Most people are aware of the benefits of organic meat and produce (i.e., free of pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, growth hormones, higher nutrient content, etc.), but few are willing to pay the premiums for it since these effects are cumulative rather than acute.
However, the wonderful folks at Environmental Working Group (EWG) have come out once again with a "dirty dozen" list to help out the frugal shopper in determining what one can buy conventional and save a few bucks and what one would do best to avoid due to the high levels of toxic chemical residues (even after feeling and/or washing).
The New Dirty Dozen: 12 Foods to Eat Organic
This list is updated yearly for the amounts and types of pesticides and herbicides varies seasonally depending on what the farmers are applying to the crops. For instance, tomatoes used to be on the avoid list for years but surprisingly this year is considered "clean" due to relatively reduced levels of pesticide residues.
It would be prudent to avoid conventionally-grown: celery, peaches, strawberries, apples, blueberries, nectarines, bell peppers, spinach, kale, cherries, potatoes, and imported grapes.
[Of course, it should go without saying that one should always avoid non-organic meat and dairy products due to the even higher incidence of pesticides, fecal matter, E. coli, Salmonella, growth hormones, antibiotics, inhuman practices, unsustainable and environmentally-unsound practices (lack of sewage treatment facilities of factory swine farms), and even forced cannibalism (feeding the other chickens ground up diseased corpses of sick chickens; the same goes for cows).]
These foods are considered relatively safe to eat non-organic: onions, avocados, sweet corn, pineapple, mangoes, asparagus, sweet peas, kiwis, cabbage (bok choy, etc.), eggplants, papayas, watermelons, broccoli, tomato, and sweet potatoes.
Many of the "clean" foods are there because they have a thick rind that prevents pesticides from seeping into its flesh or they have a natural resistance to pests, such as sulfur-containing onions.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Eat This to be at the Top of Your Game!
Sorry but the headline was a red herring. Since, there is, in fact, no ideal food for everyone.
Most people take their health for granted and only give it an afterthought when they feel malaise or come down with a seasonal bug. The new media blitz concerning obesity and health concerns in the nation is making these once oblivious citizen want one-size-fits-all miracle diet cures. They plead, "What should I eat?" Rather, that observing and monitoring their own body's reactions to foods they want to be told by an "expert" what they should eat and what to avoid. The problem is "scientific studies" seem to constantly be giving the public contradictory information about saturated fats, sugar, GMOs, soy, etc. The reason why results keep running the gamut is because human beings just aren't all intrinsically identical. Each of us has a unique genetic makeup with individual needs and preferences.
A number of theories have sprung up around this growing awareness, such as Dr. Paul D'Adamo's blood type diet and metabolic testing. I'm not saying one or the other is correct but just be wary the next time CNN tells you to avoid a certain food or to indulge in a certain food. It may or may not be suited to you, depending upon your individual makeup.
Mercola's Nutritional Typing articles:
Modify Your Diet So You Feel Terrific
Nutritional Typing - Eat thr Right Food For You
Note: I have no personal relationship nor affiliation with the individuals mentioned in this entry. I have posted information from Dr. Mercola's Nutritional Typing, Dr. Paul D'Adamo's Blood Type Diet, and Underground Wellness' Metabolic Typing not to endorse any of these theories/products but just for information. I, for one, do not use any of these programs. I merely try to be in tune with my body's innate intelligence and eat accordingly.
Most people take their health for granted and only give it an afterthought when they feel malaise or come down with a seasonal bug. The new media blitz concerning obesity and health concerns in the nation is making these once oblivious citizen want one-size-fits-all miracle diet cures. They plead, "What should I eat?" Rather, that observing and monitoring their own body's reactions to foods they want to be told by an "expert" what they should eat and what to avoid. The problem is "scientific studies" seem to constantly be giving the public contradictory information about saturated fats, sugar, GMOs, soy, etc. The reason why results keep running the gamut is because human beings just aren't all intrinsically identical. Each of us has a unique genetic makeup with individual needs and preferences.
A number of theories have sprung up around this growing awareness, such as Dr. Paul D'Adamo's blood type diet and metabolic testing. I'm not saying one or the other is correct but just be wary the next time CNN tells you to avoid a certain food or to indulge in a certain food. It may or may not be suited to you, depending upon your individual makeup.
Mercola's Nutritional Typing articles:
Modify Your Diet So You Feel Terrific
Nutritional Typing - Eat thr Right Food For You
Note: I have no personal relationship nor affiliation with the individuals mentioned in this entry. I have posted information from Dr. Mercola's Nutritional Typing, Dr. Paul D'Adamo's Blood Type Diet, and Underground Wellness' Metabolic Typing not to endorse any of these theories/products but just for information. I, for one, do not use any of these programs. I merely try to be in tune with my body's innate intelligence and eat accordingly.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Alarming Levels of Flame Retardants (PBDEs) in Our Blood
Americans have more PBDEs present in our blood than any other nationality. In many countries like Japan and Canada, these toxic compounds were long phased out of use due to their risk to human health but they are still used extensively in the United States.
In this telling TED video, Susan Shaw discusses the sobering ramifications of the BP's decision to spread Corexit oil dispersant, but also delves into the human health implications of chemical compounds omnipresent in our modern environment.
In this telling TED video, Susan Shaw discusses the sobering ramifications of the BP's decision to spread Corexit oil dispersant, but also delves into the human health implications of chemical compounds omnipresent in our modern environment.
Fructose Is the Root Cause of the Current Obesity Epidemic, Not Saturated Fat
Many of us are aware of the dangers of sugar aka sucrose, but few of us are aware that sugar is equally as toxic to our liver as ethanol (alcohol) is.
Fructose is a foreign agent that when introduced to our bodies produces negative chain reactions and can only be processed in the liver. This is what a toxin/poison is defined as. The only difference between fructose and ethanol is that ethanol is also processed in the brain. Hence, we get inebriated and lose control over our inhibition and fine motor skills. So as Dr. Lustig states, fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz."
Tremendously edifying presentation by Robert H. Lustig, M.D. :
A simplified version for the layman by Sean Crosby from Underground Wellness:
I'm assuming there are naysayers out there screaming but fructose is a natural compound derived from fruit! Yes, however, it comes bundled with more than adequate fiber and bulk. "When G-d made the poison, he packaged it with the antidote." Fiber offsets the negative effects of fructose because it depresses the insulin response and helps with satiety, thereby decreasing chances of overindulgence.
And concerning all the fuss over HFCS, Dr. Lustig makes his stance clear in that it is indeed as the industry states — HFCS is processed by the body just like sucrose is. The problem is sucrose is also a chronic hepatotoxin.
While chemically speaking they are remarkably similar, I am on the fence on this since HFCS is derived from a very different process than pure sucrose is. Also, in an article by SF Gate, it states: "The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream." I don't think there are any bench scientists who would agree with this blanket statement without statistical proof but in any case the jury is out on sugar and HFCS.
Fructose is a foreign agent that when introduced to our bodies produces negative chain reactions and can only be processed in the liver. This is what a toxin/poison is defined as. The only difference between fructose and ethanol is that ethanol is also processed in the brain. Hence, we get inebriated and lose control over our inhibition and fine motor skills. So as Dr. Lustig states, fructose is like "alcohol without the buzz."
Tremendously edifying presentation by Robert H. Lustig, M.D. :
A simplified version for the layman by Sean Crosby from Underground Wellness:
I'm assuming there are naysayers out there screaming but fructose is a natural compound derived from fruit! Yes, however, it comes bundled with more than adequate fiber and bulk. "When G-d made the poison, he packaged it with the antidote." Fiber offsets the negative effects of fructose because it depresses the insulin response and helps with satiety, thereby decreasing chances of overindulgence.
And concerning all the fuss over HFCS, Dr. Lustig makes his stance clear in that it is indeed as the industry states — HFCS is processed by the body just like sucrose is. The problem is sucrose is also a chronic hepatotoxin.
While chemically speaking they are remarkably similar, I am on the fence on this since HFCS is derived from a very different process than pure sucrose is. Also, in an article by SF Gate, it states: "The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream." I don't think there are any bench scientists who would agree with this blanket statement without statistical proof but in any case the jury is out on sugar and HFCS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)