Share |
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Inflation vs Reality

Politically the United States seems more divided than ever before; the ineffectual congress of late is just one sign of that.

I'm sure there are experts who have given much more thorough and well-researched information on that, but I thought there might be value in sharing a few anecdotes about the cost of things and how that's changed in my adulthood.

I'm fairly certain experts speculate that inflation is at or should be at 5% each year. Since I'm approximating 12-14 years, the delineated prices should be 60%-70% higher in 2014 than in 2002. Have a look and let me know what you think.

Mailing a 5 oz CD or DVD, USPS cheapest/first class mail (I did this a lot because I used to sell mail-order albums, so I remember the weight and cost).

In 2002:       $1.01-1.15

In 2014:       $2.32

Increase in price: over 100%

University of California San Diego annual tuition, in state (prices same throughout UC system, including UCLA, UCSC, UC Irvine, etc.)

In 2002:     $3834

In 2014:      $12,192

(Note: $12,000 is just for tuition. It doesn't include rent, food, books, or other living expenses.)

Increase in price: over 200%


Community College in California, per credit, was the following:

In 2000:      $11

In 2014:      $46

Increase in price: over 300%



It kind of bums me out for the young people who are about to enter college and/or (trying to) enter the workforce now or soon. Seems bleak if you're trying to educate and gainfully employ yourself... Didn't even touch on credit card and housing prices - I have a feeling their numbers are even more dire.

I've spoken with a few people from the baby boomer generation (or older), and this is hard for them to grasp. They come from a time where hard work and education did EQUAL the American dream of owning your own home, supporting and raising a family, and retiring with benefits that allow comfort and care into old age.

But within 10-15 years, my generation and those after me, are seeing our expenses double, triple and quadruple. Increasingly, it seems the deck is stacked against achieving what the American Dream used to be. What's the new American Dream?


Thursday, October 16, 2014

The Trouble With Antibiotics & Industrial Farming - Frontline/PBS

Disclaimer: 
This is purely an opinion piece and in no way reflects opinions of or from the web, blogger, google, or any company, person, business, search engine or entity on the earth or on the internet,  and is merely an expression of my 1st amendment rights.

Those of you who know me know I'm really into health and fitness.

It seems I'm more extreme (the word used by some friends I've known since childhood - all of whom have severe health issues, none of which I suffer from) than the vast majority of people I come into contact with... though I'm meeting more and more who are on a similar health path.

Being an outlier in this area may seem in conflict with some of my spiritual/mental studies of non-attachment, the middle-way, buddhism and all of that stuff.

But from my perspective, it's not.

The way I approach health and fitness is multifaceted so I'll make a list of the contributing factors that reinforce my choice to eat a mostly organic, farm-based/local, gmo-free, pesticide-free, cruelty-free, low-carb, high in healthy fat, low-temp cooked or raw meat (all from grass-fed, free-range animals), high in beneficial bacteria diet.

Minimize Suffering (or Don't Contribute/Add to it with my purchases/choices)
Unfortunately, Industrial Farming, aka Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) inflict a lot of suffering, even torture. Hidden camera video footage, which is now illegal thanks to the big industrial farm lobby, illustrates cows who have zero room to move and have massive sores on their udders as well as sores and bruises from being beaten by their handlers. Chickens are packed so full they cannot move and they're in constant contact with the chicken shit of thousands of animals.
This extends to myself and my family. I'd prefer we minimize our suffering as well. My research shows the vast majority of degenerative diseases are preventable, including most cancers, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, and immune disorders/infections. Having a healthy immune system is a big factor in my choice to eat raw, grass-fed dairy (fermented & straight up), fermented vegetables, low-temp cooked meats that are fed organic/pesticide-free diets, and other foods with healthy bacteria.

Long-Term Sustainability
I'm not alone thinking the earth's balance, including the human species, is in trouble. Climate change is 99% agreed upon by environmental/climate scientists, and one of the major factors in climate change is industrial farming and the infrastructure of shipping foods long distances and the deforestation due to farming industrialized foods.

Spiritual Alignment
While many buddhists believe in reincarnation to some extent, the jury is still out for me. However, I don't see any benefit to contribute (with my pocketbook or directly) to torture of other living creatures. Full disclosure dictates that I mention the fact that I kill mosquitoes, flies, and gnats, but I do not torture them before I kill them. Also, I catch and free many spiders, grasshoppers and take non-toxic ant and cockroach prevention, avoiding the choice whether or not to kill them as they're nonexistent at home. To me, torture is cruel, inhumane, and soul-crushing; death is a natural part of life, and I do my best to minimize the torture aspect as much as possible. Make no mistake, if you're eating regular dairy, milk and cheese, from the regular old grocery store or a regular, chain or local restaurant, there's a 99% chance the animals this dairy comes from are tortured. Yes, tortured. By proxy, you are torturing animals. We are all connected. The more we deny that, the sicker we seem to get.

Non-Regular/Non-Tortured Animals: Since the above raises the obvious question, How do I avoid buying foods from tortured animals? Here is what I've found: Grow your own or visit a local farm. You will know immediately if they confine and torture their animals. If, when you arrive, there's lots of land and a few scattered animals, they're probably good. Next, you want to check how clean their facilities and receptacles are, and how often they check their dairy. Should be 1-2xs per week. But I understand, a lot of people don't have this option. The next best option is to go organic (and vegetarian if you can't get organic & free range meat). It's the only way that is accessible mostly nationwide to ensure your dairy, meat, and produce are not contributing to increased antibiotic resistance, torture, climate change and the overall detriment of health. Organic regulations in the U.S. dictate animals must have a certain amount of room to move around, and zero antibiotic or toxic pesticide use. Think about it: If even 20% of Americans stopped purchasing food from restaurants and grocery stores that contribute to the torture of animals (anything non-organic and non-local), it would create immediate change. Because we're in a capitalist system, voting with a pocketbook is more powerful than voting with a ballot. The most common argument opposing buying organic is cost. I look at it this way: I'd rather spend more on healthier food now, than spend more time, money, pain and suffering in the future because I didn't actively prevent degenerative diseases that are directly linked to lifestyle and diet.

Prevention of Illness/Infection
Frontline (link below) did a great job illustrating this situation in regard to antibiotic resistance, so I'll try to be brief here and just let you watch it for yourself. I will sum up with this: Scientists have found a greater instance of antibiotic-resistant infection (including Mersa and E Coli) in direct correlation with industrial farms in the same region which use antibiotics to increase animal weight. Additionally, scientists found the type of bacteria that was present in the animal manure (of animals given antibiotics to increase weight) to be the exact same strain of bacteria that the nearby hospital was treating in humans and had seen a 30% increase. The vast majority of degenerative diseases are prevented and regulated by the diet I describe (without nasty drug-induced side-effects). But don't take my word for it, read/research the following: Dr. Weston Price's, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" and Dr. David Perlmutter's "Grain Brain." (links go to separate links for the respective Doctor's websites and books on amazon).

The Low Carb (Anti-Inflammation) Element
One last thing. I mentioned above that my diet is low carb. Two factors in this choice were vanity and frugality: I wanted to slim down and my research showed that a low carb diet (done properly, NOT Atkins - Atkins may help you loose weight but it will likely help you gain a whole host of other health problems) helps people loose fat, keep muscle, and helps the weight stay off. Also, my clothes had become too small and too tight (now remedied after 10 months on this diet) and I didn't want to spend money to buy a whole new wardrobe! But low carb diets have another huge benefit: Research shows that a high-carb (which is the standard American diet, aka SAD), whether it's fruits, breads, pastas, starchy vegetables, gluten-free or otherwise, yields a higher probability of heart disease, Alzheimer's and dementia. (See Dr. David Perlmutter again and "Grain Brain." The reason? Inflammation. Carbohydrates/high glycemic foods cause a rise in insulin, which cause inflammation and over time this damages our arteries, hearts, vessels and brain vessels. Lastly, I want the option to still have children. My research also shows a low carb diet helps with hormone regulation and health, which is obviously an important factor in conception!

Here's the link for Frontline. Please watch this program. It's excellent and I'm so glad people are actually talking about this. It's personal, after all. Marcus's father died due to complications post-surgery including an antibiotic-resistant Mersa infection - an infection that they cover in this Frontline story.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/trouble-with-antibiotics/

Disclaimer: 
This is purely an opinion piece and in no way reflects opinions of or from the web, blogger, google, or any company, person, business, search engine or entity on the earth or on the internet,  and is merely an expression of my 1st amendment rights.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Who's prejudiced against RAW MILK?

Dr. Mercola uncovers some very interesting truths about Raw Milk and the FDA. There are two articles, and they're both relatively short and worth reading, so please, keep scrolling. Your freedom to choose the food you and your family eats rests on being informed. Please contact your legislatures, senators, friends, family or whomever will listen if your right to choose the foods you eat is important. You'd do it if it were sushi, right?!? Research shows that raw milk is even more healthful that sushi or that health bar you ate after you workout (not a good time to be eating sugar, but that's another blog). Anyway, stay informed!

One last thing. Trust me, you'll want to keep reading. About half-way through the blog there's a quote from the FDA in response to the buyers and sellers of raw milk who've basically filed suit because of harassment and claim that banning interstate sales of raw milk is unconstitutional. The FDA's response reads, "plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."

WTF?!? Really? That's their position?

Unbelievable!

Check it out, share and leave comments!



The War Over Raw Milk Heats Up
The FDA has long banned interstate sales of raw milk. Many states restrict or prohibit the sale of raw milk entirely.
Raw milk drinkers and sellers began fighting back in early 2010, filing suit against the FDA and claiming that banning interstate sales is unconstitutional. The case is now pending while the crackdowns continue.
Raw (unpasteurized) milk contains enzymes and bacteria have been shown to strengthen your immune system, develop healthy bacteria in your intestines and reduce the risks of everything from respiratory disease to obesity. Pasteurization destroys both good and bad bacteria.
The FDA officially banned interstate sales of raw milk in 1987, but it wasn't until 2006 that a crackdown began. Agricultural departments in several states, with the help of the FDA, started to stage raids of small dairies and buying clubs.
Daily Finance reports:
"On occasion, people do get sick from drinking raw milk. But the number of people sickened by raw milk compared to other foods does not seem to warrant the FDA's focused, expensive campaign ...
No government regulations of interstate commerce in peanuts, kale, or cantaloupes have been suggested, despite the much greater number of people sickened by consuming these foods. Sushi, a raw food that provides a greater opportunity for illness than raw milk, is legal in all 50 states, too."

Sources:

  Daily Finance July 20, 2010 (full article from Daily Finance below)

 Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Millions of Americans get sick every year from eating contaminated foods. Among them, at least 325,000 will be hospitalized and 5,000 will die, according to FDA statistics.
Many foods are responsible for these illnesses. Most recently, romaine lettuce sold to wholesalers was recalled in multiple states after concerns of E. coli contamination, and a few weeks later romaine lettuce-based, ready-to-eat salads were recalled due to possible Salmonella bacteria.
Americans are no strangers to such recalls.
One of the most memorable occurred in 2006, when all spinach was pulled from store shelves. Alfalfa sprouts, tomatoes, beef and jalapeno peppers have also been recalled in recent years after serious illnesses have been reported.
Yet, only one food -- raw milk -- has been unfairly singled out and targeted by the FDA, the USDA and even the FBI as a "health risk" worthy of armed raids and crackdowns -- a food that also happens to be so low on the food-borne illness risk scale it's hardly measurable.
 Why is Raw Milk being targeted?

According to CDC data, from 1993 to 2006 there were only about 116 illnesses a year linked to raw milk -- that amounts to less than .000002 percent of the 76 million people who contract a food-borne illness in the United States each year!
This is the reality of the "dangerous" food the FDA has launched an attack against -- seizing raw dairy products from private food coops, arresting small raw dairy farmers and threatening distributors with fines and jail time. They've also devoted an entire section of their web site to extolling the "dangers of unpasteurized milk."
Meanwhile, ground beef sold in supermarkets across the United States, with the FDA's gold seal of approval, commonly contains meat from hundreds of animals, often from different parts of the world.
The animals are not only raised in concentrated feedlots that are breeding grounds for dangerous bacteria and viruses, but they are fed an unnatural diet of grains, which creates a much higher level of acidity in the animal's stomach, which E. coli bacteria need to survive.
Despite this, there is no federal requirement for meat grinders to test their ingredients for E.coli prior to selling them. And most retailers do not test either. So not only is your meat being raised in ways that are known to encourage disease-causing organisms, but little to no testing is being done to make sure the meat is safe before it reaches your dinner plate -- and the FDA is A-OK with this.
It may also surprise you to learn that Chinese-raised fish, which are commonly sold in U.S. supermarkets, are often fed a diet of chicken waste and human waste, while toxic sewage sludge is used to fertilize many U.S. crops -- and again this is all within the realm of FDA regulations.
But raw milk -- a food that promotes the growth of healthy bacteria in your intestine, which in turn has a significant, beneficial impact on your overall immune function and health -- has been literally outlawed in many states.
Raw Milk Safety Standards Often Exceed Those of Pasteurized Milk

The dairy cows used to produce most of the pasteurized dairy sold in the United States are raised in similarly deplorable conditions, which is why the milk has to be pasteurized in order to make it safe for human consumption.
But high-quality raw dairy farmers march to an entirely different, and superior, drummer. California, specifically, (where raw milk is legal) has its own special set of standards for raw milk for human consumption, in which farmers must meet or exceed pasteurized milk standards, without pasteurizing.
The conventional dairy industry, realizing that increasing numbers of consumers are recognizing the health benefits of raw milk and going to great lengths to obtain it, has redoubled their efforts to make sure that raw milk sales are not able to grow, and certainly not able to become mainstream, where they could begin to threaten their very own livelihoods.
If raw dairy really caught on, you would think that the dairy industry would simply follow suit and begin producing raw products to meet the demand. But this would be virtually impossible with the way their overcrowded farms are run.
Their business depends on pasteurization, and that is why their powerful lobbyists will stop at nothing to persuade government agencies to keep raw milk bans in full force.
Unfortunately, as is often the case the FDA has jumped on the Big Business bandwagon and is doing everything in their power -- even arresting small farmers! -- to protect the interests of the Big Dairy industry.

 
The Raw Milk Revolution is Upon Us

Right now the "war" between the FDA and consumers looking to secure their right to purchase and drink raw milk is reaching a peak.
Earlier this year, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) filed a lawsuit against the FDA over their raw milk ban, claiming it is unconstitutional. The FDA's rebuttal contained the following extremely concerning and outrageous statements, which make it very clear they believe you have no right to unprocessed food:
  • "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food."
  • "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."
  • "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."
  • The FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render the FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health."
  • "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract."
If you go by these assertions, it means the FDA has the authority to prohibit any food of their choosing and make it a crime for you to seek it out. If, one day, the FDA deems tomatoes, broccoli or cashews capable of causing you harm (which is just as ludicrous as their assertions that raw milk is harmful), they could therefore enact such a ban and legally enforce it.
Get Informed and Protect Your Food Freedom

By joining the campaign to make access to healthy raw milk a right for all Americans, you are not only standing up for raw milk; you're taking a stand to protect your freedom of food choice.
For more information, I urge you to listen to my interview with Mark McAfee, the founder of Organic Pastures, one of the largest producers of raw milk in the United States, along with this video with health and business journalist David E. Gumpert.
You can also find lots of valuable information in Gumpert's book, The Raw Milk Revolution, and on McAfee's Web site www.OrganicPastures.com.
Finally, if you're interested in purchasing raw milk, RealMilk.com can help you find a high-quality source in your area.

 FROM DAILY FINANCE JULY 20, 2010:
(full article from Daily Finance below)

The War Over Raw Milk: A Battle Heats Up
In the holy war over raw milk, the lives of our children are at stake, or so the faithful on either side of the battlefield assert. And, if you had been at the Rawesome food buying club on June 30, when Los Angeles police officers, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Food & Drug Administration and at least one Canadian agency knocked on the door, guns drawn, you might believe the war was more literal than figurative. As one Rawesome member said, "Why do you need guns?" when the enemy is, as far as anyone can tell, millions of microbes too small for the human eye to see, and surely, for the man-made bullet to destroy.

The FDA has long banned interstate sales of raw milk, and many states restrict or prohibit the sale of raw milk entirely. Raw milk drinkers and would-be sellers, who had previously purchased raw dairy products through legal loopholes began fighting back in early 2010, filing suit against the FDA claiming that banning interstate sales is unconstitutional. The FDA responded in late April, insisting that "plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." The case is now pending while the crackdowns continue.

The Raw Milk Debate

Raw milk is milk that has not been heated to at least 145 degrees, a temperature sufficient to kill the living things present in all mammals' milk. These enzymes and bacteria have been shown to strengthen the immune system, develop healthy bacteria in the intestines and reduce the chances of everything from respiratory disease to obesity. Anything that yogurt manufacturers say about the "good" bacteria in yogurt is also true of raw milk.

Pasteurization, on the other hand, destroys both the good and the bad bacteria (like E. coli); it, along with homogenization (a process in which the fat globules in cream are broken to such a small size that they remain suspended evenly in the milk), allows milk to be transported over great distances and have a much longer shelf life. The widespread use of pasteurization and homogenization meant that dairies no longer needed to deal directly with consumers, as in the days of the milkman delivering glass bottles to your doorstep.

As the FDA sees it, the most important benefit of pasteurization is the virtual elimination of the dangers of bacterial infections. It was a huge concern in the late nineteenth century, as dairies moved closer to cities to provide nourishment for the newly industrial and urban population. But the concentrated quarters of the cows and a change in diet caused disease to start spreading. Pasteurization, say scientists, greatly reduced its spread.

The FDA officially banned interstate sales of raw milk in 1987, but it wasn't until 2006 that the so-called "crackdown" began. Agricultural departments in several states, with the help of the FDA, started to stage raids of small dairies and buying clubs that were "replete with undercover agents, sting operations, surprise raids, questionable test-lab results, mysterious illnesses, propaganda blitzes, and grand jury investigations," writes journalist David Gumpert, who has followed the raw milk war and written a book on the topic.

A Movement Takes Shape


As early as the 1970s, proponents of healthy eating and sick people in search of cures began to consume raw milk as a health-giving tonic. At the time, Dr. Aajonus Vonderplanitz (along with cookbook author Sally Fallon) came to the conclusion that drinking raw milk from cows who are raised on a ruminant's diet -- grass, and clover, and not much else -- and treated well could be the basis for the most nutritious possible diet -- and a movement was born.

Vonderplanitz says he has been "fighting" the government's efforts against raw milk since 1977. He started an organization known as the Right To Choose Healthy Food, where he's taught raw foodists how they can sidestep the rules governing commerce, and especially interstate commerce, by organizing into private clubs and leasing animals. Cow lessees pay upfront, and pay ongoing "boarding fees" for the board, care, and feeding of the animals, and harvesting of the product through milking. As Vonderplanitz sees it, those who consume the raw milk from the animal that they are leasing are not subject to the jurisdiction of the states' agricultural and commerce departments, and the FDA, which, in many states, restricts or even bans the sale of raw milk to consumers.

Vonderplanitz's organization also runs the Rawesome Club in Venice, California, and has chapters throughout the U.S. and "a few" in Canada. The private buying club, which sells only raw foods and for which you must pay a membership fee, and sign a waiver, to join, was challenged once before. In 2005, an official from the Los Angeles County Department of Health came onto the property. The officer examined the food and issued a citation to the organization because it did not have a health permit, for having food without a label and other charges. (Vonderplanitz rejects his need for a health permit because he says Rawesome is not conducting commerce.)

Vonderplanitz wrote a letter to the County Department of Health on July 22, 2005 asserting that the health official was illegally trespassing, and that the hearing notice for the day after the visit was "without legal merit." He never heard back, he says, until June 30, 2010.

Guns and Dairy

Shortly after Rawesome opened on June 30, nearly a dozen officers of the LAPD (with guns drawn), a senior investigator for the L.A. City District Attorney; a L.A. Environmental Health Specialist for the Environmental Health Food and Milk Program Food Inspection Bureau; an investigator for the U.S. FDA, Los Angeles District; a consumer safety officer for the USFDA Import Operations Branch Los Angeles District; and a supervising special investigator for the California State Animal Health and Food Safety Services of California Department of Food and Agriculture; and two other individuals without business cards who identified themselves as being with, respectively, the FBI and the Canada department of agriculture loudly knocked on the door, Rawesome members say. The officers searched the premises and seized 17 large coolers of milk and other dairy products.

The search warrant claims that the property "was used as the means of committing a felony." The only items listed on the search warrant were dairy products. On the same day, a farmer who provides raw goat milk to Rawesome members was also raided by about 20 government agents. Her computer was seized; her third computer, that is, two previous computers having been seized, and never returned, in 2008 and 2009.

Besides listing the agencies involved, Sandi Gibbons, the public information officer for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, would only say that the case was initiated by the California FDA, and that it was "in connection with a continuing criminal investigation involving state and local investigators."

As Dangerous as Romaine, Pistachios and Sushi?

Even Bill Marler, an attorney who has made his name representing victims of food borne illnesses, especially raw milk, has written recently that the FDA's actions don't make sense given the comparatively small number of the outbreaks of illness from raw dairy products -- less than 1% of foodborne outbreaks. Marler asked on his blog last month, "is raw milk treated unfairly? Have health departments brought the hammer down on raw milk, while giving a free-pass to other dangerous products?" His answer was, "yes."

On occasion, people do get sick from drinking raw milk. But the number of people sickened by raw milk compared to other foods does not seem to warrant the FDA's focused, expensive campaign. Marler highlights five cases of spinach and romaine lettuce-linked illnesses in which, despite the sickening of about 200 people, there were no recalls or publicity initiated by the FDA. Yet, while a few pages on the FDA's web site detail "The Dangers of Raw Milk," there are none on the "Dangers of Spinach" (or lettuce, or tomatoes, or green onions.)

No government regulations of interstate commerce in peanuts, kale, or cantaloupes have been suggested, despite the much greater number of people sickened by consuming these foods. Sushi, a raw food that provides a greater opportunity for illness than raw milk, is legal in all 50 states, too. French restaurants everywhere serve steak tartare, a chopped raw beef dish, with so far nary so much as an hors d'oeuvres plate seized. Yet the FDA stands firm. And though even former FDA food safety chief David Acheson recommends eliminating the interstate sales ban (on grounds that "motivated individuals" will continue to purchase raw milk, no matter what, increasing the danger of contamination), it appears the agency will, eventually, have its day in court.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Making Peace with Counting Calories

In my life, I have never counted calories.

My first exposure to this type of thing was around age 12 or 13, when I first really noticed my female peers obsessing about their body images. My mother never counted calories. Her biggest thing with food was to only eat when you're hungry, and that food should be closest to it's natural state. Ha! I bet she didn't realize I'd be taking that to the most literal meaning now as an adult. Thank the heavens for my Mom, both my parents really, and the firm foundation they set for me in nutrition and health.

But my peers. I remember noticing girls looking at calories on food packaging. I hated it. I don't know why, but it felt wrong to me. It was as if it made food, a natural, normal, and delicious part of every day life, into a worry, and I didn't like that.

So even though I spent the majority of my formative years in a weight room with my football coach/fitness teacher father, started teaching aerobics at age 12, then spent several years as a personal trainer, pilates and yoga instructor during college; I was still hugely resistant to counting calories.

But since my current intention is to feel and be in my highest health, and since Marcus (who's an even more intense fitness dude than I am), keeps telling me all the body builders and fitness model types he's ever known have all been meticulous about their food, I finally decided to let go of this one prejudice.

Now before I go into it, let me tell you a little what my resistance about counting calories looked like of late. When I would talk with Marcus about getting my body into even better shape, he would tell me I would have to start counting calories, my ire would immediately rise and I'd say something like, "I don't want to do that. I've never been obsessive about food and I don't want to start now. Why are you trying to make me into one of those crazy, calorie-counting women who are obsessed with all of their food. I don't want that!"

I had serious issues with it.

What changed? Well, being someone who is willing and even likes to try new things was in direct conflict to my unwillingness and downright aversion to the idea of counting calories. So, considering my intention about health, and my proclivity towards trying new things, and Marcus' steadfastness, the idea of it crept into my mind. After a few weeks of back and forth about it, I let go of my prejudice. Maybe 7-10 days ago. It took us a few days to put together my approximate BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate), which I plan to verify at some point via a fitness center that has a machine to test that, and my schedule - how often I'd eat since it's likely I'm a little hypoglycemic. I tend to get a little cranky and can't think straight if I haven't eaten for several hours; when I do eat again, I feel like a different person. Also called "low blood sugar," this has actually very little to do with sugar and more to do with utilizable protein. Anyway, we figured out my daily calorie needs, as well as a schedule for eating based on my energy and potential hypoglycemia.

Here's what I found.

I actually like tracking my food. (I'm calling it "tracking my food" instead of counting calories.) I've found a FREE online program to help me so it's friendlier that also works on my iphone so I can update from my computer or iphone.

But I must admit, I'm shocked. I LIKE IT!

Why? Well, it probably appeals to the nerdy scientist in me. It's like a science experiment. Also, since I'm eating every three hours, I'm not experiencing the energy or mood peaks and valleys that I used to experience eating more haphazardly. Also, with the website I'm using, I can also enter exercise and it calculates the likelihood of losing weight. Now this might be another thing for me to get over, but I'm not all that interested in weight or pounds. I'm more interested in how I feel and look. Ever since puberty, I've been a muscular person and so I've always weighed more than people with the same body because I've had more dense muscle mass...but I would like to look even more like a lean, mean, fighting machine! I get that, I don't care what I weigh.
 

Anyway, here's a link to the program for anyone who's interested in it. It's an open program so you can add foods, which is great for me since I eat mostly organic and raw, so I can enter my raw milk, cheese and eggs and the program doesn't wig out. I like it. Plus, it's free and there are other paid programs out there that personally don't seem worth it to me. (One note: Their calculations for your daily caloric needs seem to be a little off, so please check with a professional before proceeding.)

One last note. I travel to see my family in August and I'm going to try some of this out on my parents. It's funny that this is coming full circle. My father was the fitness guy growing up, but I distinctly remember my mother running in the morning (she'd be absent when I woke up in the morning and would come home all sweaty), and my mother has always been into dancing and fitness, so I'm extremely lucky I have it from both sides. But they've both been feeling a little discouraged about their bodies and fitness. My mother has a hip that's been sore, so she's been unable to do a lot of the activities she loves at her normal level; my father is as strong as an ox (he bench pressed around 250 lbs on his 70th birthday!), but he carries extra weight in his mid-section, and admits to being "in a rut" around his fitness. So, when I'm home, I'm going to help them with tracking their own food and adding some interval training into their fitness routines. (More on interval training on another blog, but the more I study fitness the more I realize how vital interval training is. Maxing out for just 30 seconds helps create vital growth hormone, whereas more low-level, steady cardio actually discourages the creation of natural growth hormone!) Anyway, it's intriguing to me that this is coming full circle. My parents were the first health and fitness influences in my life, and now I'll be supporting them in achieving better health and fitness. (I can hear The Lion King Music - The Circle of Life in my head as I type this.) It's really perfect. To people who've given me so much, it's the least I can do to give back to them. Plus, it's totally selfish since I want them around as long as possible, and want them to feel and be happy, healthy and fulfilled. That's all we can really ask for our loved ones, isn't it?

Friday, May 7, 2010

Are you hungry for change? So is Food, Inc.


Follow 
StrandMusic 
on Twitter


Food, Inc. is a must-see documentary from the past few years. Others on my list are The Cove, Surfwise, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, and Good Hair, but I'll write more about the others in future blogs. My criteria for a good documentary, is that it be entertaining, first and foremost. In addition to entertaining, a good documentary must look good (have good cinematography and editing), which is a part of being well-produced, and have compelling characters. Here's the trailer for Food, Inc.





If you're even a little bit interested in what kind of food goes into your body, or how food and agriculture in the United States has started to look more and more like the 100% for-profit pharmaceutical business (heck, the FDA and the biggest pharmaceutical companies often swap CEOs and Directors - conflict of interest, anyone?), or an illustration of how farming has drastically changed in the past 50 years, then you should see this movie as soon as possible. 


Michael Pollan, author of Omnivore's Dilemma, which was named one of the ten best books of 2006 by both the New York Times and the Washington Post, appears all over Food, Inc., and rightly so. He seems to be one of the most informed people on all things business-disguised-as-agriculture. Also, author Eric Schlosser is featured in the movie. Between the two of these guys, they've done a ton of legwork around the food and agriculture industries, so we concerned citizens don't have to - we can just read their books.


See this movie. Food, Inc. At the very least, shop for most of your food at farmer's markets, cut back on high-fructose corn syrup, and when you do eat corn, please only eat organic.

 

Follow 
StrandMusic 
on Twitter



More Interesting Katie Strand World Posts
New Music
&
Posts 
at
Katie Strand 
Music

Thursday, April 1, 2010

How to tame the psycho hose beast

So, you want to know how to tame the psycho hose beast?

One, simple word (or rather, thing).

Food.

That's right. Food. I'm amazed at how unreasonable, pissy and taking-things-personally I can get when food depraved (aka low blood sugar levels). And the worst part is, I might've eaten something recently, but if it's not enough of the right kind of food (which is the good-protein and good-fat having foods), the hose beast roars. It's almost like you just fed a really hungry animal a tiny snack and it just pisses them off more because you're being a food-tease.

Maybe psycho hose beast isn't the right derogatory remark. According to urbandictionary.com's definition of psycho hose beast, I'm a little off because I don't exactly get "needy" "possessive" or "obsessive." Oh, wait. I might get a little obsessive. But more than obsessive, I just get generally pissy and irritable. It's not pretty.

Fortunately, only a small handful of people have seen me like this (I think). Two note-worthy's are Marcus (my guy) and my Mom. They've even shared a few glances and laughs at my expense when this has reared it's head while they're both around.

But once I eat something more substantive, within ten minutes I get all happy and lovey again. It's wild. I don't even feel like the same person!

So it made me curious. What causes this? Am I the only one who experiences this? Please weigh-in on the comments below. While my symptoms aren't severe enough to justify a full-blown hypoglycemia diagnosis (I don't think), it would likely do me well to carry around a small bag of raw nuts around, so I don't go around ball-busting my boyfriend's and other random strangers' nuts (who rarely suffer the full-blown wrath, but certainly get a bit more pissy-ness and sternness than they deserve, or than I'd usually deliver). I feel like I'm the opposite of Gizmo (who was a mogwai or pre-gremlin creature from 80s black comedy flick) who turns into a gremlin, or a red-eyed, fang-sprouting, claw-wielding beast, if fed after midnight. I wonder when you can start feeding Gizmo again. After 6am? 9am? Noon? It's been a while since I saw Gremlins (or Gremlins 2 for that matter), but I don't think the plot ever made it that far. Too boring, I suppose.

But back to how this happens in the body. (In the human body, not for gremlins since I'm pretty sure they're made-up.) Apparently my pissy-ness is merely a cause of low blood sugar. But what does that mean? According to emedicinehealth:
  • The body regulates its glucose level—the primary source of energy for the brain, muscles, and other essential cells - by the actions of different hormones. These hormones include insulin (which lowers the blood sugar level) and other chemicals which raise blood sugar (such as glucagon, growth hormone, and epinephrine).
  • The role of insulin is to help in the absorption of glucose from the blood by causing it to be stored in the liver or be transported into the other tissues of the body (for metabolism or storage). Glucagon increases the amount of glucose in the blood by breaking down stored glucose (starch, called glycogen) and releasing it from the liver into the bloodstream.
  • Glucagon increases the amount of glucose in the blood by breaking down stored glucose (starch, called glycogen) and releasing it from the liver into the bloodstream.
  • Insulin and glucagon are usually correctly balanced if the liver and pancreas are functioning normally. 
Eyes glazing over yet? I think the above can be summed up by saying that our body's very sophisticated and (I'll just say it) beautifully-designed system is a delicate balance of what hormones and chemicals are released when and at what levels (that in turn affect our energy and the function of our muscles, brain, digestive and immune systems). But here's what stood out for me:
  • Traditionally considered a stress hormone, epinephrine (or adrenalin) is made in the adrenal gland and in certain cells in the central nervous system. Epinephrine also elevates blood glucose levels by making glucose available for the body during a time of stress. When this mechanism is not working properly, hypoglycemia can result. Other hormones also help in raising the level of blood glucose, like cortisol made by the adrenal gland and growth hormone made by the pituitary gland. (Source: EMedicineHealth.com)
So maybe it's not just naturally high metabolism. Sheit. The random, day-to-day stress, that really isn't that bad because it's all just small irritations and frustrations, like traffic, parking tickets, money worries, a messy house, are causing more irritability!?! Yikes. I mean, it's not like I'm being chased by a saber-toothed tiger or anything.

Hmmm. Guess I should feed the beast more consistently and... you guessed it, meditate. (I'm also going to use hypnotherapy to see if I can release some of my habitualized irritability. I'll let you know how it goes.)

I'm gonna go meditate. Or eat.

Eat first, then mediate.

Yeah.















More Interesting Katie Strand World Posts


New Music
&
Posts
at
Katie Strand Music