In keeping with blogging tradition, I feel compelled to write something scintillating about where I see the industry going this coming year. After all, it is New Year's Eve!
I'll start by referring you to a post I just completed on my brand new blog Body Mind Freedom.
My girlfriend read it and remarked that it contained little that was upbeat.
So, feeling a little like Scrooge Mac Duck saying "Bah Humbug" to the Christmas fairy, I started to ponder why I was such a sour puss and whether it was time to get excited again.
And before too long it came to me.
I think the health, fitness and weight-loss industries need a major wake-up call.
If you've read even a smattering of my posts over the last year, you'll already know that I am saddened at the lot of personal fitness trainers and nutrition professionals.
These well-intentioned individuals are little more than low-level cogs in the antiquated machinery or our respective health care systems (USA and UK).
And I make no apologies for the fact that I think these systems are operating on borrowed time. People are getting sick from a host of preventable diseases and our solution is to plug them in, medicate ... and foster further dependance, suffering and inbalance.
All of which needs to be paid for by someone. Increasing load, less bucks ... something has to give.
But I digress.
Here is a quick summary of what might change in 2010: Nothing! Nix! Zippo! Not a thing.
If it is broke ... don't fix it!
We will continue to get sicker, sooner. But actuaries will refute this with statistical proof that average age expectancy is up, so nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark.
We will continue to abrogate our responsibility to ourselves for our own state of well-being. After all what are health care systems and insurance companies for?
We will continue to ignore the obvious benefits of organic foods in spite of the science. Science, like accounting, is malleable ... and money always talks.
Besides, no-one likes to feel naive, so the dissidents have an easy sell in a recession.
We will continue searching for magic bullets, quick fixes and super-foods. Isolation will lose none of its lustre. People will not see that a supplement is the ultimate refined food.
And the formal status quo will continue to endorse its existing set of sacred cows.
Then we will wring our hands in frustration that our kids are becoming fat and diabetic. We will endorse hugely expensive programs to show them how to get outside and play again.
But health and safety fears will still encourage kids to wear helmuts and check for allergies first before using sticking plasters (elastoplast). Really!
We may rue that politics and legislation trump common sense and foster paranoia ... but we will do nothing. Except tell people to participate in the process, so they too can change the world (or at least have a licence to complain).
On a positive note (see, I listen to my most ardent critics), some people will keep digging and refuse to succumb to the inexorable tide of media conditioning.
These enlightened souls will relish responsibility and choose to embrace the notion that the best health insurance is getting healthy and living a healthy lifestyle.
These special people will be my inspiration.
Thanks for all your kind support in 2009. May this next decade bring you the happiness you deserve.
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Reframe your Nutrition Paradigm
I must apologize for not updating this blog for such a long time.
I have been working on a new project that I will reveal before the end of the post. Because my technical skills are quite limited and because I am a frustrated perfectionist, getting everything "just right" took far longer than I had initially envisioned.
Today, I thought I'd chat about the way we view nutrition. Quite simply, we have been conditioned to such a degree that we no longer even understand what constitutes appropriate food for a human being.
I'll give you some examples. How many times does one hear that we should learn how to read labels ... or that we should be taking "this supplement" or "that" superfood?
Or, if we only learn to eat less food, more often ... then somehow we will gain back control of our cravings and "balance our sugar". Blah, blah, blah ...
What hog wash!
The reason we have lost our way is very simple actually. For years and years, in fact millennia, we foraged for what we could get. That was, pretty much, fruit and vegetables, berries and seeds. And roots and tubers if you really want to get down and dirty.
In the last 10,000 years or so we "discovered" fire and learnt how cooking can enhance the flavor of food. We also learnt how to domesticate grains which allowed us to settle in one place and really concentrate on breeding.
And of course cooking meant we now could eat animals and enjoy them, something I'm not sure any self-respecting Neanderthal would have seriously considered prior to that mythical lightening strike.
In the last few decades, maybe a little longer, we also became quite skilled at manufacturing "food" and so ushered in the age of convenience consumption. And this, in turn, negated the need to expend energy foraging for sustenance growing in the wild.
What these developments also meant was that we now eat according to modern dictate, rather than Nature's design.
So we consume calorie-dense, nutrient-deficient food ... and we become fat, slow, sore and ultimately diseased. Symptoms yielding inevitably to condition.
Of course, some people will say that we have adapted to tolerate grains and no doubt will adapt to our sedentary lifestyles and concentrated calories. But it would appear the scientists among us feel there's strong evidence that the human genome could not possibly change that radically, so fast.
Whatever the real truth, I am utterly convinced through personal experimentation, that we respond best to the following:
- living, fresh food versus dead, cooked, or manufactured food. Mother Nature beats mankind's best food chemists hands down, every time.
- plant food versus animal products (which need to be cooked and contain surplus saturated fat, cholesterol and protein).
- organically grown versus commercially farmed fruit and vegetables ... which are theoretically free of chemical residues and, if fresh, are far more nutritious because they come from living soils.
- "low" fat versus "high" fat. By this I mean that no more than 10% of your calories should come from fat (not just "fatty" foods).
- ripe fruit and tender, young greens versus immature fruit and overly mature greens ... because these criteria facilitate digestion that is less energy-expensive.
So ... start your days with fresh, ripe, seasonal fruit so you get a variety over the course of a year. Then, sometime in the afternoon, have some more fruit and/or tender, young, fresh greens. Occasionally eat minimal amounts of avocados, olives, nuts and seeds.
Eat this way and you will feel infinitely better. You will think clearer, articulate yourself better and even appear more intelligent to your slower peers who are no doubt weighed down by the burden of animal products and cooked delights.
You will also be free of addictions (though we prefer to call these "cravings" or "an appetite"), which is an added bonus that should not be under-estimated.
Earlier, I promised to reveal my new project to you, so here goes: you can find a rather snappy landing page here.
Because I am a trust-worthy guy who would not dream of compromising your privacy, I strongly suggest you opt-in to my list and grab yourself a free copy of my report "10 Fat Loss Tips". This will also take you to an information (sales) page that explains everything you need to know about my stunning new book.
Who knows, you might find it quite an eye-opener ...
I have been working on a new project that I will reveal before the end of the post. Because my technical skills are quite limited and because I am a frustrated perfectionist, getting everything "just right" took far longer than I had initially envisioned.
Today, I thought I'd chat about the way we view nutrition. Quite simply, we have been conditioned to such a degree that we no longer even understand what constitutes appropriate food for a human being.
I'll give you some examples. How many times does one hear that we should learn how to read labels ... or that we should be taking "this supplement" or "that" superfood?
Or, if we only learn to eat less food, more often ... then somehow we will gain back control of our cravings and "balance our sugar". Blah, blah, blah ...
What hog wash!
The reason we have lost our way is very simple actually. For years and years, in fact millennia, we foraged for what we could get. That was, pretty much, fruit and vegetables, berries and seeds. And roots and tubers if you really want to get down and dirty.
In the last 10,000 years or so we "discovered" fire and learnt how cooking can enhance the flavor of food. We also learnt how to domesticate grains which allowed us to settle in one place and really concentrate on breeding.
And of course cooking meant we now could eat animals and enjoy them, something I'm not sure any self-respecting Neanderthal would have seriously considered prior to that mythical lightening strike.
In the last few decades, maybe a little longer, we also became quite skilled at manufacturing "food" and so ushered in the age of convenience consumption. And this, in turn, negated the need to expend energy foraging for sustenance growing in the wild.
What these developments also meant was that we now eat according to modern dictate, rather than Nature's design.
So we consume calorie-dense, nutrient-deficient food ... and we become fat, slow, sore and ultimately diseased. Symptoms yielding inevitably to condition.
Of course, some people will say that we have adapted to tolerate grains and no doubt will adapt to our sedentary lifestyles and concentrated calories. But it would appear the scientists among us feel there's strong evidence that the human genome could not possibly change that radically, so fast.
Whatever the real truth, I am utterly convinced through personal experimentation, that we respond best to the following:
- living, fresh food versus dead, cooked, or manufactured food. Mother Nature beats mankind's best food chemists hands down, every time.
- plant food versus animal products (which need to be cooked and contain surplus saturated fat, cholesterol and protein).
- organically grown versus commercially farmed fruit and vegetables ... which are theoretically free of chemical residues and, if fresh, are far more nutritious because they come from living soils.
- "low" fat versus "high" fat. By this I mean that no more than 10% of your calories should come from fat (not just "fatty" foods).
- ripe fruit and tender, young greens versus immature fruit and overly mature greens ... because these criteria facilitate digestion that is less energy-expensive.
So ... start your days with fresh, ripe, seasonal fruit so you get a variety over the course of a year. Then, sometime in the afternoon, have some more fruit and/or tender, young, fresh greens. Occasionally eat minimal amounts of avocados, olives, nuts and seeds.
Eat this way and you will feel infinitely better. You will think clearer, articulate yourself better and even appear more intelligent to your slower peers who are no doubt weighed down by the burden of animal products and cooked delights.
You will also be free of addictions (though we prefer to call these "cravings" or "an appetite"), which is an added bonus that should not be under-estimated.
Earlier, I promised to reveal my new project to you, so here goes: you can find a rather snappy landing page here.
Because I am a trust-worthy guy who would not dream of compromising your privacy, I strongly suggest you opt-in to my list and grab yourself a free copy of my report "10 Fat Loss Tips". This will also take you to an information (sales) page that explains everything you need to know about my stunning new book.
Who knows, you might find it quite an eye-opener ...
Friday, 20 November 2009
Green Light For Boozers?
The BBC has reported that research conducted in Spain over the last 10 years suggests three startling conclusions:
- first ... drinking a little alcohol (1 x shot/day) reduces your risk of heart disease by about a third. We've heard that before, haven't we?
- second ... drinking 3-11 shots/day further reduces this risk to around 50%! Go on, seriously?
- and finally ... bad news girls, this only seems to apply to men. We must legislate against that!
The study involved more than 40 000 individuals aged between 29 and 69 and claims to have eliminated factors that previously skewed studies such as these by differentiating, for example, between teetotallers and those who no longer drank because ill health had forced them to quit.
Huh? Relevance? OK, sorry ... I missed taking statistics at school. Sounds like another case of baffling with (horsefeathers)!
It has been postulated (another big word used by scientists) that alcohol consumption actually increases HDL ("good") cholesterol in the blood, which effectively negates, or at least offsets to a degree, the harmful effects of LDL ("bad") cholesterol.
It is also thought that the impact was not material on females because they are thought to metabolise alcohol differently from men. I told you they were different!
And of course spokespeople for various interest groups such as the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have been quick to say that the results of this research should not be seen as encouragement to drink more.
Of course not. Thank you for pointing that out. Now we know.
Studies in the past that suggest small amounts of alcohol reduce the risk of Coronary Heart Disease (CAD) in men over 40 have been viewed by some optimists as vindication that drinking is a healthful practice.
The overall take-out of the report suggests that as long as drinkers exercise "moderation" by limiting themselves to the requisite daily allowance of units (and taking a break for 2 days a week) then everything will be okay.
Here's my view:
Drinking "in moderation" is seen as absolutely healthful because it is legal ... and it suggests that people are still in control. As long as this culture exists, people will continue to kid themselves that they are not alcoholics.
I don't care what anybody says: if you have to drink 5 days a week, then you have a problem. Of course, you'll say you do so out of choice and that you could take it or leave it.
Of course you can ... you're just bored. Anyway, why should you stop if the authorities say it's cool?
I don't suggest for a minute that people stop drinking completely. But moderation is surely "an occasional light indulgence" rather than a daily ritual with a informal two-day abstinence mandate (that feels like a whole week)?
We all know that alcohol is a cytoplasmic poison that erodes our liver, pancreas and brain. We all know that regular consumption makes us fat because it introduces calories without any nutritional value whatsoever.
We'd all like to drink for the stress-reducing benefits of social lubrication and a good laugh with friends and family. I completely applaud that logic.
But moderation is a pipe dream.
We are living in cloud cuckoo land if we honestly believe that one is only an alcoholic if you repeatedly lose control and get fall-down drunk on a regular and systematic basis.
So all I'm saying is "people ... please, get real about your addictions".
Just because we live in times where daily consumption is deemed both legal and healthful does not make it so.
The real reasons we enjoy drinking so much is that it allows us to let rip and forget our inhibitions. This makes us appear more fun amongst our peers, which in turn is gratifying to us. Sorry creatures that we are.
And when we feel that yearning when we don't drink, that's the siren call of addiction ... our body's physiological mechanism for attempting to reduce the discomfort of withdrawal.
Even if you have the discipline to moderate your consumption to a nightly tipple, eventually you will wake up one day and your body will say "no mas". Eventually your body will get the message.
But let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Maybe it'll be a good time to stop smoking too?
- first ... drinking a little alcohol (1 x shot/day) reduces your risk of heart disease by about a third. We've heard that before, haven't we?
- second ... drinking 3-11 shots/day further reduces this risk to around 50%! Go on, seriously?
- and finally ... bad news girls, this only seems to apply to men. We must legislate against that!
The study involved more than 40 000 individuals aged between 29 and 69 and claims to have eliminated factors that previously skewed studies such as these by differentiating, for example, between teetotallers and those who no longer drank because ill health had forced them to quit.
Huh? Relevance? OK, sorry ... I missed taking statistics at school. Sounds like another case of baffling with (horsefeathers)!
It has been postulated (another big word used by scientists) that alcohol consumption actually increases HDL ("good") cholesterol in the blood, which effectively negates, or at least offsets to a degree, the harmful effects of LDL ("bad") cholesterol.
It is also thought that the impact was not material on females because they are thought to metabolise alcohol differently from men. I told you they were different!
And of course spokespeople for various interest groups such as the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have been quick to say that the results of this research should not be seen as encouragement to drink more.
Of course not. Thank you for pointing that out. Now we know.
Studies in the past that suggest small amounts of alcohol reduce the risk of Coronary Heart Disease (CAD) in men over 40 have been viewed by some optimists as vindication that drinking is a healthful practice.
The overall take-out of the report suggests that as long as drinkers exercise "moderation" by limiting themselves to the requisite daily allowance of units (and taking a break for 2 days a week) then everything will be okay.
Here's my view:
Drinking "in moderation" is seen as absolutely healthful because it is legal ... and it suggests that people are still in control. As long as this culture exists, people will continue to kid themselves that they are not alcoholics.
I don't care what anybody says: if you have to drink 5 days a week, then you have a problem. Of course, you'll say you do so out of choice and that you could take it or leave it.
Of course you can ... you're just bored. Anyway, why should you stop if the authorities say it's cool?
I don't suggest for a minute that people stop drinking completely. But moderation is surely "an occasional light indulgence" rather than a daily ritual with a informal two-day abstinence mandate (that feels like a whole week)?
We all know that alcohol is a cytoplasmic poison that erodes our liver, pancreas and brain. We all know that regular consumption makes us fat because it introduces calories without any nutritional value whatsoever.
We'd all like to drink for the stress-reducing benefits of social lubrication and a good laugh with friends and family. I completely applaud that logic.
But moderation is a pipe dream.
We are living in cloud cuckoo land if we honestly believe that one is only an alcoholic if you repeatedly lose control and get fall-down drunk on a regular and systematic basis.
So all I'm saying is "people ... please, get real about your addictions".
Just because we live in times where daily consumption is deemed both legal and healthful does not make it so.
The real reasons we enjoy drinking so much is that it allows us to let rip and forget our inhibitions. This makes us appear more fun amongst our peers, which in turn is gratifying to us. Sorry creatures that we are.
And when we feel that yearning when we don't drink, that's the siren call of addiction ... our body's physiological mechanism for attempting to reduce the discomfort of withdrawal.
Even if you have the discipline to moderate your consumption to a nightly tipple, eventually you will wake up one day and your body will say "no mas". Eventually your body will get the message.
But let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Maybe it'll be a good time to stop smoking too?
Monday, 16 November 2009
Balance The Sugar For Our Kids
This morning's report on BBC Breakfast about the added sugar in snacks targeted for childrens' lunch boxes really got my attention.
Interestingly enough, the discussion did not appear on the Breakfast website ... which begs one question.
Why?
What could be more relevant to the health of the nation than the garbage we are feeding our kids? (Ok, that's more than one Don!)
Two people were being interviewed ... one suggesting that it was an outrage that manufacturers persisted in coming up with products containing added sugar. The other interviewee represented the interests of retailers and food manufacturers and actually had the gall to say that the selected items were being taken out of context and that generally products of this nature had a more healthy balance of less sugar.
He also tried telling us that the two reasons food manufacturers did this was for "taste" and "technology". Uhh ... what technology please? Oh, the technology of addiction. Or can't we say that?
What surprised me was that this particular gentleman appeared to genuinely feel that products with less sugar could be referred to as "healthy" and that the industries he represented were actually operating in the best interests of parents and children alike.
Which tells me two things: either he has been totally brainwashed like the rest of the British public and thinks that Frosted Flakes and juice concentrates with added sugar and preservatives are part of a "balanced diet" because levels of these toxic substances have been reduced.
Or ... he knows exactly what he's doing and is not only tolerated, but highly remunerated for so eloquently distorting the truth.
Hmmm ... I wonder, do you think?
As long as food manufacturers are allowed to peddle artificial "foods" under the guise of a "healthy, balanced diet" the population will continue to get fatter and sicker. This of course will benefit those peddling drugs to control the behaviour of kids eating this rubbish ... as well as all those people standing in line to cash in on the growing problem of childhood obesity (including the tax man).
And well-intentioned mothers will continue to think that nothing is rotten in the State of Denmark.
The words "healthy, balanced diet" are rapidly becoming the most misused words in the modern lexicon.
People, please ... the lessor of two known evils does not constitute a healthy choice. Or are we now saying that a little added sugar never hurt anyone because the scientific evidence is inconclusive?
How convenient.
Stop whining Don and pass the chocolate-coated, frosted sugar bombs. Tasted great. Less calories. Why thank you Hobbes!
Interestingly enough, the discussion did not appear on the Breakfast website ... which begs one question.
Why?
What could be more relevant to the health of the nation than the garbage we are feeding our kids? (Ok, that's more than one Don!)
Two people were being interviewed ... one suggesting that it was an outrage that manufacturers persisted in coming up with products containing added sugar. The other interviewee represented the interests of retailers and food manufacturers and actually had the gall to say that the selected items were being taken out of context and that generally products of this nature had a more healthy balance of less sugar.
He also tried telling us that the two reasons food manufacturers did this was for "taste" and "technology". Uhh ... what technology please? Oh, the technology of addiction. Or can't we say that?
What surprised me was that this particular gentleman appeared to genuinely feel that products with less sugar could be referred to as "healthy" and that the industries he represented were actually operating in the best interests of parents and children alike.
Which tells me two things: either he has been totally brainwashed like the rest of the British public and thinks that Frosted Flakes and juice concentrates with added sugar and preservatives are part of a "balanced diet" because levels of these toxic substances have been reduced.
Or ... he knows exactly what he's doing and is not only tolerated, but highly remunerated for so eloquently distorting the truth.
Hmmm ... I wonder, do you think?
As long as food manufacturers are allowed to peddle artificial "foods" under the guise of a "healthy, balanced diet" the population will continue to get fatter and sicker. This of course will benefit those peddling drugs to control the behaviour of kids eating this rubbish ... as well as all those people standing in line to cash in on the growing problem of childhood obesity (including the tax man).
And well-intentioned mothers will continue to think that nothing is rotten in the State of Denmark.
The words "healthy, balanced diet" are rapidly becoming the most misused words in the modern lexicon.
People, please ... the lessor of two known evils does not constitute a healthy choice. Or are we now saying that a little added sugar never hurt anyone because the scientific evidence is inconclusive?
How convenient.
Stop whining Don and pass the chocolate-coated, frosted sugar bombs. Tasted great. Less calories. Why thank you Hobbes!
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Aspirin No Longer In Vogue
Researchers for the Drugs nad Therapeutics Bulletin (DTB) have now come out to say that aspirin can cause serious internal bleeding and does not prevent deaths from cardiovascular disease.
"Based on this new evidence" the Royal College of GP's support these findings and are against the use of aspirin as a prophylactic. On the BBC Dr Rosemary herself has also confirmed that it is no longer recommended to take 75mg/day to stave off heart attacks, stroke and thrombosis. It can irritate the stomach, causing bleeding ulcers which may ultimately lead to anaemia.
In fact, so too do other magic bullets like ginkgo biloba and high dose garlic.
Fancy that ... what a revelation. Even better, the polypill I have blogged about mercilessly in the past contains ... drum roll please ... aspirin. So it's no longer recommended either.
Ah, the sweet smell of toll free vindication.
But it still keeps getting better. Guess what is now in favour? You got it ... diet and exercise, 5-a-day. And our friends hosting BBC breakfast, on learning this, described this massive breakthrough in medical perspicacity as "sage advice".
Come on!
Does it take the Royal College of GP's and BBC's own intrepid "in-house" doctor to say all this before people get that magic bullets aren't a substitute for healthy living? Nor are they an insurance policy that buys you time so you can abuse yourself just that little bit longer.
That wasn't a rhetorical question! The short answer, sadly, is "no".
What is it with people that they just will not accept this? Stop trying to medicate yourself into good health. Nature didn't design medications (amazing though this may be for the pharmaceutical industry to believe).
Doctors aren't God either, nor will they ever be.
Your best insurance against heart disease includes a diet that predominates in fresh, whole, ripe, raw, organic fruit and vegetables. Guess who designed those?
Nature.
Add to this simple diet sufficient daily exercise, a bouyant disposition, generous amounts of fresh air, sunshine, genuine relaxation and quality sleep and a mindset that moves on from unresolved conflicts.
Really folks. It's that simple.
And no, smoking, drinking and drugging are not good for you ... even if you have an auntie who smoked 20-a-day, drank like a dolphin and lived to the ripe old age of 86.
Believe me, her system was a mess. And her last few years were hell on earth. Don't think otherwise. Get real. Go simple. Stop looking for ways to cheat nature.
And stop trying to blame your genes!
"Based on this new evidence" the Royal College of GP's support these findings and are against the use of aspirin as a prophylactic. On the BBC Dr Rosemary herself has also confirmed that it is no longer recommended to take 75mg/day to stave off heart attacks, stroke and thrombosis. It can irritate the stomach, causing bleeding ulcers which may ultimately lead to anaemia.
In fact, so too do other magic bullets like ginkgo biloba and high dose garlic.
Fancy that ... what a revelation. Even better, the polypill I have blogged about mercilessly in the past contains ... drum roll please ... aspirin. So it's no longer recommended either.
Ah, the sweet smell of toll free vindication.
But it still keeps getting better. Guess what is now in favour? You got it ... diet and exercise, 5-a-day. And our friends hosting BBC breakfast, on learning this, described this massive breakthrough in medical perspicacity as "sage advice".
Come on!
Does it take the Royal College of GP's and BBC's own intrepid "in-house" doctor to say all this before people get that magic bullets aren't a substitute for healthy living? Nor are they an insurance policy that buys you time so you can abuse yourself just that little bit longer.
That wasn't a rhetorical question! The short answer, sadly, is "no".
What is it with people that they just will not accept this? Stop trying to medicate yourself into good health. Nature didn't design medications (amazing though this may be for the pharmaceutical industry to believe).
Doctors aren't God either, nor will they ever be.
Your best insurance against heart disease includes a diet that predominates in fresh, whole, ripe, raw, organic fruit and vegetables. Guess who designed those?
Nature.
Add to this simple diet sufficient daily exercise, a bouyant disposition, generous amounts of fresh air, sunshine, genuine relaxation and quality sleep and a mindset that moves on from unresolved conflicts.
Really folks. It's that simple.
And no, smoking, drinking and drugging are not good for you ... even if you have an auntie who smoked 20-a-day, drank like a dolphin and lived to the ripe old age of 86.
Believe me, her system was a mess. And her last few years were hell on earth. Don't think otherwise. Get real. Go simple. Stop looking for ways to cheat nature.
And stop trying to blame your genes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
