an abbreviated version of it’s take on the Dash Diet.  

Dash Diet Servings for a 2,000 Calorie Daily Diet

Grains and grain products 7 to 8 servings per day (include at least 3 whole grain foods each day).  Grains include bread, cereal, rice, and pasta.  Examples of one serving of grains include 1 slice whole-wheat bread, 1 ounce (oz.) dry cereal, or ½ cup cooked cereal, rice or pasta.
    
Fruits 4 to 5 servings per day.  Many fruits need little preparation to become a healthy part of a meal or snack.  Like vegetables, they're packed with fiber, potassium and magnesium and are typically low in fat — exceptions include avocados and coconuts.  Examples of one serving include 1 medium fruit or ½ cup fresh, frozen, or canned fruit.

Vegetables 4 to 5 servings per day.  Tomatoes, carrots, broccoli, sweet potatoes, greens, and other vegetables are full of fiber, vitamins, and such minerals as potassium and magnesium.  Examples of one serving include 1 cup raw leafy green vegetables or ½ cup cut-up raw or cooked vegetables.

Low fat or non fat dairy foods 2 to 3 servings per day.  Milk, yogurt, cheese and other dairy products are major sources of calcium, vitamin D and protein.  But the key is to make sure that you choose dairy products that are low-fat or fat-free because otherwise they can be a major source of fat.  Examples of one serving include 1 cup skim or 1% milk, 1 cup yogurt or 1 ½ oz. cheese.

Lean meats, fish, poultry 2 or less servings per day.  Meat can be a rich source of protein, B vitamins, iron and zinc.  But because even lean varieties contain fat and cholesterol, don't make them a mainstay of your diet — cut back typical meat portions by one-third or one-half and pile on the vegetables instead.  Examples of one serving include 1 oz. cooked skinless poultry, seafood or lean meat, 1 egg, or 1 oz. water-packed, no-salt-added canned tuna.  Eat heart-healthy fish, such as salmon, herring and tuna. These types of fish are high in omega-3 fatty acids, which can help lower your total cholesterol.

Nuts, seeds, and legumes 4 to 5 servings per week.  Almonds, sunflower seeds, kidney beans, peas, lentils and other foods in this family are good.  Serving sizes are small and are intended to be consumed weekly.  Examples of one serving include 1/3 cup (1 ½ oz.) nuts, 2 tablespoons seeds or ½ cup cooked beans or peas.  Nuts sometimes get a bad rap because of their fat content, but they contain healthy types of fat — monounsaturated fat and omega-3 fatty acids.  They're high in calories, however, so eat them in moderation.

Fats and sweets 2 to 3 servings per day.  Too much fat increases your risk of heart disease, diabetes and obesity.  The DASH diet strives for a healthy balance by providing 30 percent or less of daily calories from fat, with a focus on the healthier unsaturated fats.  Examples of one serving include 1 teaspoon soft margarine, 1 tablespoon low-fat mayonnaise, or 2 tablespoons light salad dressing.  Go easy on sweets.  Examples of one serving include 1 tablespoon sugar, jelly, or jam, ½ cup sorbet, or 1 cup (8 oz.) lemonade.

The Dash Diet is the same as the USDA recommended diets for whatever.  It’s the same as nearly every diet published in every Sunday Supplement, the Reader’s Digest, AARP Magazine, and all other claptrap publications that specialize in feel good dietary verbiage to sell advertising.  It’s the same diet medical professionals talk about while they go about prescribing drugs and operations because they know their dietary recommendations will not heal their patients.  It’s the same diet that is already killing a couple million Americans each year.  It’s the same diet that is slowly destroying the health of about 300,000,000 additional Americans.  It is the same diet that is bankrupting the nation with soaring health care costs.

The Dash Diet’s emphasis is on low fat (because it makes you fat), high omega-6 foods, and high glycemic foods.  Therefore in no way can the Dash Diet balance the essential fatty acids (omega-6 to omega-3 balance of one to one).  It does not recognize that grass-fed meats even exist.  It considers a daily ration of meat (even it is all fish) to be two ounces or less while a daily ration of grains should be greater than four times as much!  It does not recognize the damage even small doses of high glycemic foods have on animal body function.

The Dash Diet is the same diet (under a different name) my mother followed religiously commencing over 40 years ago.  With her diet she continued to suffer with one chronic disease after another while being under the constant care of multiple doctors who treated her with drugs and operations.  Finally she died with multiple health problems including an acute case of Alzheimer's disease.

Who is it that expects a different outcome when doing the same thing?  You already know.  It’s nearly everyone around you.  It takes considerable internal fortitude to step back from the common knowledge of the masses and march to the beat of a different drummer.  For those who are new to The Real Diet of Man, please check it out.  Then you will better understand this commentary and why I am so appalled by the media’s enthusiasm for the dangerous Dash Diet.

Do some study and learn why, for optimizing my health, I want fat, especially animal fats, and why I want lots of grass-fed meats including fish in my daily diet.  Then second in line I want good vegetables (not all of them are alike).  Following that is fruit sparingly, nuts rarely.  Milk is totally unnecessary.  All high glycemic foods should be avoided totally.  For more about which foods are fit to eat, check out Food Analysis:  GI, GL, Fat Ratio, and Inflammation.

Let's Hear About Your Experiences

Many folks just can't swing the change to The Real Diet of Man.  The reason is mostly due to the fact that they don't have a support system.  Their friends don't get it.  Even one or all of their family members don't get it.  And for sure their doctor doesn't get it nor the chefs at their favorite restaurants.  Some of these people are suffering big time with ailments that can be cured by eating exclusively the foods from The Real Diet of Man.

I'm going to invite readers of the newsletter to the blog to see if any of them want to ask questions that can be answered by members of the blog.  Maybe by discussing our experiences with others we can help them and in the process help ourselves too.  What do you say?

Is Consumer Reports "onHealth" a Danger to Health?

I received an advertising flyer from Consumer Reports the other day.  It was promoting their “Expert * Independent * Nonprofit” newsletter onHealth.  On the front cover of the colorful flyer in lower right hand corner was a box with a nice picture of a flask of oil.  Here’s what it said:

Olive Oil is the best choice for a healthy heart, right?  Then in bold print: WRONG.  Then, I kid you not, it continued with this “analysis.”  Olive oil is fine if you like the taste, but it’s not the best oil for your health.  That’s because olive oil is low in omega-6.  Better-for-you fats, that are rich in omega-6's include canola, corn, soybean and sunflower oil.

I’m not joking!  My most recent posts on this blog emphasized how important the one to one balance of omega-6s to omega-3s is in the membranes of all cells for optimal body function.  I have explained that whenever knowledgeable nutritional scientists refer to the omega-3 deficiency, they do so based on its ratio to the omega-6s.  Most Americans have horrible ratios, somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 to one omega-6s to omega-3s.  That’s because we have a grain-base food system and grains are deficient in omega-3.  Now here comes Consumer Reports telling all Americans, in effect, they need more Omega-6s!

Here’s a table of popular oils.
                                                 1 Oz. Serv.    1 Oz. Serv.        1 Oz. Serv.
                                                  Omega-6      Omega-3      Mg of Omega-3
Oils                                               Mg                 Mg              Surplus/Deficit
Canola Oil                                 5,221.0          2,559.0              -2,662.0
Coconut Oil                                  504.0                  0.0                  -504.0
Corn Oil                                   14,983.0             325.0             -14,658.0
Fish oil (cod liver)                        262.0          5,526.0              +5,264.0
Fish oil (herring)                          322.0           3,321.0              +2,999.0
Fish oil (sardine)                         564.0           6,746.0              +6,182.0
Fish oil (salmon)                          432.0           9,887.0             +9,455.0
Olive Oil                                     2,734.0              213.0              -2,521.0
Palm Oil                                     2,548.0                56.0              -2,492.0
Peanut Oil                                  8,961.0                  0.0              -8,961.0
Soybean Oil                             14,118.0          1,901.0            -12,217.0
Sunflower, high oleic (70%+)   1,010.0                53.8                 -956.2
Sunflower, linoleic (65%)        18,397.0                  0.0           -18,397.0
Walnut Oil                                 14,810.0          2,912.0            -11,898.0

One of the goals for optimizing health is to achieve a one-to-one balance by weight of the essential fatty acids (EFAs which are primarily the omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids) in our diet.  If our diet is properly balanced the membranes of the cells in our bodies will end up with the same balance.  But how can we do that with canola, corn, soybean, and sunflower oils?  It’s impossible.  That’s especially true since our bodies take in EFAs in a way that magnifies any imbalance.  In other words, if the diet is balanced eight to one, the cells will end up maybe 12 to one.

Consumer Reports did not differentiate between the “high oleic” Sunflower oil and the “linoleic” oil.  There is a huge difference.  From their recommendation I assume they prefer the “linoleic” oil because it is so incredibly high in Omega-6.  So, if you only consume one ounce per day of just one of their recommended oils, here is the milligrams of Omega-6 in excess of Omega-3 that you would consume.

Oil                                                   Milligrams
Canola Oil                                         2,662.0
Corn Oil                                           14,658.0
Soybean Oil                                    12,217.0
Sunflower, linoleic (65%)               18,397.0

None of the fundamental foods in the daily diet of man can provide enough milligrams of omega-3s to offset 18,397 mg of omega-6 per day.  Maybe if one ate nothing but seafood for every meal they could balance out the 2,662 mg of omega-6s.  But how many people are willing to do that?

What is most often missed by the mainstream, or should I say what is always missed by the mainstream, is that the EFAs must have a certain balance in order for bodies to function properly.  An imbalance is associated with nearly, if not every, chronic disease.  Unfortunately Consumer Report’s onHealth is serving up the same old improper message that has already brainwashed the masses and our job of communicating the truth becomes ever more difficult.  But that’s human nature.  The mob is slow to change, especially when it comes to our food.

The foods we eat and how they are prepared is at the heart of our culture.  That’s why suggesting change, even it’s to save lives, is so difficult.  Only individuals with strong wills can step away from the crowd and change to the Real Diet of Man.  When they do, their EFAs will come into perfect balance.  Their weight will plunge if they are overweight.  They will subdue and even cure their many chronic diseases which today have become so commonplace folks refer to them as epidemics rather than just incidences.  The acceptance of getting sick is so ingrained now people actually believe that getting sick is a natural occurrence of aging.

Oh, you ask, “Which oils are best?”  Well, it’s in the balance.  And for that one must think in terms of the daily diet.  Overall, everyday one’s intake of omega-6s and omega-3s must be in balance by weight.  So that means one must eat foods that are balanced because the alternative is to supplement.  When someone supplements with oils high in omega-3s to offset foods high in omega-6s, then the total fat content of the daily diet soars.  I do not believe this is a good thing to do.  That means one’s diet becomes a very high fat diet, way above what is normal.

The Real Diet of Man includes mostly foods that are relatively low in EFAs.  Take spinach for example.  In one ounce there is 7.3 mg of omega-6s and 38.6 mg of omega-3s.  Total EFAs weigh 45.6 mg.  If one eats two pounds of spinach per day they consume 1,459.2 mg of fat.  Compared to fat in oils, the fat content of spinach is incredibly low.  So you can see that none of the fundamental foods found in nature can offset a manmade oil.

Now we come back to olive oil, a relatively low fat oil.  Unfortunately it too is heavily weighted with omega-6s similar to canola oil making it an oil to avoid.

Return of the Skeptic

Ted:   Who the hell is Artemus?  No argument that we need it for good health.  There is general agreement in medical and scientific circles.

Dear Skeptic:

She just happens to be the world's leading authority of Omega-3 fatty acids.  She did much of the foundation work and most researchers are either in awe of her work or are so far back behind her that they still don't understand what it's all about.  She is recognized the world over.

You can find all kinds of so-called "experts" who are writing reports about Omega-3 fatty acids.  But all too often they are dancing on the hot stove top like a drop of water without the fundamentals.  The basic fundamental is that the measure for the Omega-3 deficiency is not in terms of absolute quantity in a body, but it's relative balance to the other equally important essential fatty acid family that's in the body which is the Omega-6 fatty acid.  Therefore, unless scientific reports work with the balance, they are not getting to the core of the problem or the solution.  Most reports do not discuss the balance!!!!  I've even spoken to the authors of some of those reports and they just plain don't have the basic understanding.  Why?  Because that is the way humans are.  Some are leaders and most are followers in the dark.

The fundamentals go back to the origin of life.  All oceanography books start with the birth of oceans which lead to the origin of life.  The first sustainable life form was a green one-celled plant.  Then animals evolved that ate the plants and other animals.  And so on.  Not even one animal on earth is sustainable as they are all totally dependent on the green plant at the bottom of their food chain.  The first animals did not have to make Omega-6 and Omega-3 fatty acids because they were always in the green leaf and nearly all animal bodies have followed in that form since.  Consequently, unless our food can be traced to the chemical composition of the green leaf, animal bodies are in trouble.  This is why eating the grain you love is damaging to your health.  Also the same with nuts.  Yes, both have some Omega-3s in them, but their balances are horrible and as a food they lead to body failure rather than better health.

Who is she?  That's like saying "Who the hell is George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or John Adams?"  In comparison to how those men rank in U.S. history, that's how she ranks in global nutritional circles.  I have telephonic relationships with numerous scientists and researchers and they look up to her like some kind of Goddess.  Here's more:

Background from http://www.reachmd.com/

Dr. Artemis P. Simopoulos is the founder and president of the Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, a nonprofit educational organization in Washington, DC, since 1990. Dr. Simopoulos was a founding member of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids (ISSFAL) in 1991, secretary/treasurer of ISSFAL from 1991 to 1998, and a member of the editorial board of the ISSFAL newsletter from 1994 to 2000. She is the founder and president of the International Society of Nutrigenetics/ Nutrigenomics (ISNN) and founder and chair of the World Council on Nutrition, Fitness and Health (WCNFH) since 2005.

A graduate of Barnard College in New York, with a major in chemistry, and a graduate of the Boston University School of Medicine, she is a physician and endocrinologist whose research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was on the nutritional aspects of genetic and endocrine disorders, evolutionary aspects of diet and fatty acids, and the importance of a balanced ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids in health and disease and in growth and development. She is the author of The Omega Diet (HarperCollins, 1999) and has edited numerous books and journal supplements, in addition to publishing over 300 scientific papers. She has been the editor of the Karger series World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics since 1989. She is the founder and president of the International Society on Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics (www.isnn.info).



http://www.isnn.info/

A Letter from a Skeptic

Ted, on further research, a minuscule amount of omega 3 fatty acids are present in beef brain tissue.  The top of the list is flax seed (a grain) followed by nuts and seafood - fish - mollusks.  Wild caught salmon is very high with about one fifth of the amount in flax seed.  The studies I have read use a 200 calorie standard as the base.

You are correct, of course, that Wikipedia is a very shallow source of information.  It does rank head and shoulders better than uninformed opinion however.


Dear Skeptic:

I started off learning about nutrition by reading scientific papers.  Even so, it took me a while to grasp what the scientists were saying because the words were foreign to me.

To understand my response one needs the following information provided by this link for Omega-3 data in foods.

Food Analysis:  GI, GL, Fat Ratio, and Inflammation.

The data on food in that link are basically derived from the government's data bases that it has collected over the years.  For another view look at Nutritiondata.com.  You will note that on their Web site the essential fatty acid (EFA) ratio is provided down in the lower left hand corner of the data.  You'll note that in the nutrition trade, EFAs are not measured in terms of calories, but in terms of relative weight.  For instance, in milligrams per ounce or per gram.

Unfortunately Nutrition Data's data is wrong on grass-fed meats.  How do I know, because there are hundreds of independent studies from universities and private labs that have been done plus I have paid for some reports myself and have even tested my body's own ratio!  Grass-fed meats range between 0.8 : 1 up to 2 : 1.  Unfortunately, there is some confusion surrounding what is actually grass-fed.  And in some early meat studies the food researchers didn't know the real difference.  The concept of raising cattle without any grain whatsoever seemed so foreign to some that they thought a critter raised on grass with grain supplementation is the same as grass only.  No, it's not.  But that's another long story.

When analyzing EFA balances don't look only at the absolute amounts of the EFAs.  The key is the balance between the EFAs by weight in ALL of the foods ingested during a day.  It only takes one way-out-of-balance food (i.e. some walnuts) to throw off the entire day's balance derived from properly balanced foods.  And then each day is a new day.  Note that the foods of man prior to the invention of grain farming and other agricultural pursuits are mostly balanced evenly.  That means every meal is balanced and the milligrams (mg) of Omega-6 fatty acids will be the same as the mg of omega-3 fatty acids consumed by the body.  When animals eat those foods their EFA balances will also be evenly balanced.  Then their immune systems operate optimally.  When the balance deteriorates to more than 4:1 omega-6 to omega-3 that is called the omega-3 deficiency and the occurrences of chronic diseases are measurable in laboratory mice.  Most Americans are up around 20:1.  That's why they are over weight, dependent of drugs and operations, and health care costs are so high.  It also explains why being "over weight" is now considered a chronic disease rather than merely a condition of eating more than the body can use.  I eat a lot and I weigh 150 pounds.

Think of the balance of EFAs to the body as similar to the balance between gas and air to an engine.  They don't have to be out of balance by much before the engine runs rough or even stops running.  EFAs are a small component of a body's entire chemical mass.  But the balance of the tiny EFA component impacts brain and body function immensely because the EFAs become permanent components of the membranes of all cells.  When the balance is wrong, the cells can misfire in their function over time.  Think cancer for one.  Studies substantiate that claim and they date way back!

The mob misinterprets the works of the scientific community about Omega-3 fatty acids.  Some of the foundation work is by Artemis Simopoulos, M.D.  She is a world authority on essential fatty acids and was nutritional adviser to the Office of Consumer Affairs at the White House.  She is the former editor in chief of World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics.  That's a scientific publication.  Her work is legendary in the scientific community.

Here is one of her peer-reviewed reports that explains the importance of balance.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/560S.pdf

I can send sources and more sources of the scientific works.  The science is well documented and has been on the same track since the late 1970s.  And if you look around, you'll see that there are literally thousands upon thousands of health studies that incorporate omega-3 fatty acids and indicate improvements in health because more omega-3 fatty acids are included in the diet.  But once again, it's the EFA ratio that counts which incorporates the omega-6 fatty acids, not just dumping in some Omega-3.

Not only have I experienced significant improvements in my health by eating like a caveman, but so have my customers -- at least the ones who follow the Real Diet of Man.  Anyone who has eaten that way for 12 months or more has a ratio that is better than 4 : 1.

Ted Slanker

P.S.  Flax seed is technically not a grain, but since it is a seed it is very similar.  By some design, nature saw to it that it was an anomaly when it comes to Omega-3 fatty acids.  Unlike all other grains, it is high in Omega-3 and low in Omega-6.  That does not mean other grains are good though.  So the point made is meaningless.  In the same light, nuts are a horrible source for omega-3 fatty acids because they are a much larger source for Omega-6 fatty acids.  It’s all in the balance.

Life getting shorter for women in hundreds of U.S. counties

Here's a map that depicts the changes in life expectancy for women in the United States by county produced by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

Source:Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington

To actually click on an interactive map and find your county's statistics for both men and women check out this link: Life expectancy by county, sex, and race (US), 1987-2007

The data has been prepared by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.  If you are interested in more details regarding their study take a look at the links below.  There are two pages that really focus in on this particular issue.  Their titles are their links.

Falling behind: life expectancy in US counties from 2000 to 2007 in an international context

Life expectancy in most US counties falls behind world’s healthiest nations

There is no question that America's grain-based food system is starting to catch up and overwhelm the benefits of the medical establishment.  In addition, the widespread use of prescription drugs and prescribed operations is also reaching a limit of sorts.  For more on that check out The Hazards of Modern Medicine.

As a result of poor diet and a disconnect medical establishment, the longevity of many Americans is starting to go downhill instead of uphill.  There is one simple solution.  It is The Real Diet of Man.  It works for everyone.  No, it will not allow you live forever.  But it will improve your health, improve your immune system, and add many top quality years to your life.  Click on this link to learn more about Natural Cures.  It has actual stories of real people who experienced significant improvements in their health by changing their diet to real food -- and lots of it.

The message about what is and is not food is one of the most important messages we can get out today.  Are you doing your part?