The popular story of how low-carb diets work goes something like this: Reducing your carbohydrate...
Let me introduce myself. My name is Mark Sisson. I’m 63 years young. I live and work in Malibu, California. In a past life I was a professional marathoner and triathlete. Now my life goal is to help 100 million people get healthy. I started this blog in 2006 to empower people to take full responsibility for their own health and enjoyment of life by investigating, discussing, and critically rethinking everything we’ve assumed to be true about health and wellness...Tell Me More
Remember the bread-is-to-crumb logic section on the SAT’s? Or how about the interminable hours spent in Mr. Johnson’s English Lit class deconstructing the deeper meaning of that tree in that poem by that guy? The latest and greatest fish debate is worse.
Environmentalists, food lobbyists, and fishermen and women everywhere are in a big huff over whether we should label certain fish as organic or not.
Take a wild salmon and a farm-raised, sea-lice-infested, sick salmon. Which one is organic?
It’s not a trick question. The fish furor (as reported in the New York Times today) is because the government is likely to permit only farm-raised fish to be called organic. That means pristine, wild, icy-water Alaskan salmon cannot be labeled organic.
This is not a joke.
The reason wild, and ostensibly healthier, fish cannot be labeled organic is because we don’t know where their food comes from. And the official requirements of organic food include strict feeding rules. That’s great for a chicken, clucking around in a cage in Omaha. By all means, feed that darn chicken some organic seeds! But the day a wild, clean, natural Alaskan salmon cannot be labeled organic is the day I officially conclude our government employees did not sit through Mr. Johnson’s English Lit class.
The debate gets more complicated (as if we care). Evidently, because salmon are not vegetarian fish, said fish fishers cannot prove that the fish these salmon eat in their natural habitats are also organic. (It’s okay if you have to read that a few times.)
However, a farmed fish, infected with sea-lice, raised so quickly it doesn’t have adequate Omega-3 levels, and crowded in with other fish like, oh, I don’t know…sardines… can be labeled organic. Because we know where its food comes from.
On the other side of the net, one organic-fish-scandal expert says that to allow wild salmon organic status is just really disrespectful to the meaning of organic. Organic, by definition, means organic feed. In other words, we’re following the rules because those are the rules, rather than remembering that rules exist to serve our needs. If a rule doesn’t serve a need or reflect a situation accurately, it needs to be modified. End of story. No deeper meaning, no semantic salmon. Let’s remember the entire reason for starting this organic craze: the realization that we need to go back to natural, healthy foods.
[tags] organic, wild salmon, farmed fish, sea lice, omega-3, Alaska, New York Times, fishermen, regulation, red tape [/tags]
Junior Apple Sarah writes:
“I just saw something on the news for an e. coli antidote and how it will revolutionize not only the food industry but also healthcare. What ever happened to just making sure that the food and facilities are clean? It’s my understanding that e. coli comes from fecal matter. Is it too much to ask to keep poop off my food? Why do we have to put another chemical in something / everything we eat?”
A recent article in the New York Times entitled “The Vegetable-Industrial Complex” deals with this issue at length. Writer Michael Pollan explores how modern food production yields more than bumper crops – it also yields very high potential for significant public health hazards. It’s the law of unintended consequences put to play on the dinner table.
I really recommend that you check out the article. In a nutshell:
– Modern food production has created two problems out of what was once a single solution. Animals fertilized crops, and crops fed animals. Pull them apart, mass produce them in factories and feedlots, and you have two problems:
1) As it collects in feedlots, manure becomes pollution, full of antibiotics, chemicals and e. coli, leading to the second problem:
2) Crops are now at risk for contamination, which invariably means crops get fertilized artificially. Great for the chemical industry, not so great for small farms, public health, economic efficiency, animals, or the earth.
– Calling for local, organic, small-time food production isn’t about being a dread-locked tree-hugger. It’s actually far more logical and economically viable to return to the way we used to do things. Small-scale food production is healthier. It’s easier to trace if something goes wrong, and fewer people are likely to be affected. Small-scale food production benefits small businesses instead of huge single food conglomerates. That means a freer market, more competition, better choice.
Everyone wins: small-scale farming is better for the environment and creates a solution whereas now we have two big problems.
– Small-scale farming also avoids the current obvious threat of terrorism. The article points out that our meat comes from but a few slaughterhouses. All the bagged spinach in the country passes through just four locations. How easy would it be for a terrorist to contaminate our food? That’s what Homeland Security is wondering.
Unfortunately, industrial food production looks to short-term, engineered fixes. When e. coli was found in the beef supply during the whole Jack in the Stomach fiasco of the 90s, producers just blasted the meat. (Pollan writes: Rather than clean up the kill floor and the feedlot diet, some meat processors simply started nuking the meat — sterilizing the manure, in other words, rather than removing it from our food.)
Why bother cleaning up the waste? It’s only our health on the line. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if our government starts requiring that our entire food supply be irradiated.
– Finally, well-meaning though it may be, calling for even more regulation
The Fuming Fuji is outraged at the marketing of toxic food, especially when it’s aimed at the small fry. This week, the Fuming Fuji has decided to have a serious problem with chocolate milk.
But, Fuming Fuji, you ask, isn’t chocolate milk sometimes the only way to get calcium in a kid?
The Fuming Fuji says no!
The claim: Chocolate milk has all the protein, calcium and vitamins of regular milk, and kids love it!
The catch: Chocolate milk has all the protein, calcium and vitamins of regular milk, plus it’s full of sugar!
The comeback: So it has a little sweetening. At least it’s getting kids to drink their milk, right?
The conclusion: The Fuming Fuji cannot help those who believe in glorified dessert for tiny tots. Chocolate milk is a very mean thing to give your child. Milk is also mean, though admittedly not as delicious. Chocolate milk: all the fat, hormones and antibiotics of regular milk, plus sugar!
The catchphrase: Cow’s milk is for baby cows. Chocolate cow’s milk is for fat baby cows.
Disclaimer: Mark Sisson and the Worker Bees do not necessarily endorse the views of the Fuming Fuji.
[tags] milk, chocolate milk, dairy, calcium, children, sugar, hormones [/tags]
[tags] FDA, food pyramid, recommended food groups, daily values, nutrition recommendations [/tags]
Today’s Smart Fuel isn’t any particular item. Instead, let’s address the real topic at hand: the mountain of Thanksgiving leftovers lurking in the fridge. Perhaps you really indulged yesterday and felt more like a stuffed turkey yourself than a human about to eat one. Or, perhaps you were the model of restraint. No need to reveal which one.
For the weekend, for everyone, the smartest way to fuel up is to give away the sweets, get in a few good workouts, and enjoy the turkey. High in protein and some good fats, turkey is a fairly healthy choice (certainly in comparison to pie, candied yams and stuffing).
I don’t want to be responsible for any Pilgrims turning over in their graves here, but I’m always a little amused (no…annoyed) at what Thanksgiving has become. Why can’t we have a holiday where we all get together and exercise? Or make food for the homeless? Or how about a potluck where everyone has to bring a new, undiscovered healthy food?
If Americans didn’t already eat like it were Thanksgiving every single day (as many do…look at the portions at most restaurants), I’d say dig in, gobble, and don’t wear your belt. Unfortunately, I don’t see many belts at all these days.
[tags] Thanksgiving, turkey, Pilgrims, leftovers [/tags]
EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT:
WHAT IT IS: Grapeseed extract is derived from grape seeds. Usually, red grapes make the best source. However, it’s a little more complicated than that. Like green tea, bark and some fruits, grapeseed extract contains particular antioxidant compounds called polyphenols. But some grapeseed extracts vary in the type of polyphenols they contain. There are a handful of different types, depending upon the length of the “chain” in the extract. They range from short monomers to long cyanidins, which is the scientific name for those headache-inducing tannins. The longer the chain, the less beneficial. The best grapeseed extract contains chains of 2-7, usually called oligomers.
The typical grapeseed extract supplement won’t mention any “mer” at all, and it’s hard to ensure that the product is actually beneficial.
STUDIES SHOW: Studies show that grapeseed extract has excellent antioxidant abilities similar to green tea and vegetables. It’s one of the most potent antioxidant sources in the world, containing even more than the famously hyped pycnogenol. Grapeseed extract contains polyphenols, also called flavonoids or catechins. These compounds strengthen the arteries, improve free radical destruction and even help to prevent macular degeneration and cataracts. Studies have also shown the important cancer-fighting potential of grapeseed extract, as well as the tremendous potential benefit to the heart. And recent studies have established that the extract can help to reduce inflammation.
WHY WE LIKE IT: Grapeseed extract fights free radicals and oxidative stress. This means that grapeseed extract can also be of great potential benefit for fighting or preventing cancer, heart disease, and effects of aging. Studies done on grapeseed extract give scientists a clue as to why moderate wine intake may be beneficial for the heart. Known as the “French paradox,” scientists have been puzzled for years as to why the French, who consume large amounts of fat, have low rates of heart trouble. Scientists know explain it has something to do with the antioxidant, cardio-protective properties contained in grapeseeds. Grapeseed extract contains all the benefits of antioxidants without the toxic effect of too much alcohol.
[tags] grape seed extract, free radicals, antioxidants, oxidative stress, flavonoids, catechins, polyphenols, oligomers [/tags]