High Protein Diets Cause Cancer, Study Says

A reader asked what I thought of a recent report which hit all the major news networks.  The title of the report is:

Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Click here to get your copy.

My first thought was:  "What were the animal proteins these people were eating?  Grain-fed or grass-fed?  They are not the same."

Since the report was pretty heady stuff, I searched around and found this interesting comment.

Briefly:
A 24 hour dietary recall was used to classify subjects and then they were followed for 18 years. Is it possible their diets changed over that time?
 
Next, the work in humans was correlative and observational. It was not an intervention or controlled study. All we can conclude is there is a relationship. 

Most importantly is the authors statistical analysis of the data and their interpretation. If we look at the raw data we see that the rate of cancer across the low, medium, and high protein groups was actually 9.8, 10.1, and 9.0%, respectively. There is no difference. However, the authors did some funky math to come up with this huge difference.

In mice, there was no difference in the rate of cancer growth between the vegan protein (soy) and the animal protein (casein); however, the authors claim there was a "non-significant trend" but they do not report the probability value. If we look at the graph, it is barely discernible and does not exceed the standard deviation.

Why then might the researchers make their conclusions off this lack of evidence? Its quite simple, the senior researcher, V. D. Luongo is the founder and has equity in L-Nutra, a Vegan Based Nutrition System. Luongo designed the study, obtained funding, and played a major role in the writing of the manuscript. This is a serious conflict of interest, and we should hold the publisher of the study, Cellular Metabolism, and their peer reviewers responsible for not identifying these issues. If you want to read more about it you can here at my objective critical analysis.



I strongly suggest that you read the man's more in-depth analysis to understand how "reports" must be evaluated.  In addition, I also recommend this book.

Ted Slanker

Blood and Bone Fertilizer

Hello, I've been shopping at Slanker Farms for about a year now and I couldn't be more impressed with your selection and service, it means a lot to me as I am focusing on real food nutrition to heal a lot of complicated health ailments. 

Since you have the best selection of grass fed products I have come across, I am wondering if you also offer products for gardening and agriculture in addition to diet?  I am looking for some high quality grass fed (if I can find it...) bone meal and blood meal for amending the nutrient profile of my gardening soil.  I have ordered many of your bones before and am fairly certain I cannot process them into a powder, so I was wondering if you have the resources to provide this product?  If not, do you have any suggestions for processing chicken or beef bones into a powder or resources where I might be able to acquire these meals/powders?  Thanks!

No, we do not have those products.  In actual fact, any source for blood and bones will work.  Our blood and bones are no better than any other bones or blood you could obtain for feeding plants.  For feeding yourself though, that is an entirely different matter because animals do not absorb their nutrients like plants absorb their nutrients.  Plants are sustainable life forms and animals are dependent on sustainable life forms.

Plants take up nutrients in ionic form.  Because of the way plants take up nutrients they do not "know" or "need to know" what their nutrient source is.  To survive optimally plants only require the chemicals (various atoms) in their environment to be in a favorable balance.  This is why ALL forms of "fertilizer" can work for plants when applied properly.  Only misinformed people get into a twist about “types” of plant food rather than the actual chemistry (atoms) they are applying when feeding their plants.  Sometimes, in their desire to be what they believe is "natural," some folks are starving the plants they are trying to help.

To avoid this problem ranchers and farmers take a lot of soil tests before they make applications.  They want to address their soil deficiencies EXACTLY in order to optimize production.  The level of sophistication in fertilization technology today would blow the mind of the average citizen.  That's because what many people do with the best of intentions is really backward compared to what should be done.  They just do not understand soil chemistry or plant biochemistry.

Feeding your body is not the same as feeding your plants.  We are not planted in the soil taking in our nutrients one ion at a time and getting our energy from the sun.  But that's what plants are doing.  Therefore the question is; "Will applying blood and bones restore the proper balance of atoms that are deficient in the soil I am trying to enhance?"

Change Won't Come Easy

Lot's of folks are making resolutions this time of year.  All of them require change.  It's the rare individual who actually follows through on those changes and usually it's because they've structured in "outs."  Making a resolution with an easy exit ramp is actually exciting because it sets a new course that one really doesn't have to follow for this reason or that.  In other words, the resolution is a short-term feel good deviation that's made to fail.

Recently I had a real world letter come it with the easy exit ramp built in.  Here's his letter and it is followed by my reply.

Hello, my name is XX.
I am a fellow Texan from XX, Texas. I am also (according to my doctor) a heart attack or stroke waiting to happen. lol.  I am a workaholic that has let his health go completely to crap (60 lbs excess weight, high blood pressure, lipids off the charts etc.).  I have resolved to change that beginning NOW.  I am in the beginning stage of changing everything diet wise.  You guys are my first step!  I was searching the net for REAL food sources including meat, fruit, vegetables, etc., to restock my freezer and refrigerator when I throw away every last thing in my current pantry/fridge inventory!!  lol.  I came across your site and was impressed and wanted to let you know.  I am in a community that does not have a "Whole Foods" market or the like.  We can't even get a tomato that tastes like a tomato at our stores.  I also wanted to let you know to someone like me you are more than an online merchant.  Your operation is a source of better and healthier life for the people you serve if what I read on your site is fact and not simply "marketing".
I put in my first trial order online this evening and look forward to receiving it soon.  I may should have called but it was after hours.
After I get my first order and it's as good as I expect it will be I may call for my next order and get your suggestions.
Keep up the mission.
Sincerely;
XX
P.S.  I don't suppose you know of any great fruit/veggie suppliers?


Welcome aboard XX:

Sure our info is designed with marketing in mind.  But that doesn't mean I don't place honesty and scientific truths first.  In 1970 I was selling gold stocks and gold coins to investors.  The sophisticated investors of that era thought my marketing claims were dangerous and unenlightened.  But I pounded the table of fundamental truths (cold calling, newsletters, research reports, newspaper articles, speaking at conferences, giving lectures, getting on television, etc.) and after many years some people caught on to what I was talking about.  The mob still doesn't have a good grasp of what the gold market is all about yet, but at least gold is no longer $35 an ounce with a worldwide central bank guarantee to buy gold off the free market if it's price dropped below $35.  Yep, I was selling a "guaranteed" zero downside investment that had unlimited upside potential.  For that I was called unpatriotic, unethical, and my suggestions that widows and orphans should buy it was called imprudent.  Yes, all my statements then were for marketing.  That's how I made my living and paid for my ranching addiction.  I bought a horse in 1969 and shortly thereafter some cattle.  I've been in that game ever since.

I have always been a stickler for learning fundamental truths.  I did it in the money and markets game, the cattle ranching game, and in nutrition.  What I've been writing about on my website comes from research.  Some of it is my own research, but 99% of it is from the research of scientists whom I respect for the quality of their work.  I believe that one can build a good business on unvarnished basic truths.  I do not need to compromise my integrity for a dollar and I won't.  I'm also capable of changing my mind if I discover things aren't right.  If customers and potential customers don't like what I say, what I do, and how I do it -- so be it.  I want to do business with people who can accept the limitations of our business and who are not afraid to stand aside from the stampeding herd.

That's about me.

Now let me address some of your comments.  You say that you'll continue if "it's as good as I expect."  Well I don't know what you mean by that.  If you are referring to positive nutrition, then you'll be a customer for life.  If you are expecting something special, the most tender, a flavor you think is good, no change in your lifestyle, cooking and eating habits, etc., you will be disappointed.  Grass-fed meats are not the norm because the mob prefers grain-fed meats for a wide variety of reasons -- none of which includes positive nutrition.  I'm focused on perfect nutrition.  The mob and I are poles apart.  Consequently our lifestyles are poles apart.  That requires tremendous discipline on my part.  I've had to change and stay a course my friends consider extreme.  Today's social norm is to eat and talk.  I can talk, but no one wants to hear about nutrition and there is a whole lot of eating establishments where I can't find anything on the menu fit to eat.   lol

That brings me around to what to eat.  You will need to really understand the info on this Food Analysis page.  To summarize, to cure yourself and totally reverse the "heart attack" waiting to happen you need to eat the following:

Lot's of grass-fed meats and the fat.

Some veggies -- limited to those that offer 100% of the nutrients you require, a balanced fat profile, and are low glycemic.

That's basically it.  No milk, no nuts, no grain, and fruit sparingly.

You must avoid high glycemic food like the plague.

Whether the veggies and fruit are organic or not is not all that important.  Fresh is best.  Most local grocery stores have the veggies you need.

To do all this you'll have to struggle against the generally accepted truths that cause all the misery.  Even your doctor will think you are crazy.  But if you go to this page you can download my blood lipid profile test.  Note the heart health.  Yes, doctors tell me that my cholesterol is too high.  But it's too high because the good component is "too high."  Most health care folks don't understand that is good.  It's best for my brain function and heart health.  But they are lost in the smog of common knowledge.

So there you have it.  There are truths in this world.  And if you don't want to end up like all the other old people who are living only because of drugs and operations, then you have to be different.  You have to march to a different drummer.  You must have discipline to change your tastes and even the way you live.  And you must be willing to change so much that others will call you weird.  Most of my friends and relatives refuse to do anything calling for change.  They suffer the consequences and their health issues are their number one topic of conversation.  If I happen to suggest nutrition as a cure, some of them will actually get up and leave the room.

So, you say you are up for change.  But as they say, actions speak louder than words.  So from here on, it's up to you, not on whether or not this first sampling of meat hits a home run based on your preconceived expectations.

Thanks for your comments.  And once again, welcome aboard.  As you can see, you got my suggestions without calling.  No charge.  lol

Ted Slanker

ACTION ALERT: The Monsanto rider is back

A couple days ago I got an urgent email message from a respected nutrition site.  Below the "alert" is my analysis of their message.

ACTION ALERT: The Monsanto rider is back – tell Congress to reject it!

Congress is considering a continuing resolution spending bill that includes the controversial Monsanto rider.

This rider effectively destroys judicial review and gives the biotech industry the power to decide which genetically modified (GMO) crops should be planted even when a court has found that there could be environmental damage or economic damage to farmers.

In recent years, courts have repeatedly found that the USDA has improperly approved a GMO crop and they have required further analysis of the impacts before commercial plantings could happen. The Monsanto rider would override that. The rider would force  the USDA to allow GMOs to be planted even if a federal court rules that USDA hadn’t adequately considered the potential problems.

The proponents claim that the provision is needed to protect farmers, but that’s not true.  No farmer has ever had his or her crops destroyed because of a court decision on GMOs. Every court to rule on these issues has carefully weighed the interests of farmers, as is
already required by law.

This rider was part of last spring’s continuing resolution, which was in effect for six months; the continuing resolution that is now being considered would extend it another three months.  

Tell your Representative and Senators to reject this provision in the upcoming spending bill.  Please take action today!

TAKE ACTION #1
Contact both of your U.S. Senators, and urge them to oppose the Monsanto rider.

If you don't know who represents you, you can find out online at www.senate.gov or by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Below is a sample letter you can use for email, or as a script for a telephone call.

TAKE ACTION #2
Contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her to oppose the Monsanto rider.  If you don't know who represents you, you can find out online at www.house.gov or by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

SAMPLE LETTER:
I urge [Senator ____ or Representative _______] to oppose the inclusion of the Monsanto rider in the upcoming short-term FY 2014 Continuing Resolution (CR) spending bill.  Please speak up for constituents by voicing your opposition to the rider to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee.

Though wrapped in a “farmer-friendly” package, this corporate welfare provision – section 735 in last year’s continuing resolution (H.R. 933) – is simply a biotech industry ploy to continue to sell GMO seeds even when a court of law has found they were approved by the USDA illegally. It is unnecessary and an unprecedented attack on the judicial review process, yet it was quietly slipped into last spring’s continuing resolution without congressional debate, hearings, or input from any of the relevant committees.

Continuing this provision in the new FY 2014 Continuing Resolution is the wrong thing to do. 
This provision effectively guts judicial review, allowing companies to continue selling biotech seeds even if a court finds that the USDA should not have approved the seeds for planting.  The provision forces USDA to immediately approve any request by the industry for continued planting.  The USDA has a duty to protect the interests of all farmers and the environment, not just the biotech industry–the Monsanto rider undermines that responsibility.

The provision is completely unnecessary. No farmer has ever had his or her crops destroyed. Every court to rule on these issues has carefully weighed the interests of farmers, as is already required by law.

I strongly oppose the “Monsanto protection act” and urge you to demand that it not be included in the upcoming short-term FY14 Continuing Resolution (CR) spending bill.

[Name]
[Address]

That message and others like it are total claptrap.  Why do people who promote themselves as health and well-being experts also assume they are experts in agriculture?  Nearly all of these do-gooders have only a cursory knowledge of agriculture.  The know next to nothing about animal science, soil science, plant science, agricultural economics, genetics, what it takes to be truly sustainable, livestock processing, and the laws impacting the agricultural and food processing industries.  Yet they lash out and demonize all the various agricultural factions with flaming rhetoric that promotes their agendas at the cost of the reputations of the highly credible entities that are feeding 330,000,000 Americans three meals a day.  That’s a billion meals a day without interruption!

Unfortunately these wild-eyed fanatics have a disproportionate influence on the few people who are actually striving to improve their health though a better diet.  The consequence are that way too many people focus on all the wrong issues and miss the single most important issue impacting body function which is the chemistry of food.  The actual chemistry of a potato, a seed, a nut, a green leaf, etc. are the most important factors impacting body function.  This is why if all the food in America was “organic” the incidences of chronic diseases would be exactly the same!  That’s because food choices trump everything.

For a relatively unbiased take on the so-called Monsanto rider look at this U.S. News & World Report article.  The article is well written and tells the real story.  As you can see by the comments from the mob below the article, many people refuse to believe the truth.

Furthermore, while I’m on this soapbox I’ll point out another fact.  The anti-Monsanto movement is a modern-day witch hunt by people who know nothing, and I mean nothing, about copyright law, the seed industry, genetics, and the chemistry of plants and soils.  This link tells us a few things about one of the leaders of the anti-Monsanto movement.

Many Paleo Recipes Are Nutritional Disasters

    The Paleo Diet, as its cofounder Loren Cordain defined it, is being debased by marketers.  It really disturbs me when I see so many people struggle to adapt to  The Real Diet of Man only to be led astray by the many marketers of Paleo recipes.  These recipes usually replicate traditional common dishes with different ingredients.  Yet when one analyzes the ingredients, the "new" dishes are still nutritional disasters.

    My first pet peeve is with the meat selections in all too many of these diets.  Many of the authors of these diets do not emphasize only 100% grass-fed meats.  That alone is ridiculous.  Many suggest "lean meats" in general.  That is wrong no matter what.  Lean grain-fed meats are nutritionally deficient and they still have high Omega-6 loads versus small quantifies of Omega-3.  They are the problem, not the solution.  On the other hand, when it comes to 100% grass-fed meats, we WANT fatty meats.  The fats have the most favorable Essential Fatty Acid (EFAs) ratios!

    This is why we sell so many knuckle and straight marrow bones.  People are focused on the fat inside these bones.  We also sell fat (external fat) and suet (internal body fat).  Many of our customers want these fats for soups and broths plus to render down for cooking fats.  If we want optimal nutrition, lean is not preferred.  The problem we have is that too often our 100% grass-fed meats are too lean.

    My exasperation with some of the Paleo diet suggestions does not end with the meat choices.  Look at these ingredients I found with a brief search of just a few recipes.

almond meal/flour - huge Omega-6 source, low in nutrition

eggs - no mention of the Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratios

honey - worse than sugar, high glycemic

coconut sugar - similar to sugar, high glycemic

tapioca flour/powder - huge Omega-6 source, low in nutrition

coconut flour - Omega-6 source very low in nutrition

pecans - huge Omega-6 source, low in nutrition

almond butter - huge Omega-6 source, low in nutrition

maple syrup - worse than sugar, high glycemic

skinless chicken breasts - no mention of the Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratios

coconut oil - Omega-6 source very low in nutrition

coconut milk - Omega-6 source very low in nutrition

avocado - not a good EFA source

sunflower seed butter - huge Omega-6 source, low in nutrition

shredded coconut - Omega-6 source very low in nutrition

mini chocolate chips - just more sugar

dried dates - very high glycemic and low in nutrition
lean meats - this term has no meaning in nutrition circles

    To avoid being deceived I encourage everyone to download the Food Analysis tables.  With that information you'll know the key points in proper food selection.  The foods required for optimizing body and brain function must cover all three of the critically important "a, b, c" parameters or else don't eat them.

    a)  Each food item consumed must provide 90% or more of the nutrients required for optimal body function.  100% is best.  (Why eat foods that are empty?)

    b)  Each food item consumed must not contribute to the Omega-3 deficit.  (This is critical for a strong immune system.)

    c)  Each food item consumed must be low glycemic.  (High glycemic foods are foreign to body function and cause fungal issues that negatively impact the body.)

    The most basic, most fundamental thing everyone must know is that the green plant must be at the bottom of their food chain.  Nuts, seeds, grain, fruit, and even some vegetables do not belong in The Real Diet of Man.

    If our goal is optimal health, we must not be lead astray by the traditions of the thundering herd.  The thundering herd is plagued with chronic diseases and nearly every chronic health problem they have is due to the foods they eat.  I do not want to join their plight.

    If you want more low down on the advantages of grass-fed meats read Grass-Fed Beef In A Nutshell.

Bush, 67, Has Had a Stent Placed in a Heart Artery

Back in June 2012 I wrote an article titled: “How Dangerous is Your Doctor?”  In it I quoted some mainstream sources, something I rarely do.  Usually I refer to scientists and their studies.  But in this case, the mainstream sources seemed even more relevant because they usually do not rock the boat when it comes to popular nutritional guidelines and health care procedures.  It’s especially true regarding the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).  For instance here is a quote from that article.

I’ll quote the July/August 2011 issue of AARP Magazine, page 22.  “The following four operations are over performed for a variety of reasons: Some are moneymakers for hospitals and doctors, others are expedient, and still others seem to work, at least in the short term.  But evidence shows that all have questionable long-term outcomes for treating certain conditions, and some may even cause harm.”  Below are four operations and I have paraphrased and quoted from the same AARP Magazine article.
What was the first over-performed, questionable operation on the list?  It was: “Stents for Stable Angina.”

Also in that article, I brought up a little history with this statement:

As George Washington lay near death Martha, fearing that it might be harmful, demanded that the doctors stop bleeding him.  But hoping to cure him they continued with more bleeding.  Unable to accept Washington's impending death, the doctors ignored his orders to stop their treatments yet later in the evening, they applied blisters to his legs and feet and a wheat bran poultice to his throat.

That’s right, the finest medical doctors in the world slowly killed George Washington with their treatments!

Flash forward to today.  In a CNN news blurb I got this message:

Former President George W. Bush, 67, has had a stent placed in a heart artery to clear a blockage, his office said today.

The procedure was performed this morning without complication at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, his office added.

"President Bush is in high spirits, eager to return home tomorrow and resume his normal schedule on Thursday," the office said in a statement.

"He is grateful to the skilled medical professionals who have cared for him. He thanks his family, friends, and fellow citizens for their prayers and well wishes," the statement continued. "And he encourages us all to get our regular check-ups."

Follow coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN's mobile apps.
Later that day on the radio the CNN news story had expanded to include discussions about Bush being a relatively healthy man who was careful about the foods he ate.  They said he exercised and followed the best nutritional guidelines.

In my opinion, this is just another example of bad leadership, bad reporting, bad medical practice, and nutritional ignorance.  If Bush ate healthy foods he would not require a stent.  If the doctors were more knowledgeable about nutrition, instead of putting in a stent which does solve the problem, they would make sure Bush changed to The Real Diet of Man.

So, just like in the June 2012 article, I’ll end this article this way.

Nothing changed . . .

How Dangerous is Your Doctor?
http://www.texasgrassfedbeef.com/how_dangerous_is_your_doctor.htm

Men Who Take Omega-3 Supplements at 71% Higher Risk of Prostate Cancer

Old Myths

When I was a youngster studying history in the 1950s I marveled at how ignorant people had been hundreds of years before.  For instance, the fear of hot air balloons incited riots and the destruction of the first prototypes.  The beliefs in witchery or sorcery incited mobs to convict and sentence men and women to be hanged or literally burned at the stake.  Doctors bled patients thinking that “germs” could be drained from the body – curing the illness.  (George Washington was bled in his final days.)  Revolutions were often followed by the killing off of the more productive/enterprising people in a nation.  In the 1930s and 1940s the German government promoted antisemitism and Jewish people were rounded up and put in concentration camps and systematically killed.

With just a little effort at historical recall I could write a book outlining thousands of events where mob action led normally sane people to complete insanity.

Back when I was a child I believed that since modern science was taught in our schools and such, the old fashioned examples of mass ignorance could never happen again.  Well, I was sadly mistaken.  People are just as gullible today it seems as they were in the worst of times of any bygone era.  The level of critical thinking exhibited by most folks today still seems almost nonexistent.  Sure, many people are highly sophisticated in particular fields.  But a one degree turn outside that field and their ability to think critically collapses.  I see this in the food business daily!  Yet food is something everyone is very familiar with.  Everyone eats food in some form or another more than once every day.  Yet they know less about it than virtually every other aspect of their lives.

Another New Myth?

The recent report about men being more at risk for prostate cancer by taking Omega-3 supplements is a prime example of absolute nonsense being readily accepted as a fact.  The “report” is being announced from upon high as authoritative gospel.  Even health oriented websites and publications are posting the message as if it is the truth.  The media (and this is not limited to the Huffington Post) has been running wild with it.  All major networks have covered the story without any caveats.  So it must be the absolute truth?

A Science-Based Rebuttal

The truth is -- the study is a farce.  It does not meet the peer-reviewed tests.  I asked Doug Bibus, a lead scientist in the field of fatty acid research for a brief response.  He sent me this quick abbreviated reply.

This is all a lot to do about nothing and sad that this publication got out there in this way.  A classic example of bad science making the press.  I think this statement by the authors really shows the true intent of their research: “There is really no evidence that taking dietary supplements is beneficial to health, and there is increasing evidence that taking high doses is harmful.”

We are talking about only a difference in blood levels of 0.02%.  Some bullet points we put out are below.

The authors are saying we will “die” from prostate cancer if our blood level of Omega-3s is 4.66% versus 4.48%.

They are basing their results on a 0.02% difference in Omega-3 levels.

Study reports a “significant” response with an insignificant difference.

If their findings are true, then prostate cancer should be rampant in just about any country with any seafood consumption.

They looked at blood from healthy and sick people.  Is it possible that sick people were taking fish oil supplements at a higher rate than the healthy individuals?

Plasma phospholipid fatty acids are not a good index of long term intake and are influenced dramatically by a single meal or even timing of a fish oil dose.

Harris just published a study on the weakness of plasma PL versus RBC.  It has also been shown that a single fish oil dose massively increases LC Omega-3s in about 4-12 hours that washes out around 48 hours.

The authors have not accounted for a major confounder - basal fish oil and fish consumption.

This study did an excellent job proving that sick people are eating slightly more Omega 3!

No documentation of fish oil or fish intake in the study group.  Sick people take Omega-3 at a higher rate than healthy folks!

The study was not designed to look at Omega-3s and confounded with selenium and vitamin E.

The people are already sick, how can this describe risk in an already afflicted population?

A recent meta-analysis of fish consumption and prostate cancer by Szymanski et al. (2010) reported a large reduction in late stage or fatal prostate cancer among cohort studies.

References1. Szymanski KM, Wheeler DC, Mucci LA. Fish consumption and prostate cancer risk: a review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92(5):1223–1233.

For a more in-depth review of the report here is the response by the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3.  This is a proactive association of manufacturers, marketers, and supporters of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids, working to educate consumers and work with government groups, the healthcare community and the industry, while setting high ethical and quality standards for our business sector.  Yes, they have a dog in the hunt.  But they are presenting a response based on solid science, not puffery with an unannounced objective.

More Myths or Food for Thought?

While you are using your Critical Thinking skills to ponder this recent myth involving Omega-3 fatty acids, here's another brain teaser:  Are the more popular concerns voiced by Jeffery Smith and others about GMO plants valid?  Are the scientific and food industry communities using GMO to pull off another money making stunt at the expense of the ignorant consumer?  Or are the mob-action based myths condemning Monsanto and others in the field without scientific foundation?  How much do you know about the actual science of genetics and DNA?  Do you know even as much as one may find in a high school textbook?

You will find additional background in my Food Inc. movie review.

Eat Great Food While On Vacation

Vacation time is upon us.  So let the fun begin!  But does this mean we have to sacrifice our health for the good times?  When it comes to food, generally vacations mean some of our customers throw caution to the wind for the good times if they have not planned ahead.  So here is the plan.
The foods required for optimizing body and brain function must cover all three of the critically important “a, b, c” parameters or else don’t eat them.

    a)  Each food item consumed must provide 90% or more of the nutrients required for optimal body function.  100% is best.  (Why eat foods that are empty?)
    b)  Each food item consumed must not contribute to the Omega-3 deficit.  (This is critical for a strong immune system.)
    c)  Each food item consumed must be low glycemic.  (High glycemic foods are foreign to body function and cause fungal issues that negatively impact the body.)

Am I a Party Pooper?
We’re going on vacation.  Can’t we have a little fun?  That’s always the plea.  So let’s walk through an example of having some fun.  Let’s start the day with a big meal of hot cakes, bacon and eggs at the Waffle House.  Make sure you pour on a liberal helping of syrup.  For lunch lets have a burger, fries, and a soft drink at the local hangout.  Then let’s top off the day in style with a big steak dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steak House.  Order the big steak seared on a 500 degree platter.  Make sure the baked potato is heavily slathered with all the trimmings.  Skip the salad.  For desert get the pie ala mode.  Two scoops of ice cream please.

Maybe you can handle these meals no sweat.  If so, maybe it’s no big deal.  But what if you have fungal issues?  The syrup, hot cakes, soft drinks, fries, buns, baked potato complete with trimmings, pie and ice cream may give you enough of a sugar load to flare up your fungal issues big time.  And quick too.  That night and the next day you’re sick.  Is this the way to have a good time?

You’ve been eating properly for many months, but what happens if you over indulge in grain-based foods high in Omega-6 fatty acids versus Omega-3 fatty acids for a couple of weeks?  Could that cause autoimmune issues?  Maybe an asthma flare up?  Is that having a good time?

Going on vacation is not always stress free.  Often it opens up new challenges that we’re not used to.  How we address more stress can greatly impact our health.  Good food that builds immunity is critical.  Low glycemic foods that retard fungal issues is critical.  Exercise is critical.  Rest is critical.  Emotional peace is critical.

Staying healthy while on vacation is having a good time.  Getting sick is not.

How Do I Get Good Food?
There are multiple ways to get food that matches the important A, B, C requirements.  For starters, most good restaurants offer salads (use apple cider vinegar for dressings) and seafood dishes that can fit the bill for all three of the A, B, Cs.  Rarely will restaurants have grass-fed meats though.  But these days many high end grocery stores carry at least some grass-fed ground meat.  Although, in my biased opinion, their grass-fed meats usually don’t “taste right.”  That always concerns me.  Positively, grocery stores carry all the proper vegetables.

Another option is to ship meat on ahead.  It helps then if you rent rooms with kitchen facilities, stay with friends or relatives, or know of restaurants where the chefs can prepare your meat dishes for you.  When you order from us, we can time the delivery so the meat arrives when you need it.  This is rather simple for us.  We’re always focused on the delivery dates for obvious reasons.

The third option is to take your meat with you.  This is my preferred method.  To make this a lot easier I have a small electric freezer that runs on house current or the car battery.  It holds about 50 pounds of meat!  You can see it here.  It works great.  The main compartment holds the temperature at zero.  The small side compartment is maybe 35 degrees.

For those of us who have been eating The Real Diet of Man for some years now, we can tell pretty quick if we deviate from the goal.  Our bodies react quickly.  Of course, if you are only nibbling on the Diet of Man for reasons other than a total focus on health and well being, then deviations are no big deal.  You have health issues or are developing health issues therefore the symptoms you feel are “normal.”  You do not know what the real normal is.  Therefore you’ll have to excuse us for not following your lead.

Government Surveillance and Grass-Fed Meats

Should we be concerned about the government tracking and storing our every telephone call, email, and internet read?  Isn’t the war on terror more important than a little tracking of our innocent actions?  Isn’t the quantity of data so huge that even when a known threat exists the data is too voluminous to search for leads?  Or is it?

In my opinion, all societies must fear their governments and their governments must be held in check.  Sure, many of the people working for our various government agencies have the best of intentions.  But that’s not all of them.  Some of them become power freaks even at the lowest levels.  Beyond the subordinates, there are the leaders and here the danger increases exponentially because there are despots in all levels of the society.  A couple of the more famous despotic leaders in our country were J. Edgar Hoover and Richard M. Nixon.  They are just two of many that have risen to power in our country.

Everyone is also familiar with the McCarthy era.  That was mob action at it’s best.  Today, political correctness is beyond the pale.  Over time political correctness can morph into forms of McCarthyism that we cannot even imagine today.  It has happened time and time again around the world and the result has been the slaughter and persecution of literally millions of people because of their race, religion, political leanings, social stature, knowledge, investments, age, sex, sexual preferences, diseases, occupations, eating and drinking habits, and many more reasons than I can think of now.  But you get the point.

Think about it.  Pick any topic.  For instance how about income taxes?  Have you ever discussed income taxes with others over the phone or by email.  If you have, you are part of a connected community and that connection can be used against you when it is in the hands of overzealous, corrupt individuals in positions of power.  Corrupt prosecutors, regulators, police, and tax collectors can twist and turn your connections and intentions into hideous crimes that can cost you your freedom, your property, and your life.

Nearly all elected people (politicians) are susceptible to corruption.  In addition, corruption exists in the justice system amongst the police, attorneys, the judges – especially elected judges, and even clerks in the local county courthouse.  “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Check out the Hoover link above.  What he did has to send a chill down your spine in light of what our government is doing today.  He (Hoover) used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders, and to collect evidence using illegal methods.  Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting Presidents.

I wonder what it means to be part of the grass-fed meat community?  Grain producers and marketers, producers of bread products, and others associated with the grain industry have had some pretty harsh things to say about me over the years.  They are members of the vast majority and we do live in a society where majority rules.  So how long will the majority allow dissenters to exist?

Sure, this concern I’ve expressed for grass-fed meats is a little far fetched for this topic.  Or is it?

Where do you stand?  Do you stand with Biden or Obama?  See them debate the issue here.

Proper Pet Food is Going Mainstream

Proper food for pets is going mainstream and it's being driven by modern nutritional science for humans and all animals.  Check out this Dog Food advertisement from Tractor Supply.

The big bullet points are

• No Grain • No Wheat • No Corn • No Soy
• Beef is the #1 Ingredient.
• A Blend of Omega-6 & Omega-3 Fatty Acids for Skin and Coat
• Enriched with Vitamins and Minerals.
• Contains Glucosamine and Chondroitin.
• Antioxidant Formulation.

Yes, it sure is a step in the right direction.  But per normal with mainstream, it's only a step.  Therefore even with this improved food we must read the fine print.

Ingredients:
Beef, Beef Meal, Pea Protein, Whole Potato, Dried Peas, Tapioca, Sunflower Oil (preserved with Mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Dried Plain Beet Pulp, Whole Flaxseed, Natural Flavor, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Beef Tallow (preserved with Mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Zinc Proteinate, Vitamin E Supplement, Iron Proteinate, L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of Vitamin C), Choline Chloride, Manganese Proteinate, L-Carnitine, Copper Proteinate, Niacin, D-Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Sodium Selenite, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Riboflavin Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Calcium Iodate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (source of Vitamin B6), Folic Acid

Guaranteed Analysis:
Crude Protein (min) 28.0%, Crude Fat (min) 15.0%, Crude Fiber (max) 4.0%, Moisture (max) 10.0%, Zinc (min) 200 mg/kg, Selenium (min ) 0.4 mg/kg, Vitamin E (min) 300 IU/kg, *Omega-6 (min) 2.5%, *Omega-3 (min) 0.4%, *Glucosamine (Naturally occurring) (min) 300 mg/kg, *Chondroitin Sulfate (Naturally occurring) (min) 100 mg/kg
 


In the Analysis one can see the Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio is a 6.25 : 1 ratio.   Compared to most feeds this is pretty good.  The only draw back is chronic diseases are detectible when the ratio exceeds 4 : 1.  So this is still not the best choice.

Of course, the very best pet food is . . . . Grass-Fed Pet Food.




Obvisouly people are trying to feed their dogs better foods.  They see the buzz words and they are motivated to make sure their dog is fed properly.  But what do the pet owners insist on eating?

Grains, seeds, nuts.

What foods are killing (causing chronic diseases) people?

Grain, seeds, nuts.

To learn why those foods are killing people go to:
Keys to Nutrition Information

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.