tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-182922812024-03-12T19:21:16.869-07:00C is for CookieA healthy diet includes ample room for cookiesCarolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-25119550235329863332007-02-05T13:16:00.000-08:002007-02-05T13:30:21.965-08:00Good Read: The Omnivore's DilemmaI haven't bought this book yet, but I just read Professor Michael Pollan's New York Times article <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?em&ex=1170824400&en=569990bc320eb828&ei=5087%0A" target=_blank>Unhappy Meals</a>. <br /><br />I love what he says and how he says it. For example: "... it’s also a lot easier to slap a health claim on a box of sugary cereal than on a potato or carrot, with the perverse result that the most healthful foods in the supermarket sit there quietly in the produce section, silent as stroke victims, while a few aisles over, the Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms are screaming about their newfound whole-grain goodness." At C is for Cookie, we are champions of the poor vegetable underdogs! At every chance, we try to smack down those nasty General Mills cereals with a wet whole grain noodle to allow our life-saving veggies to have their day in the sun.<br /><br />I support anyone who tries to cut through confusion, corporate manipulation and marketing mayhem in the name of helping people do what's right for them. Check out Michael Pollan's book 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' at his website: <a href="http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php" target=_blank>http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php</a>Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-74429901483381971892007-02-01T16:45:00.000-08:002007-02-01T17:38:14.880-08:00Video Games are HealthyFinally some <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=13105" target=_blank>good press for video games</a>. Hey, they aren't all about shooting and pillaging anymore, did you know? <br /><br />The State of West Virginia completed a one year project to get obese children into shape using a game called <a href="http://www.ddrgame.com/" target=_blank>Dance Dance Revolution</a> which they had to play at home 5 times per week. The game involves listening to a song and following along to choreographed steps by stomping on a matching set of foot pads. It's sort of like a hopscotch-dance competition. <br /><br />This attempt to improve children's health was a considerable success. Most kids in the test group did not lose weight over the 24-week period whereas kids in the control group continued to gain: about 6 pounds each in that same time period. The predicted weight gain for the test group kids appears to have been "halted". I'm sure there are a number of other factors for why the dancing kids did not actually lose weight: increase in muscle mass, increase in appetite leading to increased caloric consumption to name a couple. But, let's not forget that it's not all about numbers on the scale. <br /><br />The really good news is that the kids showed an increase in aerobic ability and arterial function, as well as gaining some self-confidence in the process. Not only that, they had fun doing it. Aw...<br /><br /><i>Interesting Sidenote</i>: At Burning Man 2006, I saw a version of this game called Dance Dance Immolation which required the player to don a fire-proof suit and dance the correct steps or he or she would be fired at with a flameshooter. I guess you have to understand <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Man" target=_blank>Burning Man </a>to appreciate this, but <a href="http://meems.imeem.com/mo6evgaC/video/45fP67XM/dance_dance_immolation/" target=_blank>here's a link to a video of "DDI"</a> for those of you with an open mind.<br /><br />UPDATE: The newest video game console that requires players to "get physical" is the Nintendo Wii. The Wii remote (Wiimote) moves in 3-D to simulate gameplay and so playing tennis involves a lot of arm-swinging. This is making healthy subjects out of the Wii console owners and just last week, Reuters reported: "After six weeks and 21 hours of total game play on Nintendo Co. Ltd.'s new game console, Philadelphia resident Mickey DeLorenzo is nine pounds lighter and making a splash with his new svelte self." Go Game Geeks, Go!!Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-75781171242524327672007-01-16T15:26:00.000-08:002007-01-22T11:20:46.363-08:00Designer Foods Are All Style No SubstanceKeep your eyes on the news if you're interested in food innovation, because we're going to see a steady increase in the number of stories involving "designer foods". Scientists are working with farmers and food manufacturers to design - and patent - foods and animals, purportedly for the benefit of consumers. I am very apprehensive of the "designer food" claims and more than a bit concerned about how these foods will truly affect our health.<br /><br />I consider myself to be an open-minded person who appreciates that science has made leaps and bounds in helping us understand the world around us. As I often say, I'm alive today thanks to modern science, which helped me survive a childhood troubled by chronic asthma. Most of the medicine we see on pharmacy shelves has undergone a lot of testing and those of us who are responsible take medication when we are ill or have an acute problem that requires a strong efficacious solution.<br /><br />But now, scientists are itching to get into the kitchen. They're taking a number of isolated chemicals and food constituents that are known to have health benefits and are inserting them into foods, theorizing that eating these foods will bring similar benefits. I am dubious for a few reasons. Firstly, we are only now starting to understand the complexity of food constituents and their ability to protect our health. Hundreds of years ago, doctors found that people who ate citrus fruits were protected from certain illnesses and through study and research they discovered the health benefits of Vitamin C which was in fact ascorbic acid isolated from citrus fruits. With doctors touting the benefits of this new vitamin, soon many companies churned out laboratory-produced "vitamin C" pills and we swallowed or chewed them to ward off colds. In recent years, scientists have begun to understand that in fact there are a number of compounds that work together in the fruit and it's not just the ascorbic acid. In citrus fruits, one of these helper compounds is bioflavonoids, which aid the absorption of vitamin C and prevent its being oxidized. Bioflavonoids are one type of antioxidant. Lo and behold, antioxidants became the new buzzword and we now have a flurry of new product at the grocery store, with each manufacturer claiming that its food contains the most antioxidants.<br /><br />Here's a crazy idea.....how about eating a grapefuit when you feel sick instead of taking an ester-c capsule buffered with extra bioflavonoids? <br /><br />Secondly, I think that isolating one compound from a food may be missing the boat when it comes to trying to understand what really makes a food "healthy" or protective. Oranges are a highly-effective source and delivery system of vitamin C for humans, because we were designed to eat oranges. And while interferon is an important chemical for fighting cancer, it's normally released into our bloodstream as part of the natural immune response. So how do we know that interferon will be accepted by our bodies' immune system when we fry it up in an omelette?<br /><br />It's heartening to see that many new studies are finding whole foods and vegetables - like the cruciferous family - to be cancer-protective. But these are offset by the amount of studies funded by drug and food manufacturers who are essentially looking for an ingredient to add to their product so they can claim it is "healthy" and then reap the financial benefits. Take, for example, the <a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=60816" target=_blank>new genetically-modified hens</a> that lay eggs which are filled with human interferon, a known cancer-fighting protein that our bodies produce naturally. Scientists genetically modified the hens (injected hen embryos with human DNA) and bred them with other hens, then modified and bred them again until their eggs contained an adequate amount of the desired proteins. Now we can have a daily dose of interferon with our morning eggs.<br /><br />A serious critique of genetic modification is that we don't know what could happen if humans were to eat eggs from genetically modified chickens over the course of a human lifetime. That's because it's never been done before. It may be just the same as eating a conventional egg. But it may be drastically different. Are these laboratory recipes worth the risk?<br /><br />I also find it interesting that we are bringing in science to put "health" back into eggs since we've managed to breed all the goodness out of the modern egg. Your regular grocery store egg is a product of the conventional chicken farming industry which begins with sick chickens imprisoned in small cages eating processed feed and laying eggs non-stop until they become too sick at the ripe old age of 18 months. Conventional eggs are much less healthy than they were 100 years ago and we have the science of modernisation to thank for that. Will science help us put our healthy egg back together again? I'd rather eat an egg that's naturally filled with Omega 3s and healthy proteins because the chicken that laid it walked around during the day and pecked and scratched its dinner from an unpolluted country field.<br /><br />A cynical view might say that isolating the good components of food is all about economics. By identifying "healthy" compounds and adding them to a processed food you end up with a great marketing pitch and it allows a company to keep mass-producing their cheap products to maintain profits. Take the case of <a href="http://www.wonderbread.com/nutrition.asp" target=_blank>Wonder Bread Plus</a> which has somehow been allowed to call itself whole grain bread due to clever wording but is still the same old white bread that has chemical vitamins added to it so it doesn't make people sick when they eat it. <br /><br />Adding a healthy compound to an unhealthy food doesn't make good sense nutritionally, and you can only hide the truth from the public for so long. More and more we are learning that it's the combination of factors in foods that make them healthy: juice, pulp, fibre, naturally-occuring oils inside seeds. But food manufacturers aren't interested in packaging ordinary foods that we've all seen before. The best way to corner the market on a food is to make sure you are the only one who can sell it. And the only way to do that is to patent a way of processing a food or to patent the food itself, which is done by genetically modifying it. How can a manufacturer be competitive when all eggs look the same? How can a consumer tell the difference? Well if you are the only company to sell eggs with interferon in them, you'll find yourself ahead of the game with that Unique Selling Proposition.<br /><br />Here's an example of this kind of ingenuity at work. Everybody knows that dogs need to eat healthy to grow up strong, and most dog owners find that Rover likes to munch on a carrot when thrown his way. So here's a company called <a href="http://www.pegetables.com/" target=_blank>Pegetables</a> that makes pet treats "made from low-fat natural vegetable ingredients including carrots, celery and corn." They're shaped like vegetables too! I can picture the Marketing folks saying "Now how are we going to compete with fresh vegetables? I know! Let's take bits of fruit and veggies and mix them up with processed wheat gluten, food dyes and chemicals and then mould them into colourful vegetable shapes!" <br /><br />I strongly support the need for scientific research that helps us extend our lives and protect ourselves from diseases. But must we constantly deconstruct things in order to put them back together in "new and improved" ways? I think that it's possible to pursue medical research and also appreciating natural sources of health, such as fruits and vegetables. And I really applaud when companies go out and use scientific analysis to find evidence of protective compounds in the foods that we eat. But I am wary of science's knee-jerk instinct of isolating those compounds down to the smallest chemical, because that's when a food component starts to become a commodity ready to be patented, processed and mass-produced for mass profits. This kind of thinking strikes another blow to our local farmer who is simply trying to produce healthy food for the people in his community. I'll be putting all my eggs in that basket.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-7748671253776484222006-12-22T16:06:00.000-08:002006-12-22T23:16:28.399-08:00Lose Weight the Easy Way!I just lost 4 pounds in a week! You can do it too! Now that it's holiday time I've been eating the many Christmas cookies I bake for meals and I've actually been feeling a bit under the weather so my appetite is weaker than usual. I also haven't gone to the gym lately due to feeling sick. This morning I stepped on the gym scales and learned I'd lost 4 pounds! <br /><br />So to recap:<br />- eat fewer calories than normal<br />- eat whatever you like, without regard for nutritional value<br /><br />And you too will lose weight.<br /><br />Yes, folks, it really can be a numbers game. But is that the game you want to play? I feel like crap, and although my mouth is happy to be chomping on cookies, when I got on the treadmill, I sweat like a construction worker in July. I felt gross! Eating cookies has meant I haven't gotten any real vitamins and minerals into my body in about a week. And I've probably lost muscle mass, because it's been a week since I lifted weights. When I stand in front of my mirror in the nude, I feel jiggly. In fact, I wouldn't have realised I'd lost weight, had I not stepped onto the scales.<br /><br />Lesson learned? Eating less can make you lose weight, but weight loss is not an ideal goal. Losing fat, gaining muscle and getting healthy is a much better goal to work towards. After the holidays - <i>burp</i> - I'm going to go back to eating healthy.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-62264394411327300942006-12-06T09:17:00.000-08:002006-12-11T14:44:35.908-08:00This is why you think you're fat<a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YktZ9S79wD4/RXcEeoLQSiI/AAAAAAAAAAY/1oPe1q4Typo/s200/photoshopbox.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5005474435072805410" /></a><br />A lot of us who work with digital images know that many of the photos we see in magazines, on billboards and posters are manipulated. But the power of an image is so strong, that few of us actually see a woman on the cover of a magazine and think "Well sure she's beautiful but most of that image is fake."<br /><br />The Dove Soap company's <a href="http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com"target=_blank>Campaign for Real Beauty</a> is doing a great job of exposing this issue of advertisers showing us false images to make us feel inferior so they can sell us more stuff. On their site you can watch their <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XF66Ku4a9U"target=_blank>Evolution commercial</a> that shows the transformation a model undergoes from normal-looking girl to billboard beauty with the help of lots of makeup, lighting and much digital remodelling of her features.<br /><br />But most of these transformations from plain Jane to va-va-voom take place behind closed doors, and with willing participants. What model doesn't want to look as beautiful as possible? Unfortunately, many models don't talk about how media editors are chopping up their bodies into smaller, thinner versions of themselves. Several years ago, Kate Winslet <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2643777.stm"target=_blank>spoke out against GQ magazine</a> for chopping up her image to make it thinner. GQ's editor defended the magazine by saying: "These days you only get two kinds of pictures of celebrities - paparazzi pictures or pictures like these which have been highly styled, buffed, trimmed and altered to make the subject look as good as is humanly possible. We do that for everyone, whether they are a size six or a size 12. It hasn't a lot to do with body size. Practically every photo you see in a magazine will have been digitally altered in this way." <br /><br />Thanks to magazine editors everywhere for making women believe we're too fat because we don't measure up to your standards. Standards which don't exist in real life. Thanks also for showing men what beautiful women look like, but neglecting to tell them that noone looks like that in real life.<br /><br />Despite this grand deception that is common practice, it's rare to see a celeb or model speak out against the endless need to cut women down to a tiny, unattainable size. That's why I applaud Vida Guerra for <a href="http://popsugar.com/77638" target=-blank>publicly complaining</a> that FHM magazine made her butt look smaller when it featured her. Vida is no stick-thin runway model, but she ain't no fat girl either. She has modelled for Playboy and <a href="http://www.vidasworld.com/" target=_blank>her website</a> shows off her sexy curves and her very womanly body. So, it's interesting to <a href="http://popsugar.com/77638" target=-blank>watch her</a> question the magazine's decision to cut her booty down to size. <br /><br />I guess you really can't be too rich or too thin these days. I can't wait for this pendulum to swing back in the opposite direction; and it surely will. In the meantime, I'll focus on being healthy, thanks! And as long as my body allows me to jump and run and play, I will love and appreciate its non-Photoshopped shape.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-21874273394708762662006-11-30T08:59:00.000-08:002006-11-30T09:45:46.882-08:00How to Trick Kids into Eating Veggies<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/7737/2232/1600/275664/c0123.gif"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/7737/2232/200/930490/c0123.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I'm of the opinion that <i>sometimes</i> it makes sense to trick people into doing something that's good for them, even if they say they don't like it. No, I'm not talking about putting chicken broth into a vegetarian's soup as my grandmother once did to my cousin, claiming "it's good for her." I'm talking about sneaking veggies into children's food in an attempt to get some real nutrients into their unsuspecting little white bread and sugar-loving mouths.<br /><br />Any parent out there knows what I'm talking about. It's a fact that kids tend not to like the bitter taste that is associated with certain leafy green veggies. However, there are many mild-tasting, highly nutritious vegetables that kids would choose if those poor veggies had PR machines promoting them everywhere the way that candy and breakfast cereals do. Where's my beloved <a href="http://www.honblue.com/haf/enews/feb05/images/green-giant-big.jpg" text=_blank>Green Giant</a> when we need him? Boo hoo hoo.<br /><br />I find that most people abhor change, especially to their routine. When it comes to food, it's important to work with what folks say they like, and simply make these things more nutritious. This certainly applies to the adult nutrition clients I work with and kids, too, prefer the familiar. So while we still want to encourage kids to try new things, it's often easier to get them to eat new vegetables by sneaking a veggie or two into their favourite foods. I call it Stealth Feeding. We all need a variety of foods to give our diets a broad spectrum of vitamins and minerals, so it's especially important for growing children to eat more than just their 8 or 10 familiar foods. Here are some suggestions for how you can slip veggies and legumes into your child's meal today! He won't know and it will be painless for both of you.<br /><br /><li> Steam and puree cauliflower and add it to milk, butter and some parmesan cheese to make "cheese sauce"<br /><li> Steam and puree veggies like carrots, onions, zucchini, tomatoes, red peppers and add them to your favourite spaghetti sauce.<br /><li> Do the above and add it to your chilis and stews<br /><li> Puree beans and add them to soup to thicken it (chick peas a.k.a. garbanzo beans are good for this)<br /><li> Use veggie ground round instead of ground beef in tacos, lasagna or spaghetti sauce (this is a good way to get organic tofu into your kids, which is a nice alternative to conventional meats)<br /><br /><b>Other tricks:</b><br /><li> I also find that you can serve kids Campbell's vegetable alphabet soup, because the kids look at the letters not the veggies! And Campbell's is one of the lowest in sodium.<br /><li> If you can find a "low-in-fat" dip your kids like, you can serve it to them with their favourite veggies using the "gosh we're all out of crackers" excuse. Mild veggies to try are of course carrot sticks, light green bell peppers, yellow bell peppers, sugar snap peas, snow peas, celery sticks for older kids.<br /><li> Have a make-your-own-pizza night and cut up a variety of meats, cheeses and veggies such as peppers, mushrooms, tomatoes, broccoli, artichoke hearts, etc. Have your child make his own pizza and encourage him to add vegetables. If they make the food, they will be happy to eat it.<br /><br />Let me know your suggestions, too, please!Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-60668209786933247912006-11-27T12:38:00.000-08:002006-11-27T13:16:57.317-08:00A Cheese by another name tastes great and is low-cal too!<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/7737/2232/1600/746766/strawberry_spinach_eng.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/7737/2232/320/646496/strawberry_spinach_eng.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />For all you cheese and dip lovers, I have a healthy new suggestion. I tried a new dip by the TreStelle company made with low-fat ricotta and it's a winner! I've been cooking with ricotta cheese for a few years now and it's a good, creamy, low-fat substitute for cottage or cream cheese, and an excellent ingredient in cheesecakes, lasagna, and other creamy dishes.<br /><br />TreStelle's new <a href="http://www.trestelle.ca/english/cheesegallery/getcheese.php?cid=111" target=_blank>ricotta cheese spreads </a>come in 1 savoury flavour and 3 sweet ones: spinach and garlic, strawberry, blueberry, and tropical fruit. I bought the Spinach one and I'll admit I added about 2/3 tsp of garlic salt to it because I found it a bit mild on the garlic side. Kudos to them for making a low-sodium product, too, and shame on me for wanting to add more salt. The best news of all though is that 4 whopping tablespoons of this dip amounts to only 100 calories and 6 g of fat*. That's incredibly low compared, for example, to cream cheese which has 8 times the calories and 4 times as much fat.<br /><br />I would recommend sticking to the savoury dip because it's easy to pair with cut up veggies like bell peppers, cucumber, celery, carrots, snow or sugar-snap peas and steamed broccoli, green beans or cauliflower. Fruit flavoured versions will keep up the sugar cravings because naturally they're sweet and they beg to be spread on bagels or have sweet fruits like strawberries or pinneapple dipped into them. The other benefit of the spinach spread is that it's a great alternative to butter or margarine as a low-fat spread for whole-grain crackers or healthy sandwiches. <br /><br />The more we support companies by purchasing their healthy products, the more we tell these manufacturers that we want them to produce foods that support our heath, not endanger it.<br /><br />*NOTE: the actual serving size says 5 Tbsp is 70g and contains 6g fat and 100 calories but that entire container only holds 270 g. There did not appear to be 15 or more Tablespoons in that small container so I was skeptical. I did my own measuring using my own scale and found that 70g was approximately 4 Tbsp of the spread. Still a great nutritional value though!Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1163720004497440892006-11-16T15:32:00.000-08:002006-11-28T11:05:37.096-08:00Harmful Drugs or Healing Mushrooms: It's Your Choice<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/7737/2232/1600/vegetable_mushrooms.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 6px 6px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/7737/2232/320/vegetable_mushrooms.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I've been very frustrated by the reports I'm seeing in the past two days. Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche got FDA approval for their drug Tamiflu, which is a potent chemical formulation made from a Chinese herb known as star anise. <i>An aside - it's also a pretty tasty herb used in high-end cooking</i>. The FDA approved this drug in December 2005 for treatment of influenza and possibly the avian flu which health officials fear could create a pandemic should it mutate into a form easily passed from human to human. If you look on the <a href="http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/tamiflu/default.htm," target="_blank">FDA's website</a>, just one month prior to approval they released a report stating that Tamiflu was one of eight drugs to be examined by a Pediatrics panel. The reason: "...a number of adverse event reports were identified associated with the use of Tamiflu in children 16 years of age or younger. These adverse event reports were primarily related to unusual neurologic or psychiatric events such as delirium, hallucinations, confusion, abnormal behavior, convulsions, and encephalitis." Now medical reporting can be a bit detached in its descriptions. More recent reports of "adverse effects" of children taking Tamiflu includes two separate cases of children aged 12 and 13 throwing themselves out of the window of their apartment buildings and plummeting to their death. Nevertheless, in December of 2005 the FDA approved Tamiflu.<br /><br />Tamiflu has also been in the news because Roche claimed that it was a good contender to fight the potential avian flu epidemic that we've been warned about. A flurry of news stories centred around governments keen on stockpiling drugs that might fight the avian flu virus alternately ordering millions of bottles of the drug and berating Roche for not allowing other drug companies to make the drug as well. In the meanwhile, Roche's revenues rocketed skyward and by September 2005 their revenues for the year were already up 263%. And yet, there has been no definitive answer as to whether the avian flu virus can be stopped in its tracks by Tamiflu. Tamiflu has proved effective against H5N1 in mice in laboratory tests. But a look on the US Department of State website reveals this statement:<br />"Based upon limited data, the DHHS/CDC (Centre for Disease Control) has suggested that the anti-viral medication Oseltamivir (brand name- Tamiflu) may be effective in treating avian influenza A (H5N1)."<br /><br />Now we learn about more than 100 new cases of children taking Tamiflu who are experiencing delirium, hallucinations and convulsions, so health officials must warn parents to watch children taking Tamiflu for signs of "bizarre behaviour".<br /><br />Let's step back from this situation for a minute. A drug company has come up with a drug to treat influenza. The accepted medical treatment for influenza is to drink lots of liquids and get plenty of rest. Why is there a need for a drug for this? Why does the FDA approve a drug that may only shorten the effects of influenza, that may or may not be effective against H5N1, and which causes harmful effects when given to children? Why do governments spend millions of dollars on such a drug? Why are parents giving drugs to their children when water and bed rest is recommended? <br /><br />There are safe and natural methods of combatting viruses that have none of these harmful effects, come from a number of companies, are not expensive and therefore accessible to most people? Case in point: New Chapter's Life Shield Throat Spray (a blend of 3 potent mushrooms) has been tested to actively fight 5 strains of the avian flu, West Nile, Yellow Fever and other viruses. Since the product is made from organic mushrooms processed at low temperatures and left mainly intact, they cannot produce harmful side effects and are safe even for young children over the age of two.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.new-chapter.com" target="_blank">New Chapter</a>'s Paul Stamets is a mycologist who has developed the LifeShield and other mushroom products and is currently involved in two National Institutes of Health-funded clinical studies on cancer and HIV treatments using mushrooms. His patent-pending low-processing technologies and high-quality organic mushroom sources are being tested in animal clinical trials and are successfully fighting powerful pox viruses. His products quite simply work. And some actually clean up the environment while they are growing, too in a process called <a href="http://www.fungi.com/mycotech/mycova.html" target="_blank">bioremediation</a>. That might help the <a href="http://www.aigenvironmental.com/environmental/public/envindustries/0,1340,63-11-329,00.html" target="_blank">contaminants produced by pharmaceutical companies</a>. . But that's another story....<br /><br />I suspect that ignorance could be the only thing standing in the way of everyone choosing proven natural remedies for health concerns, rather than pharmaceutical ones which often come with a handful of risks and complications. When a disease is not life-threatening there is also the option to do nothing, to take no remedy and let the body fight the infection on its own. Of course, we always have the skeptics. A common skeptic response to alternative health claims is: "one should question whether or not these remedies, which tend to be pricey, actually work." I agree with the first part, and noone should take a product that has not been proven to work, unless taking it poses little risk. For example I might take a common herb to help me treat a headache and if it's ineffective, so what? But I wouldn't use it to "cure" cancerous cell-growth. But addressing the question of cost, is $25 for a bottle that can last a family of 4 an entire flu season pricey? How many pharmaceutical remedies are that inexpensive? I've never heard of prescription drugs for four people costing as little as $25.<br /><br />This $25 bottle of LifeShield Throat Spray is just one product that I know about because I've been doing product demos for New Chapter for years, and am now a vendor. New Chapter is quiet about their products' successes and seem to spend their extra dollars on manufacturing instead of marketing. But the point is, there are likely other high-quality non-pharmaceutical solutions out there. Why else would the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) be examining medicinal mushrooms in their joint biodefense antiviral screening program with the NIH unless they believed the non-pharma route was a viable option? This is the USAMRIID after all whose vision is "to be the Nation's preeminent research laboratory providing cutting-edge medical research for the warfighter against biological threats". These folks would not waste time investigating ineffective methods.<br /><br />We all owe it to our health, our pocketbooks and our peace of mind to investigate ways of treating health problems without pharmaceuticals, especially for common, generally low-risk health problems such as the cold and flu. Learn about better safer alternatives to drugs because they are out there. And don't forget that we choose where to put our money and that's how we show our support for businesses. I'd rather support a mushroom farmer who's trying to save the world through fungi than throw a few more dollars at a faceless, polluting big corporation billion-dollar revenues.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1159396799315167072006-09-27T14:40:00.000-07:002006-11-28T11:04:23.217-08:00Nutrition Labels - what's the score?Do you know how to read those Nutrition Facts tables on the labels of most foods nowadays? If the answer is no, you're not alone. Some good doctors at the Center for Health Services Research at Vanderbilt University did a study with 200 well-educated participants but only 22% could identify the number of carbs in 2 pieces of bread, even while looking right at the nutrition facts table.<br /><br />Why all the confusion? It's not like you need anything more than simple math to read these tables. But there's more to it than that. Manufacturers are now required to put tables on their food products and naturally they want their products to come out looking as attractive as possible. In some cases manufacturers give nutrition data for portions of food that are much smaller than what one person would eat. And many people nowadays eat portions that are much larger than what they should be eating. We owe it to ourselves to become experts in reading those nutrition labels, and understanding what "serving size" means. Nutrition facts are given for a single serving which can be anything from a few crackers to an entire hamburger. Each label is different and so reading that a serving has 100 calories is meaningless unless you understand how many of those servings make it into your mouth.<br /><br />For example, the serving size on the side of my cereal box is a generous 55g (some companies only show values for 30g). Apparently that's 3/4 cup of cereal. However, when I poured 55g of cereal into my regular bowl on my kitchen scale, it was a <u>lot</u> less than what I eat each morning. So, I'm not eating the mere 190 calories the nutrition table promises - without milk. I'm probably getting a lot more like 270 calories before I even pour my milk into the bowl.<br /><br />Once you know what you are eating, compared to the serving size, you can then calculate how many calories, carbs, proteins, fat, fibre, etc you are eating when you consume that food. It's important to look at all that information together too. For example, perhaps you are eating a handful of nuts that adds up to 170 calories. When you notice on the nutrition label that 15 grams are fat and only 6g and 5g of protein and carbs respectively, you see that you are eating mostly fat. In fact, 135 of those 170 calories are actually fat calories (because each 1 gram of fat equals 9 calories whereas 1 gram of protein or carbohydrate only provide 4 calories). This snack is more than 2/3 fat!!<br /><br />It's no wonder that many people are getting heavier, because most of us have no idea how many calories and fats we are consuming each day. It's worth visiting McDonald's website to try out their <a href="http://www.mcdonalds.ca/en/food/calculator_popup.aspx" target="_blank">Nutrition Calculator</a>. That's an eye opener, and a great service, although I'm not sure it's going to encourage inquiring minds to want to eat at McDonald's ever again. This tool allows you to choose items for the menu and then it will tally their caloric and nutrient values. I chose a Oreo McFlurry which even large-sized is only a cup and a half of sweet yummy ice creamy goodness. Even though you'd assume ice cream is made from milk and therefore a McFlurry might be somewhat healthy, this snack weighs in at almost 700 calories. That's almost half the calories a small woman needs for an entire day! I guess next time I need to get a sinful treat I'll stick to my own homemade cookies whose nutrient values I have assessed and accepted.<br /><br />For more information on reading Nutrition Facts labels, the <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nutrition-facts/NU00293" target="_blank">Mayo Clinic</a> has a wonderful interactive tool that allows you to point your mouse at different parts of the table and learn about them.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1155670014962267942006-08-15T10:41:00.000-07:002006-11-30T15:10:43.580-08:00Obesity Crisis Outweighs Malnutrition WorldwideA consortium in Australia met recently to discuss the global obesity pandemic. It's everywhere and not just in rich countries anymore. We know that the urban poor in North America are suffering - McDonald's is cheaper and quicker than cooking a healthy meal - but also the rural poor in countries like China are getting fatter. One in 6 people in the world are overweight or obese. That's over 1 billion fat people!!!! Read more <a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/37905"target=_blank>here</a>.<br /><br />What did this gathering of the International Association of Agricultural Economistsd decide? Some of their recommendations are:<br />- subsidise fruits and vegetables<br />- impose taxes for unhealthy choices such as soda pop and sugary foods<br />- encourage more physical activity<br /><br />These are great suggestions but I think it's going to be tough to impose "unhealthy taxes" on multimillion dollar corporations. If governments and consumers truly believe that eating garbage foods is making us sick, then we may be able to put pressure on fast-food chains and sugary cereal manufacturers to start making healthier food. We can simply stop buying the garbage they try to sell us. But this brings the control back into our own hands. Our health is our own responsibility, and we cannot place this blame on others. We have to take control of how we treat our bodies.<br /><br />People know that I am a little piggy and I love my desserts. So they always ask me why I am slim. I have genetics on my side, to be sure. My parents are both fairly tall people and have thinner than average frames. But there are 2 reasons for my healthy figure, that are under my control:<br />1. I love my food but I eat it in moderation. If something is YUMMY delicious but very heavy, low in nutrients or high in calories I either eat it all by itself (with no other food) and make sure that the rest of my food that day is very healthy. Or I save it for a very special treat. A once a week kind of treat.<br />2. I am physically active <b>every single day</b>. I do not own a car and I walk or bike everwhere. I go to the gym three times a week, do yoga as much as I can, swim or go for bike rides. I like to move around and stretch and my body only feels good when it is being used in this way.<br /><br />It's pretty simple really. We are so lucky to live in a country where we have so many luxuries. Our food is a luxury; so much more than simply fuel. It's tough to hold back sometimes from all the treats we see around us. But we have to, or we will make ourselves sick. Overeating means giving in to temporary greedy pleasures. It's okay once in a while, but doing it regularly means you do not care about your body or your health. Who feels good with a stuffed belly? Nobody. Who feels good with a body that can run up a flight of stairs without puffing, that can jump around and feel light? Everyone does.<br /><br />We can blame the corporations for dangling unhealthy treats in our faces, especially when this food is what we're desiged to crave. We can blame corporations for taking advantage of the stress we're all under when they advertise that processed food is easier to prepare, tastier and makes our lives better. But, at a certain point we need to take responsibility for our own eating habits. We put food in our grocery carts, on our plates, into our mouths. We need to be sure that what we put there is what will make us healthy, not fat and sick.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1153172083390131652006-07-17T13:49:00.000-07:002006-07-17T14:35:05.836-07:00Oh my poor stomach!It's summertime and all our favourite fruits and veggies are ripe and fresh for the eating. Berries are everywhere, piled up seductively at local stores and their sweet aroma hits you before you even catch sight of them. Now that's fresh. It's a bad time for me to discover that what's at the root of long-standing tummy troubles is difficulty digesting raw fruits and vegetables. All I want to do right now is chow down on fresh lettuces and berries but my stomach sends sharp distress signals each time I try to eat these beloved foods. It makes me feel like crying, but I have a solution.<br /><br />Are you like me? Do you eat raw food and get painful gas and bloating? Raw foods are filled with enzymes and vitamins that our bodies need, and that a processed diet often lacks. Some of these enzymes and vitamins get damaged by cooking, and that's why so many people advocate a diet that is high in <a href="http://www.rawfoods.com/"target="_blank">raw foods</a>. Raw foods are also a delicious way to get your daily requirements of fruits and vegetables. Munching on some of these foods on a hot day is a joy: cherries, peaches, raspberries, strawberries, grapes, melons, celery, carrots (yellow and orange!), bell peppers, and so many delicious sprouts.<br /><br />Fortunately, it is possible to get the benefits of fresh fruits and vegetables in other ways. Juicing is one. Finding a juice bar or a health food store that makes juice is a lifesaver for those of us experiencing difficulty with digesting plant fibres. All the enzymes, minerals and vitamins are present in fresh juice, so you lose very little. But without the fibre, the naturally-occuring sugars have nothing to slow them down when being processed in your stomach, so you will get a bit of a sugar rush. An added bonus for some. Also don't forget that juicing can add up to a lot of calories since often quite a few large fruits and vegetables are used to make one seving of fresh juice.<br /><br />Another option is one of the many greens products out there on the market. Powdered greens are processed at low temperatures and impart the goodness of several healthy green vegetables in a single spoonful. I recommend New Chapter's Berry Green and any other greens product that doesn't contain grasses (such as wheatgrass) which can cause problem for tender tummies. We are now even seeing powdered greens in some very tasty snack bars, such as <a href="http://www.zenorganicfoods.com"target="-blank">Zen Organic bars</a> and my absolute favourite the <a href="http://www.organicfoodbar.com/"target="_blank">Organic bar</a>. Yum! <br /><br />Vegetables juices are another good way to get your greens, although all commercially sold juices are pasteurised (boiled) so you will lose some of the vitamins. I <b>hated</b> vegetable juice until I tried Knudsen's Very Veggie, which for some reason tastes very delicious. Try different ones on the market, as there is bound to be one that is to your liking.<br /><br />Of course, I've not forgotten to eat cooked vegetables and in this regard, I am thankful to live in Vancouver where there are many Asian restaurants offering cooked, tasty vegetable-rich meals. Also dried fruits when chewed carefully can impart a good supply of vitamins, minerals and flavour.<br /><br />Even if you do not have a problem digesting raw fruits and veggies, every one of us should chew our meals slowly and carefully. Our stomachs and intestines have no teeth! They must break foods down by tossing them around in an enzyme-rich soup. As we age, we produce less chemicals to aid in this breakdown process so the more work we can do with our teeth to break down our food, the happier our tummies will be!Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1152165574012667262006-07-05T22:47:00.000-07:002006-11-30T15:09:12.748-08:00Forget SPF! Pass me the chocolate, please.Yippee!! Those scientists just keep on finding new reasons to eat chocolate. All you chocolate lovers out there know that we don't need any more reasons, anyway, but keep up the good work men and women of science.<br /><br />The Journal of Nutrition's June 2006 issue featured a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16702322&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum" target="_blank">study</a> on the effects of chocolate to protect women from skin damage. One of the ways that everyone agrees that free radicals can harm us is through the sun's rays. And antioxidants in food definitely help to counteract the bad effects of those free radicals. So, did the women spread chocolate on their skin and go lie in the sun, you ask? Heavens no. What a waste that would be......they had a cup of hot cocoa each day, and the cocoa happened to be high in flavanols (plant-based antioxidants). The results?<br />Compared to the control group of women who had no cocoa, the cocoa drinkers:<br />- had 15% less skin reddening after UV light exposure after six weeks of drinking the cocoa, and 25% less after 12 weeks<br />- experienced a doubling of blood flow in the skin in tissue 1 millimeter below the surface, and a 37.5% increase in tissue 7 to 8 mm deep<br />- had skin that was 16% denser, 11% thicker, 13% moister, 30% less rough and 42% less scaly, compared to the beginning of the study<br /><br />The amount of flavanols in the study were the equivalent of a 3 oz bar of dark chocolate; think Lindt, for example. I plan to eat more chocolate than ever now, to protect my skin from all the sun exposure it's getting from swimming outdoors this summer. And I get less scaly skin thrown in as a door prize, nice!<br /><br />Speaking of dark chocolate, I went to Toronto last week and visited a man who brings beans from all over the world to his magical Chocolate Laboratory and store. He roasts, then conches the beans on-site, then makes the most wonderful chocolates! Shout outs to David Castellan at <a href="http://www.somachocolate.com" target="_blank">Soma Chocolate</a>!Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1150220131282363092006-06-13T09:53:00.000-07:002006-11-30T15:12:30.337-08:00Put Down That Donut!People, we are FAT! And not only that. We're in denial about it! <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060613.whealfat0613/BNStory/National/home#">The Canadian Community Health Survey</a> was just released and it found that when assessors actually went around and measured people, they found 1 in 4 Canadians to be obese. Previously, survey participants were self-reporting and it appeared that they underestimated their own weight and overestimated their height. The results (when folks self-reported) showed obesity rates of only 15% instead of the later validated 25%. <br /><br />One of the ways we like to show our Canadian pride is to boast about how we are "not like Americans". Often this comes out as "not like those FAT Americans..." But we need to turn a critical eye at ourselves now, because more and more studies are telling us that we are suffering from dangerously large waistlines and a rise in incidences of diabetes. Our children are just as inactive in schools, they watch just as much TV and eat just as much junkfood as our American neighbours. And therefore we need to be just as vigilant and aware. We have only one life to live and just one wonderful body to inhabit during that lifetime. It needs to be treated with TLC.<br /><br />Each day gives us a new opportunity to use our bodies for what they were designed to do. Whether it's walking up a flight of stairs, an after-dinner stroll with a loved one, a hike, walking to the store to get groceries, all of these things contribute to good health. Each one makes a positive impact on our health and makes us feel better. Driving around in the car, sitting at desks all day long and eating junk (sugary, nutrient-free "food") does the opposite. We have such a limited time on this earth to enjoy nature, friends, new experiences. How can we do what's bad for our health and ignore how it might limit the number of days we get to enjoy our lives??<br /><br />The long-awaited season - summer! - is just around the corner. It's time to put down the donut, back away from the computer, pick up a carrot and get outside and get that blood flowing!Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1149738368769092892006-06-07T20:38:00.000-07:002006-11-30T15:13:05.152-08:00Feeling EmptyThe word 'empty' has a negative connotation in today's consumer society. It is used to mean going without, absence, or even convey emotional meanings such as lack of value or loneliness. When we say we have an "empty belly" we're describing an unhappy state of hunger that we want to fix immediately. On the other hand, the word "full belly" has happier connotations of abundance, and a calm and comfortable state.<br /><br />Most athletes and yogis find a benefit to having an empty stomach before they start their practice. It's very difficult to run and jump or do seated twists or forward bends with food sloshing around in our bellies. The active person has an appreciation of emptiness and in this sense it becomes a positive state.<br /><br />As North Americans, we are not at risk of starving or going without food for any longer than a few hours. While pangs of hunger may come on strong, there is always something nearby to satisfy our appetites. With that fact in mind, does it make sense to eat the large quantities of food most of us do? Perhaps we could take a lesson from the pre-exercise state of being empty, which comes before hunger. The feeling of knowing you are not hungry, but nor are you full can be a pleasantly neutral place to be. To avoid the extremes of either a heavy, stretched belly or a raging hunger, we need to eat a number of smaller meals throughout the day. So much of what we do is ingrained, routine behaviour, and it takes practice to change the habit of eating too-large meals. The first step, as always, is becoming more aware of our current behaviours.<br /><br />Here's an awareness exercise to try next time you sit down to a meal where you can control the portion size, ideally at home.<br /><br />1. Take a medium-sized plate and place food on only half of the plate's surface. Do you feel anxious about the fact that your plate only contains a small amount of food? Tell yourself not to worry, that you can eat again in an hour if you are still hungry. <br />2. Take a deep breath and slowly breathe out. You will now begin to calmly eat. <br />3. Take a small bite of food and put down your fork/spoon/chopsticks as you slowly chew and then swallow. <br />4. Continue like this, chewing slowly and placing your utensil down between bites. It should take you at least 10 minutes to eat your meal.<br />5. When you have finished the food on your plate, push it away from you and take another deep breath. Feel the food in your stomach. Feel how you have nourished your body. <br /><br />You may still feel hungry, because it takes a lot of chewing and sometimes about 20 minutes to feel satisfied after a meal. But you have just eaten enough food to sustain you for several hours, particularly when you consider what people in other countries survive on each day. And if you are still hungry in an hour, just eat again.<br /><br />This is an interesting experiment to try occasionally, and it's a good way to avoid feeling overstuffed before you do a physical activity. It may also give you insight into why many of us overeat simply by default. By being more aware of our eating habits, we can build a healthier relationship with food, one that's based on what our bodies need, instead of what advertisers or our hectic schedules might dictate.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1149142836537006932006-05-31T23:18:00.000-07:002006-11-30T15:11:17.744-08:00Begin AgainI read an article the other day on the late <a href="http://www.estheryoga.com/vanda.html"target="_blank">Vanda Scaravelli</a> and her method of teaching yoga. Vanda was well-known for starting yoga in midlife, and being amazingly strong, capable and flexible well into her 80s. This article spoke about a phrase she used commonly: "Begin again" to help her students try to surrender anew into each pose, to not be attached to their experience in the pose last time.<br /><br />I think this phrase can be applied to so many other aspects of our lives, and I believe it's relevant to our relationship with food too. How many times have we felt we were on a downhill slope with our diet, and that it was all "going to pot"? That we had somehow ruined things by not eating healthy. We all have days where we eat what's too rich, too heavy, just too too much. Yet every next meal is a new start, a new chance to begin again and do what's right for our bodies.<br /><br />I love the hopefulness of that phrase 'begin again'. It encourages a letting go of what came before, underlines the importance of this moment, and suggests an optimism about what is to come. Start fresh, make this time count, try now. <br /><br />If we can remember these two words each time we sit down to eat, we can put aside feelings of guilt or remorse and focus on what we're going to give our body for fuel <b>right now</b>. It doesn't matter what we ate (or didn't eat) for breakfast, the point is that each new meal gives us a chance to reach our optimal health. Each time we eat, it's an opportunity to take in the vital nutrients our bodies need to perform well for us all day long. And with each meal, our journey to optimal health can begin again.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1147967709405672082006-05-18T08:48:00.000-07:002006-11-30T15:10:01.825-08:00Guilt-free chocolate<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/949/1786/1600/Truffles%208x12WEB.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/949/1786/320/Truffles%208x12WEB.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Everyone has been asking me for more info on my guilt-free chocolates, and so since I'm waiting for my website to be built, I thought I'd put my pic of them up here. Aren't they cute? And the marketing blurb:<br /><br />- sugar-free, no added or transfats<br />- diabetic-friendly: contains inulin<br />- contains Omega 3s<br />- VEGAN<br /><br />UPDATE: My new website is up and running! Please see <a href="http://www.chocolibrium.com"target="_blank">www.chocolibrium.com</a> for all the chocolatey details :0)Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1147281637925951332006-05-10T09:45:00.000-07:002006-05-21T21:57:17.270-07:00Only Drugs Can Heal You!...or at least that's what the FDA wants us to believe. Call me cynical - because I am! - but this <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901418.html" target="_blank">news item </a> with the FDA's assertion that green tea has absolutely no health benefits has I'm-in-bed-with-Big-Pharma written all over it. <br /><br />I'm all for regulation of food, to ensure that all the world's people can have access to a basic survival necessity: clean, safe food. Those of us who've worked in the food industry know that food can easily be contaminated. But as more and more studies indicate that pesticide-free fresh foods are protective against modern diseases, the FDA's heavy dismissal hints at a more insidious story behind the story. <br /><br />The only way to research food is finding serious funding to pay for clinical trials, long study periods and expert scientific analysis. Most foods items that are being studied ultimately come from farms, and few farmers have the money to pay to prove the benefits of their products. So companies with an interest in the outcomes of these studies are the only ones who can afford them, along with disease-research organizations. Very few studies get put forth and it's often companies (such as vitamin or sports nutrition manufacturers) competing with pharmaceutical giants who foot the bill to test the food components of their products. In this case, a large Japanese green tea company wanted to put some science behind what we've come to know as an obvious truth: drinking green tea daily helps Japanese people live longer healthier lives. But the FDA squashed their attempt, stating that after reading 105 articles on the matter, they could still find "no evidence to support claims of the beverage's health benefits."<br /><br />I think the truth of the matter lies here in the article's final sentence: "A health claim, in the language of the FDA, characterizes the relationship between a substance and a reduction in the risk of contracting a particular disease." And what would happen, I ask you, if FOOD could be a factor in reducing risk of diseases like diabetes, heart disease, cancer? Well, then people wouldn't spend so much money on drugs, they might spend it instead on food. And informed people wouldn't spend their money on processed food either because the real preventive and protective foods are foods our grandparents ate. Foods like fruits, vegetables, lean meats, legumes and grains that nobody but silly old farmers can profit from. What would happen to the economy if people stopped buying drugs, multivitamins, "enriched whole grain" Lucky Charms cereals and the like?! I'm sure Big Business is feeling faint just imagining such a scenario.<br /><br />UPDATE: The FDA has just seen fit to approve a new drug for children to treat Crohn's disease, despite the fact that this same drug <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051900838.html">has been linked</a> to an increased risk of cancer in some patients. Many people have been cured of Crohn's through dietary modification, such as the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051900838.html">Specific Carbohydrate Diet</a> to name just one. Once again, there's much less profit in hawking fruits and veggies than the billions of dollars that over-the-counter medications bring in each year.<br /><br />When the FDA is so utterly unwilling to acknowledge the benefits of food, and yet so willing to play a role in pushing potentially harmful drugs on children it makes me leery to say the least. The FDA may exist to protect me from food poisoning, but they do not really care about me reaching optimal health. Unless, of course, their stakeholders can benefit from it in some way. Shrug. The truth is, I don't need their help. I don't need a scientific study to show me that eating a fresh orange gives me vitality and makes me feel good. A Dairy Queen Blizzard, on the other hand, makes my tongue feel happy for a while, but makes me feel bloated and twitchy soon afterwards. So I'm going to continue to seek out the freshest, most wholesome food for my diet because I <i>know</i> it is beneficial to my health. And the FDA can go to Hell. I hear the road there is paved with good medications.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1146524092167545962006-05-01T15:46:00.000-07:002006-11-30T15:11:51.198-08:00Are You Really Hungry?<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/949/1786/1600/72_72.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/949/1786/400/72_72.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Recently I've met a few people who don't eat very much, or very often. As someone who's either eating or thinking about food most of the time, I'm amazed by people like this. "Don't you get hungry?!" I asked them. Because to me, hungry people need to eat three times a day or more. Now, of course they do, but the way they deal with their hunger is markedly different from the rest of us.<br /><br />What I've learned is that these individuals recognise their hunger and seek out food if they have time, or if busy they just put off eating until later. Eventually, they eat, but they rarely overeat, as many of us do when we've put off eating and are starving. <br /><br />Sitting and eating with these folks, I see that they don't rush to eat food when it's placed in front of them, nor do they eat everything on their plate. They stop when they feel they've had enough. What I observe here is a very relaxed and almost ambivalent approach to food. They don't see their food as anything but something their body needs occasionally, and they rarely have thoughts such as "eating this will make me happy" or "I need to eat this or..." The most surprising revelation? These folks don't like feeling stuffed, so they make sure to stop eating before they get to that stage. "Don't like feeling full?" I ponder. "But it's like a hug from the inside!"<br /><br />This is complete contrast to my own intense interest and occasionally anxious need for food. I think their style seems very foreign, but it has made me question my own.<br /><br />From a physiological perspective: food is fuel that keeps us alive. We're programmed to detect when we're low on fuel and are motivated to seek out more. Once we've consumed enough to store some energy away, the idea is to stop eating, assuming there is a sufficient supply nearby for next time the hunger arises. Because, in times of scarcity we're programmed to overeat as a protective measure. Animals in the wild will gorge themselves on a kill, if they're not sure where their next meal will come from. <br /><br />I wonder sometimes, if many of us have our internal hunger dials mistakenly set to famine mode. Could it be that the highly advertised availability of rich food around us, or the fact that most of us lead stressful lives makes most of us anxiously reach for larger quantities of food than we need?<br /><br />I'm going to be asking myself this question a lot in the next few weeks: "Am I really hungry?" to bring my attention to times when I'm eating because I'm stressed or unhappy. Also, it may help me to better determine when I'm full. So I can stop and avoid the bloat. Hug or not, it's still a bit uncomfortable, like an unwelcome hug from an overzealous relative.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1144715973186501702006-04-10T17:27:00.000-07:002006-05-10T20:35:00.253-07:00Mirror, mirror on the wall....<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/949/1786/1600/Fat.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/949/1786/400/Fat.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I promised that my next post would be on the challenges posed by changing one's behaviour, particularly around food. Well, having just come back from Mexico - on a business trip, no less - I had a tourist's challenge of finding green vegetables, food that wasn't fried or overly processed, and of learning to Just Say No to baskets filled with Pan Dulce. Delicious but less-than-healthy delights were everywhere.<br /><br />For those of us who love food, every day, every new meal is a chance to savour and enjoy what we love most. Travelling, even visiting new local restaurants opens the door to experience and it's difficult to say no to new enticing foods, or to old favourites. So what's an epicurean to do?<br /><br />Like with all pleasures in life, we try to strike a balance. It's much more fun to play than work, but bills have to be paid. We know what the repercussions are when we don't earn the money we need to pay our bills, but do we really consider the repercussions of eating badly, or too much?<br /><br />Would you eat fewer desserts if you knew that each bite of cookie slowed down the functioning of your immune system? Would you refuse a plate of fries if you knew that the transfats it contains could eventually result in cell damage to your body's cell membranes? And what about if you could look inside your body to see where all the excess calories and fat were being deposited? Would that alter your eating habits?<br /><br />As a child, I had a Steve Austin Bionic Man doll: a replica of the Six Million Dollar Man TV show character. I loved rolling up his "arm-sleeve" to reveal the computer chip in his arm, or the one in his leg, or peering through his head to see through his bionic eye. I used to wonder at how amazing it would be if we could see inside our bodies at any given moment. I still believe that we would treat our bodies so much better if we could see the incredible things going on inside of them.<br /><br />The photo above was taken for the "Why are Americans so Fat?" <a href="http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0408/feature3/index.html" target="_blank">article</a> in the August 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine. It shows the MRIs of a "morbidly obese woman" and a healthy woman. See how the fat is loaded around the organs of the larger woman? And all the food going through her intestines? I see this photo and think of the strain on this woman's poor body to try and process all that food. Trying to avoid taxing the body like this helps me to moderate my cookie-crazed tendencies, not to mention the risk of so many health disorders that are linked to obesity.<br /><br />Philosophy and psychology can tell us loads about how humanity has always struggled with competing desires. But this information is no help when we are faced with this daily conflict: should we choose food for fuel, or food for YUM! <br /><br />Because I think of my body as a wonderfully intricate machine, I try to give it the care and attention it deserves. When delicious but unhealthy treats are dangled in front of me, I think about how they'll affect my body. If it's "good for the mouth" but not so good for the rest of the body, I try to save those treats for once a week. That way my eating habits are good for my heart, and my soul.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1140487548184084362006-02-20T18:01:00.000-08:002006-03-26T12:01:25.216-08:00Calorie Restriction II - the Green Guys win!Well, it's been an interesting month. I've been plagued by a cold and respiratory problems and so haven't been eating as much as normal. However, I've learned something by tracking my calories at each meal. The foods that hog the most calories are processed and lacking in the most nutrients. Take my favourite: peanut butter. Yum! I could eat this on anything. But at 100 calories a teaspoon it blows through a lot of my calorie rations without offering much: monounsaturated fat, some protein, a few vitamins and minerals. Don't forget, the goal of calorie restriction is to eat between 1600 - 2000 cals per day, depending on your body type and energy requirements. This is <b>not</b> fasting.<br /><br />Now my fabulous salad creations (e.g. green beans, lettuce, cukes, radish, fried egg, tuna, dressing ) on the other hand weigh in very low on the caloric scale and offer loads of vitamin, minerals, fibre and much-needed (for me) protein. The salad dressing costs a lot of calories (120 per tablespoon) but I always make my dressing with mostly flax oil and apple cider vinegar which means I'm getting much-needed Omega 3s, vitamins ACE and Bs and trace minerals.<br /><br />Sticking to lean meats, healthy oils and lots of fruits and veggies still seems to be a winning combination, especially with the calorie restriction plan. I'm not saying that calorie restriction is the only way forward. <a href="http://carolinescookies.blogspot.com/2006/01/ode-to-calorie-restriction-part-1.html" target="_blank">This</a> was initially just an experimental foray. And calorie restriction must be done in a way that is safe and provides one with adequate energy. <br /><br />But why bother? The March 2006 issue of Scientific American features a <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000B73EB-3380-13F6-B38083414B7F0000" target="_blank">story</a> on how researchers have narrowed down the science between calorie-restriction and longevity to one gene called SIR-2. This gene is responsible for turning off certain normal functions within our cells that shut down naturally as we age. They found that calorie restriction activates SIR-2 production which means longer cell life and longer organism life. Unfortunately, the folks at Scientific American concluded that we need to make a pill that does this for us. Must everything come in a pill? When you think of the excesses that are the norm for our typical North American diet, and then look at all the age- and excess-related diseases we suffer, calorie restriction, seems like a healthy alternative that's at least worth exploring.<br /><br />The challenges posed by changing one's behaviour, particularly around food, will be the topic of my next post.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1138385257300175022006-01-27T09:53:00.000-08:002006-01-27T10:42:53.366-08:00Ode to Calorie Restriction - Part 1So you want to live forever, cowboy? Well, start by cutting back on those calories. Last week, yet another <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060113112537.htm" target="_blank">study</a> demonstrated the benefits of a calorie-restricted diet. The results: people who eat between 1600 - 2000 cals per day were found to have more elastic, resilient hearts that, among other things, are better able to relax between beats as do younger people's hearts.<br /><br />Dr. Roy Walford has been advocating such a diet for the last 20 years. His book "The 120-year Diet" was based on years of research on lab mice and humans to show that those who restrict caloric intake AND maintain nutritional requirements do not fall victim to many typical age-related diseases. Dr. Walford died last year from Lou Gehrig's disease (a neuromuscular disease unrelated to diet or age) but his <a href="http://calorierestriction.org" target="_blank">organization</a> carries the torch of calorie restriction (CR) and offers many educational links.<br /><br />Harvard has been looking into the connection between disease and the Standard American Diet (SAD). Yep, it's actually referred to as SAD! An article on the causal relationship between calories and obesity, in Harvard Magazine's June 2004 issue noted "Today, Americans eat 200 calories more food energy per day than they did 10 years ago". Looking at around at what's for sale in your typical grocery store confirms this fact. Most processed, packaged foods are quick to eat and "tasty" but terribly high in calories.<br /><br />The calorie restriction concept is all about removing processed, refined foods from the diet (which happen to be high in calories) and keeping the fruits and especially vegetables (low in cals) and leaner meats (which with less fat, have lower caloric value). I support this formula completely and such a diet is recommended by many experts within allopathic and alternative health circles.<br /><br />In the spirit of adventure, and with yet another birthday looming, I've decided to do my heart a favour and monitor the number of calories I actually eat in a day. I'm sure it's a lot! Once established, I'll then see how difficult it would be to reduce that amount to between 1600 and 2000 calories. Just to test it out.<br /><br />I've just finished breakfast: a small bowl of soy milk, ginger granola and a banana. This added up to a whopping 400 calories. This tiny amuse-bouche is only the first of four or five meals I eat each day. I'm still a bit peckish but I don't think I'll reach for my typical after-breakfast cookie. "But it's a healthy cookie" says the inner piggie voice. "And we always have cookie after breakfast!" But just for today, I'm going to have a green drink which has only 20 calories. Because green drinks are almost as good as cookies. Hmm. I bet my will to change breaks down on this cookie issue......Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1137532541373884802006-01-17T13:11:00.000-08:002006-01-18T10:24:31.606-08:00I'll have a large salad. Hold the poo, thanks.<a href="http://spacebio.net/modules/mb_resource/Ecoli.jpeg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://spacebio.net/modules/mb_resource/Ecoli.jpeg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Washing fruits and vegetables may seem like an inconvenient and extra step in the process between buying groceries and eating dinner, but it could save your life. Thanks to alert reader and serious foodie Keeman for pointing out the risks of not washing your food. A 2002 survey published in the Journal of Food Protection estimated that each year 65 million to 81 million Americans become sick from eating food prepared at home. And little germs that ride in on your groceries have a lot to do with that.<br /><br />Lately, media attention has turned to fresh fruits and vegetables contaminated with harmful bacteria such as e. coli and salmonella, or the hepatitis A virus. The Centre for Disease Control says that produce is responsible for 12% of outbreaks of food-borne illness. There are many opportunities for food to be contaminated when it goes from farm to plate. For most of us, gone are the days of pulling up carrots and potatoes in the garden and cooking up a chicken from our own barn. Now our food is likely to have passed through at least 10 pairs of hands before it gets into ours. And mass-scale farming and food production often results in hard-to-monitor inconsistencies in ensuring food's safety.<br /><br />Vegetables such as sprouts and lettuces can be infected with e.coli from food handlers. Fruits such as cantaloupe can be infected by manure or irrigation water, get mixed up with meat improperly stored during transport or tainted by grocers or customers who didn't wash their hands. <br /><br />We know we need to eat our fruits and veggies, but it makes it a more difficult prospect when there are concerns about food safety. One thing to do is to look for organic produce, which must uphold very high standards for the environment in which they are grown. Another way is to wash all your produce even when bagged or peeled. More tips can be found <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/5aday/tips/washing.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br />The CDC recommends washing all produce in "clean, running tap water" even if the rind or peel is not going to be eaten. They say fruit and vegetable sprays are not necessary as "no washing method has been found to remove all microbes". It's a small argument for cooking your food too, as few microbes are able to withstand high temperatures. However, some nutrients and enzymes also may not survive this process.<br /><br />Finally, don't forget to try and support your local organic farmers. There's nothing quite like going to a market and picking up a vegetable that looks like it was picked this morning and held by one other person than yourself. Now that's fresh!!Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1137187726754615632006-01-13T13:27:00.000-08:002006-07-10T17:43:41.993-07:00New Year, New Regime<a href="http://www.squirrelldesigns.co.uk/balance.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://www.squirrelldesigns.co.uk/balance.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I had a wonderful holiday filled with lots of everything: family, friends, food, drink and desserts. It was a great time but I'm glad it's over now, because it was simply too too much. January is a time when I often do a short fast, or at least cut back on things like rich foods or the amount of food I'm eating. It feels like the right thing to do after so much excess. And it resets my routine to a more moderate way of eating which is closer to the way things should be.<br /><br />With drastic obesity rates still on the rise, it seems that many of us are having a hard time being moderate. A <a href="http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-01-13T163244Z_01_COL359580_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-CUTTING-CALORIES-DC.XML" target="_blank">study</a> released this week offers some hope to dieters by showing effective ways of cutting calories from the diet to achieve weight loss.<br /><br />The researchers put 24 women on regimes that required them to a. reduce the size of meal portions, b. to cut back on rich, calorie-laden foods or c. do both.The study found that of the three strategies, cutting back on portions and eating lower-calories foods resulted in an 800 calorie reduction in their daily intake. This could result in 2 pounds or more of weight loss per week. And eating low-cal foods was actually more effective than trying to eating smaller portions of calorie-dense foods (such as those higher in fats and sugars), in terms of cutting calories from the diet. <br /><br />Those wishing to lose weight who want to benefit from this information would do well to eat lighter, smaller meals that contain lots of vegetables. Not very earth-shattering news, but it flies in the face of North American habits. We of the large plates and the heavy foods that assault the taste buds with flavour. Go to most places in the world outside our continent and you'll find plates filled with smaller amounts of food. We're programmed to want to eat food that's in front of us, and so most of us clean our plates, no matter what amount is on them. Apparently the study group had an easier time cutting back on the calories when they ate lighter foods: soups, salads, instead of trying to stick to smaller amounts.<br /><br />My only concern with this plan is that when we cut back on fat, we tend not to feel satiated. And then we eat more than we should. Who's ever had a huge bowl of salad with light dressing and still felt hungry afterwards? Yet you feel stuffed after eating a bag of buttery popcorn at the movies, even though popcorn itself is a very lightweight food. It's the fat that makes the difference.<br /><br />I really hope we don't see that diet pendulum swing from Atkins-mania back to the days of "low fat" everything. Eating moderate portions of vegetables, lean meats and whole grains, with a bit of good fat thrown in for good measure, is the best path. But then, our society is not generally known for walking the middle ground.<br /><br /><i>Note: Balancing doggie pic above created by Squirrell Designs UK</i>Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1135099216667955682005-12-20T08:52:00.000-08:002005-12-20T09:26:03.586-08:00Eat Chocolate, Love Longer<a href="http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/chocolate.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/chocolate.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I was so very excited to read this morning's latest "chocolate is good for you" <a href="http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/12/20/hscout529784.html" target="_blank">news</a>. Scientists have discovered that smokers who ate (dark) chocolate had less hardening of the arteries and a lowered risk of blood clots.<br /><br />The evidence is mounting that dark chocolate has many health benefits and it behooves all of us to get on the dark chocolate bandwagon before those darn scientists find out that chocolate isn't as healthy as they thought. That's right people, step on up, one at a time, no pushing, there's lots of dark chocolate up here for everyone! <br /><br />While I place a lot of faith in science (are those two words mutually exclusive?) I do wonder about the true results of these studies. For starters, one could question the value of studying how to make smokers more healthy. But it's Christmas so I won't even touch that debate. And what about other factors in the study that might influence blood pressure and platelet activity? <br /><br />I'm picturing what being a participant in such a study might be like......Fred is a male smoker of average health who's agreed to join a study for <i>Heart</i> magazine. He gets paid $1000 to be monitored by top-notch doctors and to eat free chocolate every day. Yes....I can imagine Fred's blood pressure dropping slightly. I'd like to see what happens when Fred goes back to work where he's completely stressed and underpaid and there's no more chocolate coming his way. What's your blood pressure like now, Fred?<br /><br />But I digress. I think we need to maintain a healthy skepticism of all that we read and to continue to do what we know is right for us. The study's researchers are quick to point out that chocolate "is not a health food, per se, because of its negative attributes -- that is, fat and sugar. Further, I feel the only appropriate advice to smokers is to quit smoking." Now if we could just get those researchers working on some guaranteed behavioural modification tools that work for everyone. Then we'd all definitely have healthy hearts, minds and bodies.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18292281.post-1134715929052311542005-12-15T22:31:00.000-08:002005-12-15T23:04:28.206-08:00Don't Funk With My Fibre<a href="http://www.cropsci.uiuc.edu/classes/cpsc112/images/FormFunction/cellwall.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://www.cropsci.uiuc.edu/classes/cpsc112/images/FormFunction/cellwall.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Yesterday was a sad day for Health news. Scientists concluded that based on a number of studies, the current link between dietary fibre and colorectal cancer is weak or non-existent. I'll bet <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051213/fibre_AJ_051213/20051213?hub=Health" target="_blank">this report</a> sent a lot of people running to White Spot for burgers and Triple O sauce. <br /><br />But not so fast.....What they actually found was that "some studies show a benefit, some no effect, and some even an increased risk." In other words, fibre has nothing to do with colorectal cancer. <br /><br />This publication first begs the question: "You fools! How could you publish this at a time when we're fighting to get folks to eat more vegetables?!" There are other questions, too. Such as "what type of fibre are we talking about?" I can't believe that vegetable fibre - what we are meant to eat for the most part - could not be protective against diseases. Now, I could see that wheat or rice bran in the diet might not have a protective effect. These are rough outer layers stripped off natural food that's then added to a meal. Our intestinal tracts were not designed to take bits of processed foods and then put them back together again at different meals for optimal health. And what other factors could be involved?<br /><br />I can't believe that eating fruits and vegetables (uncontaminated by toxins and carcinogens of course) could lead to colorectal cancer. So what is the relationship? It's either the type of fibre that makes a difference in cancer outcomes, something on the fibre (pesticides?) that affects cancer, the foods people eat alongside fibre that cause cancer (sugar?), or something besides food is responsible. <br /><br />Like stress perhaps? Living in cities? Working in offices? It may well be a complex combination of things that produce cancer in an individual. I often wonder how many of these things could be man-made. Although tumours have been around for thousands of years, widespread incidences of cancer are relatively recent to the last few hundred years.<br /><br />I'm certainly no expert when it comes to knowing what causes cancer nor should I be postulating. But I do know one thing: I'm going to keep eating my recommended 5 to 10 servings per day of fruits and vegetables until there is unquestionable evidence that to do so is unhealthy.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04725732215580841535noreply@blogger.com1